Are you talking about the Nathans? I also have a couple of full range boxes and a 3"/0,5" combination on a larger baffle which has wider and more constant directivity over a wider band than your Pluto clone. I don't get realistic spaciousness from these either. Blumlein stereo simply can't do it. There are too many spatial cues missing. Stereo's interference field adds on top of an inherently unnatural presentation.
I've tried very small baffles too. You seem to be very confident that I'm doing it wrong. So what do I need to do to get back on track? Should I build your Pluto clone? Or can I use some of the drivers laying around? Currently that would be several Visaton FRS 8. There's also a pair of Alpair 7.3, KEF B139, Visaton WS 25 E.
perhaps you forgot that we are talking about reproduction of previously recorded sound, not about "production" of sound in a concert hall or recording studio.
All the natural reflections cues (including floor ones) are already present in the "original" sound captured by the microphones and thus embedded in the recording.
The extra cues added by the listening environment (and/or any other part of the post-production/reproduction system in general) are totally extraneous and likely confusing to our brain.
OTOH, while IME I can definitely confirm that floor reflections in the listening room are usually evil (at least a suitable carpet on the floor between speakers and listening position is absolutely... mandatory!), other reflections are not always so.
Again IME, a properly placed pair of omnidirectional, (mostly) ceiling-firing speakers like these simple ones: "PERIAKUSMA: la costruzione" are able to recreate one of the (if not THE) most (in)credible, amazing, wide/deep/tall yet precise & ultra-stable 3D image I have ever "seen" (heard, of course
). So much so that (at least in some/most cases) you can literally "walk around" in the room feeling like you're walking around (...or through) real instruments and performers, properly placed & sized! And this works with just about any recording I tried (though of course some are better at it than others, as it happens with any other speaker system).
Thus, though I can't tell what/why, I must definitely agree that there must be something very special and very good about "flooders". At least, about some of them...
My 2¢.
Last edited:
We do need a reference, or how do we know what we are reproducing is correct or even close to what the audio engineer intended.
Exactly.
Thank you for making my point.
Sorry, but ceiling reflections are just as bad as floor reflections. This is why acoustician always recommend treating the floor and the ceiling. According to what I have read from Toole, the only reflections that complementary are lateral reflections.
Again IME, a properly placed pair of omnidirectional, (mostly) ceiling-firing speakers like these simple ones: "PERIAKUSMA: la costruzione" are able to recreate one of the (if not THE) most (in)credible, amazing, wide/deep/tall yet precise & ultra-stable 3D image I have ever "seen" (heard, of course
And this works with just about any recording I tried (though of course some are better at it than others, as it happens with any other speaker system).
Thus, though I can't tell what/why, I must definitely agree that there must be something very special and very good about "flooders". At least, about some of them...
My 2¢.
If this design of speaker is so wonderful then why has nobody had any success marketing them? Why don't studios and control room use them? That is because they don't reproduce music any better than a front firing speaker. Flooding the room with reflection means less of the recording is heard, and more of the room signature. You cannot separate what is in the recording, and what the room is introducing, and that makes it unsuitable for many applications including critical listening. Now if you like the "wash effect" that is great.
I would strongly suggest if you like 3D imaging, multichannel audio is far better than trying to squeeze more spaciousness out of a gimped format such as stereo. If live listening is our reference, then stereo is a fail as we don't hear live events in a front loaded way.
By the way, you link is useless to me. I don't speak the language.
Markus:
I dislike the word "wrong".
Baffles that form enclosures have high internal SPL and reflected radiation back through driver, even heavy cones and multiple layer composite cones suffer from this. Small enclosure improves external reflection/diffraction at expense of higher internal SPL and re-radiation. Larger enclosure affords more internal damping material but greater external effects. Box coloration is both spectral and temporal. This drove Linkwitz to OB. Along the way something teased the Pluto concept out. Horizontal width and depth are small which is desirable. Vertical height maximizes sound travel through damping material for taming pipe resonance. Linkwitz saw no benefit to porting. My view is it adds more compromise in temporal performance than it does benefits in bass extension and in excursion control. Upward firing woofer and forward firing tweeter add benefit of getting driver acoustic centers within a quarter wavelength in distance to each other through crossover region; this makes driver system resolve effectively as single acoustic source.
Many "pencil" designs are popular; width and depth are small, but with higher frequencies, sides and top lead to re-radiation through ultra lite cones typically used.
With a Pluto type speaker, toe in has much less dramatic change at listening position, and you get strong contralateral reflections when listening triangle is large.
So are you simply reproducing Linkwitz's opinion on the topic? In your earlier posts you made it sound like there is a well-defined recipe for creating realistic sounding spaciousness from common intensity-based stereo recordings without adding room reflections (or additional sources). From my experience this doesn't happen.
The goal for Plutos was to create a good surround of ambience speaker, that's why it is omni. This lead SL to concider what even power response and room reflections mean... Pluto introduction
This thread is very theoretical and you guys are mainly just arguing and defending your opinions of what features to emphasize... You all have good points and basics are the same. From this basis this discussion can go on for centuries
I have mostly front-firing speakers but also classic Carlson Sonabs and soon a pair of highly directive dipoles. Yes, they all sound different and I have many rooms that sound different. The point is to know what you want and how to get there! Roads have curves, I know...
