[csero]

What you're describing is inherient with stereo reproduction even when using two single driver speakers.  What I'm talking about is driver intrgration for a single point-source speakler.  So, assume that you are listening to a single speaker and then explain to me why a change in tonal balance is desirable.

No, I'm talking about that we try to create a single perfect speaker, and then use two of them together in a way which destroys almost all the achievements we made.

[John Ashman]

csero - what you're saying is always the case, but we listen to two speakers playing different things, not the same thing, certainly not pink noise.  A third speaker improves this.  5 speakers up front would make it even better.  But that's a reality that has NOTHING do to with DEQX and what it does.  You might as well say "but wheels go around" or "the sun comes up".  So, my question to you is -

SO WHAT?

[John Ashman]

So, I suppose you listen to mono using a single driver Fostex speaker?  That's the only way out of this and probably deserving of a separate RELATED thread.  

[mac]

No, I'm talking about that we try to create a single perfect speaker, and then use two of them together in a way which destroys almost all the achievements we made.

Unless you want to turn back the pages and listen to mono from a single speaker and/or make some anatomical changes to your anatomy, I think this is something that we have to live with.  The brain has a way to deal with the spacing issue between the ears and I believe this has something to do with how we're able discern spatial information.  In any event, improving driver integration through the use of DSP does have positive audible effects even through the stereo paradigm.

[Marbles]

So, I suppose you listen to mono using a single driver Fostex speaker?  That's the only way out of this and probably deserving of a separate RELATED thread.  

I would love to see a seperate thread where Frank tells us how he does it.

As mentioned I don't know how he does it, but by accounts from the NY Rave he does it well...his playback system is inexpensive but the best one that most all f them ever heard.

[mac]

So, I suppose you listen to mono using a single driver Fostex speaker?  That's the only way out of this and probably deserving of a separate RELATED thread.  

Even two (stereo) Fostex drivers can't overcome the effects of differing sound arrival from two sources spaced 8 feet apart.  As John said, you'd have to use only one (or a DEQX-calibrated non-coincident multi-way).

[doug s.]

So, I suppose you listen to mono using a single driver Fostex speaker?  That's the only way out of this and probably deserving of a separate RELATED thread.  

I would love to see a seperate thread where Frank tells us how he does it.

As mentioned I don't know how he does it, but by accounts from the NY Rave he does it well...his playback system is inexpensive but the best one that most all f them ever heard.

1st of all, i don't see why john needs to get steamed - who *cares* if someone is bringing up an alternative wiew?  doesn't change the deqx thing, imo...

and, re: frank's view, he doesn't do mono, he does ambiophonics; for info go here:
http://www.ambiophonics.org/index.htm

doug s.

[John Ashman]

I'm not really *steamed*, just confused - I don't get what it has to do with using DEQX and he's spending a lot of time beating around the bush rather than saying "hey, as anyone tried ambiophonics in conjunction with DEQX?" or something like THAT.

BTW, tried to read through some of that, but it's like trying to read the bible from some weird religion.  They don't seem to get to any point or just say what it is.  I'm not going to read 20 pages to try to divine the point, but it seems to have even less to do with DEQX and interspeaker issues than I had thought.

[csero]

csero - what you're saying is always the case, but we listen to two speakers playing different things, not the same thing, certainly not pink noise.  A third speaker improves this.  5 speakers up front would make it even better.  But that's a reality that has NOTHING do to with DEQX and what it does.  You might as well say "but wheels go around" or "the sun comes up".  So, my question to you is -

SO WHAT?

I just concerned, that this thread is going in the direction that the DEQX or any other speaker or room correction system is the end of the road, the perfect solution.
Yes it is a fix for a serious problem, but does not solve any basic problems to create hi-fi reproduction. But increasing the acceptance of DSP in the signal chain for audiophiles may lead to more serious use of DSPs in music reproduction.

