Hi,
I have used TV Speakers (the TV needs to be quite good) as center and also center fill in. It especially helps pull the image to the centre (dialogue onto the screen) from seats towards the sides.
I did not find this beneficial with music or improve overall sound, but I use pretty well controlled directivity speakers. It may do more for more problematic speaker systems.
Ciao T
I have used TV Speakers (the TV needs to be quite good) as center and also center fill in. It especially helps pull the image to the centre (dialogue onto the screen) from seats towards the sides.
I did not find this beneficial with music or improve overall sound, but I use pretty well controlled directivity speakers. It may do more for more problematic speaker systems.
Ciao T
Hi Thorsten- in my iteration the TV was substantially lower volume than the mains When I know that the wifey's used the TV speakers, I turn them off before listening, it's only when they're quiet and the speakers are dominating the SPL by 15dB+ that this happens incidentally.
They're not "quite good" speakers, garbage in an LG flatscreen, but the demands in these instances are low.
Listening is typically on or near a sweet spot. My speakers control directivity pretty consistently down to 250hz, as well-controlled dipoles. Below 250 it's a 15" in a big vented box, so there's some LF work yet to be done. Lucky for me I have M-frame dipoles built, just need to test if they'll go up to 250 happily.
The odd thing with my dipoles is that they behave very differently than others I've had, because the mids are "nearly nude". This means that as I move around the room (I have a living room, not a dedicated listening space) and walk to the sides of them (getting closer) they get quieter due to the side cancellation. It's rather interesting in that they're one of a very few speakers I've experienced where the phantom center really is rock solid, and they absolutely cannot be localized. Sound... floats....
I should note that with the current setup I haven't tried the TV sound being on but lower. But this was true for the previous iteration (dipole above 1k) and not everybody can deal with speakers the size of JBL 4345s
They're not "quite good" speakers, garbage in an LG flatscreen, but the demands in these instances are low.
Listening is typically on or near a sweet spot. My speakers control directivity pretty consistently down to 250hz, as well-controlled dipoles. Below 250 it's a 15" in a big vented box, so there's some LF work yet to be done. Lucky for me I have M-frame dipoles built, just need to test if they'll go up to 250 happily.
The odd thing with my dipoles is that they behave very differently than others I've had, because the mids are "nearly nude". This means that as I move around the room (I have a living room, not a dedicated listening space) and walk to the sides of them (getting closer) they get quieter due to the side cancellation. It's rather interesting in that they're one of a very few speakers I've experienced where the phantom center really is rock solid, and they absolutely cannot be localized. Sound... floats....
I should note that with the current setup I haven't tried the TV sound being on but lower. But this was true for the previous iteration (dipole above 1k) and not everybody can deal with speakers the size of JBL 4345s
Last edited:
Hi,
Yes, in my one too.
Yup, this happens with speakers that have well controlled directivity.
However once you a fair bit off centre the image pulls off...
Ciao T
Yes, in my one too.
Yup, this happens with speakers that have well controlled directivity.
However once you a fair bit off centre the image pulls off...
Ciao T
Hi,
Nope, I'm not set up to make them.
I simply looked at the off axis plots and estimated 6dB Beamwidth, like we did in the 80's. I'd call it 50 X 30 Degrees. The Driver is close to constant directivity across most of the range (550Hz - 25KHz)
It uses a huge planar (not accordion) driver with a phasegrid and waveguide, good down to around 600Hz, though horizontal pattern control let's go earlier, Mid-Bass is 8".
Ciao T
Nope, I'm not set up to make them.
I simply looked at the off axis plots and estimated 6dB Beamwidth, like we did in the 80's. I'd call it 50 X 30 Degrees. The Driver is close to constant directivity across most of the range (550Hz - 25KHz)
It uses a huge planar (not accordion) driver with a phasegrid and waveguide, good down to around 600Hz, though horizontal pattern control let's go earlier, Mid-Bass is 8".
Ciao T
The key in achieving this, however, appears to have been the RANGE of directivity control. It didn't happen this way until I achieved the directivity down into the lower mids. With Constant directivity horn 2 ways, XO'd at 1kHz, the image was dramatically less stable, and because there were boundaries the off-axis attenuation and effect while moving around presented itself quite a bit differently.
