[csero]

The sweet spot is reasonable, actually bigger than a well focused stereo. It is also very convincing with small head movements.
Outside the sweet spot there is a benign transition to an off-center stereo sound, unlike any other listed methods. They all suffer from the generic crosstalk cancellation problems - phasiness, pressure on ear, loss of dynamic range, increased off axis output, dependency on generic HRTF etc.

IMHO this in not an other "convenient surround", but a thorough analysis of the problems of binaural reproduction and a very clever solution.

My point is not about practicality and how to implement MC with it. I've experienced it and it is far more superior in producing relistic sound for my stereo collection, than anything I ever heard.
I know it is completely against audiophile pride but if somebody do a correct implementation as a 28th surround option on a mass market receiver, I'll buy it just for that.

[JoshK]

Frank, did you have to disaggregate your speakers to implement it in your home or does your speaker suffice as is?

[JoshK]

John's expert comment that this will have a narrow sweet spot is dead on. I suspect so as well....

With all due respect to John, Frank (csero) is far more qualified as an "expert" to give testimony.  Not trying to pick any fights but even though many of you may not know Frank, he is very qualified, academically and practically.

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

Josh, I dont mean to say that csero is not an expert. John is in the business and the fact that he narrowed down on something quickly impressed that is all.
Frank,
I am not much of an audiophile. I have a $250 receiver running my stereo system (ofcourse, my interconnects costs $200, sp. cables $800 , speakers $1.5K used etc ..)
I see a major problem in creating speakers for this approach. I am only conjecturing how this could be implemented. I dont mean to disregard or underestimate the technical aspects of this system. I even expect Dolby to buy out this technology and start licensing this, if it is really good.

[geofstro]

I've read some of the papers linked from the first page. The detailed paper mentioned a crossover frequency of 3.5khz between the mids and tweeters.

Both Tannoy and Townsend have come up with the 'SuperTweeter' concept to extend the highs of 'conventional speakers'.

I didn't read all the way through the detailed paper and I'm not clear on how flexible the crossover frequencies are. What I'm hoping is that the 'Supertweeter' concept could be extended to allow a large number of conventional speakers on the market, to take advantage of this system.

A lot of speakers can be bi-amped/bi-wired, for example, so if you could employ crossover frequencies to effect the optimum points you could simply not attach a signal to the tweeters enclosed in the speaker cabinet; but send the appropriate signal to separate 'Supertweeters' instead.

The 'Supertweeters' could then be sited as shown in the diagrams/pics of this system.

The same could be applied to sub-woofers.

If that were possible a lot of conventional speakers would not be made obsolete by this system.

The concept really appeals to me. I listened to binaural recordings over headphones in the 70's and was really impressed. As long as the driver arrangement didn't compromise sound quality in any other ways, I'd be all for it.

geoff

[John Casler]

The sweet spot is reasonable, actually bigger than a well focused stereo. It is also very convincing with small head movements.
Outside the sweet spot there is a benign transition to an off-center stereo sound, unlike any other listed methods. They all suffer from the generic crosstalk cancellation problems - phasiness, pressure on ear, loss of dynamic range, increased off axis output, dependency on generic HRTF etc.

IMHO this in not an other "convenient surround", but a thorough analysis of the problems of binaural reproduction and a very clever solution.

My point is not about practicality and how to implement MC with it. I've experienced it and it is far more superior in producing relistic sound for my stereo collection, than anything I ever heard.
I know it is completely against audiophile pride but if somebody do a correct implementation as a 28th surround option on a mass market receiver, I'll buy it just for that....

Hi Frank,

That would have been my guess for the Sweet Seat, but how would you say it compares to the others out there?

Harman says VMAx can be listened to well out of axis and still offer the effects.  I have used it and didn't find that it did.

Danny Lowe, a friend of mine did much of the early Q-sound work and it is impressive, but I never felt like it placed sonic images "behind" me.

Could you compare your impressions of the three (if you have heard them).

VMAx is available on Harman Kardon Receivers only, and Q-Sound seems to have moved more to the gaming crowd.

[csero]

Anybody says he can place a stable image behind you with front speakers only( if he is not using your personal HRTF in the signal processing)  is lying  Front/back distinction is dependent mainly on individual HFTF differences, and HRTF generalization is not really successfull.

