Orelo MK-II Imaging

[vrao]

A part of this would also fall on the FM curves (but much more can be achieved with the curves) but a specific mention about imaging.

Signal depth:
So the other day, while listening to ambient or electronic album (can't remember what it was), noticed something quite interesting. Most people are trying to see singers or played move on stage L/R and are amazed by their experience (Noticed this when I went to hear a pair of speakers made by Musical Affairs (PhyHP) at a local guys plays, this owner could not get enough of this opera singer moving side ways on stage) .

My first experience with depth was with the class D, and Omni/Dipole (which might have been a bit exaggerated). But with the new system the imaging is so precise, you can follow the signal in depth, which was unexpected! With electronic music you can have a signal running around the sound field. Precisely following something front to back or vice versa is an interesting experience!

 Image Height:
so far this has been very satisfactory, can differential excellent vs mediocre recordings. Will add more later.


Image size (*edit- width*):
While imaging is excellent with the Orelos, studio panning can become an issue, or mixing errors. Some times it can just be that this was the best that could come out of the speakers used for post production mixing.
This is from a while ago, but still relevant for imaging
I was listing to Tabula Rasa, Geocentricity
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Rasā
Mridangam is the instrument
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mridangamd
Other than a piano, image width can be difficult to judge. Mridangam is a horizontal instrument, which I'm intimately familiar with. This is a set of trials with the curves, ofcourse with the NOS-1 (not a), and prior filter, judging horizontal image size. So will have to repeat it some time.

FM curves
Tabula rasa - geocentricity
(1-highest; 2-mid; 3-low)
*Edit* some of my notes
All red ... too wide, right channel bias
All org .... too wide, right channel bias
Org;grn;grn .... About right (maybe a little too wide). Slightly better imaging.
Org;grn;org ..... Still wide, better imaging
Grn;grn;red ...... Realistic size, good imaging
Grn,org,red ..... As above for both
Redx3 (repeat) too wide
Last different l/r channel  FM settings too erratic, better able to float the left channel.
Orang,org,red .... Slightly elongated, better left imaging.

Maybe one of these days I'll get Kavi himself to come over and listen.

Other Orelo owners can add?

VJ

*Edit*
Forgot to add the following
Kavi Alexander is the recording artist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavichandran_Alexander
Recording technique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair

I've visited Kavi and the place where this was recorded. An Old Church 17th centrury place.

Most of the instruments in stereo reproduction appear as point sources. Symphonies give scale, difficult to judge individual instruments.  Piano can give a sense of scale, but it can never give a sense of size. That was the reason for using mridangam, a horizontal instrument with defined width, and close recording. BTW i'll probably stay away from that recording for a while, after the FM trials 

[vrao]

Part -II

Recreation of acoustic space:

While Omnidirectional speakers are masters at this, Orelo is not far behind. In many ways Orelos may be better. Although I haven't done a through investigation (head to head comparison), omnis might "falsely" widen the sound stage. It is fun to have instruments go beyond the boundaries if the speaker, which give one the impression of scale, but intensity wise it cannot match the visceral feel, and hence an incomplete illusion. It is my impression that omnidirectional speakers are excellent for low level non critical listening, in a typical "listening" room. Anything else it requires careful manipulation of the abundant secondary reflections, and power amps, which should be nothing short of a nuclear reactor.

Coming back to Orelos recreation of acoustic space.
Reference album: Stephan Micus/The music of the stones
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Stones-Stephan-Micus/dp/B000025ZXK
This is kind of a experimental album. Music is made by carefully trimmed and honed blocks of Swedish granite. These are cut into cubes, with deep incisions parallel or intersecting in regular interval. Apart from the first number which is music produced by rubbing the stone, the rest are by a mallet which is used to strike the stone. This is recorded in the "Cathedral of Ulm" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm_Minster) which can give a great sense of acoustic space. The image density from the speakers is strong, leading to great reverberant acoustics.

