This seems to me somewhat exaggerated(the remarks about stereo and the
center image). Sure, the center phantom image
generated as a sum of two identical L/R signals sounds a little different.
But little is the operative word. The correction for this fairly small
(Meridian used to have it up on their website in Stuart's paper on
multichannel for example--how to EQ the center channel to match the
perceived sound of the two channel phantom. )
Most people do not notice this at all. I think the speakers
are audible in stereo because of the "detent" effect. If you
keep the images between the speakers where they belong, most
people do not hear the speakers at all.
(I say most people because a small number of people hear individual
speakers no matter what you do. My late wife was like this. She hated
stereo--but she hated surround more. She liked mono with one speaker!)
Robert
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012, Richard Lee wrote:
well, depends. iirc, theile's argument is that a two-speaker phantom source
should be a mess in terms of spectrum, but isn't (as two-speaker stereophony
demonstrates). so for some reason, the brain is able to sort it out. more than
two correlated sources, and things go awry, e.g. L/C/R
with too much crosstalk is a pitiful mess.
Err.rrh! Actually two speaker stereo IS a mess in terms of spectrum. Just compare
a mono signal panned to CF with it panned to hard left or right. It's one of the
things which draws attention to the speakers & spoils the illusion.
One reason for the seamless performance of 1st order Ambi is that, even with
just 4 rather unevenly spaced speakers, it alleviates this effect and helps
make the speakers disappear.
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
