I see that Eugenie’s installation did not create in people to think about it, I think it is unfortunate.

Here are some important points of Eugenie’s installation:

1)      Use instead of good drivers a large amount of mediocre drivers. By doing this the exertion of each individual driver is substantially minimized and within a very limited mechanical exertion even poor drivers sound as much better drivers.

2)      Complete randominisation of time aliment. Eugenie is not juts misaligned driver but has 200 sources of mis-aliment in very unsystematic pattern.  What Eugenie done was created a sort of Phases Brownian Motion where the multiple stochastic errors of phases kill in listening awareness an ability to discriminate the leading edge of waves. I do not feel that it is right way to go but it is one of the way to mask phase anomalies.

3)      Fine-tuning the Melody range. Eugenie’s use many drivers (20 random drivers!!!!) and have sufficient sensitivity in Melody Range (100-600Hz). This allows him very prissily to tune his playback to the response of his given room in the Melody Range that shall give a very “loaded” and meaningful “size” of the presentation.

4)      Use my method of Insertion Channels, what he combined the background sound of multiple drivers that set “pedal-point effectiveness” with tonal Insertion from special chosen drivers. I have to note that in Eugenie’s case his Insertion shall have much less negative impact. In my case I have lobbying from second HF source. In Eugenie’s case he has many-many phase-random HF sources, so I guess the lobbying will take less part in his case.

… I do not have time not buy feel free to continue the list for yourself.

Paul S wrote:

Romy, I seem to remember J. Peter Moncrieff doing something like this a couple of decades ago, and he eventually "explained" it much as you have just done. I wonder if this approach is +/- doomed to a sort of "hazy" presentation, like the old Bose "bounce" approach.

Romy the Cat wrote:

2)      Complete randominisation of time aliment. Eugenie is not juts misaligned driver but has 200 sources of mis-aliment in very unsystematic pattern.  What Eugenie done was created a sort of Phases Brownian Motion where the multiple stochastic errors of phases kill in listening awareness an ability to discriminate the leading edge of waves. I do not feel that it is right way to go but it is one of the way to mask phase anomalies. The Cat

* The problem is more insidious because we are not actually dealing with complete randomization of time alignment.

Ignoring frequency, a simplified way of thinking about this is to assume that the wall has numerous identical drivers. Thus, timing from a listener's perspective becomes increasingly lagged as we move to speakers increasingly away (out/up/down) from the listener. So the "leading edge of waves" is easy to imagine transforming into a "smooth leading smear." 

In reality, what happening is that there are a limited number of drivers, each with its own spec and consequently in its own time domain. This would likely result in an even wider smear than in our simplified example. It would be also be a consistently "lumpy leading smear."

* Ignoring the time domain, adding "lots" of miscellaneous drivers is one potential way to smooth out frequency response at the micro level (although this has a similar randomization problem).

Of course combining time domain and frequency in the real world makes things a lot more complicated, fast. The wall might provide an intersting sound, but that could just be a result of lots of trial and error (law of large numbers).

Principally due to the time alignment problems, I would expect this wall to sound both sloppy and disjointed. . . but you never know!

The Multifaceted Random Dipoles – what the hell is it?

Well, this is what Eugenie’s uses, perhaps without realizing it. I do not know how Eugenie came to it. I presume that he was buying over the years the drivers on eBay and now he decided instead of trashing them to put them in use. Still, behind of what Eugenie did there is some interesting educational rational.

I call this eject “Multifaceted Random Dipoles” – which is purely pulled out of my ass name. A few years back I was visited a local friend of mine who just bought a bid Wilson. Walking across his room while his playback was playing I suddenly got flabbergasted. The sound in one specific point on the side of the room was nothing short of stunning, if not stunning but positively- different.  Upon further investigation I figured out that it for a first direct reflection from the left Wilson and a large glass window on the side of the room created combined with direct Wilson sound some kind of new “balanced” soundfield. 

Later on I did pick up the same effect a few times mode. It was always a specific balance of direct and first short-reflected sound at very specific mix. I was trying to mimic the effect using multiple drivers in free air configuration, turning the drivers and modifying bandwidth and volume. It was very difficult to get right configuration but sometimes I was able to catch “special” effect. The culmination of everything was when I was driving w divers and let them freely spin. I mean: to hand the drivers in the long wire, to twist the wire up and then let to wire to untwist, spinning the drivers with different speed. Using 4 wide band drivers and turning the volume and speed the effect was very interesting. I called it the “Multifaceted Random Dipoles” at that time and put the observation to back burners.

A couple years back ad guy from Switzerland contacted me and told about his idea of using directional reflectors that focus reflected sound back to ears. It was interesting and I supplemented his idea with a few rotatable reflecting reflectors. Eventually it has no practical use and end up to be at the same back burner.

Reading about Eugenie payback with 200 accidental drivers my old feeling about the “Multifaceted Random Dipoles” came back to me. I do feel that  partially the effect that  Eugenie get has the similar nature that I had with my above-described experiments.

Paul S wrote:

I would like to hear something more rigorous and complex than "the usual" music the DIYers use to "prove" a design/system.

Paul S wrote:

Unusual TT!  Maybe someone else who speaks Russian overheard what he uses for a phono cartridge.  It sounded pretty mid-forward to me, like a 103, or something, and this seemed to be accentuated by the speakers.

A wonderful post, haralanov, thanks you for posting it. It is pleasant to see that the person does not recite the idiocy that he heard from others but express his own thinking. I happen to disagreed with his approach. I do understand that driving 200 drivers he minimizes the minimal current that used on each voice coil and dramatically lower exertion of each driver and driver’s mechanical distortions. There is however so much more to it. Saying this I never heard   an attempt to use 200 drivers and I do not know what he is getting. It is impossible to say anything from video and the music he played was also not too stimulating.  I for sure would meet him and would be interested to hear the result. My  uninformed prediction is that it shall not be too stimulating but you never know where you find and where you loose…

N-set wrote:

I didn't make it to the 2nd video before and it's indeed interesting. Esp. how he describes the result of his trick: "addition of HF transforming into more air and resolution in the MF instead of more glow at the top" (around 2:30 at the video). It's somethig I'm fighting with in my context now.

Well, as I suspected it is not 200 drivers but 14. He has perhaps 200 driver at his storage abut they looks like do not work all together. The way how his 14 drivers work is foolishness. I still like this guy, even though I do not feel that his direction is rewarding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nMbiHfMz5M