At 20:51 29-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>wasn't the original conception for stereo = 90 degrees, but 'hole in
>the middle' effects led to standardising on the narrower figure?
There seemd to be an echo in here!
Running down the email and deleting as I go, I come to:
>> From: David Pickett <[email protected]>
>> Date: 28 March 2016 19:33:08 BDT
>>
>> The problem with speakers at +/- 45 degrees is that one needs a
>> wide room if one is to sit at a decent distance from them.
Somebody else said that he has encountered people who have
difficulties with stereo. I dont and I have personally never found a
student who did. I have tried 90 degrees, and I am quite happy with
it. I have no problem with hole in the middle with 90 degree
separation of speakers.
The distance thing depends on how close you want to sit to the
speakers. My stereo speakers are 8ft apart. If I sit at the point
of an equilateral triangle, I am 7ft back -- 4/tan(30). If I want to
be 8ft from each speaker when they are at +/-45 degrees, they have to
be 11.3 ft apart -- rt(2)x8 -- and I am then 5.6ft back from the line
joining the two speakers. I find this necessary in order not to be
too close to the speakers. I have managed this in a much larger room
than I have at present, but adding a minimum of 4ft between each
speaker and the side wall demands a minimum room width of about 20ft.
The 8ft square speaker positions that I currently use for both 2.0
and 4.0 means that I sit between the two rear speakers. For 2.0, the
angle of the front speakers is thus about 63 degrees -- atan(2). As
I have mostly ambience & audience noise on the rear, having the two
rears to left and right of me works well in 4.0. Sitting in the
middle of the square, as I do briefly to evalute quality, means that
all the speakers are closer to me than I like.
David
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
account or options, view archives and so on.
