Fine !
Now i think a diyable setup is highly welcome.
do you understand the meaning of the term DIY? Or by diyable You just mean cloneable?
I don't think that You are a cloning type of diyer, so please don't dress up as a cloner, be fair and do it Yourself
of course You can clone my basic Fostex-flooder or even tinitus' zazen setup, all the data You need have been already posted here many times but I think that You can easily make something much better than that if You try
If you state that dispersion as wide as possible is advantageous with
a ceiling flooder and "beveridge placement" is the way to even statisfy
RFZ believers, we would have to design a speaker which resembles an
omni source, which can be placed in the edge of a room.
That omni source would then radiate into a quarter space.
Is this how to imagine a prototypical (and ideal) design ?
Some - even raw - sketches for implementation would be nice,
whoever does them ...
All current approaches cause significant early reflections, an
"RFZ flooder" version would have to avoid those consequently.
Last edited:
I'm not sure a Beveridge layout is the panacea some think. You might be able to get a long reflection free zone but only if you have just the right room shape. You need a long narrow room with big distance to the back wall. Without the depth the back wall reflection will be strong and only slightly attenuated by the extra distance. A major diadvantage is that you are forcing a low direct to reflected ratio by aiming so much energy away from the listener. The reflection free period is not the only issue.
You will make floor and ceiling issues go away if your line is long enough. The mounting walls will only go away (but not the opposite walls) if the speakers are smoothly integrated into the wall surface (not the case for the Beveridge models). You also need optimal response at a 45 degree angle if you want the direct response to be decent.
Some tall design orders. Has anybody actually achieved them?
David S.
You will make floor and ceiling issues go away if your line is long enough. The mounting walls will only go away (but not the opposite walls) if the speakers are smoothly integrated into the wall surface (not the case for the Beveridge models). You also need optimal response at a 45 degree angle if you want the direct response to be decent.
Some tall design orders. Has anybody actually achieved them?
David S.
yes
but what exactly is that You don't understand or You that find difficult to visualize?
@graaf:
First proposal coming to my mind would be an L shaped enclosure,
placed in the room's edge.
Speaker has to be 2-way at least. 2 (small) LF drivers could be mounted
near the edge in either "bars" of the L. One driver on the "wall side" of
the "L" and one on the "floor side". (90 degrees "crossfiring" of you like ...)
The hole thing is not not too far from 90 degree "folded D'Appolito",
but with tweeter mounted beneath the line connecting the LF drivers (dustcaps),
to get them closer and the LF drivers "touching".
The sufficiently small tweeter is mounted directly into the edge facing 45
degrees upwards if the "L" is in place. Mounting as close to the LF
drivers as possble but also avoiding diffraction ...
Surrounding of the tweeter has to be nicely designed to avoid
diffraction, maybe absorbing material will be helpful.
Turning the tweeter slightly towards the listener may be allowed
to compensate for narrowing directivity at HF ...
Both bars of the L shaped cross section resemble flat
cabinets, where height and width are large compared to "thickness".
(To acoustically simulate flush mounting into the edge ...)
This way you can minimise diffraction at the cabinet's edges.
Cabinet walls facing the room may even form an angle slightly larger than
90 degrees or edges may be sufficiently chamfered or rounded.
Optionally the two flat chambers may be separated or partially
separated internally.
First proposal coming to my mind would be an L shaped enclosure,
placed in the room's edge.
Speaker has to be 2-way at least. 2 (small) LF drivers could be mounted
near the edge in either "bars" of the L. One driver on the "wall side" of
the "L" and one on the "floor side". (90 degrees "crossfiring" of you like ...)
The hole thing is not not too far from 90 degree "folded D'Appolito",
but with tweeter mounted beneath the line connecting the LF drivers (dustcaps),
to get them closer and the LF drivers "touching".
The sufficiently small tweeter is mounted directly into the edge facing 45
degrees upwards if the "L" is in place. Mounting as close to the LF
drivers as possble but also avoiding diffraction ...