The OSD is NOT a virtual surround from 2 speakers, although Marantz had to include that for marketing reasons. It is  a very well thought out tech to solve the transaural problem. The others are either based on the false assumtion that they can extract and enhance the ambience info from a standard stereo record, or because the geometry constraints very much depend on individual hrtf, and suffer the non invertable transfer function problem. The better of of these thechnologies I've heard is the Stereo dipole (ISVR also) and the Dolby Virtual Speaker in stereo only wide mode.  But they have all the problems OSD tries to solve.

The OSD requires minimal signal processing and complyes with all the other requirements  - like high lateral differences in the bass range, directionally correct treble for center images  etc. - for lifelike sound reproduction.

Concerning the sweet spot I do not really care as hi-fi reproduction ( the beeing there sound) is hard enough for one - max two -  person. If I want good sound all over the room, that is very different requirement, but it  can never reproduce the accuracy and intimacy of the former.

If you want real surrond you have to duplicate the mid-high section at the back and feed with the processed rear channels.

[JLM]

So how would any of this apply to my wonderful new single driver speakers?

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

So how would any of this apply to my wonderful new single driver speakers?

ha ha ..now you need six with crossovers in them !!!!!!!

[Horizons]

Harman says VMAx can be listened to well out of axis and still offer the effects.  I have used it and didn't find that it did.
VMAx is available on Harman Kardon Receivers only, and Q-Sound seems to have moved more to the gaming crowd.

I am no expert but I do have an HK receiver with VMAx and IMHO, it is a joke. The tonal balance changes make it totally unlistenable. Everyone I have played this mode to hates it with a passion. I don't know what HK was thinking. VMAx is a total failure in my experience.

[WerTicus]

looks interesting!

[csero]

First realization will be available this fall.

http://www.marantz.jp/ce/news/images/opsodis_es150.jpg

Of course it is disguised as HT, but will be interesting for stereo. If only they would add support for the additional ambience channels.

[John Casler]

First realization will be available this fall.

http://www.marantz.jp/ce/news/images/opsodis_es150.jpg

Of course it is disguised as HT, but will be interesting for stereo. If only they would add support for the additional ambience channels.

Wow, this thread arrises from the ashes.

Frank have you heard the TriNaural Processor?



http://www.ampzilla2000.com/trinaural.html

I had it in my system for a few weeks and if this Marantz system is close it could be a winner.

What is the price?

[ScottMayo]

Danny Lowe, a friend of mine did much of the early Q-sound work and it is impressive, but I never felt like it placed sonic images "behind" me.

Try it on the RM/x. Point sources are plainly audiable as "behind and left" and so on. It's eerie.

But Q-sound requires precise speaker set up, sitting right in the sweet spot - 18" to the side and it's quite gone - and you have to face forward. Turn your head 45 degrees and there's nothing. Ultimately, it's just a little too limiting. I'd rather have actual speakers back there.

[csero]

Frank have you heard the TriNaural Processor?

I had it in my system for a ...

Checking the description id does not look interesting for me. Sorry.

[Bill Baker]

But Q-sound requires precise speaker set up,

 Does anyone know how to come by a list of recording done in Q-Sound. The only one I have (and didn't know it) was my wife's Madona Collection CD. The song Vogue puts her in all parts of the room.

[Feisal K]

 Does anyone know how to come by a list of recording done in Q-Sound.

no idea, but Sting's 1991 Soul Cages was apparently a Q-sound recording too.

maybe someone should ask the Nuance marketing dept ...

[Bill Baker]

no idea, but Sting's Sould Cages is a Q-sound recording too.

 Interesting. I am not much of a Sting fan (or Madona for that matter) but that soung really helps in setting up speakers. I'll have to do some searching.

[Feisal K]

might not matter which is a Q-sound CD...

[John Casler]

But Q-sound requires precise speaker set up,

 Does anyone know how to come by a list of recording done in Q-Sound. The only one I have (and didn't know it) was my wife's Madona Collection CD. The song Vogue puts her in all parts of the room.

You might Google their website for info.

Seems like it has moved more into "gaming" than music.

I highly suggest Roger Water's "Amused to Death" (if you like Roger, or Pink Floyd at all)