Another interesting album to try is Sera Una Noche
http://www.marecordings.com/main/product_info.php?products_id=78

Pretty much anything from Water Lilly acoustics.
http://waterlilyacoustics.com/main.htm

BTW, the above albums are just markers for reference, and pretty much any album (at least decently recorded) I've heard so far have worked out just fine.

[PeterSt]

Thank you for sharig this VJ.

Other Orelo owners can add?

As you can see at least I (or even I) have much to contribute. I guess I work differently for approach were it about the F-M settings. So, for me as the designer of it, I take it for granted that green-green-green should be the normal position/curve, never mind it is not the curve which Mr Fletcher and Munson found out for us human beings.
Still it is so that "by nature" I worked with and the dip and the highs to say orange up to red (Dip) and red (Highs respectively. So what I do today is starting out with green-green-green (flat curve) and will soon notice that something has to change, which highly depends on the music. Often it's the dip to orange first (nore Dip) and later I might set the Highs to orange (more highs). This latter could be a "compensating" matter.

Most of the time I work with "disturbance". So, when I feel things are not right, I will change e.g. like described. This can last for days until something disturbs again, and with the Dip to orange this undoubtedly will be about a too flat sound, or to dull. I now do not set the Highs to red (even more Highs) but undo the Dip (so set to green). Next, in rare occasions I may find the highs too much (too less color in them), but when so, they get back to green (flat).

This looks to be a cyclic happening.

It is very clear though that the Dip being activated takes out the higher frequency ambience of e.g. a full orchestra. This can be a matter of life and death so to speak. Let's say how all gets full with air when the dip is set to green, back from orange. In the end such phenomenon will always be the case, but for some recordings it can be too much of it but hard to describe how (now from the top of my head). Possibly too much sibilant.

Fact is that my cyclic happening mostly last for days for one setting. Meaning : it takes days to run into an album which makes me change the settings (back).
I can also say that only in very rare occasions I change a setting but change it back within a minute. This means that most of the time I guessed right where it needed to go to. And in those rare occasions I guess wrongly, I guess I throw out the album and hunt for another (read : can't be helped).

So see ? I am not looking for the best settings; I look for settings which disturb least and this is quite tolerant (or otherwise how can any setting last for many days, no matter what direction it went).

Imaging itself I never explicitly pay attention to. However, my mentioned "air ambience" is about how all gets more separated. You can call it more accurate. So this changes the image largely, up to the orchestra suddenly "working" while before it wouldn't (get involved etc.). The image will get wider of that, but this is not what I seek. The separation, yes.

That's all.
Peter

[christoffe]

http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/Mue/mue2003/research/mescobar/thesis/web/Psychoacoustics.htm

The most sensitive region of our ears are from 1,000 to 5,000 Hz.
What does it tell us for music reproduction?

Joachim

Edit: Also interesting to read -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking

[PeterSt]

From you first link Joachim :

Critical bands also can be explained in another way, when two sounds of equal loudness sounded separately are close together in pitch, their combined loudness when sounded together will be only slightly louder than one of them alone.  They may be said to be in the same critical band where they are competing for the same nerve endings on the basilar membrane of the inner ear.  If the two sounds are widely separated in pitch, the perceived loudness of the combined tones will be considerably greater because they do not overlap on the basilar membrane and compete for the same hair cells.  If the tones are far apart in frequency (not within a critical band), the combined sound may be perceived as twice as loud as one alone.

I can't say that I knew that ...

Thanks,
Peter

[vrao]

"Imaging itself I never explicitly pay attention to. However, my mentioned "air ambience" is about how all gets more separated. You can call it more accurate. So this changes the image largely, up to the orchestra suddenly "working" while before it wouldn't (get involved etc.). The image will get wider of that, but this is not what I seek. The separation, yes."

Peter,

I might have mentioned before, but I'm not sure .....