P.S. Finally this is a thread where measurements are accepted and considered important. Then why do you think the "we are listening to music, not pink noises" is a good argument.

[csero]

1st of all, i don't see why john needs to get steamed - who *cares* if someone is bringing up an alternative wiew?  doesn't change the deqx thing, imo...

and, re: frank's view, he doesn't do mono, he does ambiophonics; for info go here:
http://www.ambiophonics.org/index.htm

doug s.

No. Ambiophonics is just a small subset of technologies trying to recreate the original soundfield around the listener. It works surprisingly well with the existing library of records, but definitely not the end of the road. DSPs are getting more and more important, even for real minimal miked recordings.

[John Ashman]

Measurements are key to know that the wave form produced by the speaker represents the signal going in.  Listening to music is needed to make sure that the waveform *sounds* like real music.  But in any case, DEQX is NOT the ultimate solution, no one said it was.  It is dangerously close to making *stereo* reproduction as good as it gets.  I think it would take at least 6-10 mini-monitors and 3 or more subs to get close to realism and DEQX could help there too if you had the money.  DEQX is a tool, not a methodology.  That's why some will use ribbons, horns, dipoles, line arrays, electrostats etc in addition to a regular 3-way speaker because everyone has his own idea of what sound should be like.  I personally am planning on doing 6.3 channels of NHT's DEQX'd Xd speaker, probably with Meridian's new G68J for music processing.  Of course, I have to re-roof and remodel the building that will go into, so probably not til fall or winter, assuming I sell a LOT of Xds (and other stuff) in the meantime.

[Rick Craig]

Measurements are key to know that the wave form produced by the speaker represents the signal going in.  Listening to music is needed to make sure that the waveform *sounds* like real music.  But in any case, DEQX is NOT the ultimate solution, no one said it was.  It is dangerously close to making *stereo* reproduction as good as it gets.  I think it would take at least 6-10 mini-monitors and 3 or more subs to get close to realism and DEQX could help there too if you had the money.  DEQX is a tool, not a me ...

John,

What speakers are your customers using with the DEQX?

Rick

[denverdoc]

Measurements are key to know that the wave form produced by the speaker represents the signal going in.  Listening to music is needed to make sure that the waveform *sounds* like real music.  But in any case, DEQX is NOT the ultimate solution, no one said it was.  It is dangerously close to making *stereo* reproduction as good as it gets.  I think it would take at least 6-10 mini-monitors and 3 or more subs to get close to realism and DEQX could help there too if you had the money.  DEQX is a tool, not a me ...

John, I think that is a nice summary of the DEQX advocates position--"gets as dangerously close to ...as good as it gets" For the first time in many, many moons can take a well recorded piece and just suspend belief for a moment, and not get all neurotic about little flaws I am hearing and the upgrades implied to fix them. I also lost patience in trying to trudge thru all the ambiophonics verbiage, but understand I believe in principle what it is trying to do; characterize the transfer function of the acoustic venue at various points in space and then convolve with the original signal and by using multiple transducers around the room try to recreate the event more accurately. Certainly I think it has potential huge advantages over current recording/playback techniques in achieving a more faithful version of the original event. Another very impressive solution closer to existing technology being explored by a Denver based firm uses only 4 DSD channels plus subs. They demo'ed at RMAF last October, and I must say it was uncanny to hear a large cathedral scaled down to a small auditorium where one could walk around as if in the church but each foot step was equal to maybe a dozen. One could even stand outside the rectangular speaker array and get the impression they were at a side door.  Personally I'd love to see DEQX add on DSD functionality, if possible. Perhaps more realism is possible still, but these recordings are so, so much better than usual surround formats, and doable right now with a fairly simple setup, might make for a good piece of transitional tech until something like ambiophonics can more easily be implemented. Bottom line though is I don't listen to much stuff recorded in big spaces and so am pretty happy with the playback I get now.
John

[John Ashman]

To be honest, I forget because I've had so many conversations.  One is using Linn 3-ways, another has probably 5 different little 2-ways.  Some have tried line arrays and horns, but didn't quite get the results for which they were hoping, either because of measuring difficulties or inability to tri-amp.  I've got ~10 out in the field.  The best speaker I've DEQX'd was a Thiel.  Great design for it.  But, as I've said, I think a minimum/low diffraction baffle 3-way, sealed, rigid driver setup gets generally the best results.

