Quantum Heaven

[manisandher]

But what's the difference with my place eh ?
Booz is the same, the amount of it is, and the sound ? really, you won't recognize a single thing of it anymore.

Hey Peter, do you mean just in the last few weeks, since our visit? This would be amazing. I still remember the sound of Abdullah Ibrahim's piano from your dining room... (I've since bought the CD and it sounds great at my place too.)

BTW, I really wanted to post a writeup of our experience at your place. But I wanted to do this properly and haven't had enough time these last few weeks to do the writeup justice. It seems from what you say that my writeup would have been totally out of date now anyway. It's interesting that one of my very small criticisms was going to be about the lack of truly deep, tuneful bass...

Mani.

[Scroobius]

Hi Peter your description sounds totally intriguing. I (and surely all other "Nossers" here) can't wait to hear your modification. I would say the improvement in sound quality of my system with the quantum stuff is like transforming a great wine into a vintage fine wine. It sounds like your change is more like a complete transformation like say changing a great wine into the very best Cognac or Brandy. Very very interesting to think what physically is the cause of the change.

Maybe you have discovered the God Particle (aka Higg's Boson) and in so doing uncovered all that hidden "dark energy" in your system.

And a word for a big big change in English - well my daughter suggests "Humungous" but not sure if it is in the dictionary.

The only question is - will we get the change for Christmas? ha ha.

Paul

[PeterSt]

Hey Peter, do you mean just in the last few weeks, since our visit? This would be amazing.

"Sadly" yes. I wish I would have had it just a tad earlier. But indeed, the more surprising it should be to you. Same with Paul's enhancements, I'm sure, and I really (REALLY) can't imagine what will happen when the both are in. It seems beyond imagination.

Before Christmas ? maybe not. Actually not sure. I only yesterday found out about another application of actually the same, and now I guess I want to test that too. If only this were an absolute measure or skill or ... not beyond my knowledge.

One last addition (ok, for now), to emphasize how the NOS1 is involved ...
I said earlier, this is not my "invention" or anything. However, the existing references to it are totally nothing compared to the change I can achieve with it here. This tells me a lot. Just imagine ... sound from "ok" outside of the speakers, which will be some 30 60 degree angle in my case. Mind you, 30 60 degree in total, while in my before post I talked about 45 degrees mapped onto one side only. So, the 30 60 degree in total changes with this to 90 degrees in total. Only Q Sound can do that in a well dampened room (which never worked at all in my current room (also see post from a week or so back)). Now ? now everything does;
Well, I never read about such a drastic thing.

And if it were only that super wide stage ... (instruments remaining their normal sizes) - but it so much changes the whole experience. The being in the middle of it all; the wealth of sound. The 5 times more interest which suddenly is in all.

... If it weren't enough already ...

[CoenP]

Ok this sounds like some x-feed tweak to me, but I can be entirely wrong.

For the health of the forum members i advise to release deatails asap. I can see some members igniting on pure anticipation.
I believe i am not worthy of this tweak yet since i am still breaking in my nos.

Regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Ok, I'll soften things a bit;
That super wide stage is not in everything. I am not sure yet, but it seems that the fastest transients incur for it. And if they are not there, all is more "normal". The wall of sound remains.

Ok this sounds like some x-feed tweak to me, but I can be entirely wrong.

Perfect ...

[CoenP]

I have an audio pal who used a common cathode resistor and capacitor for botch channels on a simple tube amp, hereby implementing some x-feed per design. That amp sounded spacious as hell, complete psychedelic mushroom stuff.

If we are in the same territory i can imagine the 'trip'. Never got it working satisfactory in my setup though. I am not as gifted as my pal in getting these things to work.


Regards, Coen

[manisandher]

But isn't this supposed to be a 'mechanical' tweak?

