undelines mine
looks like You have just authoritatively explained why a flooder works - frequency response-wise - thank You
I'm not sure what a "flooder" is. You seem to believe it is a common ussage when it is not. I can't find it in any textbooks.
If it is an especially wide dispersion speaker then the authors I quote would suggest that the frequency response is primarily the direct sound at high frequencies.
Is that proof that it "works"?
David S.
no problem, You can find it on the forum, in usage of many users, also in this thread
direct sound and first ceiling reflection combined, and no problem with floor bounce
one of many
and BTW - what about clarity? see post #1275
I'm glad I'm not going crazy, I've never heard of it before either, aside from graaf's continual mentions of it.
Sounds like a wide dispersion speaker where the direct path to the listener is deliberately blocked, with radiation being focused on a corner of the room, much like a floodlight illuminating the walls.
If that's the case it will have an inverse direct to reflected ratio, and is therefore of little interest to me as I'm firmly in the high direct to reflected ratio camp...
basically it is a short up-firing speaker without diffuzors/deflectors
it looks like that neither tilting/slanting nor time aligning is mandatory, can be single speaker, coincident two-way, non-coincident two-way and even three-way and so on
in extreme case it can look just like this (tinitus dipole bare drivers flooder):
collection of tinitus' observations
[see thread "Why are OMNI speakers not more popular?" post #638]
contrary to what Dr Geddes suggest it is not just Elias and Yours truly
I'm glad I'm not going crazy, I've never heard of it before either, aside from graaf's continual mentions of it.
oh guys, give me a break! have You got some serious computer illiteracy problems? can't You just make proper use of the forum search function?
anyway, it is explained in my previous post, and here is how my original flooder looked alike:
Last edited:
Just because you coin a name for something, doesn't make it a unique or distinct speaker topology. Despite bandying around the word flooder constantly that's the first time I've seen that picture or any attempt to explain what a flooder is, at least in this thread. (I'm not searching all of diyaudio for an explanation)oh guys, give me a break! have You got some serious computer illiteracy problems? can't You just make proper use of the forum search function?
What you show below is a speaker lying on the floor facing up. So what ?
I note its an FE206E or FE207E, and actually owning a pair of those I know just how poor their off axis treble response is. (Bad even by full range driver standards)
Good luck "flooding" anything at high frequencies with that speaker....there will be a lot of treble reflecting off the ceiling directly above the speaker back down on top of it, and precious little treble anywhere else in the room, including the listeners ears.
Not my cup of tea, even though I like (some) full range drivers...
anyway, it is explained in my previous post, and here is how my original flooder looked alike:
Last edited:
Yet throws the baby out with the bathwater ?
To be useful, midrange directivity should be facing the listener, not the ceiling.
What is the point of listening to a large highly directional full range driver at 60-70 degrees off axis ? I know those drivers well and that scenario will not end well
nah, I didn't, the name is courtesy of diyaudio user el`Ol
what so what?
have You ever heard of digital equalization? I have used them with a DEQ2496
and yes - ultimately Fostex sucks, and DEQ sucks as well, and they are gone
so overall it was poor implementation of a flooder but good enough to discover it's potential
yes, yes, of course, I know
and have You bothered to read tinitus' comments on His flooder at least?
Last edited:
and that is because...?
What is the point of listening to a large highly directional full range driver at 60-70 degrees off axis ? I know those drivers well and that scenario will not end well
as I said before - one way or the other - it was rather poor implementation of a flooder but good enough to discover it's potential
but have You taken a look on tinitus' flooder and His comments?
Well, if you are trying to entertain a spider hanging from your ceiling you could have a hit design, but if your target audience is a listener in a chair 60-70 degrees off axis ?
I've actually tried listening to a small full range design of a similar size to that lying on its back on the floor before, (why ? because I try weird stuff like that
) and I didn't hear anything to cause me to give up on forward facing directivity...
I'm glad I'm not going crazy, I've never heard of it before either, aside from graaf's continual mentions of it.
Such is the extent of our ignorance of the advances of audio science....
David
I've actually tried listening to a small full range design of a similar size to that lying on its back on the floor before, (why ? because I try weird stuff like that
If any of you collect the Gilbert Briggs books you will know that his big sand filled or brick baffle corner speakers usually had upwards firing mids and tweeters. Usually the preferred combo was an 8" mid and a 3" cone tweet. They were on an open back baffle.
Such an approach was popular in the mono days. In the absence of any extra channels, to spread the sound field, then omni or negative d.i. approaches made the mono field more palatable to some. The omni speaker gets re-invented every ten years.
Wharfedale Airedales
Briggs was either a) way ahead of his time
or b) applying a band aid fix to deadend technology.
David S.
Attachments
How would the ideal flooder look like ? Specifications ? Directivity pattern ?
When I did my mono 'flooder' test long time ago with a two way bookshelf speaker on the floor beside a wall facing ceiling, the two most important features were:
1) The sound was not coming from the floor (surprisingly), but from somewhere in front
2) There was no sweet spot, if distance was greater than about 2 m the sound was the same everywhere in the room.
However, these features were not enough for it to stay in my daily menu.
- Elias
and what about Hegeman? please see post #1274
what was He doing?
and BTW - what about clarity? please see post #1275
Is Beranek wrong?
a flooder better than the Fostex one would certainly be a speaker free from Fostex nasty resonant peaks and possibly not requiring active equalization
but ideal flooder? You want specific directivity pattern?
c'mon Elias!
aren't we discussing for the nth time the question of ideal directivity pattern for conventional stereo speakers!? 
can You remember all those Beyond Ariel or Flat is not ideal threads? and conventional stereo is supposed to have it's state of the art, engineering standards, design consensus and so on for over 60 years now
now here we are talking about something novel discovered by accident by a music lover who is not very technical person
I was exactly hoping to meet here more technical people interested in trying such new things the DIY way - in systematic pursuit of better sound or just out of curiosity for pure fun
and I was hoping to learn something new about it, how to optimize it, from their experience, shared on the forum, as I share mine
well, needless to say that I am rather dissapointed, I have met very few such people, as el`Ol (one of them) put it three years ago:
yes, even most of those people who tested it themselves did it in such a way as just to prove me wrong, laughable cheap computer speaker mockups instead of proper experiments...
people not interested in discovering new things but in looking for common denominator, even people declaring openly that they feel insecure when faced with new things - this is not exaggeration, I can quote their specific posts verbatim
it even looks like some people with whom I have great discussions off the forum prefer not to talk about it here, it is just such great atmosphere here, true DIY spirit so to speak
oh how unexpectedly!
laughable mono mockup was not good enough to stay in Your daily menu!?? what a surprise! don't You remember how much time and experiments it took before You have found optimal setup for Your stereolitic cardboard?
geezz.. I am really tired I have to admit...
Last edited:
Elias, do you know how many times people have asked him for such things? Oye. Read his thread.
Dan
try to find out Yourself, the general information on the idea I give appeared sufficient for others (do You want me to make a list of them?) to try it, why is it not for You?
please take note it is a DIY forum and I am not selling/advertising anything (quite unlike some other users BTW)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.