[PLMONROE]

Three RM-40s. The L & R had spiral tweeters, the center had the FST and all had TRTs. In fact Julian came up from Austin to Oklahoma City to set them up for me. I think James is a genus and I really liked what the Trinaural can do . However in some ways it is a PITA. In addition to the phase issues I  found I was continually having to re balance. Also having to have get three of everything if I wanted to try different amps, interconnects, speaker cable, etc is inconvenient at best. So with some sadness I sold them and am replacing them with V-60s and VLAs. Hopefully with the CDWGs they will give me most of the improved sound spread I definitely got with the Trinaural. I guess the truth is I am ambivalent --  I liked them , but.

[JoshK]

Feel free to move this post if you feel it is not appropriate, or ask me and I'll do it.

The issue I see with the TP is one of acceptance.  It may very well be the bee's knees, cat's pajamas or whatever else you like, but audiophiles are a skeptical bunch firmly rooted in stereo with half a century or more of investment in the format.  If they are to go out and buy the extra speaker and extra channel of amplification, in spite of all the sales channels not being set up for this, there has to be increasing acceptance of the format taking place.

I think if JB was really to champion the format, he would publish an AES journal article describing the idea and concept of how the TP works.  This would allow other manufacturers to accept the idea if they were willing to also take the risk and the format may have more of a chance to take a foot hold. 

I personally would be satisfied with an idealized schematic or conceptual schematic of what the TP does, so I could try to build one myself to try.  Then after trying, many audiophiles will come back to the source to buy the original for numerous reasons. 

P.S. I could easily be persuaded to accept the idea, especially after having experienced how really wrong the stereo format is compared to csero's implementation of amphionics. 

[dubravko]

Correct drawing of VSS and VLA.

[ctviggen]

I could easily be persuaded to accept the idea, especially after having experienced how really wrong the stereo format is compared to csero's implementation of amphionics. 

Josh, what is "amphionics"?  A google search only yields one document, unrelated to the production of sound.  I had a scheduled meeting with Frank a while back, but so many personal problems have come up that I'm not able to go anywhere to meet anyone. 

[JoshK]

sorry...I think it is ambiophonic....Frank would probably describe his implementation as being slightly different than the "ambiophonic" method, but that is what I know he used to start from. 

[ctviggen]

An interesting concept.  I wonder how much of this you get with an open baffle speaker (like the new VMPS model, or other models such as Linkwitz's)?

http://www.ambiophonics.org/

[James Romeyn]

I've never heard the $18k Meridian DSP rig.  It is alleged to be one of the other very small handfull of "processors" (+ ambiophonics makes 3) that appropriately convert stereo into multi-channel.  Somehow I have a feeling all these processors share some similar technolgy/algorithms.

The end of the Roger Waters cut where it does the wrap-around your head effect (Q-sound?) may not have come off properly w/ the Tn-P.  The stage might have collapsed & went flat; not sure.  All I know is I never could really understand all the words (including YG Acoustics' $94k/pr speakers) till hearing it Sunday, & that was good enough for me.

There's the Spanish language tune on the Don Juan D'Marco musical CD: male/female vocals, flamenco guitars, bass, harp, percussion, strings.  In stereo too much spacing on the vocals; overall the song is detailed, beautiful but never really integrates properly.  On the Tn-P rig it was so perfect I couldn't believe it.  The layering & depth perspective of the instruments, & esp the placement of the harp were mesmerizing.   

My impression is the quasi-dipole V60 center is an ideal match w/ the monopole 626R L/R.  The center is pinpoint between the L/R but still has huge fill & depth, then the more tightly focussed effects on the L/R.  We didn't tweak the system at all except for about 30 seconds setting the center volume.  I think the L/R speakers needed more distance.

If I can get it together in time this is the system I'm bringing to RMAF.   

Josh can you really build/copy a Tn-P if you had enough info to get started?        

[JoshK]

Josh can you really build/copy a Tn-P if you had enough info to get started?        

Maybe.  I think it depends on what is involved. From the SST's website, JB says he revectorizes algebraically the stereo signal into 3 channels.  This seems completely intuitive to me (jargon is norm for mathematician/engineer) and I can guess what JB might be doing using adding and subtractive filters to do the revectorization.  I would just need affirmation that that is indeed what he is doing and it would help to see what kind of filters those are, since I know what add/sub filters "are", but haven't spent much time learning how to build them (I suppose I could look them up). 

However, this would be my implementation of the TP unless JB revealed his entire schematic which I wouldn't expect or even desire.  I would probably try to implement it with tube stages as that is what I know best and am most comfortable working with but opamps would be pretty easy to work with too. 

[PLMONROE]

Gad, I wish I could remember! Three of four months ago there was a unit for sale on Audigon that was represented to be a commercial unit which did exactly the same thing as the Trinaural. It's MSRP was reputed to be about half of the MSRP of the Trinaural. Does anybody else remember seeing this? 

[Housteau]

The issue I see with the TP is one of acceptance.

I think this is very true.  I also think this is true for most multichannel music as well, at least it is for me.  I see the creation of that stereo image and placement of musicians and acoustic spaces in front and to the far sides of me as the true magic of listening to music through a good stereo system.  What makes this even more exciting to me is that this is all created out of an empty space in front of me, between and around only two channels.  I don't like much of anything above 18" between my speakers.  Placing a center channel there of any sort would place my focus on it and destroy that illusion completely.  After all, it is a speaker and music is supposed to come out of it.

I love monolithic speaker systems, but I also expect them to disappear when the music starts.

