SDA effect

[Neskahi]

Could it be: that the SDA effect is actually disorienting when "initially" sitting down for a listening session? And does our brain and or senses have to "adjust" to what some reviews have called trickery in the science of SDA's? I ask this because it seems to take a while[20 min.] to pick up on the sound stage and depth with my SDA's. Always wondered if this might be a fair assessment of
SDA's and the forum is not exactly smokin tonight so I thought I would ask.

[Neskahi]

Even after amps have warmed up.

[ben62670]

Placement is key. I never feel that it takes time for the SDA effect to actually come in to effect. The only ones that did that had a dimensional tweeter, and never cleaned up till I reworked the XO, and disabled the dimensional tweeter.

[F1nut]

Could it be: that the SDA effect is actually disorienting when "initially" sitting down for a listening session?

Nope. Sounds 100% right to me each and every time.

[BaggedLancer]

There is no such thing as the "SDA Effect."

[dorokusai]

It is an effect.

[treitz3]

....that IME is present from start to finish.

[F1nut]

It is NOT an effect.

[dorokusai]

Whatever makes you feel better.

[F1nut]

Doesn't make me feel better, makes my music sound real. Nothing else comes as close.

[MillerLiteScott]

I am also in the "it's NOT and effect" camp.

My take on it is that is more of a time correction based on how humans hear sounds.

That's all.

Scott

[Jonesy]

I'm probably way in over my head here but what the hell.....

I would likely fall into the "it's an effect" camp. Everything in the chain is an effect. If you are listening to Led Zeppelin, 'Houses of the Holy' as I am now, you are hearing an effect. If you were listening to Led Zeppelin play any track off 'Houses of the Holy' live you were hearing an effect. I'm no Satriani but I've played guitar enough to know that most players use a combination of string>pick>pick-up>amp>pedal/rack-mount processor to achieve a certain 'sound'. That is an "effect".

That said I believe there is nothing wrong with 'effects'. If the SDA 'effect' blows your skirt up, great. I am hoping to have my skirt blown up sometime soon and get into a pair of SDA's. That said, let the flames cut loose, as I've obviously never heard a pair of SDA's. I do, however, believe in the logic laid out above. It's all an 'effect'. I want the SDA 'effect'!

With that said.....stomp the novice. :)

[Stew]

a time correction based on how humans hear sounds.

+1
SDA's don't add any effect. They remove a time based distortion that's inherent to conventional speakers.

[heiney9]

Could it be: that the SDA effect is actually disorienting when "initially" sitting down for a listening session? And does our brain and or senses have to "adjust" to what some reviews have called trickery in the science of SDA's? I ask this because it seems to take a while[20 min.] to pick up on the sound stage and depth with my SDA's. Always wondered if this might be a fair assessment of
SDA's and the forum is not exactly smokin tonight so I thought I would ask.

No absolutely not. The way SDA's reproduce music is much more natural than stereo. It corrects aural sensory that regular stereo can't reproduce. If you read the white paper on how SDA's work you'd get what I'm saying.

Some may need to adjust, but the adjustment is from the unnatural (stereo) to the more natural innteraural crosstalk cancellation.

H9

[Face]

http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/whitepapers/SDA_WhitePaper.pdf

[heiney9]

http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/whitepapers/SDA_WhitePaper.pdf

That's a great start but the White Paper I was referring to was the original one published in Audio magazine June/1984. There is a reprint in the SDA compendium but I've never seen it online.

The White Paper on the Surround Bar is a good read but the original SDA white paper has a lot more detail and explanation. If one is really interested I'm sure you get a copy from your local library.

Audio Magazine- June 1984.

H9

[MillerLiteScott]

+1
SDA's don't add any effect. They remove a time based distortion that's inherent to conventional speakers.


Actually, if I understand correctly. SDA's remove a time based distortion that's inherent with the shape of the human head and position of our ears.

[danger boy]

it's not an effect, it's a sound field more than anything.

[heiney9]

Effect is really the wrong word. It's a scientific process much like stereo. No one calls stereo an effect when comparing it to mono. Atleast I don't.

SDA's set up properly have such a natural sound to them. Certainly more realistic to real world sound than stereo. The auditory cues with SDA's playing are much more realistic than stereo.

We have become so accustomed to stereo that sometimes it's hard to change gears and for some the SDA's sound foreign when they actually are more realistic to how we hear things around us in the real world.