I've always thought that the best way of getting some crossfeed is to toe-in the speakers 'aggressively' way past the central listening position right towards the opposite wall. This way, if you're sitting in the centre, you'd get the direct sound coming from the speakers (from let's say 45 degrees off centre) mixed in with the reflected sound from the opposite wall. But I think this will only really be effective with speakers that focus/beam quite a lot. Oh, that makes horns and my Quads perfect!

Earl Geddes has some interesting thoughts on this: http://www.gedlee.com/

Would this count as a mechanical 'tweak' though?

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Perfect ...

Ha ha, I had to wait a little and see you triple over this one.

I had some fun reading it, and made some fun out of it. Still my little phrase was correct ...

Ok this sounds like some x-feed tweak to me, but I can be entirely wrong.

Perfect;

I managed to have expressed what I feel about "my tweak". It is exactly 100% the x-feed principle. But, as good that Coen discovered it. See ? NOSers have head starts for everything - burned in or not.

So, this is how the tweak behaves. Like indeed left and right are being mixed in a fast fashion. But, done at the electronics level.

1.
If this were true, it would mean that channel separation is not the best, while officially it is the very best (and audible by I think everyone). So, will it be that ? I don't think so.

2.
Is it then more likely that the information just is in the music data but it never came out before ? maybe.

3.
Or is is maybe so that the tweak incurs for just the other way around compared to the first option : it mixes the electronics (microphonically) and incurs for the effect ? This is what I have been thinking from the start.
But not anymore.

I go for option 2. But now the point is : this can't be the truth officially, or it will be beyond the whisdom.

If it is option 3, the mixing of L/R electronics, it can also be option 1, the specific music data being very well separated, the NOS1 making a "mess" of it, and the tweak makes it very OK again. But NOW the fun is : this can me measured. Well, theoretically. At least I have been thinking about a method which measures channel separation better, or at least by different means. So, the tweak should show a difference here, but at this moment I don't know of a means how (then) to differentiate between option 1 and 3.

If no difference can be shown, it must be option 2 or the measurement method doesn't work.


But ...

Looking at Mani's last post, it is also easy to "see" that it may work some quite unexpectedly other way around;
The amount of "fullness" doesn't justify the NOT increase of standing waves. I mean, they should appear somewhere somehow, or otherwise I created myself a headroom for it which I didn't know about (it is only since the NOS1-USB that my last small proof of it disappeared). So, what if all got so much more straight hence beamed (!!) that now reflections can start working (more precisely) ?

My speakers are toed out. Beaming, say, 50cm along my ears. Those amongst you who know my situation, may get it that ~2.5m behind my listening position the beams cross.
Now, one of the things which happened, is that suddenly the sweetspot seems to be at that 2.5m-behind position. I know, because that's the position where I am when others listen (behind the bar). This seems strange - and related. Not sure how though, yet. And in addition : horns shouldn't be listened to on-axis, while now it just happens (at finding the sweetspot).

What also the most clearly happened, is that the listening position in the room highly matters. Not that it needs a sweetspot, but when I now walk in the back of the room in 90 degree angle compared to where the speakers are, the sound changes dramatically per step I take. This was not the case at all before.

This latter text, I think, implies a better beaming effect, while the straight beams incur for reflections which are almost as good (and loud !) as the early reflections, and now nicely mix in phase (maybe that "in phase" always happened, but the level of the reflections wasn't right).

Also see next post ...

[PeterSt]

SH*T

After typing the one before last sentence in the previous post, I suddenly realized that I read something about "it" this morning, which now seems to be a piece of the puzzle.
Yes, I read a lot, and I'm long from finished with it.

When wrongly applied, your mind can become in a state of, what to say ... wrongness ? This is my description of findings of others, and no "wrongness" is in there at all, but call it headache. Not so in my case. But my case ? after two beers I'm floored. Yes, I recall day before yesterday that I showed how I could not walk a straight line at all after two harmless beers. When I now think back ... this is from the time the tweak is in ... It got worse since day before yesterday when I tried to over-amplify the tweak (didn't seem to help for SQ).