The auditory system depends on secondary, but slightly delayed reflections to solidify imaging. The "air" as you call it. This however needs to be "carefully" tailored.

VJ

*edit*
Just realized something. The mention about secondary reflections was incomplete, and should be taken with the whole speaker design into consideration (and I should have thought of that before I talked about reflections). And excessive/uncontrolled secondary reflections are actually detrimental to imaging.  And thinking back, for a speaker like the Orelo, minimal reflections might be better for the mids and highs.

[vrao]

Peter,

Coming back to your FM settings.

Been playing a few female jazz albums, and have consistently noticed that FM settings closer to the straight line or the straight line is most preferred. This gives the most realistic playback of the singer. All red makes the singer rather diffuse and larger. This makes me think, the recording engineers are using a particular technique for this type of music?
The overall depth however is less appreciated with this setting, but it may not make a huge difference considering it's a small group playing.

VJ
P.s. Cassandra Wilson might be a different story 

[PeterSt]

P.s. Cassandra Wilson might be a different story 

Why ? because you are married to her ?

[vrao]

Lol!

I would go with lower pitch.

[manisandher]

Hi VJ, I've been meaning to contribute to this thread for a while, but just haven't gotten around to doing any meaningful F-M comparisons. I'll rectify this in the next day or two.

For now though, I just use S=2, D=2, H=2 (i.e. all orange), which I feel is a good 'generic' setting that works well for most of the music I've tried.

Back with more soon...

Mani.

[vrao]

Hey Mani,
Would love to hear your thoughts!!
VJ

[PeterSt]

Okay, now I suddenly have a small contribution ...
But it will be a strange one.

Let's keep in mind what I told before, which comes down to :
I know what the F-M curves do, and all I do is dial-in more air, more freshness when the music concerned can bear it, less harshness when it's the other way around and more of this mere technical approach.

Yesterday I had a different idea and it sprung from all sounding super bad to begin with (for reasons not necessary to explain here) and thought "what the heck, if it sounds so bad that I can try listening to VJ and dial in settings I would not do otherwise".

Well, almost, because I also thought about what was actually bothering me with my current sound and how to get rid of that. Think of too dark and too gray/grey sound without any accuracy as if I was using a D/A converter from 20 years ago.
And then I tried a setting I normally would never even bother to try (because so wrong in my view) ...

My first thinking was to "dip out" the grey sound which plainly comes down to awful. So, Dip to Red. "What can't be heard also can't annoy". At the same time I thought of compensating for the dullness which would emerge and set the Highs also to Red. So, just theory. But before I actually applied it (both at the same time) I also again thought of my older theory how the more high frequency boost can fill in the gaps of lower frequency roughness. So, this roughness I expect to be in this 1K-5K region while I actually would squueze that out with the Dip setting (Red). Not much concistent.

Thus, I now had the largest dip in the 1K-5K region, and the most boost from of 6.5K and up. So see ? this seems contradictionary to me. But with a mood of "what the heck" plus some so-called reasoning (above), I just did it, prepared to throw the lot out of the window anyway.

Yes, one can end up in a stadium that it better be silent than bad sound is thrown at you.

But it didn't turn out to be for the worse. Not at all.

Very first I noticed - and I didn't even pay attention to this topic I am writing in right now, so to speak - was a natural depth. More of it for sure.
Next was the width *plus* separation.
And close after that the way more "bordered" of everything. The more square again (I maybe dialed out lately). All way way better.
And no spur of more darkness I actually expected. I actually loved it.

What I learned from this is that there's actually merit in trying all the (to me) "strange" settings. Let's say that at least this combination (green - red - red) was as consistent as the settings I would think to be consistent from stupid theory and it HAS to spring from how our brain deals with this all.

But VJ, didn't you tell that ...

Sadly it is more complicated;

I certainly don't want to go off topic, but it has to be said :
This will never have worked in Windows 8.

