Then you heard incorrectly.
And your lack of understanding of the CBT concept is not a determinant factor.
If one examines the practical CBT horizontal dispersion pattern (that BTW displays a uniform power response), the 60 degree coverage effectively provides what is essentially an 180 degree coverage area at a typical listening distance. You are NOT limited to a particular spot laterally nor from front to back as the limitations of nearfield interdriver interaction are overcome. In addition, you are generally not limited by early arriving ceiling reflections requiring treatment due to the controlled Q nature of the vertical dispersion - which likewise exhibits a uniform power response.
http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/images/Card Back Large.png
What remains is a determination of the nature of the intended use (eg. stereo or surround) and the preferred nature of the image - a larger more amorphous image featuring a greater sense of 'envelopment' or a more precise accurate image.
Both are primarily the function of the room's acoustics. rendered easier with a speaker featuring a uniform power response. One should note the the more amorphously imaged sense of envelopment favored by some (e.g.Toole) for surround applications is significantly augmented by such a speaker, as the heavy lifting to create such a uniform laterally arriving soundfield is transferred from the room treatment to the source.
Thus descriptions of what is better is predicated upon well formed questions. The first being the proposed application as well as the preferred listening response - as this determines the overall choice of speaker and the subsequent integration into the room supported by the appropriate treatment to design the physical soundfields appropriate to elicit the desired psycho-acoustical response.
Without this, the discussion simply becomes one of a bunch of Scarecrows from the Wizard of Oz providing directions.
http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/images/Card Back Large.png
What remains is a determination of the nature of the intended use (eg. stereo or surround) and the preferred nature of the image - a larger more amorphous image featuring a greater sense of 'envelopment' or a more precise accurate image.
Both are primarily the function of the room's acoustics. rendered easier with a speaker featuring a uniform power response. One should note the the more amorphously imaged sense of envelopment favored by some (e.g.Toole) for surround applications is significantly augmented by such a speaker, as the heavy lifting to create such a uniform laterally arriving soundfield is transferred from the room treatment to the source.
Thus descriptions of what is better is predicated upon well formed questions. The first being the proposed application as well as the preferred listening response - as this determines the overall choice of speaker and the subsequent integration into the room supported by the appropriate treatment to design the physical soundfields appropriate to elicit the desired psycho-acoustical response.
Without this, the discussion simply becomes one of a bunch of Scarecrows from the Wizard of Oz providing directions.
I heard "incorrectly" ? ? ?
You mean to say that as I walked around the speaker and "heard" a change in frequency resoponse I was just "hearing incorrectly" ? ? ? It wasn't the speaker, it was my "hearing" that was changing?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'll have to think about that . . .
envelopment does not happen with stereo, sorry. AS broadening, that's what you get, or not, depending on the radiation pattern.. very different thing!
I think Dewardh got it pretty clear, if you want the broadening, go wide, if not, go tight. End of the story! It is just a matter of preference, nobody is wrong, nobody is right. Ridiculous. A well done dipole is great, so does a well done WG. To be honest, I'd like both!
And if I wanted to be really honest, I was very interested in the CBT when it came out, I have an immense respect for Keele. So I asked someone who has been if not involved with the design, at least very close with the making. He advised to keep the Orions and not bother.. go figure! Just a meaningless anecdote anyway..
Last edited:
I heard "incorrectly" ? ? ?
You mean to say that as I walked around the speaker and "heard" a change in frequency resoponse I was just "hearing incorrectly" ? ? ? It wasn't the speaker, it was my "hearing" that was changing?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'll have to think about that . . .
Keep rolling your eyes.
What you were hearing was not the uniform power response of the speaker but the effects of the superposition of reflections upon the direct signal!
You will pardon me, but i am going to try to remain above the 'debate' of those for whom small signal analysis is prime and yet seem amazed that room acoustics play a fundamentally predominate role in the perception of the speaker in a bounded space.
If you would like to discuss the effects - either physically or psycho-acoustically - of the superposition of direct and indirect signals (either identical or modified compared to the direct signal). I will be glad. But it is a waste of time until an entire host of questions and suppositions/goals/ preferences/etc. have first been defined as it seems a waste to explore the entire subject of acoustics and psycho-acoustics in a small acoustical space with each post.
envelopment does not happen with stereo, sorry. AS broadening, that's what you get, or not, depending on the radiation pattern.. very different thing!
