Big soundstage without boutique cables

[STC]

 

Try here

 

http://soundpimp.com/computer-audio-enhancer-demo/

[rando]

Sound Pimp?

 

Isn't that only legal to visit on a Sunday if you live in a red state?

 

Make sure your critical listening ear is strong if you want to enter the Audio Player's Ball?

[pippenainteasy]

Soundstage size is largely determined by the physical radiation pattern of your tweeter which can be seen by a polar response graph. All you can do with DSP is change the phase of the sound which doesn't improve audibility or intelligibility off-axis.

[STC]

7 hours ago, pippenainteasy said:

Soundstage size is largely determined by the physical radiation pattern of your tweeter which can be seen by a polar response graph. All you can do with DSP is change the phase of the sound which doesn't improve audibility or intelligibility off-axis.

 

There speakers without tweeters yet the produce realistic soundstage.

 

I use Sound Lab speakers. No tweeters or woofers. Just one sheet of  membrane to produce most of the audiable frequencies. 

[bluesman]

It doesn't seem like news to me.  The spatial effect sounds almost exactly like the "enhanced surround" stereo mode on my Pioneer Elite receiver and our Samsung TVs. I suspect these are all variations on the theme first described in Nakabayashi's 1978 patent for a system that is "...supplied to loudspeakers, so as to reproduce a natural and clear sound field expanded at most into an angle of 180° around a listener". There were 10+ similar patents for systems with similar intent filed over the next decade.  This description from Choi's 1989 submission for a similar system could be used verbatim in the SoundPimp description:  " a signal for enhancing spatial effect and directivity of sound is produced".

[STC]

8 hours ago, bluesman said:

It doesn't seem like news to me.  The spatial effect sounds almost exactly like the "enhanced surround" stereo mode on my Pioneer Elite receiver and our Samsung TVs. I suspect these are all variations on the theme first described in Nakabayashi's 1978 patent for a system that is "...supplied to loudspeakers, so as to reproduce a natural and clear sound field expanded at most into an angle of 180° around a listener". There were 10+ similar patents for systems with similar intent filed over the next decade.  This description from Choi's 1989 submission for a similar system could be used verbatim in the SoundPimp description:  " a signal for enhancing spatial effect and directivity of sound is produced".

 

The effect in Soundpimp is based on a simple principle. You can get the same sound effect without any DSP or Soundpimp. See http://soundpimp.com/mechanical-barrier-test/ .

[bluesman]

14 hours ago, STC said:

 

The effect in Soundpimp is based on a simple principle. You can get the same sound effect without any DSP or Soundpimp. See http://soundpimp.com/mechanical-barrier-test/ .

What's missing from the SoundPimp experiment and explanation is the fact that there's a finite, frequency dependent "head shadow" of about 6 to 20 db (6 at speech frequencies and 20 at 5K+).  And there's a bone conduction factor at and above 40db HL that stimulates the contralateral ear even if one ear is totally deaf.

 

It's simply not possible to eliminate all acoustic crossover because it's not possible to eliminate contralateral aural stimulation.

[STC]

10 hours ago, bluesman said:

What's missing from the SoundPimp experiment and explanation is the fact that there's a finite, frequency dependent "head shadow" of about 6 to 20 db (6 at speech frequencies and 20 at 5K+). 

 

 

 

There are a few AES's papers on this. The whole purpose of Soundpimp and other similar product is to do cancellation like how the physical barrier does without any DSP. I have a 4 inch thick rockwool (4 x 2 ft) barrier to experiment and show to anyone who is interested to see how it works without any DSP. In concert hall the required attuation due to head shadow is just about 5dB. Soundpimp is at least about 10dB. 

 

If your interest is HT sound where bee buzzing into ears are more relevant than you could opt for frequency dependent "head shadow". A far better approach than Soundpimp it you want feel the closer to head sound. Some may still prefer the stereo and some even could be satisfied with mono. It is just an alternative option and it is for the listeners to find out which is better. 

 

The whole idea of this is for normal music, that is on the assumption the stage is infront .   BTW, my approach is also frequency dependent or more correctly few band dependent.

[STC]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 10:09 PM, rando said:

Sound Pimp?

 

Isn't that only legal to visit on a Sunday if you live in a red state?

 

Make sure your critical listening ear is strong if you want to enter the Audio Player's Ball?

 

The developer is a Norwegian and he was notified by some about "pimping" and the consequence.  The new name is out there with newer products. 

