On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 01:41:51AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On 2011-07-26, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
>> I certainly don't want you to waste your money on fancy speaker
>> cables.
>
> Never thought otherwise. That's obviously never been what we do here. ;)
>
>> But resistance does matter, so a
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:26:49PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> How large is the resulting stereo image?
As large as you make it, see below.
> Is your technique documented somewhere?
> Can it work with a horizontal hexagon?
> With 2rd order AMB?
Sure. There isn't much to document, just
set up
Apart from the damping problem which has been very well laid out by Fons, there is another factor
which can come into play and which I documented in an article in Hi-Fi for Pleasure many years ago.
The fact is that many poorly constructed cables, when hit with a bit of power, will actually produc
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/f8082546/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that there is never just one speaker on in the panned to
ambi rig, unlike the stero case, at least for amplitude panned material. This makes the imaging less
susceptible to acoustic differences between the speakers.
Dave
On 27/07/2011 03:26, Mar
On 26 Jul 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:18:42 -0400
From: Marc Lavall?e
After reading this difficult thread (I'm replying with a new title),
I have simple questions about room sizes and speaker distances.
Imagine two rooms with proper acoustic
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/2a25f5c3/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
lting in direct sound sound from
> them arriving earlier and being louder than reflected sound.
>
> > Is distance perception directly related to speaker distances?
>
> I suspect that that it is related in the case of ambisonics, though
> not directly. This is more psychoacoustics than just physics or
> acoustics.
&g
about 3/16" in dia). The distances were not great, 5 or 6 feet.
>> The improvement in stereo imaging was huge.
>> Previously the image had wandered around between the speakers seemingly at
>> random, now
>> it was rock solid at the point wherever it was
the speakers of a stereo setup some years
> >> back with
> >> some cheap stranded speaker cable I bought at Costco. Each core of the
> >> cable was about 3
> >> times the cross sectional area of the lamp cord (each core of t
mes the cross sectional area of the lamp cord (each core of the
speaker cable was
> >> about 3/16" in dia). The distances were not great, 5 or 6 feet.
> >> The improvement in stereo imaging was huge.
> >> Previously the image had wandered ar
> >>> feedback, within the audible range.
> > >>>
> > >>> What is it that I'm missing?
> > >> I swapped out some lamp cable on the speakers of a stereo setup some
> years back with
> > >> some
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:52:58PM +0530, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
> havent you heard of tired electron distortion ? (TID). the electrons in
> speaker wire get tired moving back and forth and not going anywhere. the
> solution is to disconnect the speaker every few hours connect a battery o
part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/8c30093f/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/li
Am I missing something?
You send electrons and the speaker cone moves out, o.k.
It comes back by itself.
But surely you want it to move _in_ as well? How do you
do that without positrons.
(I think that's right, most things in surround sound
seem counter-intuitive: So I doubt if it is positrons
o
om
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3790 - Release Date: 07/26/11
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/8c30093f/attachment.html>
_
/3790 - Release Date: 07/26/11
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/8c3
0093f/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sursound mail
Speaker wiring really is a hot topic on all audio related forums.
Next time I'll use the term "speaker wire" instead of "lamp cord". :-)
For a small and inefficient Kef satellite speaker (3" with a
tiny coaxial tweeter and internal crossover circuit), unable to
reproduce frequencies lower that 12
Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:53:18 +,
Fons Adriaensen wrote :
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:26:49PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
>
> > How large is the resulting stereo image?
>
> As large as you make it, see below.
In your earlier post you mentioned that you can't explain why you like
virtual speake
On 07/27/2011 04:26 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:32:26 +,
Fons Adriaensen wrote :
The thing is that I very much prefer listening to
stereo using two virtual speakers panned into 3rd order AMB rather
than sending L,R directly to two of the speakers.
It's very interesting!
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 01:19:50PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> In your earlier post you mentioned that you can't explain why you like
> virtual speakers better than using real speakers. Can you describe some
> perceived differences? For example, how are rendered mono signals; are
> they right i
On 2011-07-27, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
havent you heard of tired electron distortion ? (TID). the electrons
in speaker wire get tired moving back and forth and not going
anywhere. the solution is to disconnect the speaker every few hours
connect a battery one side and short the other, so
On 27 Jul 2011, at 18:33, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 01:19:50PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
>
>> In your earlier post you mentioned that you can't explain why you like
>> virtual speakers better than using real speakers. Can you describe some
>> perceived differences? For e
If you have a suitable LiOn battery pack, shorting the terminals out with
the cable perks up most the tired electrons - and the subsequent explosion
will remove any that are too far gone...
On Jul 27 2011, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2011-07-27, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
havent you heard of t
le resistance shifting their operating point much, even
> > >>> with feedback, within the audible range.
> > >>>
> > >>> What is it that I'm missing?
> > >> I swapped out some lamp cable on the speakers of a stereo setup
> > >> some y
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 06:50:03PM +0100, Scott Wilson wrote:
> Do you find it varies with material? People don't always say
> it this way, but sometimes increased localisation blur is nice!
Good question, but I can't give a definite answer.
Most of the material I've been working on there is
co
I have been browsing this list long enough to observe that this phenomena only
occurs (or at least is only reported, on this list, albeit with annual
regularity) in Northern Hemisphere summers.
Down under, the summers are so hot that the electrons want to pass through
cable as quickly as possib
On 2011-07-27, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
If you have a suitable LiOn battery pack, shorting the terminals out
with the cable perks up most the tired electrons - and the subsequent
explosion will remove any that are too far gone...
A few surprising shocks ought to be enough to shake the mo
The shock, and potentially the most snake-oil, could be from the $40,000 for
these Galileo speaker cables (poor old Galileo probably does not even get any
royalties from them using his esteemed name):
http://www.synergisticresearch.com/galileo-system/galileo-system-speaker-cable/
reviewed here
h
Funny, I read the company's name as "Synthetic Research". Much more appropriate.
On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Paul Doornbusch wrote:
> The shock, and potentially the most snake-oil, could be from the $40,000 for
> these Galileo speaker cables (poor old Galileo probably does not even get any
> r
On 07/28/2011 12:35 AM, Paul Doornbusch wrote:
The shock, and potentially the most snake-oil, could be from the
$40,000 for these Galileo speaker cables (poor old Galileo probably
does not even get any royalties from them using his esteemed name):
http://www.synergisticresearch.com/galileo-system
On 07/28/2011 05:25 AM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/28/2011 12:35 AM, Paul Doornbusch wrote:
The shock, and potentially the most snake-oil, could be from the
$40,000 for these Galileo speaker cables (poor old Galileo probably
does not even get any royalties from them using his esteemed name)
Hang on, hang on - if the electrons exceed the speed of light then either
a: their mass will go infinite and the cable will implode into a mini black
hole
or
b: they will decay into tachyons resulting in the sound coming out of the
speaker before it has even been recorded
Dav M.
On Ju
Arghhh - I shouldn't have let this out of the bag - there's clearly a
_massive_ EU research funding opportunity here - now, how do I go about
obtaining time on the large Hadron Collider???
Dave M.
On Jul 28 2011, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
Hang on, hang on - if the electrons exceed the
34 matches
Mail list logo
