Not much of that around, did you see "Fracknation"? I especially liked the very old news footage (40's-50's) of burning methane contaminated wells considered "irrelevant".
whats the difference....we are ruled by experst opinions anyway, and how they interpret data
That center will exhibit a radiation pattern that is vertically very wide (which in turn will send a lot of energy to the ceiling and the floor) and horizontally very narrow? How can this be desirable?
Hi Gary,
Welcome.
You wrote in your AES convention paper that the speaker is under development. What happend to the project?
Many thanks, I just tried with my office computer and it works, brilliant. Obviously the response below 300hz is not realistic, but I see you did put a note in the comments.
Haven't tried it, but I'm quite sure it will not work well.Omholt,
did you ever switch the CBTs left right? If yes, did it make a difference for your ears? I guess, it should make a difference to the better, but only guessing from theory. Real life might tell otherwise.
Sure. The sidewall treatment attenuates most of the sidewall reflections. I was quite shocked however who well it sounded with no treatment there. With other speakers, it sounds coloured to me. It doesn't with the CBTs. No harsh or fatiguing sound, despite the room is narrow. The difference is in the area of image and "pin pointing".
The low ceiling height makes some reflections arrive earlier then it would with a flat and higher ceiling. But they are still below -20 dB.
The absorbent behind the speaker does little. The frontwall contribution is well below -20 dB with no treatment and short distance.
Other then that there are some diffusors and basstraps on the backwall and cornes that contributes after 18 ms and later. Angle ceiling behind the listening position, as mentioned, sends energy back and wasn't treated with when these measurements were taken. The room was overall quite naked and there's no covering/curtain of the windows on the sides.
If I'm going to say something negative about the CBTs (yes, I'm not here to defend
), it is that a room with this size and with a sloping ceiling behind that focuses the energy back, you will get more comb filtering because of all the vertically drivers then what you would with a two-way waveguide/horn. And they may therfore end up sounding too hot in the treble without proper treatment. A low sloping ceiling in front and back of the speaker is really an acoustic nightmare. Not good for any speakers. When it's on the sides, you avoid it. But the room is too short in one distance for that work well.Hope that clarifies it.
It may have been modified differently. I haven't had time to read about it (se links). I would personally use a standing CBT behind a screen.
Center Speaker
CBT array center speaker data
Thanx for coming by Gary. I thought it looked different to the one in the challenge, but like I said, there is no info on the web other than some pictures.
So, whats the configuration of the one from the challenge?
If buyers start to make their buying decisions based on real data then the sellers will have no choice but to supply it, or get out of the market. But as long as people accept "expert opinions" about sound - much to the liking of the current genre of manufacturers - things will not change. And I should point out that ones own personal opinion falls under the "expert" category.
Read the book and all your questions will be answered.
I would much rather have it this way than rotated 90 degrees. But of course I'd rather controll the directivty in all planes not just one.
Bjorn Thanks for that link - the first time that I have seen decent data on a CBT. Not very impressive to me and not surprising either. A polar map of that data would look very bad.
You guys need to read the book that I referenced because the actual truth of the matter is exactly the opposite of what you believe. This is NOT some fly-by-night researcher. He won a Nobel Prize for his work. Anyone here have one of those?
Ok. I will never listen to Your "expert opinion" ever again
Don't - but do look at the data. But then don't accept anyone elses either - otherwise you are a hypocrite. Data tells the story better than I ever could or would even attempt to.
Data is very good and I agree with you. But you can manipulate it in any ways you want as well. For example, the very much topic of this thread. What is best, room reflexions or not reflexions, is maybe not only a matter of data.. Maybe one day, when we know the brain better, because this is what is really at play.
What prevents it from becoming omni below 300-400 Hz like other box speakers of the same width do? And what prevents dips in the 90 degree response from cone cancellation? The vertical pattern on the forward axis may be well controlled, but I'm not seeing anything in the design that controls horizontal pattern . . . (and I didn't hear any such control, either).
but I don't understand the data without an "expert opinion"
but I am advised not to trust any expert opinions...
"catch 22"
I don't