Surrounding of the tweeter has to be nicely designed to avoid
diffraction, maybe absorbing material will be helpful.
Turning the tweeter slightly towards the listener may be allowed
to compensate for narrowing directivity at HF ...
Both bars of the L shaped cross section resemble flat
cabinets, where height and width are large compared to "thickness".
(To acoustically simulate flush mounting into the edge ...)
This way you can minimise diffraction at the cabinet's edges.
Cabinet walls facing the room may even form an angle slightly larger than
90 degrees or edges may be sufficiently chamfered or rounded.
Optionally the two flat chambers may be separated or partially
separated internally.
Last edited:
not so much big distance, 10 ms is about 3.44 and this is from the speaker to the wall and from the wall to the listener, see the example given by Rudolf:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...y-pattern-stereo-speakers-31.html#post2694046
and this is for an extreme case of the listener just about the same 1.2 m from the stereo base, very close and rather unusual
or major advantage perhaps? why disadvantage?
can we just use broadband absorption integrated to the speaker enclosure on the wall side like Stig Carlsson did in some Carlsson/Sonab speakers?
yes
nice! inventive!
a bit Carlsson-style I would say and a bit like Gamper Martino too, but better
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I think that it would be easier to separate low frequencies and to make just sattelite flooders as small as possible plus whatever subwoofer You like - stereo, mono, OB, line array, small multiple, slot loaded OB, whatever
plus I will just use broadband absoption panel on the adjacent wall, perhaps integrated into the enclosure itself, to mute the potentially problematic very first reflection <1 ms
Last edited:
It could be that for a shoebox shape rooms the beveridge like configurations are one of the bests.
Also I think regardless of the room shape, line array generally is beneficial to minimise floor & ceiling reflections without diminishing lateral reflections.
But why do you think of this as a disadvantage:
Haven't you been reading Toole, and all the benefits of lateral reflections lol
- Elias
Also I think regardless of the room shape, line array generally is beneficial to minimise floor & ceiling reflections without diminishing lateral reflections.
But why do you think of this as a disadvantage:
Haven't you been reading Toole, and all the benefits of lateral reflections lol
- Elias
Yes, that would be a nice option. Keeping it a simple as possible 2-way,
with small drivers that do not cause much problems in the midrange.
Reaching a lower frequency limit even somewhere around 60 Hz should be
possible, so any subwoofer arrangement would be an option
allowing for crossover below 100Hz.
But the satelllites could also be used "standalone", smooth LF rolloff
is desired (rather low Q CB design ?). Radiation in bass will be quite
efficient due to "edge loading".
Last edited:
yeah, exactly
yes, exactly therefore I chose Fostex for the first prototype
but it is certainly not small and has serious resonant problems in the mid-to-high range and is as beamy as expected
OTOH the resonances are manageable to an extent with asymmetric cone coating and this beaming perhaps has even some beneficial side-efects in such unusual configuration, as el'Ol measured in case of such fullrange flooder the ceiling reflection dominates and it is quite balanced for such a naughty kind of a driver at least
A source in a corner produces more sparse early lateral reflection pattern than for example beveridge at the side wall, or stereolith type projector. The question is what is the optimal early reflection pattern ? Better is sparse, or dense? That is yet to discover.
- Elias
- Elias
Can't do a Beveridge clone in my rooms, since I neither have the free wall spaces neither a line array. But today I could do a "flooder" with two Canton Twin 700 drivers put against a free wall.... so please don't dress up as a cloner, be fair and do it Yourself
of course You can clone my basic Fostex-flooder or even tinitus' zazen setup, all the data You need have been already posted here many times but I think that You can easily make something much better than that if You try
Since these are tiny coax drivers, their 0-90° radiation pattern is not too shabby. I placed them right into the floor/wall edge, pointing upward with a 2 m distance between them (about 1.5 m free to both next side walls) and sat myself in the stereo triangle.