I think Dewardh got it pretty clear, if you want the broadening, go wide, if not, go tight. End of the story! It is just a matter of preference, nobody is wrong, nobody is right. Ridiculous. A well done dipole is great, so does a well done WG. To be honest, I'd like both!
And if I wanted to be really honest, I was very interested in the CBT when it came out, I have an immense respect for Keele. So I asked someone who has been if not involved with the design, at least very close with the making. He advised to keep the Orions and not bother.. go figure! Just a meaningless anecdote anyway..
Meaningless indeed. Just as the Bessel is a meaningless topology - for those who do not appreciate its application and instead try to apply one size solutions to all situations. I term it operator error.
Its is interesting that you are now the arbitor of logical definitions of words.
In the word of acoustics, envelopment does have meaning. And while I am not a disciple, you might want to debate the meaning of the word "envelopment" with such folks as Toole. Or for that matter, wuith a whole raft of folks who were intimate with the development of most of the small room acoustical models ranging from folks such as Hidley, Newell, Davis, D'Antonio, Berger and MANY more.
Now, if you want to discuss the effects of a well behaved later arriving laterally oriented exponentially decaying soundfield, i will be glad to do so. On the other hand if you think that claiming the rights - or the knowledge of acoustics - sufficient to serve as the arbiter of acoustical terms, then it is a waste of time, as you clearly display a lack of understanding of the concept while you focus on a term's spelling.
Last edited:
Well, they are not omnis..... So when you go behind them, you're hearing primarily the room contribution/decay. So the response would definetly change behind them. Nothing new there. Most will agree that omnis are not great speakers for a bounded space.I heard "incorrectly" ? ? ?
You mean to say that as I walked around the speaker and "heard" a change in frequency resoponse I was just "hearing incorrectly" ? ? ? It wasn't the speaker, it was my "hearing" that was changing?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'll have to think about that . . .
The response is encredible flat over a wide area with the CBTs (In front of them dewardh). I've measured the response at many places in the room, and above 200 Hz it hardly changes. I never seen anything like that before. Also, at different heights it almost the same. It's when the standing waves kick in you start to see major differences.
In a uniform manner!
Yes! the gain does vary with height!
The frequency power response does not!
So, unless you are listening while jumping up and down on a trampoline. you adjust the gain control accordingly! As the critical aspect is that a broadband response varies uniformly in the vertical plane, just as it does in the horizontal plane! Unlike speakers with collapsing polars which also vary in the horizontal and vertical planes. albeit with a non-uniform power response - where not even adept use of a gain control will help!
Folks need to stop and review what terms mean, both in terms of the various aspects of speaker's spatial polar dispersion as well as become aware of the speakers (and listener's) interaction with regards to both direst and indirect energy in a small bounded acoustical space cognizant in the context of a desired room response model!
Last edited:
I heard "incorrectly" ? ? ?
You mean to say that as I walked around the speaker and "heard" a change in frequency resoponse I was just "hearing incorrectly" ? ? ? It wasn't the speaker, it was my "hearing" that was changing?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'll have to think about that . . .
Oh no....
You mean I misinterpreted the statement to mean that as they walked "around the speaker" in its direct signal path - when they were actually referring to "around the speaker" as in BACK of it?
And the sound Changed!?!?!?!
...
Ya think!
The CBT is NOT an omni-directional speaker, nor was it ever designed to be; nor is that a desirable attribute for use in a small acoustical space!
...And who was taking issue with the meaning of terms???
If that is the level on which this 'discussion' is predicated, its hopeless... ;-)))
Nothing new indeed . . . they seemed to behave like any other "box" loudspeaker (in the horizontal axis) . . . "omni" below baffle step, and of varying directionality above. Which resulted in a different sound to the sides and rear . . .
Oh? Is that so . . .
Are you suggesting that explains why the CBT didn't sound very good . . . that it's because they "sound" "omni" at low frequency and "in front of them" (due to their "180 degree" dispersion)? ? ?
The room I heard them in was about 25x50 feet . . . is that "a small acoustical space"? My "walkaround" was less than 5 feet from the speakers. Does "superposition of reflections" dominate at that distance?
You've got your "theories", I've got my ears. My ears don't hear your theories . . .
Omholt, what is the purpose?