[bluesman]

50 minutes ago, STC said:

In concert hall the required attuation due to head shadow is just about 5dB. Soundpimp is at least about 10dB. 

 

If your interest is HT sound where bee buzzing into ears are more relevant than you could opt for frequency dependent "head shadow".

Huh?  Interaural attenuation is a physiologic phenomenon.  It's not subject to opinion and it's not subject to control - it is what it is, which is a function of the structure of the human head and the auditory system within. You can't opt for anything other than what nature gave you.

 

The physiologic head shadow is about 6 db at speech frequencies and rises to a maximum of about 20 db at 5k.  This is a function of the wavelength relative to the size of your head. At presentation levels above 40db HL (SPL above threshold, which varies with the listener's pure tone thresholds and SRTs), the opposite ear is stimulated by bone conduction - so the actual curve of interaural attenuation vs frequency varies with the presentation sound level and the pure tone thresholds of the listener.  Before you start throwing AES papers at me, I'm a board certified otolaryngologist with a thorough knowledge of human audition and the scientific support for what I just described.  I was also a contributing AES member for about 20 years.

 

Using a physical barrier to separate aural input has a real but small effect.  Rockwool is highly sound absorbent - a 2'x4'x4" slab will alter the frequency balance of your program material.  The "mechanical barrier" used by SoundPimp in their "test" has unspecified characteristics, so it may be highly reflective, as absorbent as your rockwool, or a good transmitter of sound energy.  Even the pillow they suggest could be a slab of foam rubber, a bag of down or polyester, or even the proprietary form of packing peanuts in "My Pillow". Each of these will have a totally different sound absorption spectrum and will produce a different auditory effect.  

 

Their stated observation is that "...a mechanical barrier between the speakers, [put] tightly into your face in such a way that the diagonal between the left ear and the right speaker are disconnected, and vice versa [will hinder] most of the crosstalk. As the barrier, it suggested to use a sofa pillow or whatever is at hand, it is not that critical. Such a mechanical barrier acts perfectly as crosstalk cancellation tool."  Without controlling that barrier for size and sonic properties, they can't even test their hypothesis let alone prove its accuracy.

[STC]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

Huh?  Interaural attenuation is a physiologic phenomenon.  It's not subject to opinion and it's not subject to control - it is what it is, which is a function of the structure of the human head and the auditory system within. You can't opt for anything other than what nature gave you.

 

The physiologic head shadow is about 6 db at speech frequencies and rises to a maximum of about 20 db at 5k.  This is a function of the wavelength relative to the size of your head. At presentation levels above 40db HL (SPL above threshold, which varies with the listener's pure tone thresholds and SRTs), the opposite ear is stimulated by bone conduction - so the actual curve of interaural attenuation vs frequency varies with the presentation sound level and the pure tone thresholds of the listener.  Before you start throwing AES papers at me, I'm a board certified otolaryngologist with a thorough knowledge of human audition and the scientific support for what I just described.  I was also a contributing AES member for about 20 years.

 

Using a physical barrier to separate aural input has a real but small effect.  Rockwool is highly sound absorbent - a 2'x4'x4" slab will alter the frequency balance of your program material.  The "mechanical barrier" used by SoundPimp in their "test" has unspecified characteristics, so it may be highly reflective, as absorbent as your rockwool, or a good transmitter of sound energy.  Even the pillow they suggest could be a slab of foam rubber, a bag of down or polyester, or even the proprietary form of packing peanuts in "My Pillow". Each of these will have a totally different sound absorption spectrum and will produce a different auditory effect.  

 

Their stated observation is that "...a mechanical barrier between the speakers, [put] tightly into your face in such a way that the diagonal between the left ear and the right speaker are disconnected, and vice versa [will hinder] most of the crosstalk. As the barrier, it suggested to use a sofa pillow or whatever is at hand, it is not that critical. Such a mechanical barrier acts perfectly as crosstalk cancellation tool."  Without controlling that barrier for size and sonic properties, they can't even test their hypothesis let alone prove its accuracy.

 

So?  Where is the evidence to rebut  this when there is a working product. 

 

On what basis you are telling that the hypothesis couldnt be tested when there are AES papers with detailed experiment and statistics for consideration. Nevermind about the unseen people’s experiment but how about you doing it yourself? Otolaryngologists means they are also psychoacoustics experts?