So intermezzo : While I once back tried Windows 7 with the NOS1a (only briefly) and thought I noticed a difference, *but* this also was on another PC, today I am forced to use that other PC + Windows 7 because I, say, blew up my Windows 8 machine. Now don't ask me what changed since that brief trial and not being sure, but today the difference is not between day and night, but between heaven and hell in a freezer. First glance : wow, Windows 7 (machine) is so more smooth. I could last a whole evening with that thought and we all agreed.
But it appears to be highly depending on the music played, and already the next day I started to hate it. HATE it. All sounds the same and all sounds too dark and all bass sounds coloured. And when I played the famous drumming recording ... that did it. No NO single way it could ever resemble the drum kit. I even turned it off after 3 minutes because so totally awful.
And AGAIN I can not imagine what's all happening with these stupid OSes, if it is that (can be the PC).
Mind you, this is now sounding so bad that you rather wear ear plugs than listening to it. Not play anything is also a good idea. So .
Ending the intermezzo : When in Windows 8 I'd set the Highs to Red (most boost of the highs) all would be hissing.

So ... We can say that at the fifth day of awful sound in Windows 7 - no XXHighEnd dials doing a thing because of the NOS1a eliminating that, I suddenly found that a speaker can do wonders. This *also* tells me how we all will be "able" to perceive all differently (after all) just because of a speaker. And so I imagine that a speaker with a virtual green - red - red setting will hiss me out of the room when Windows 8 is playing (or a PC which incurs for that like mine). And the other way around of course; a speaker with green - green -green will let sound Windows 7 (or that PC) sound like a drag.

I am not exaggerating you know. And possibly the message is that we can get used to that "superb" sound (whatever that really is today and tomorrow) and once we hop back the slightest degree, it will be killing.
If I once heard a 100% live drum kit through my speakers and now this went down to 99%, it is already unlistenable. Something like that. But notice I perceived it like 10%. Or 0%.

More back to the topic :
Yes, those "strange" F-M settings can help a LOT, depending on the situation. With the W7 experience in mind, that apparently (??!?) lacking all the highs in the world - but which to me seems similar to an over-decorated room (too much damping) - boosting those highs (6.5K and up) not only compensates nicely, but it also brings back the imaging we "expect". Like I told : it can become "natural". Don't ask me what natural means, but I guess we all will understand. Not faked. No machines, no robots. But I'm afraid : no overprocessing brain required to perceive all in well fashion.

For me it is a revelation to notice how something which sounds totally awful, actually springs from unbalance in the frequency spectrum and which goes unnoticed in itself. Well, maybe if you are a VJ you will be able to see through the technical merits right away, but this is not "us".
What I additionally learned is that the bandwidth of the F-M settings is highly dependent on external parameters. Hard to explain, but think like "no play room" in Windows 8, while "all possible" in Windows 7 (or the PC's or whatever it is really).
Or (mind you) :
"all possible" in an over-decorated room while "no bandwidth" in a hard room. At least that's how I feel it.

For VJ : Remember the funny thing : A way too dark sound was counteracted with more darkness because of the Red Dip. Next though *this* was counteracted with the way more high frequencies. Result : not dark at all.
Later I will try this with my Windows 8 machine (with the expectation that it can't work).

Peter

[CoenP]

Maybe OT, but in reaction to your previous post:

Not even having a Orelo with FM settings, I completely recognize the soundattributes you discribe about Windows 7. Never thought it had anything to do with the OS.

I've been trying to 'fix' this darkness with my power cables stuff and XX settings. I've come a long way and sometimes it sounds truly fantastic and sometimes like total cr*p. I attributed the dark sound to my interlinks (which I kept in to compare).

Now let's try win8!

regards, Coen

[Dantana]

Hi everyone, this is my first post.

A little bit of introduction. I've been on and off this forum for more than 2 years, and have owned the NOS 1 and XX PC for a year now. However, I do not own the Orelo Mk II.