[doug s.]

1st of all, i don't see why john needs to get steamed - who *cares* if someone is bringing up an alternative wiew?  doesn't change the deqx thing, imo...

and, re: frank's view, he doesn't do mono, he does ambiophonics; for info go here:
http://www.ambiophonics.org/index.htm

doug s.

No. Ambiophonics is just a small subset of technologies trying to recreate the original soundfield around the listener. It works surprisingly well with the existing library of records, but defin ...

csero, don't you place your main two channel speakers wery close together, w/sound absorption on the plane between the speakers all the way up to the listening position; then use surround channels being fed signal from a jvc xpa-1010 processor, which has twenty mapped venues of different halls programmed into it?

while never setting up the two man channels as ralph glasgal recommends, i *have* used a jvc xpa-1010 to good effect.  but, to be honest, once i went to tubes, the jvc remained off most of the time.  in my huge space, it really wasn't adding much to the party...  but, i still wish i had that xpa-1010 - another unfortunate wictim of a domestic dispute.  

doug s.

[John Ashman]

John,
    Yes, the ambiphonics sounds somewhat similar to maybe Meridian Tri-field or, at least, the goal is the same.  But all they'd need to is EXPLAIN it somewhere without all the indepth philosophy stuff.  

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see DSD on DEQX *unless* there is a universal HDMI standard that would allow it to be imported and immediately converted to 24/96 for processing.  There'd be no way to keep it DSD and do processing.  Of course, you can allow the PDC to sample it though that would be slightly less optimum than a pure digital conversion.

[csero]

After the experiments I'd say I've found more important to reproduce spatially correct, than tonally correct. For hi-fi reproduction you need pschychoacoustical consistency and soundfield completeness.

csero, don't you place your main two channel speakers wery close together, w/sound absorption on the plane between the speakers all the way up to the listening position; then use surround channels being fed signal from a jvc xpa-1010 processor, which has twenty mapped venues of different halls programmed into it?

No barrier but DSP, and 2 main channel is not enough. The additional ambience is either generated with the JVCs or PC, or recorded for experimental full sphere 3d reproduction.

while never setting up the two man channels as ralph glasgal recommends, i *have* used a jvc xpa-1010 to good effect. but, to be honest, once i went to tubes, the jvc remained off most of the time. in my huge space, it really wasn't adding much to the party... but, i still wish i had that xpa-1010 - another unfortunate wictim of a domestic dispute..

Yeah, in a huge space it is almost impossible to supress the rooms own sound, or at least not with 4 channels of ambience and without extensive treatments. For seamless main signal-ambience integration you must get rid of the stereo.
But with the large room at least the first reflections are not as loud and the decay is not as short as with small rooms, and this at least can remotely resemble to the recording venue. For large scale music it still won't be right, but can work for small ensemble.

But it is realy OT.

[csero]

John,
    Yes, the ambiphonics sounds somewhat similar to maybe Meridian Tri-field or, at least, the goal is the same.  But all they'd need to is EXPLAIN it somewhere without all the indepth philosophy stuff.

Yes, and painting drivers with c37 and DEQX "is somewhat similar, or at least, the goal is the same."  

[mac]

But it is realy OT.

No disagreement there.  Others should follow suit or start another thread.

[John Ashman]

No offense, but Bob Stuart is an expert in psychoacoustics, and his explanations make a lot more sense than the weird stuff on the link you posted.  But regardless, ambiophonics have nothing to do with DEQX - it doesn't require it, nor does it preclude it.