[John Casler]

I had a long discussion about this with Harry Pearson and Kevin Voeks some time ago.

Harry felt that ultimately, to recreate a true listening experience, that "multi-channel" (at least 5) was the only true way.

Kevin was also convinced that when all is said and done, to get the most realistic presentation the standard ITU with 5 speakers needed to be used.

That said, it wasn't too hard to get HT enthusisasts to jump on the 5 speaker bandwagon.

As we move into more sophisitcated "Audiophile" music systems, it is important to understand that the relationship of the "frontal array" is far different in a three speaker system than a 2 speaker system.

Now the Center becomes the most important speaker, and the L&R are merely supporting the soundstage and provide the steering for off center images.

As Paul brought up "phasing" is now "VERY" important since it "can" throw thing out of whack or it can enhance if done properly.

The biggest problem is not just getting the balance and phasing correct, but reducing the room effects.

Each speaker needs to be in the exact same "operating space" so that the room has the least amount of sonic damage possible, and the damage done is the same for all three.

That lends itself to rather extensive side wall treatment, or placing the system on the long wall if possible.

The Center speaker "IS NOT" placed in a different attitude (that is Horizontally), but is exactly the same as the L&R (that is in a vertical attitude)

I think that the RM30C's L&R, with a RM v60 Center, would be an incredible combo.  I would probably high pass the RM30s also at 70Hz, and run a pair of VSS, VLA, or even LARGERs.

If one wanted to also do the HT option, it could be done with a Screen Research "acoustically transparent" roll down in front of the RM v60.

[James Romeyn]

John
Based on Sunday's little experiment, I hope you take a few minutes to try even the 626R L/R w/ the V60 center. 

[John Casler]

John
Based on Sunday's little experiment, I hope you take a few minutes to try even the 626R L/R w/ the V60 center. 

I have feeling that the RM v60 would mate nicely as a CENTER with "all" the VMPS ribbons from the 626R to the v60 itself.

The tuneable spatial ability would make it the "Ultimate CENTER" in a TriNaural Set up.

The controlling performance factor would be "how much performance" would be needed from the L&R speakers.

In small to medium room with lower SPLs the 626R would be stellar especially if you rolled off the bass at 70Hz (which I would highly recommend to help keep phase issues at bay)

As you move to larger rooms, greater listening distances, and higher SPL's, I would move into the RM30C territory for some Dynamic Magnificence that would be Breath Taking aa

RM40s might also "easily" creep into the picture, when you consider what is on the "previously owned" market right now.

Lots of fun out there.

For that matter why not three 626 jr's with a powered LARGER a TNP, a CineNova 3 channel amp, and maybe a NuForce P-8 PreAmp and Oppo DVD player, for a starter set up.

Lotta meat for a few potatoes (Dan Quail told me to add the E)

[Early B.]

Brian --

Since you've got newly designed subwoofers on the way, are you gonna have a inventory reduction sale on your "old" subs?

[James Romeyn]

John
Isn't it "spelt" Q-u-a-i-l-e?"

Did anyone see the British TV comics checking for names included on "do not fly lists"?  They pre-order two tickets w/ false names, then retreive their boarding passes via self-checkin at the airport computer terminal.  So far so good.  They purposely do NOT board the plane, which results in the public address announcement: "Ding-dong...Last call boarding flight #____ to ______, last call for Franklin Al Keyder & Terra Wrist"  Still no security alarms!

[bkwiram]

Quayle.

[lifewithmusic]

Let's go back to the drawing of the VLA in John's first post, on the first page, and Brian's post down a couple from that says there is a passive in the bottom and on the side, as shown in the diagram.

Question #1:  Does the chamber inside the speaker allow all 4 woofers to be connected to both passive radiators?

Q#2:  Would it be better to have the side passive near the top of the cabinet?  What's the stagegy here?

I'm wondering about timing issues in getting a back wave from the top woofer down the speaker, and pushing out through either the side and/or bottom.

And while I'm musing, Q#3, wouldn't it be better to have 4 passive radiators each on the side adjacent to a woofer, and perhaps have each woofer in its own chamber?

Just wondering, and trying to understand.

 

[jonbee]

My first thought is that at the frequencies involved, timing of the rear waves inside the speaker is not an issue. A 40 hz signal has a 25 ft wavelength, and longer for lower fs. If the top wave it has to travel 2 or 3 feet, the phase relationship with the other drivers is essentially the same, within a few degrees.

[John Casler]

Let's go back to the drawing of the VLA in John's first post, on the first page, and Brian's post down a couple from that says there is a passive in the bottom and on the side, as shown in the diagram.

Question #1:  Does the chamber inside the speaker allow all 4 woofers to be connected to both passive radiators?

Q#2:  Would it be better to have the side passive near the top of the cabinet?  What's the stagegy here?

I'm wondering about timing issues in getting a back wave from the top woofer down the speaker, and pushing out through either the side and/or bottom.

And while I'm musing, Q#3, wouldn't it be better to have 4 passive radiators each on the side adjacent to a woofer, and perhaps have each woofer in its own chamber?

Just wondering, and trying to understand.

 

Hi LWM,

If I'm not mistaken, in a "closed" system, all 4 of the 12" woofer drivers will "act as one", so there is no delay.  The back "pressure" of all of them create the pressure changes at the same time.

So it is not a "wave" traveling through the cabinet to the PR, it is a pressure within the cabinet that is created by the sum of the woofers as the move back.  If you imagineed it as a skinny single woofer 12" wide and 5' tall, it would be the same thing.