 

Going by pysiologic phenomenon then stereo should not work as good as it is just based on level difference alone but it works anyway.  Over to you , explain why it even works. 

[bluesman]

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

So?  Where is the evidence to rebut  this when there is a working product. 

 

On what basis you are telling that the hypothesis couldnt be tested when there are AES papers with detailed experiment and statistics for consideration. Nevermind about the unseen people’s experiment but how about you doing it yourself? Otolaryngologists means they are also psychoacoustics experts?

 

Going by pysiologic phenomenon then stereo should not work as good as it is just based on level difference alone but it works anyway.  Over to you , explain why it even works. 

Once again - huh???

 

Please provide the AES references so we can all learn from you and them. 

 

Please explain how you can test the hypothesis that a physical barrier of unspecified material and construction, extending an unspecified distance from your facial plane, will have a predictable (let alone measurable) effect on anything. Telling us to push a random pillow against our faces and listen to anything we want on any system we have seems less than completely objective.  It also ignores the effect of occluding your nose and increasing nasopharyngeal pressure on your hearing.  Hold your nose closed and swallow a few times while listening - you may be surprised at the difference a pressure gradient across your tympanic membranes can make.

 

Yes, otolaryngologists do study human audition in its broadest sense, including not only the mechanics of sound reception but also the processing and interpretation of audible sensory stimulation.  This includes the critical area of auditory processing, which is defined by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Task Force on Central Auditory Processing Consensus Development as "a deficiency in one or more of the following phenomena: sound localization and lateralization, auditory discrimination, auditory pattern recognition, recognition of temporal aspects of audition, auditory performance decrease with competing acoustic signals, and auditory performance decrease with degraded signals". Do you think any of these might have an effect on our perception of music?

 

Auditory processing is one of the basic elements of psychoacoustics - read this ASA paper called "Psychoacoustics: A Brief Historical Overview" for more, if you're interested.  And the American Board of Otolaryngology exam includes these areas as part of their certification process.  Those of us who are otologic subspecialists (which I am not) and those of us who are audiophiles and/or musicians (both of which I am) dive much deeper into it.

[rando]

16 hours ago, STC said:

 

The developer is a Norwegian and he was notified by some about "pimping" and the consequence.  The new name is out there with newer products. 

 

I've noticed parts of Europe find especial glee in some of the more low brow 'Murica turns of phrase.  As long as you aren't upset don't figure I was.

[Ralf11]

Thx for that history paper, bluesman.  It's amazing how scientists in the 1800s were able to investigate such diverse phenomena.  Who could make large additions to knowledge today in both sound and light scattering in the atmosphere?

[STC]

6 hours ago, bluesman said:

Once again - huh???

 

Please provide the AES references so we can all learn from you and them. 

 

Please explain how you can test the hypothesis that a physical barrier of unspecified material and construction, extending an unspecified distance from your facial plane, will have a predictable (let alone measurable) effect on anything. Telling us to push a random pillow against our faces and listen to anything we want on any system we have seems less than completely objective.  It also ignores the effect of occluding your nose and increasing nasopharyngeal pressure on your hearing.  Hold your nose closed and swallow a few times while listening - you may be surprised at the difference a pressure gradient across your tympanic membranes can make.

 

Yes, otolaryngologists do study human audition in its broadest sense, including not only the mechanics of sound reception but also the processing and interpretation of audible sensory stimulation.  This includes the critical area of auditory processing, which is defined by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Task Force on Central Auditory Processing Consensus Development as "a deficiency in one or more of the following phenomena: sound localization and lateralization, auditory discrimination, auditory pattern recognition, recognition of temporal aspects of audition, auditory performance decrease with competing acoustic signals, and auditory performance decrease with degraded signals". Do you think any of these might have an effect on our perception of music?

 

Auditory processing is one of the basic elements of psychoacoustics - read this ASA paper called "Psychoacoustics: A Brief Historical Overview" for more, if you're interested.  And the American Board of Otolaryngology exam includes these areas as part of their certification process.  Those of us who are otologic subspecialists (which I am not) and those of us who are audiophiles and/or musicians (both of which I am) dive much deeper into it.

 

How is this relevant to the question why stereo can work pretty well on level difference alone? 

 

Tell me what do you want? I give you a link of a product that unlike a boutique cable can produce verifible results even under strict blind condition. The product was boy developed by snake oil salesman but by eminent persons in their respective field. Three of them hold various patents. Your comment about the non qualification of the barrier was overlooking one important aspect of direct signal path which is rather surprising for a person im your caliber to overlook.  

