On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:11:15PM +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> On 03/24/2011 10:02 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:29:02PM +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
>>> out of curiosity: in what way is such a layout superiour to a
>>> dodecahedron (with speakers on the faces, not the vertices)?
>>
>> It's marginally better for horizontal directions, and worse for
>> 'down' sources, since the bottom speaker is missing. But down to
>> -45 degrees elevation it's as good as the dodecahedron.
>>
>> OTOH, I've been experimenting with a 1+6+8+6+1 system for full
>> 3rd order, and this very clearly outperforms an icosahedron
>> (with just 2 more speakers). To my suprise, it's almost perfectly
>> 'isotropric' even in the vertical plane - there's no sign of any
>> preferred directions.
>
> so you found that the slightly "staggered" ring you in the horizontal
> plane of a dodecahedron with three on the floor, three under the ceiling
> is actually worse than a strictly coplanar hexagon? and similarly for
> the staggered ring-of-ten in an icosahedron?
Yes, but the price is (a few) more speakers.
I haven't looked at {2nd order, 12-hedron vs 14641}, as much as at
{3rd order, 20-hedron vs 16861}, but a least for the latter the
difference is quite clear. It's probably even more significant if
you consider that even in a periphonic system the listeners tend
to stay in the horizontal plane.
Ciao,
--
FA
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
