Since my new room is set and the playback is installed and configures I name an interesting observation:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=1500

Continue to think in this direction I come to very promising hypothesis that I would like to try if my Macondo would not be so huge and heavy. To make practical experiment on it I would need to device a mechanism to move Macondo’s right with very high precision but considering the size and the mass of the thing I do not have this option for now. If someone would devise foe me such a mechanism then I would appreciate it.

Anyhow, back to the inspiration/ hypothesis that I have. The inspiration suggests that time alignment is the key for DPoLS setting. However, here the time alignment needs to be understood a bit differently. Usually time alignment implies the arrival of the sound from all channels of the same loudspeaker at the very same fraction of phase. The DPoLS Time Alignment ™ is a different animal. It implies a Triple Time Alignment:

1)      Alignment  of the Channels of the same loudspeaker
2)      Alignment  of BOTH loudspeaker in the room
3)      First major reflections of the room for both loudspeakers.

This is in a way a revolutionist thinking about Time Alignment as it does not imply the Time Alignment itself but a combination of Time Alignment with benefits of Time Alignment. Let me to explain as it might be a bit confusing die to my careless use of definitions. I will explain it on examples how I feel the DPoLS might be found (if my theory is right) fully predictable, methodologically and without even listening the loudspeaker.

So, you get a pair of loudspeakers and a room with comfortable foe you reflection pattern. You set up left loudspeaker (left for you) where I need to be. I always suggest starting from left loudspeaker as it cares the fist violins, sopranos of choruses and generally in western culture is associated with HF lead. You take RTA or TEF pulse analyzer and perfects align each channel of the loudspeaker to your listening position. Then you take a right loudspeaker and do the same. They the fun begins. You need to align the right and left loudspeakers to each other in respect to this position in the room. We are not taking here about arrival time and it will be skewed and hardly measurable as we will not be able to subtract the modulations from reflections. So you take pulse analyzer away and using just TRA we are trying to setup R and L loudspeakers to have max amplitude of each other impact.  Here is where you deal with true DPoLS.

Here is where you deal with true DPoLS: a single mm of moving or angle of right loudspeaker does impact sound but it also impacts the RTA summation if you use a high resolution (let say .25dB and higher). I need to warn you that the operation at 0.1dB level non-anechoicly from let say 10 feet is very tricky and generally might be considered idiotic. But the whole point is that you want all live reflections of your room to be inclusive.  You might use cancelation after a few ms to deal only with fist reflections. Anyhow, you objective is to setup your R loudspeaker with as low conflict to your L loudspeaker and to your room. The microscopic movement and angling of your R loudspeaker acts as a lubrication that put your R loudspeaker in micro-phase conflict-less operation. This is in my theory is a condition for a proper DPoLS operation.

Now, SOME aspects of the theory above I have tested and was able to get very substantial gain of performance. I did not apply the success to the whole Macondo, I will but to do it I need a full house of strong hoodlums with tools what would very precisely moive my speakers according to my instructions. I very much willing to do it sometimes but the Macondo frame is not friendly for this task.

A note I need to make. The above method is a method with using of tools of objective control. The very identical result might be accomplished by specific targeted listening if a person knows what and how to listen.  However, I do not think that those skills might be delegated in article and I will refer you to measurement tools. If you are not deaf and have some listening intelligence then you will very soon discover what changes happen with sound while it become less self-conflicting and how to look and find those changes in  new sound. The most important is that the theory above gives (I hope) you a tool how to navigate sound objectively, by measurement and predictably toward to the DPoLS operation.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The microscopic movement and angling Rgs, Romy the Cat

unicon wrote:

I agree and understand how important is moving the speakers to find the symmetrical impulse from both channels BUT in microscopic movement we mainly correct the vibration of speakers which indeed effects the whole things. in my view the microscopic movements is bringing the luck to have both speakers vibrate in way to generate same impulses ...

It would be hard to see how at microscopic level vibration comes to the picture. It might of course offset pulse response but to a degree but the degree would be much lower than the offset by distance discrepancy. It is not to mention that feeling that vibration is on the picture would be identical to stating that vibration-prone speakers have no DPoLS dependency. I do not think that this is the case.

I do not want to jump from DPoLS to vibration subject but I feel that vibration of speaks is not a problem at all. It is the problem that it very obvious, easy to demonstrate and very easy to sell to people. Some companies build up on the fear of vibration and spend a lot of efforts to deal with it (Revel foe instance) but still end up with horrible result (that might have no connection to vibration at all). Some companies do include the presumption of vibration into the design (the Living Voice is the example, even though I do not know how they sound and some sources suggest that light and vibrating enclosures has nothing to do with sound but with LV intention to same on cross-ocean shipment.)

Still, whatever impact the vibrations have I think in phase vibrating of both speakers might be desirable. Here is what the pulses need to be read by laser with taking into consideration the distances between the listener and speakers – very interesting subject but absolutely not observed….

I still would feel that the box vibrations are no what we deal during DPoLS setting but no one can be certain about anything what we are taking about Quantum Mechanics of Loudspeakers Setup. The sad part is no one taking or dealing with this “Quantum Mechanics”. I am sure if some serious sound company would put their math and experimental recourses into the subjects then we would see a small $149.95 devise that would set find for us DPoLS very easy.

Romy the Cat wrote:

So, you get a pair of loudspeakers and a room with comfortable foe you reflection pattern. You set up left loudspeaker (left for you) where I need to be. I always suggest starting from left loudspeaker as it cares the fist violins, sopranos of choruses and generally in western culture is associated with HF lead. You take RTA or TEF pulse analyzer and perfects align each channel of the loudspeaker to your listening position. Then you take a right loudspeaker and do the same.  Rgs, Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

They the fun begins. You need to align the right and left loudspeakers to each other in respect to this position in the room. We are not taking here about arrival time and it will be skewed and hardly measurable as we will not be able to subtract the modulations from reflections. So you take pulse analyzer away and using just TRA we are trying to setup R and L loudspeakers to have max amplitude of each other impact.  Here is where you deal with true DPoLS. Rgs, Romy the Cat