 

Hint. What should be the most ideal material?

 

 

Again, why stereo works?  We start from there since you seemed to be claiming you know all about psychoacoustic. 

[Ralf11]

No one knows all about psychoacoustics

 

Only psychos think they do

 

STC, you don't seem to have an adequate basis to formulate a well posed question on this.

[bluesman]

26 minutes ago, STC said:

Tell me what do you want?

 

You posted that "...there are AES papers with detailed experiment and statistics for consideration".  So, as I said in the last post, please provide those references so we can all learn from you and them. If you don't know how to do that, here's an example of the proper form for citation of scientific publications - it's for a paper that's relevant to this discussion, so I assume you'e familiar with it:

 

Bauck J, Cooper D H. Generalized Transaural Stereo and Applications. JAES 44 (9): 683-705, 1996.

 

Here's a key quote from the abstract:  "Generalized crosstalk cancelers, which in principle can accommodate any number of loudspeakers and any number of listeners, are introduced and several novel examples are worked out."

 

I don't see anything in my posts suggesting a belief that I "... know all about psychoacoustic".  Neither I nor anyone else knows all about anything, and I never made such a claim.  I do suspect that I know a bit more about it than most, but I (like everyone else) have much more to learn than remaining lifetime in which to learn it. You would help me (and all other interested AS members) by providing the references, so we can read the papers to which you refer. I'm sure we'd all be grateful to you for doing so.

[STC]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

 

You posted that "...there are AES papers with detailed experiment and statistics for consideration".  So, as I said in the last post, please provide those references so we can all learn from you and them. If you don't know how to do that, here's an example of the proper form for citation of scientific publications - it's for a paper that's relevant to this discussion, so I assume you'e familiar with it:

 

Bauck J, Cooper D H. Generalized Transaural Stereo and Applications. JAES 44 (9): 683-705, 1996.

 

Here's a key quote from the abstract:  "Generalized crosstalk cancelers, which in principle can accommodate any number of loudspeakers and any number of listeners, are introduced and several novel examples are worked out."

 

I don't see anything in my posts suggesting a belief that I "... know all about psychoacoustic".  Neither I nor anyone else knows all about anything, and I never made such a claim.  I do suspect that I know a bit more about it than most, but I (like everyone else) have much more to learn than remaining lifetime in which to learn it. You would help me (and all other interested AS members) by providing the references, so we can read the papers to which you refer. I'm sure we'd all be grateful to you for doing so.

 

Go back to post no 5 where you came out as if you know the technology used in Soundpimp. You were giving an opinion in something you do not bothered to investigate further. 

 

So if you believe yhat you know everything about sound production because you told me not to throw AES papers. I ask again from you post no 5. 

 

1) what makes you think this is same as your Pioneer spatial  enhancer? Did you even made an effort to get it right in the first place?

 

2) So how stereo works when two of the three cues were missing?

 

Let’s start one by one. I believe you are in this forum to help.  

 

[Ralf11]

I'd like to see those references too, STC

[fas42]

For a start,

 

- Keele (1986-11 AES Preprint) - Interaural Crosstalk Part 1.pdf

 

Keele (1986-11 AES Preprint) - Interaural Crosstalk Part 2.pdf

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

For a start,

 

- Keele (1986-11 AES Preprint) - Interaural Crosstalk Part 1.pdf

 

Keele (1986-11 AES Preprint) - Interaural Crosstalk Part 2.pdf

 

 

Yes, these among many other papers were considered and referred to in the development of XTC that was used by Soundpimp. 

[bluesman]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

Go back to post no 5 where you came out as if you know the technology used in Soundpimp. You were giving an opinion in something you do not bothered to investigate further. 

 

So if you believe yhat you know everything about sound production because you told me not to throw AES papers. I ask again from you post no 5. 

 

1) what makes you think this is same as your Pioneer spatial  enhancer? Did you even made an effort to get it right in the first place?

 

2) So how stereo works when two of the three cues were missing?

 

Let’s start one by one. I believe you are in this forum to help.  

 

 

I'm trying to help by taking a scientific approach, but I'm clearly failing miserably - so I think my participation in this thread is coming to an end. .  You're misquoting and misinterpreting almost all of what I did say, and your tone strongly suggests to me that it's because you disagree with me.  If you can't disagree more politely than that, I'm done responding after I "start one by one" with your objections.

