Sure i won't discuss the fun... Claims for whatever technical superiority are what upset me...
Is the hyperbolic litterature used to market and sell technology (Active Wave Focusing Solution...
) really necessary? Maybe consumers simply love hype...
Attachments
Last edited:
See the Smyth Realiser. It does all those and gets rave reviews, even from some hard core folks here on the forum. I have yet to test it, but hope to soon.
I have heard a similar, but much simpler, system from DTS. It worked well enough.
Buff, Gearslutz... But It Yourself Audio... Gear drug addicts... Zap!
Some of them yes, others are people who use speakers as tools (normally the ones spending the bigger money) to do their work so when something comes along that allows them to almost literally see (*almost*) their work much more clearly and therefore enable them to do better work... Yes they get excited and enthusiastic. Just like getting anb expensive, technically amazing lens for a photographer where everything is so much sharper and no colour aboration or whatever it's called where the colours begin to prism out..
Maybe you don't like those types of people? Who knows but is your prerogative..
Is this a discussion for Gear Sluts (aka Biyaudio) on a Diyaudio topic about diffractions control...Remember that?
This ought to be a discussion to which D2D contribution should strictly limit to topic, and obviously they didn't want to miss the opportunity to BUZZZ...
And in those cases, as you might understand, i will fight the intruder with NO MERCY!!!!
Learning from other people's designs and talking about how effective those designs are is what DIYaudio is all about. All
Sure i won't discuss the fun... Claims for whatever technical superiority are what upset me...
Is the hyperbolic litterature used to market and sell technology (Active Wave Focusing Solution...
Maybe consumers simply love hype...
Now that discussion is definately off topic and not good for a diy forum..
No, but i think in a diy forum interest should be driven mainly by how to get things done rather than hanging around after the ultimate technological novelty...
That said i must also say that i apreciate the efforts made by Keyser to openly share his personal opinions about loudspeaker design, beyond marketing hype.
Directional speakers don't really reduce the (eventual) reflections in a room all that much, but you can't just think of the spectrum plot at your ears. Directional speakers (like Synergies, etc.) most importantly change the directions and the delay of reflections -- reflections with those generally happen a little later, and first come from behind and from the sides. Certainly sensing the direction that sound and it reflection (and its delay) comes from is something evolution has optimised for. My experience with omnis is that they can't be placed near anything and still have little to no image (but do have lots of atmosphere).
Imaging (pin point imaging...
) , that fake soundfield recreation provided by stereo... With a hint of imagination, even mono can deliver a convincing sense of depth thanks to room contribution, and at least important things are solidly anchored right in the middle...
Anybody is free to choose his own prefered poison. I confess i prefer beer to gear...
Last edited:
And maybe the reflections from the front wall also:
1. Turn the dipoles within the 60° stereo triangle so that they face the listening position on-axis, then some more slightly off axis toward the inside of the listening axis, so you are finally listening at an 15° off-axis-angle, seen from the dipole. At this slight bias, there will be virtually no change of the frequency response, and it may even have a slight advantage: This bias may smear (out) some of the lateral baffle diffractions artefacts, because they will arrive at slightly different delays (but this is not the main point of this exercise).
2. Then mount a flat, tall (eg. 6-7 feet) wedge onto the front wall, facing into the room in the middle symmetry line between the two dipoles, e.g. made of two plaster/cartonboards (=walls). Set the angles of the wedge so that the dipole's perpendicular axis (eg. 90°, where there theoretically is no sound output) will be reflected to the hotspot where you sit while listening.
You will then theoretically have the dipole null reflected from the frontwall into your ears. In other words: No refected sound from the speaker!
Try this by drawing the setup on a piece of paper first - the wedge will be astonishingly flat and decent.
Last edited:
Imho, the only problem with front wall reflection, is that most speakers suck when listened from the back...
Dipole might help to illuminate the front wall, i personaly try to do that using toed in monopoles, so that front wall reflection has some spectral similarity to direct sound, not only bass low mid boost...
Dipole might help to illuminate the front wall, i personaly try to do that using toed in monopoles, so that front wall reflection has some spectral similarity to direct sound, not only bass low mid boost...
Bill were you in the room for the Walsh redos at the Dayton Speaker contest that year I was a judge there? Maybe you don't remember them, but Don Keele and I were really surprised by them. They had an astonishing image, like no other speaker we heard that day. A sort of pinpoint image that I've rarely heard - and that GDO would probably declare "Rubbish!"
Of course they were a long way from any walls. In that setting they worked amazingly well.
Bill were you in the room for the Walsh redos at the Dayton Speaker contest that year I was a judge there? Maybe you don't remember them, but Don Keele and I were really surprised by them. They had an astonishing image, like no other speaker we heard that day. A sort of pinpoint image that I've rarely heard - and that GDO would probably declare "Rubbish!"
Of course they were a long way from any walls. In that setting they worked amazingly well.
I said FAKE not rubbish...
Rubbish is what serious audiophiles will consider my "hall sound" dominated by reverberated sound field.
Last edited:
Nothing particular specific in mind, just curious, but don't feel pressed at this point in time produce new measurements only for me, I understand that any quick measurements are at risk also coming with flaws, so take your time.
Tone burst, ok I see, yes that's true it's easier to interpret, Linkwitz have some good reading on the topic.
Issues in speaker design - 2
And this link too has two illustrative plots, it's obvious that a few cycles of ringing higher up in frequency means much short time and hence get's more "buried" in a CSD plot along the time axis.
Frequency Response: Waterfalls
Interesting, but what has no solution to me is Accurate Reproduction, unless maybe when the input is the recording of a sound source in mono at one point in an anechoic space ( no soundfield) and the output is reproducted in same conditions, same distance and no soundfield.
But even in this case neither the source recorded nor the speaker reproducing it are point sources, so that for me Accurate Reproduction is moot: no practical relevance...
Not to mention, stereo which is a creative intent to fool our minds with a make believe soundfield...
Not to mention that our ears are not a pair of mikes and what they do is Critical/Creative listening, so that the point is Creative Reproduction should be clever and well made enough to fool our minds and make the listening as enjoyable as the real live event, though input and output are referenced to different soundfields and are different events...
Stuff not recommended for squared headed techno freaks...
I agree with almost everything you say, but not about your conclusion.
I do not accept the idea that you can not do it, it's the usual scorchy for not addressing the problems.
All our progress in the field of science is the result of research, what many years ago it seemed science fiction today is reality.
Everything can be improved...