The thing I cant buy even today is pursuit to authentic/natural sound reproduction. Isn't that too much asked, especially since you don't seem to get consensus of even that!? Good or excellent is enough for me... I can always go to a live concert (but most times I get a bad seat)! If it is a PA'd gig I use to talk with the hall mixer if I can , they know that they are always just making compromises.
This thread is very theoretical and you guys are mainly just arguing and defending your opinions of what features to emphasize... You all have good points and basics are the same. From this basis this discussion can go on for centuries
I have mostly front-firing speakers but also classic Carlson Sonabs and soon a pair of highly directive dipoles. Yes, they all sound different and I have many rooms that sound different. The point is to know what you want and how to get there! Roads have curves, I know...
The thing I cant buy even today is pursuit to authentic/natural sound reproduction. Isn't that too much asked, especially since you don't seem to get consensus of even that!? Good or excellent is enough for me... I can always go to a live concert (but most times I get a bad seat)! If it is a PA'd gig I use to talk with the hall mixer if I can , they know that they are always just making compromises.
Linkwitz offers more than opinion; I review simple physics.
Common intensity-based stereo recordings? It all starts with open microphone. Spaciousness in recording starts with capturing real spaciousness and adding into mix, or synthesizing spaciousness and adding that into the mix.
I said nothing about creating spaciousness with playback system; only revealing spaciousness in recording.
Not when it comes to his hypotheses about perception of reproduced sound in acoustically small rooms. He makes assumptions that aren't scientifically proven.
Yes you do but you also make assumptions about human sound perception which might or might not be correct.
The problem is that a microphone can't "encode" real spaciousness correctly. (Individual) HRTF-specific encoding is missing. Important spatial information is lost. So we end up with the reflections coming from only two locations, the speakers. These two single locations aren't enough for real spaciousness to happen. And this IS supported by real research (see Blauert).
I'm not saying that the properties of the source don't matter but as long as source distortions are the same in both channels, there are other factors that dominate spatial perception, namely room reflections.
this is not the case, there is no sameness characteristic for such electronic manipulations
nor what I can hear is my room - the soundstage I can hear is different for different recordings and it matches what I can hear through a pair of good headphones and what is lost in a conventional stereo setup
freedom from floor reflection is essential for it and You cannot cancel this reflection electronically
You told me but apparently You didn't read the book. Because from it You can learn that each reflection influences sound in its own way depending on many factors: angle/direction, level, delay, spectral content
by correction You can only cancel its influence on frequency response and by tilting "a bit" etc. You only low pass filter it
what You say is plainly illogical, it is a classic example of non sequitur
"ill defined images"? in Your imagination perhaps, You don't know because You have never listened to, have You?
Last edited:
no we don't, it suffices to get rid of the floor reflection and to widen the triangle the Beveridge way
because there is everything we need in the recording
it's not as Markus put it "Reflections in the recording are coming from only two ineffective locations (±30°)."
instead it is that "Reflections from the recording are coming from only two ineffective locations (±30°)."
it is not the recording that is ineffective - the conventional setup is ineffective
Again IME, a properly placed pair of omnidirectional, (mostly) ceiling-firing speakers like these simple ones: "PERIAKUSMA: la costruzione" are able to recreate one of the (if not THE) most (in)credible, amazing, wide/deep/tall yet precise & ultra-stable 3D image I have ever "seen" (heard, of course
And this works with just about any recording I tried (though of course some are better at it than others, as it happens with any other speaker system).
Thus, though I can't tell what/why, I must definitely agree that there must be something very special and very good about "flooders". At least, about some of them...
My 2¢.
thanks for the input
can You post any pictures? I can't open those posted at audiofaidate forum.
nobody suggests here "flooding the room with reflections"
FCUFS is about flooding the ceiling
and FCUFS does exactly that - it reveals the spaciousness that is in the recording
and by "spaciousness" I don't mean "sounding spacey"
I mean realistic spatial perception:
Markus,
In acoustically small spaces does it make sense to have specular reflections of impulsive events match in all aspects other than amplitude?
I suggest experimenting with your Visiton FRS 8 in pipe type enclosure filled with damping material and sealed. Pick a pipe length that places driver at about ear height. Listen starting with small triangle, <1m.
Create stands allowing pipe to lay in horizontal plain that places driver at ear height. Again listen with various sized triangles, and toe in angle.
From here you can also experiment with your movable absorber for modifying lateral reflections.
Your can even stand them up against walls and give graaf some feedback on this threads topic.
In acoustically small spaces does it make sense to have specular reflections of impulsive events match in all aspects other than amplitude?
I suggest experimenting with your Visiton FRS 8 in pipe type enclosure filled with damping material and sealed. Pick a pipe length that places driver at about ear height. Listen starting with small triangle, <1m.
Create stands allowing pipe to lay in horizontal plain that places driver at ear height. Again listen with various sized triangles, and toe in angle.
From here you can also experiment with your movable absorber for modifying lateral reflections.
Your can even stand them up against walls and give graaf some feedback on this threads topic.
Yes, if one wants to obtain a more spacious presentation from two-speaker stereo. Is it optimal? No.
Are you suggesting two different types of enclosures? One Pluto-style front-firing using a bent pipe and one ceiling-firing?