Neither is perfect and recordings and the process used to record some things gets in the way sometimes. But when everything falls into place listening to SDA's it's a great experience.

H9

[ShinAce]

Two definitions of effect:
5: power to bring about a result
7 a: a distinctive impression

If we use that, then SDA is an effect. In the end, it doesn't matter what you call it, the technology and experience is the same.

[Stew]

When we hear a live sound, it reaches the nearest ear first followed by the other ear a very short time later. Our brains use this time delay, among other things, to locate the source of the sound. When that live sound is recorded and reproduced, conventional speakers add an extra time delayed sound known as interaural crosstalk (the "distortion" I referred to earlier). SDA's simply cancel this extra time delayed sound thus restoring our ability to interpret spatial cues. No effect.

[ShinAce]

It's the spatial effect of live performers from a fixed number of point sources. It is caused by the use of SDA technology with the intent of a specific impression. Cause and effect.

Can we please just move on to what we personally enjoy.

[dorokusai]

We'll never agree on the semantics of it all but I seriously doubt anyone stopped enjoying anything in the first place.

[heiney9]

We'll never agree on the semantics of it all but I seriously doubt anyone stopped enjoying anything in the first place.

That is a true statement.

[GV#27]

Im thinking the word "enhancement" would be more suitable than effect?

[treitz3]

Ok, I could care less one way or another as to whether it is an effect or not. In fact this thread may be a result of my other thread about the "SDA effect" I heard at the last mini-Charlotte PF so if you want, spank me. I am to blame.

The thing is that it sure is a whole lot easier to say "SDA effect" than it is to say " The SDA correction of the inherent problem that all other conventional speakers suffer from. When we hear a live sound, it reaches the nearest ear first followed by the other ear a very short time later. Our brains use this time delay, among other things, to locate the source of the sound. When that live sound is recorded and reproduced, conventional speakers add an extra time delayed sound known as inter-aural crosstalk . SDA's simply cancel this extra time delayed sound thus restoring our ability to interpret spatial cues."

So, after the spanking is done....how would you refer to the SDA "fill-in-the-blank" as the commonly misquoted "SDA effect" without going on with a paragraph as to what the SDA "whatever" is?


Treitz3
SDA History Infidel

[dorokusai]

The "effect" comment is WAY before you Tom.....don't feel bad.

[ben62670]

Im thinking the word "enhanchment" would be more suitable than effect?

Na. That makes me think of breasts.

[ShinAce]

Im thinking the word "enhanchment" would be more suitable than effect?

I read enchantment the first time.

[ben62670]

///\\\

[mmadden28]

So, after the spanking is done....how would you refer to the SDA "fill-in-the-blank" as the commonly misquoted "SDA effect" without going on with a paragraph as to what the SDA "whatever" is?


How about SDA technology as its referred to in the whitepaper?

What does the "E" in LFE stand for again? And what Effects are sent to the sub? Special Effects or just certain frequencies? I am thinking "Effect" can have multiple meanings here as in the rest of this discussion.

Check out The wiktionary site here (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effect) on "effect", specifically the filmology entry (#2), and the sound engineering entries (#3 & 4).

[GV#27]

I read enchantment the first time.he he.I guess I should proof read before hitting submit.

[ShinAce]

I remember the US army once built a crazy tetrahedron looking thing for fighter pilots. The original design was for 200+ full range speakers all around the test subject.

Can you imagine the processing involved to get it sound just right using speaker phase? Either that or you only play the one speaker you want for that direction.

[reeltrouble1]

what a bunch of geeks.

RT1

[TroyD]

Stereo is an effect as well, it's an illusion of reality...so, in that sense, if we want to get wrapped up in semantics, sure, it's an effect the same as stereo is an effect.

To answer the question though, no, I've never found SDA to sound anything but natural and have never found it to sound artificial or contrived.

BDT

[madmax]

I've heard the SDA effect on many SDA systems including mine so there is one for sure. However, when set up properly AND everything else is right the effect goes away completely and leaves you with pure soundstage. F1Nut had his set up in such a way that absolutely no evidence of an effect was observed. I think instead of calling it an effect maybe it should be called "non-optimized SDA artifact" which is what it is.