 

In post #5, I said only that "[t]he spatial effect sounds almost exactly like the "enhanced surround" stereo mode on my Pioneer Elite receiver and our Samsung TVs. I suspect these are all variations on the theme first described in Nakabayashi's 1978 patent". I never said or suggested that I "know the technology used in Soundpimp" - I only suggested that the effect it produces has a similar sound quality to some old approaches taken by many others in the last 20+ years.  Similarly, I never said that it IS the same as the Pioneer approach, only that it sounds a lot like it. And it does.

 

You seem to acknowledge the papers by Bock and Keele that were kindly provided by fas42 as being important references.  If you read that work carefully, you'll find this very important disclaimer:  "Due to time constraints, however, we were not able to do testing with a large number of subjects. Data was gathered using only two subjects, namely the authors of this paper".  Several of their diagrams (e.g. 19, 20, and 21) and descriptions are termed "ideas" by them and carry the caveat that they "...have not yet been tested by the authors of this paper". So this work is based solely on the subjective opinions and responses of only 2 people, who just happen to be trying to validate their own ideas.

 

I see no evidence of music as program material -  they used traffic sounds and similar non-musical signals. All of their diagrams show speakers that are purely directional, with absolutely no sound distribution at all except directly toward the ears.  Without reflected sound, there's no crosstalk beyond that from direct radiation within a cone of a few degrees (i.e. only wide enough to reach both ears). If you're listening to traffic sounds, I guess it may be important - but it's not how we listen to music and it's not a real world condition.

 

Section 3.3 says it all:

• "[P]sychoacoustical testing is essentially a mental judgement or comparison of acoustical events as influenced by the following: 1. The immediate past physical history of the listener. 2. The listener's prior training and acclimation. 3. Certain biases unique to the listener. The magnitude of this statement was brought home to us a number of times during the testing--especially at those times when results revealed that one of us perceived a sound to be at 90° while the other's perception of the same event would be at 35° . Of course, a quick glance back at data recorded by others for similar testing brings reassurance as they, too, encountered similar discrepancies. Nevertheless, it tends to be disconcerting."

 

So their testing was not done with music, and the two of them (100% of their strongly biased study population) disagreed "a number of times" as to what they heard.  So did others doing similar testing. You're certainly free to accept this kind of presentation as sound scientific evidence supporting something.  But I expect at least a few besides me to disagree.

 

Thanks for listening.

[STC]

57 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

I'm trying to help by taking a scientific approach, but I'm clearly failing miserably - so I think my participation in this thread is coming to an end. .  You're misquoting and misinterpreting almost all of what I did say, and your tone strongly suggests to me that it's because you disagree with me.  If you can't disagree more politely than that, I'm done responding after I "start one by one" with your objections.

 

In post #5, I said only that "[t]he spatial effect sounds almost exactly like the "enhanced surround" stereo mode on my Pioneer Elite receiver and our Samsung TVs. I suspect these are all variations on the theme first described in Nakabayashi's 1978 patent". I never said or suggested that I "know the technology used in Soundpimp" - I only suggested that the effect it produces has a similar sound quality to some old approaches taken by many others in the last 20+ years.  Similarly, I never said that it IS the same as the Pioneer approach, only that it sounds a lot like it. And it does.

 

You seem to acknowledge the papers by Bock and Keele that were kindly provided by fas42 as being important references.  If you read that work carefully, you'll find this very important disclaimer:  "Due to time constraints, however, we were not able to do testing with a large number of subjects. Data was gathered using only two subjects, namely the authors of this paper".  Several of their diagrams (e.g. 19, 20, and 21) and descriptions are termed "ideas" by them and carry the caveat that they "...have not yet been tested by the authors of this paper". So this work is based solely on the subjective opinions and responses of only 2 people, who just happen to be trying to validate their own ideas.

 

I see no evidence of music as program material -  they used traffic sounds and similar non-musical signals. All of their diagrams show speakers that are purely directional, with absolutely no sound distribution at all except directly toward the ears.  Without reflected sound, there's no crosstalk beyond that from direct radiation within a cone of a few degrees (i.e. only wide enough to reach both ears). If you're listening to traffic sounds, I guess it may be important - but it's not how we listen to music and it's not a real world condition.