Is it a mind thing afterall ? no. But sound can become too strange or something. This is what I dedicate to the massiveness which seems to "hurt" me (but which is not found so by the others here). And hey, didn't someone just talk about tripping ? well, the music itself really feels like that, or at least the music made for that seems to work out like intended. Not so before.

And really, after my normal amount of booze yesterday night, I couldn't speak one normal word anymore and went to bed at 10:30 (ok, pm).
Nothing for me, really.

So, a trip enhancer. Could be dangerous. Music does what music must do ? maybe.

Ok, let's cut this out for now. I must test more (and said so already).

Peter


PS: Coen, what is going on with you ? First you guessed my exact idea about this, and now you called it tripping which I did not mention and also didn't imply - plus I didn't know it myself. Only during the writing of this post I made the combination.
Anything else maybe ?

[CoenP]

Well let's say that i sometimes suddenly get connected to the universal intelligence. Like finding the solution to that pita cryptogram when i am in a dull businessmeeting.

Just kidding. It must be my mind breaking in to the kharma of the nos1.

Oh....and there are a lot of hints in your posts of this thread though.

Something else has intrigued me for a long time and that is why sometimes mono-ised stereo recordings (100% x-feed) exibit detail and substance that i never or hardly hear in full stereo. That observation would vote for option 2 imho.
Secondly let's not forget that lps (records) only have a very limited stereo separation (like 40db) and can sound super dense and spacious. Infact my tt setup sounded wider and deeper than my previous digital (before nos).

I guess it has to do with someting not being quite right in the stereo recording/mastering process and x-feed correcting for that.

My 2c on this matter.

Regards, Coen

P.s. It is great to learn that tripping is possible without tubes!

 

[PeterSt]

I am not so keen on telling about it, but you don't want to know how many times it happened to me that only into the third album or so it occurs to me that Sw#5 is in the wrong position (because of testing things), therewith showing the left channel through both speakers (which is rather mono-ish ). And then I only notice because I know that third album, and from which channel what sound should come.
You can also say I'm deaf of course.

It is also audible because the highs sound grey-ish. Not clear.
But the spatiousness itself is still there. Just try it (Sw#5 Up, and leave all other the same). But do it as the first listening session for the day, or otherwise you already know the sound.

[boleary]

Okay, not knowing what "X-Feed" is I asked uncle google and got, among other things, this:

http://www.rock-grotto.co.uk/crossproject2.htm

Is this what you are talking about?

[PeterSt]

Looks like it, yes.
But remember, this is not what I am talking about at all.

[PeterSt]

When I get enthusiast ...

Eventhough I kind of physically measured it with hand-heels to eachother, opened by the angle which should approach the difference, I came to 30 degrees vs 90. Non-sense ! It's 60-65 degrees vs. 90.

Sorry !

[PeterSt]

Ok, my room is 8(W) x 12(L) x 3(H).

I just walked around with the SPL meter (actually because my wife keeps on complaining the music is too loud lately) and visited every spot and corner of the room. I used Hatfield's End for it, Revealing The Myth. SPL is 80dB EVERYWHERE. *If* there's an exception it is at those places outside of the speakers where the music seems to come from. A few dB louder there.
Only when the speakers (remember, horns here) are approached less than 2 meters there's an increase of maybe 2-3dB until 1 meter distance where I really should stop. So, say 83dB at the official measurement spot (which is 1 meter from the speaker) and 80dB at each and every spot or corner in the whole room, which, yes, is fairly large. High, low, everywhere.

Isn't this strange ...

Where I'm sitting right now, typing, I have a full stereo picture, which is at 8 meters from the left speaker, about half a meter outside of it.

It is true the sound is a tad too loud.
... which before was at 90dB ...

Peter


PeeeeeS:
I also notice that at the distance the SPL increases when approaching the speaker (which is at 2 meters) I loose the stereo picture. So, at 2 meters this is still very OK, while the other speaker is 6 meters away.