[analog97]

Wowee....lots of opinions about whether there is an SDA effect or not. To me, the question is moot. The SDA's are well-designed loudspeakers. There is, by definition, an "effect". Unplug the IC and compare. By subtraction, one "hears" the effect. So it exists (at least to me). I suggest we all put on our metaphysical tap-dancing shoes and re-think the basic question put forward in this thread. Maybe I'll put on one of my mono LP's and compare with and w/o the IC. Anyone venture a guess whether there will be an "effect"?

[riker1384]

I'm confused by the SDA effect. It says it eliminates crosstalk, but why is that a good thing? It might make for better phantom center images, but I don't think it should make for good overall stereo. The lack of crosstalk is part of what makes headphones sound unnatural.

That white paper seems to imply that the SDA speakers are designed to be used with binaural recordings (dummy-head microphones) rather than regular stereo. Has anyone tried listening to binaural recordings on SDAs? They aren't very common.

[Lasareath]

The lack of crosstalk is part of what makes headphones sound unnatural.

Crosstalk in a Non-SDA system can also be derived from the sounds bouncing all over the room. If you have good sound treatments in your listening room a non-sda speaker system will sound very good as well.

Riker have you heard SDA's before?,

When you close your eyes you can pinpoint the location of the all the members in the band. It's an amazing effect. But, is it an effect?, I don't think so, I think it should be called "True Stereo" and that's it.

Sal

[Face]

When you close your eyes you can pinpoint the location of the all the members in the band. It's an amazing effect. But, is it an effect?, I don't think so, I think it should be called "True Stereo" and that's it.
Sal
Sal, that effect is also possible without SDA's.

I've only heard two pairs of SDA's, your TL's and my 2B's, so my experience is limited. The only advantage I've noticed so far is that the soundstage can extend further past the speakers, in height and width.

[Neskahi]

Maybe it's not an "effect" but it does "create" and effect. But anyway. I'm thinkin it's almost a 4th dimension since we know it's artificially reproduced music but sounds so good.
There's definitely something more with SDA's or we wouldn't have such a following and there are so many high dollar speakers out there that already have a 3 dimensional effect of "stereo", by definition. Interesting insight by all that commented. Thanks.

[heiney9]

Sal, that effect is also possible without SDA's.

I've only heard two pairs of SDA's, your TL's and my 2B's, so my experience is limited. The only advantage I've noticed so far is that the soundstage can extends further past the speakers, in height and width.

Actually very few other conventional speakers if any can provide the soundstage and pinpoint accuracy of a proper;y set-up pair of SDA's.

Ribbon and electrostatic certainly can provide stunning imaging but as with any type of speaker system there are always trade offs.

I have never been able to get anything close the SDA experience with any other speaker. LSi's pale in comparison.

[heiney9]

Maybe it's not an "effect" but it does "create" and effect. But anyway. I'm thinkin it's almost a 4th dimension since we know it's artificially reproduced music but sounds so good.
There's definitely something more with SDA's or we wouldn't have such a following and there are so many high dollar speakers out there that already have a 3 dimensional effect of "stereo", by definition. Interesting insight by all that commented. Thanks.

Nothing artificial about Stereo Dimensional Array. It's closer to the way we hear things in real life than practically any other speaker system.

[Neskahi]

Artificial only in that it's man-made. Poor choice of words on my part again. And you are
correct in saying in saying closer to real life sound. Why doesnt someone capitalize on this
technology today with a little marketing and a real product to do so?

[dorokusai]

Polk Audio IS and HAS been capitalizing on it with SDA Surround, which is the evolution of the original SDA concept. They currently have 3 marketed examples, Surround Bar, Surround Bar50(Much Better) and the Surround Bar 360(Amazing).

[Neskahi]

Would the Bar50 outperform 1C's sitting next to a large screen TV [2 channel]? Physical size aside.

[heiney9]

Artificial only in that it's man-made. Poor choice of words on my part again. And you are
correct in saying in saying closer to real life sound. Why doesnt someone capitalize on this
technology today with a little marketing and a real product to do so?

I'll even refine my explanation further saying SDA is closer to the way we localize sound in real life. That's the key to eliminating cross talk.

[dorokusai]

It's not designed to sit next to a television, so no. The SB50 is more on par with the smaller SDA(SDA CRS for example) as there is inherently a size limitation vs the larger models(SDA1C +). That's just my opinion.

If you add the requisite subwoofer, I'd doubt you hear a difference between the two applications. I've never done a H2H but based on hearing almost every original SDA model, and the new stuff, I can make an educated guess. The SB50 does what the original SHOULD have done in the first place, which was add L&R SDA drivers.