Pondoro

I am really glad that you toed them in!

I absolutely agree - b, c, d, e and i are "identical." For that matter a, f, g and h are identical (to each other). You can read a graph too finely. And the psychology industry is in the midst of the "replication crisis", in which famous and groundbreaking experiments cannot be repeated with the same results. Still this is fun, and the study here is informative.

I've been staring at this for a day or so now. It appears to me that b, c, d, e and i are basically "equal." Not "the same" but to their audience they were equally good. I sure wish they had included 3 speakers across the front - Left - Center - Right. Option i is the same as d, scores a tiny bit worse (again I would say, "The same") but requires an extra speaker and amp. I bought a third speaker exactly to try the PWK method. As I said I will run it with whatever algorithm Yamaha has built into my receiver as well. But this study, which did not ever try simply adding a center, seems to show that a center did nothing, at best, when added to configuration d.

I didn’t realize such low frequency info was important to surrounds. For home theater I should have known, I have been near controlled explosions, the rumble coming back from surrounding hills differentiates the truly large explosions from small ones. All explosions overwhelm the senses, even with good hearing protection, at the moment of the blast. It is the thump in your chest and the echoes that tell you, “That one was big!”

So surround channels could be four to ten inch full range single speakers, and save a lot of money.

I will certainly compare my Yamaha-generated center channel to the PWK method some day. I’ll need a center channel amp and some free time. I bought the KP-250 because it was cheap and had nearly the same design as my two Heresy speakers basically to try as a center. I'd like to hear the PWK method for historical purposes, even if I eventually decide the modern algorithms are better. I'd actually love to hear all the algorithms mentioned in the papers as well as the PWK method. Not as a blind test, I'd like to hear them and compare out of curiosity.

OK, so it is still breathing. 😆

As Quad died in the 1970's "Time Delay" units were briefly popular. You had two channel stereo in front and variable delay in the rear two speakers. Some loved it, said it was "Quad without the format war incompatibilities", purists called it "distortion."

That is an interesting, but very technical, article. I’m a mechanical engineer so I understand the math, but the signal processing stuff is a bit beyond me. I am very familiar with the original Klipsch article that they refer to. It appears they can improve on his simple additive method. I need to spend some serious time listening to songs in both traditional stereo and synthesized center mode. I have a pair of Heresy Ones and a single Kp-250 for the center. The KP is noticeably louder (I substituted it for one Heresy to compare), but I can adjust center channel level.

Right, by “fast” they mean quick response, as shown in your graphs. Thus the rock song with machine gun double kick drums wants fast more than deep. The church organ pipe that comes on at 20 Hz and then sits there for a half note or longer doesn’t need fast. Fast is always good but not necessarily required. I’d love to see your graphs for a fast kick drum and a ten foot wooden or metal organ pipe. I’ll bet the pipe is “slow”, think about getting all that air moving.

I just got a Yamaha RX-V385. I was thinking of using it with stereo CD's in 3.1 mode, Front Left, Front Middle and Front Right with a sub. What content does the processor send to the front middle?

This is actual wiring on a (Russian) plane that is in use. But not for the audio system.

I had a recording of my 7th grade kid's junior high band, it was awful, they had all been playing for only a year, no one was in time or in tune. I bought four of the clean energy generators and the band sounds much better, everyone is in tune and they are all right in the beat!

The sound gets twisted out of phase when it goes through those wire nuts! (did I start something there?)

What irony! This morning I was messing around behind our TV and a crimp-connector came loose, I had to redo it. It connected an aftermarket amp to a Denon subwoofer that I had repaired (amp had died, speakers were OK.) I should have soldered!

Menards has heat shrink tubing. I'll expect other big box lumber and appliance stores also stock it.

Here you have three steps - A, B, C, showing how to position the shrink wrap. Dashed lines are "not yet shrunk" and solid black is "shrunk."

Thinking more. Slide a long, larger, piece of heat shrink over both wires, then off to the left or right in the picture above. Then slide a shorter piece of smaller heat shrink onto each longer stub. Connect the wires. Slide the shorter pieces of small heat shrink over the bare areas and shrink it. Then slide the longer piece of heat shrink over the entire joint and shrink it.

(Borrowing Marvel's sketch) This method, slide the heat shrink tube fully on to the longer side (each longer side gets a piece of heat shrink). When the wired ate twisted and (I hope soldered) the heat shrink slides over the bare metal and gets "shrunk" with a hair drier or other hot object.

I would cut in the middle and add. You can use the same gauge or larger wire (remember smaller numbers = thicker wires, 16 is a lot larger than 22.) Separate the two conductors by peeling the twin wires apart. Then strip about 1/2" to 3/4" bare. Do you know how to solder? Solder them. Remember to make the joint strong mechanically, don't rely on solder alone to be strong enough. Before you solder them slip some heat shrink tubing over each conductor and up out of the way of the bare part. After you solder slide the heat shrink over the bare part and shrink the tube. No bare metal should be showing. Look close! If bare metal shows use electrical tape to cover it. Are your joints ugly? Are they visible? If both answers are "Yes" disguise the joints with colored electrical tape, you can buy it in a variety of colors.

Another Newbie to this stuff. I know all about wireless routers but have never bought one that will accept an SD card. I know all about SD cards. So if I buy a wireless router that will accept an SD card I can easily fill the SD card with songs. If I buy a streamer with built in DAC that plugs into my receiver or amp I can easily tell the receiver or amp to "take your input from the input where the streamer resides." But how do I tell the streamer to "Go look at that wireless router and play the stuff that you find there"? That seems to need a screen, on a computer or elsewhere.

I would try to isolate the speakers and power amp and see if they work together. Can you drive the power amp with a tuner or CD player? Do you have a preamp? If the power amp and the speakers sound good when driven by a CD or a tuner then you at least know they and the cables between them are working.

Those look awesome. I do not mean that they "look like they sound awesome." I mean they look awesome. I am sure they also sound amazing.

This is getting fun. I'm gonna buy some cheap cloth and try a couple of times before I risk the real stuff. .

So what if I laid the board down on a piece of sacrificial plywood, outside up. Speaker holes already cut out. Paint the board with glue that will dry clear, a very thin coat. Carefully lay the cloth on the board and pin it down around the perimeter (pins go into the plywood, not the speaker board.) Let it dry. Pull the pins. Turn it over so now the outside is down. The cloth is larger than the speaker board. Fold the cloth over and staple on the back. I am leaning towards just stapling the cloth to the back, no glue. That is the conventional way shown by the YouTube gurus, and would be fairly easy to correct if you got a wrinkle or a sag. Looking for input from someone who has been there and done it.