My impressions? To put it politely: Not my cup of tea.
Mouthes much too wide. Nothing is as detailed as I can hear it with higher directivity systems. Bells, whistles and triangles are close to the floor. I raised the treble volume as much as possible, which raised those high frequency instruments a bit too and reproduced them a bit sharper.
On the positive side: Almost identical tonal appearance all over the room with no change of volume, if you stay at least 2 m away from the speakers. It works really nice as a background music system.
If above application does not qualify as a flooder, please explain what I have done wrong and how to get it better/right.
Rudolf
BTW: Things improve immediately, if I stand with my head to the wall in the middle of the baseline between the speakers.
You mean like this Gamper Martino?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
can't see the image, what's on it?
my first thought is that You are much to close to the speakers, is Your room acoustically treated?
sorry, I have to leave now but I'll be back
Last edited:
So you like yourself to be cheated by the stereo triangle, to hear something (details) that weren't there in the first place (in real event)?
You may like the stereolith concept more than 'flooder', I also did. Next thing to do: put those boxes back to back in front, see more details in stereolith thread. Don't forget the pillow lol
- Elias
You may like the stereolith concept more than 'flooder', I also did. Next thing to do: put those boxes back to back in front, see more details in stereolith thread. Don't forget the pillow lol
- Elias
You should try the stereolith style concept, just to surprise yourself that the sound is not coming from "all over".
I'm not advocating uncontrolled omni either.
You know why "The speakers that do best in his listening tests are normal pattern, rising directivity 2 and 3 ways systems, aimed at the listening area." ? Because all the speakers he uses in his tests described in his book are normal pattern, rising directivity 2 and 3 ways systems, aimed at the listening area !
There is one different speaker in the group, dipole Quad ELS63.
Quite limited choices.
He did not test any concepts like stereolith, 'flooder', beveridge etc etc.. Still people are drawing extreme conclusions from this data set.
- Elias
the glass wall?
anyway, these are hardly HiFi speakers
against back wall and 1.5 m from side walls?
tu put is short: this is not a flooder in Beveridge placement, isn't it obvious?
this is a kind of flooder-like thing but with low-fi Cantons, apparently unsuitable for the purpose
plus suboptimal positioning
furthermore:
just the carpet, isn't it too live?
yeah!
Hey Dave! can't You see that You just keep writing that we (Elias, tinitus and others including me) are hallucinating loonies?
because this is what You do by suggesting that we delight in imaging of solo instruments from all over
either this or worse - You keep calling us liars because we wrote here many times that imaging is specific and precise
and it is, this is what I can hear and I am honest - so please don't call me liar or loony, ok? OK?
@Rudolf
it seems that You must have a bad luck with those experiments, this is what You posted after some stereolitic test:
it looks really strange when one contrasts this with Elias', ScottG's or Radugazon's (and others', not to mention mine) impressions on our respective stereolitc experiments
it is interesting to note though that Elias was not initially impressed with His first stereolitic tests either
it seems that You must have a bad luck with those experiments, this is what You posted after some stereolitic test:
it looks really strange when one contrasts this with Elias', ScottG's or Radugazon's (and others', not to mention mine) impressions on our respective stereolitc experiments
it is interesting to note though that Elias was not initially impressed with His first stereolitic tests either
I am certain that he has been exposed to every type of speaker imaginable over time. If you dig through his writings you will find some "alternative" design types, but generally so that he can show how badly designed exotic speakers can be. The ESL 63 is not the only ESL, for example.
Still, if you are constantly evaluating speaker groups and the winner of the last competition was a conventional directivity system of good measurable performance, you can see the disincentive of putting another oddball speaker into the next group test. "We didn't like the omni speaker last time but lets try another one."
I wouldn't assume that, because you don't see him writing much about oddball dispersion speakers, that he has somehow overlooked some potentially marvelous example in his 30+ years of research.
David S.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.