This is true for both the AMT based horns I'm using now, when they were used as a 2 way rather than a 3 way (they're not strictly CD, but are pretty close in the horizontal plane. Verticals beamwidth tapers quite a bit in the top octaves), and for a geddes-style waveguide- not perfect OSWG contour but very close and held CD very well indeed.
Both of these systems performed excellently compared to your typical "spray sound everywhere inconsistently" box speaker, but the extension of CD behavior through the mids was a huge change in center image solidity and eliminating the directional "identity" of the speakers.
Hi,
While not ATM, I have been using systems with directivity down to (relatively) low frequencies, including dipoles, large horns etc.
Ciao T
While not ATM, I have been using systems with directivity down to (relatively) low frequencies, including dipoles, large horns etc.
Ciao T
Well, without any actual measurements all of this is a matter of belief. I don't like to base my opinion on beliefs.
No worries Thorsten, not trying to "tell you how it is" just reporting my own experiences how center fill performed with a couple systems for the greater good. I'm aware that you've built a thing or two in your day
Not being easy to share and not being "actual" are two different things. I have a number of speakers I've looked at on and off axis in many positions, via measurement. What I don't have are measurements I can share via nice pretty polars.
I appreciate being a stickler for data, but for some people, confirmation that it's working as expected is enough. I certainly don't care to come home from working with data and reports all day and have my speaker fun be dominated by measurements that, while precise, don't tell me anything my rapid style measurements don't. I prefer to spend my time conceptualizing and making sawdust.
Not sure what you're trying to say - the confirmation if something is "working as expected" is in the polars. A subset of measurements won't reveal the whole picture. I consider room effects as a major contributor to sound perception so I like to see a speaker's behavior in 3D.
Having fun in making sawdust is something completely different.
Last edited:
The PROOF is in the polars. The confirmation does not require that step, if you're not trying to prove it to an audience. I know that you want everything proven, and that's fine, but you need to accept that there are people for whom measurements are a means to an end and don't necessarily need the vigor you prefer.
There's more than one way down the path. I know you're more comfortable with an extremely data-intensive environment, and that's absolutely a very valid approach, but some don't need or want that level of vigor, and can confirm their directivity patterns easily enough for their purposes without the efforts required for high-res polar plots.
So at one point we should see some proof, right? Problem is that this step was skipped most of the time in the last decades. Or how often do you see high resolution balloon data? It's virtually nonexistent in audioland. Even if you get to see such data, it's smoothed beyond recognition.
So, using only a subset of measurements in development is perfectly fine but not showing any proof of what the finished product does isn't.
Both of you are right. But the fact remains that measuring polars is the most difficult process if it has to be done correctly. It requires for instance a registered Arta, dragging the speakers outside, an indexed rotating support... Gainphile here is a specialist.
What to do if the speakers are too big or are mechanically unable to be rotated ( as a swinging line array of 50 Kg) ? Turning around with the mike will only provide wrong datas.
I have a personal methode : a medical stethoscope. The good ones have a choice between using a coupling membrane or a small horn, the horn is for us. Send a pink noise or sines and move your new sensor around, up and down. Under 1 meter it's very revealing and so fast that it becomes a routine. By evidence it's not a linear device but here it's a comparative process, not an absolute value determination.
It's also not a tool for communication, but it's not a subjective personal appreciation as "working as expected". If you have doubts, think of all the doctors using this tool daily and dealing with death or life.
What to do if the speakers are too big or are mechanically unable to be rotated ( as a swinging line array of 50 Kg) ? Turning around with the mike will only provide wrong datas.
I have a personal methode : a medical stethoscope. The good ones have a choice between using a coupling membrane or a small horn, the horn is for us. Send a pink noise or sines and move your new sensor around, up and down. Under 1 meter it's very revealing and so fast that it becomes a routine. By evidence it's not a linear device but here it's a comparative process, not an absolute value determination.
It's also not a tool for communication, but it's not a subjective personal appreciation as "working as expected". If you have doubts, think of all the doctors using this tool daily and dealing with death or life.
Last edited:
Well, that all depends. "Should" perhaps for commercial loudspeakers, while on the other hand, many (most?) businesspeople say that sales cures all sins. When was the last time you saw meaningful data from Bose?