So why the sudden change to post after all these years of silence? Firstly, I owe it to Peter and all of you who posted in this forum. It is thru your numerous posts and thorough descriptions of your experience and thoughts that have assisted me in taking the plunge to purchase the NOS 1, sight-and-sound unseen. I have never regretted this move as the NOS 1 has indeed brought my audio system to a new high. So thank you all. Secondly, I visited Peter and Ciska at their wonderful home just last Saturday, 16 Aug. It was indeed an ear and eye-opening experience for me. The entire musical reproduction was smooth and easy to listen to. The soundstage was huge and very lifelike. Very low in distortions and colorations so typical with other horn system. And lastly, it is with Peter's encourage that I should contribute in this thread.

But how can I positively contribute to this thread? I don't even own the NOS 1a yet and definitely not the Orelo Mk II. Anyway, I shall give it a shot.

So was the whole thing perfect? err No...(sorry Peter). I recall sharing with Peter that I've always enjoyed listening in a larger room like his. But despite all the positive things mentioned above, there was a slight lack in bass quantity compared to what I am used to having in my system. Moreover, there was a veil to the overall presentation. The clarity and transparency was not quite there. When Peter finally demoed the "Live kick drum vs system reproduction" trick, it didn't make it. The speed and liveliness were not there. This could have contributed to the lack of precise imaging? Even when Peter went behind the speakers to make some adjustments, I could not notice any change. Perhaps, as what Peter said, I must be deaf. So take my comments with a pinch of salt.

So what has changed since then? I don't know. The Orelo Mk II could be one of the speakers that I like to own. But because of its size and my need for the audio/home theatre system to be in the living room, it could not work for me. But one thing I am sure. From what I see in Peter, his incessant pursuit of perfection, he will figure everything out in time to come. Perhaps those extreme settings may really work? Or maybe a little bit more of toe-in? But to those lucky few who can afford to own both the NOS 1a and Orelos, the picture certainly looks bright.

Best regards.

Daniel

[PeterSt]

Ha !

Daniel, thank you very much for this.

So, true; After I made my post this morning I thought to give it shot and ask Daniel what he thought of my current "sound". Of course he read my post first, but we did NOT explicitly talk about my Windows 7 situation apart from some mere minor details, like Daniel indeed judging the drums to not have enough speed. For me, and Daniel did not know this, it is all hard to judge because all sounding so different in the first place (compared to my W8 machine). So, because of the "complaint" that the drums did not have enough speed I thought to prove reality by playing that drumming recording.
Then I wished I never had done that ...

What's also a placebo for me, is that after that drumming track (stopped out of pure misery) I started playing again later in the evening (Daniel on his way back) but I couldn't even listen to anything any more. So poor. The drumming track placeboed me.

What I sort of hoped for was that Daniel full heartedly would shout as loud as I tried this morning how poor all was. Well, I asked Daniel to be honest, and his post came from that.

Moreover, there was a veil to the overall presentation.

So yes. We did not talk that through (that I remember) but this is my preception of all being grey as hell. Day before yesterday I started to call it plain ugly. I have no better description for it.

Even when Peter went behind the speakers to make some adjustments, I could not notice any change. Perhaps, as what Peter said, I must be deaf.

Haha, yes, that is what I said. And I (clearly) said it without listening myself. And not that I perceived any improvement of it. So all was so much without your mentioned clarity to begin with, that nothing helped (that I noticed). But the real culprit only showed when playing that recording. I'm still red on the cheek from it.

To stay on topic, this is exactly why I made my post earlier today. So, something *can* help but it is quite counter intuitive. This is - I think - also how someone with the real knowledge about our auditorial system (VJ) starts to try such things in the first place. I found that a bit odd, but it is not odd when you see it really can work out.

Anwyay, again thank you very much Daniel. And another secret NOS1 user unveiled.
Regards,
Peter