 

Section 3.3 says it all:

• "[P]sychoacoustical testing is essentially a mental judgement or comparison of acoustical events as influenced by the following: 1. The immediate past physical history of the listener. 2. The listener's prior training and acclimation. 3. Certain biases unique to the listener. The magnitude of this statement was brought home to us a number of times during the testing--especially at those times when results revealed that one of us perceived a sound to be at 90° while the other's perception of the same event would be at 35° . Of course, a quick glance back at data recorded by others for similar testing brings reassurance as they, too, encountered similar discrepancies. Nevertheless, it tends to be disconcerting."

 

So their testing was not done with music, and the two of them (100% of their strongly biased study population) disagreed "a number of times" as to what they heard.  So did others doing similar testing. You're certainly free to accept this kind of presentation as sound scientific evidence supporting something.  But I expect at least a few besides me to disagree.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

 

 

This post is about Soundpimp and my answer was to correct your reference to the technology used by Soundpimp.

 

How conveniently you slip away from answering your own assertion. Firstly, you said  " Without controlling that barrier for size and sonic properties, they can't even test their hypothesis let alone prove its accuracy.". This is coming from you who contributed several AES papers. @fas42 link is a good starting point. So does that prove you were wrong? Does it prove it could be done? At least does prove the existence of AES papers on crosstalk cancellation? They have tested and proven. Why blaming the small number of test subjects? How do you know there are no other experiment with more number of subjects? Don't be presumptuous. I have the same system but using Miller's RACE DSP. Either,  you are telling the various University students, researchers and other visitors were all hallucinating or you simply think you know better. 

 

You were  asked to use a small barrier to understand the Soundpimp concept BUT you came with " Without controlling that barrier for size and sonic properties, they can't even test their hypothesis let alone prove its accuracy."  FYI, there is an institute by another AES member where the barrier and DSP can be compared side by side. The same institute that sometimes included in the AES technical tour. Did you miss the invitation?

 

You may have written AES papers but I don't how you couldn't figure out the type of the barrier used and how direct sound reaches the ears in the presence of the barrier. It works. The barrier concept is the same as isolating the crosstalk by using the headphones. Simple as that. BTW, the gentleman that was in the picture with the barrier is also another AES contributor. He is 

 

"Robert E. (Robin) Miller III BSEE AES SMPTE BAS is a pianist-composer-bandleader, Peabody-winning filmmaker, and audio engineer & sound conservator with more than 55 years in audio recording and mixing films and television specials. With Filmaker Technology he is a patent-holder (full-sphere 3D reproduction) who designs, integrates, & publishes about Ambiophonics and other innovations. " 

 

Don't look down at others contribution. I was simply sharing a technology that works. You made false claim about the technology without having any idea about it and now alleging that I am misquoting you. 

 

So how does stereo work with just level difference? 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2/27/2019 at 10:29 AM, bluesman said:

Before you start throwing AES papers at me, I'm a board certified otolaryngologist with a thorough knowledge of human audition and the scientific support for what I just described.  I was also a contributing AES member for about 20 years.

 

Using a physical barrier to separate aural input has a real but small effect.  Rockwool is highly sound absorbent - a 2'x4'x4" slab will alter the frequency balance of your program material.  The "mechanical barrier" used by SoundPimp in their "test" has unspecified characteristics, so it may be highly reflective, as absorbent as your rockwool, or a good transmitter of sound energy.  Even the pillow they suggest could be a slab of foam rubber, a bag of down or polyester, or even the proprietary form of packing peanuts in "My Pillow". Each of these will have a totally different sound absorption spectrum and will produce a different auditory effect.  

 

Their stated observation is that "...a mechanical barrier between the speakers, [put] tightly into your face in such a way that the diagonal between the left ear and the right speaker are disconnected, and vice versa [will hinder] most of the crosstalk. As the barrier, it suggested to use a sofa pillow or whatever is at hand, it is not that critical. Such a mechanical barrier acts perfectly as crosstalk cancellation tool."  Without controlling that barrier for size and sonic properties, they can't even test their hypothesis let alone prove its accuracy.

 

[The_K-Man]

Cables don't lend sound stage - great recordings do.

[pippenainteasy]

On 2/25/2019 at 6:19 AM, STC said:

 

There speakers without tweeters yet the produce realistic soundstage.

 

I use Sound Lab speakers. No tweeters or woofers. Just one sheet of  membrane to produce most of the audiable frequencies. 

 

For a single driver system it's directivity is defined largely by it's driver diameter. Realistic?--Sure, but that's a goalpost move from "big" in title