Certainly in my mind the threshold for hobbyists is lower, though while Thorsten is a professional (and I am to a far lesser extent), he's a niche producer (and I no longer sell anything).
Simply put, holding others to your own standards is usually a mistake. I've butted my head up against many a brick wall expecting people to hold some of my moral standards (usually about truthfulness and accountability) and have found- most people just don't match up well to each other in what they value. In this case, it's you with polar data. While I REALLY appreciate people's work in this regard, meaningful scans just don't fit into my priorities when I can, in a few minutes, look at response from hundreds of positions to see how a device is performing and have an understanding of the 3d performance of the loudspeaker based upon that. That doesn't mean that there's no value in the polars, just not enough value for me to take the efforts to make them happen.
I won't continue belaboring my point but I hope you see where I'm coming from here. I think my point about the watson method acting somewhat like multisubs- smoothing- is a pretty important point that could be leveraged to try a variety of "helper midrange" setups.
Hi Markus,
Did you read that I wrote "working from the off axis measurements"?
Had you asked nicely I might dug out the off axis measurements and made screen friendly and posted them, but I don't see the point now.
In the 80's I worked with many horns in Pro Audio systems. I can look at farly sparse set of off-axis (plus on axis) response and guess beamwidth quite correctly. In fact, I can often just look at the waveguide/horn and tell you what the resulting dispersion is.
In the market the speaker is for, it is sold primarily on the basis of efficiency and sound quality. The fact that it offers controlled directivity is also-run in the marketing features. It is targeted at users of low powered tube Amp's who usually don't really give a rat's *** about measurements. As a result I did not bother spending more time than essential on the measurements.
Incidentally, while not shopwn, my personal recommendation would be to build this speaker as (W)(MT)(W) to extend vertical directivity control to lower frequencies, but that would have increased cost above the target.
Anyway, I merely wanted to illustrate that it is NECESSARY to have vertical dispersion problems with waveguides or to have foam hats on speakers...
Ciao T
Did you read that I wrote "working from the off axis measurements"?
Had you asked nicely I might dug out the off axis measurements and made screen friendly and posted them, but I don't see the point now.
In the 80's I worked with many horns in Pro Audio systems. I can look at farly sparse set of off-axis (plus on axis) response and guess beamwidth quite correctly. In fact, I can often just look at the waveguide/horn and tell you what the resulting dispersion is.
In the market the speaker is for, it is sold primarily on the basis of efficiency and sound quality. The fact that it offers controlled directivity is also-run in the marketing features. It is targeted at users of low powered tube Amp's who usually don't really give a rat's *** about measurements. As a result I did not bother spending more time than essential on the measurements.
Incidentally, while not shopwn, my personal recommendation would be to build this speaker as (W)(MT)(W) to extend vertical directivity control to lower frequencies, but that would have increased cost above the target.
Anyway, I merely wanted to illustrate that it is NECESSARY to have vertical dispersion problems with waveguides or to have foam hats on speakers...
Ciao T
What is the alternative?
The one-speaker stereo setup? Yes I would like to build that one day!
Life's a bitch and then you die? We all know that but ultimately it is you that can and will choose if you're part of the problem or part of the solution.
We're getting a little bit off-topic here
What kind of setups are you thinking of?
Last edited:
Well you are trying to sell something, not me. I didn't want to be disrespectful or rude but the status quo of speaker performance metrics annoys me massively.
I think an elliptical waveguide could help.
Hi,
I agree, basically a non-axis symmetrical waveguide is needed.
Perhaps the best of these was the old JBL 2346 Horn/Waveguide as found in the original JBL Everest. It goes beyond simple pattern control to a pattern that actually stabilises stereo image over wide range of lateral displacement of listening position from the "hot seat"... Introduced in 1985.
EVEREST
Ciao T
I agree, basically a non-axis symmetrical waveguide is needed.
Perhaps the best of these was the old JBL 2346 Horn/Waveguide as found in the original JBL Everest. It goes beyond simple pattern control to a pattern that actually stabilises stereo image over wide range of lateral displacement of listening position from the "hot seat"... Introduced in 1985.
EVEREST
Ciao T