Apparently you are dealing with those who revel in their willful ignorance and who delight in impressing themselves as they tilt as nonsensical windmills all while displaying an uncanny lack of understanding of the spatial characteristics of a speaker whose topology they clearly do not understand.
Yes, that is a "small acoustical space" as you would know if you were familiar with the definitions developed and the behaviors decribed by Manfred Schroeder.
Is the purpose of this exchange to merely demonstrate that you have no knowledge of acoustics, or that ears combined with a brain provide a much greater platform from which to respond.?
Last edited:
No it isn't.
..and you very well know that.
Lynn Olsen did not like the sound coming from the Summas at I believe an older RMAF.
He was kind enough however to suggest that the reason for that conclusion was due to the mass-market amplifier you were using with the Summas.
That's a "poor review" under "show conditions" by any standard. It also precisely parallels Ohmolts comment:
"You cannot dismiss a speaker based simply on an experience from a show. Gedlee speakers have also received poor reviews from demos like that. But the fact is that they are both great speakers."
Which wasn't a derogatory statement AT ALL.
In fact, if anything it was complementary - but you seem to view even the slightest criticism as an attack, so it probably never dawned on you that it was complementary.
I was at that show - and in the room when Lynn Olsen listened to the Summas. Some observations:
1) The speakers seemed to be incredibly polarizing. I think a lot of this is because the treble from waveguides does NOT sound like the treble from domes. Or horns for that matter. So if you *like* that sound, the Summas are going to sound a bit 'odd' at first. Personally, I would argue that the Summas are doing it right, and the dome tweeters are doing it wrong. But it's definitely *different*, and IMHO that's the reason it was so polarizing.
2) Lynn may have come back to listen to them another day, but when I was there with Geddes and Olsen, he only stuck around for about 10-15 min.
3) I met five people from the diyaudio forum that day, including Geddes and Olsen. And 40% of the people that I met ended up buying a speaker with waveguides. I bought the Summas, and another person I met that day bought Unity horns.
Wow, read that! I would just answer.. what are your psychological issues really? You seem to have a few to display such an aggressive behaviour. No, you don't want to share, that's obvious. And yes, I stand for what I said, stereo in small rooms does not create envelopment. Not that I wanted to be anal about anything, but I just don't like your attitude.
Meaningless actually not, if you knew who gave me the feedback.. but who cares.. Mr "superior"...
Jesus.. when you think we share the same passion, I am glad we do, what would it be like otherwise!
Last edited:
Yes, apparently you did "misinterpret". Although it's not clear (to me) how "walked around the speaker" could be misinterpreted (when horizontal polar response is the topic of discussion).
The perceived frequency response of the speakers changed (significantly) with listening position. They do not have a uniform horizontal polar response. They do not have a uniform power response. They seemed to behave very much like the typical "box" loudspeaker in that regard.
Sorry, but a later properly designed arriving soundfield does provide the sense of ambiance and envelopment. This has been of importance ever since the advent of the LEDE/RFZ room acoustical model and extending to both Toole's enamorization with surround and the ambechoic model of D'Antonio.
I really don't care about what you like or don't like. I have made several posts based upon the physics of a speakers behavior, Well cognizant of room acoustics, and thus far a few who lack a displayed understanding of room acoustics and speaker characteristic, but who claim a prodigious acumen with semantics have misrepresented objective physical facts.
If you wish to discuss the physics of the speaker's spatial response or room acoustics, please do so while incorporating an element of objective fact cognizant of established best practices rather than subjective assumption.
And if you like, I will gladly be held accountable to terms as presented on such texts as Sound System Engineering, by Davis & Patronis, Acoustic Absorbers & Diffusers by D'Antonio & Cox, or any of the texts by Toole, Newell, Schroeder, Long, etc.
Objective facts? the way I understand it, is Greisinger's precise definition, diffuse reflexions that happen after the image broadening treshold, so after 50ms, and mostly after 80ms ,which is very unlikely to happen in any real world rooms, and I believe Tool thinks the same. It's very easy to experiment with any cheap receiver and surround channels where the limits really are. The room can of course carry and amplify the cues in the recording ,but by no means create them itself, unless you live in a castle.. Ambiance yes, true envelopment no. D'Antonio is exactly as vague in the book you mentioned, I have a copy ,thanks.
Last edited:
that is also what I think about it, and that's why I think it's necessary to consider the loudspeakers and the room as a system working together instead of trying to take the room out of the sound equation