The Objectives of a Loudspeaker in a Small Room

[Pano]

Originally posted by graaf
[B]What's Your opinion on the Stereolith three-channel stereo?

"Bidule" indeed! Trucage and gadgets.

Actualy - it looks interesting. No details on the crossover or an phase tricks that might be going on are given in the article. Should be easy enough to try, tho.

As to the matter of large music in small rooms, yeah, it's hard to do. But I have heard it done, and done well. And I don't think there is anything wrong with doing "better" than the producer did. Most of them work in somewhat limited conditions. Having heard some recordings reproduced in a way that would blow your mind, I wish the engineers and producers could have been there. They would have been pleased and proud.

Some large systems in large rooms don't do symphnc music very well either. They can seem flat and without the liveliness of the recorded venue. Why exactly, I don't know.

I've been working so hard at getting my speakers to sound good on big orchestral music that they now do that better than the small stuff. How did that happen?

[graaf]

"bidule" or not the conclusion of this review is very promising:

>>nous avons eu un plaisir infini à l’écoute de ce système, nous nous sommes affranchis de nos apprioris, de nos doutes, de nos certitudes, de nos références pour ne nous concentrer uniquement sur la musique, c’est à ce prix que la magie a opérée<<

[soongsc]

I vision a diversified opinions on the subject with no conclusions. But it would be fun to see what all comes out of this. Might end up like those cable threads.

Since the room has no less influence on sound than probably design of the speakers themselves, perhaps a standard room characteristic be assumed to that the focus can be more on the Loudspeaker?

[graaf]

Re: soongsc

listening rooms seem to be acoustically not so diverse, they are quite standarized, that is - quite typical
after all they are in most cases our living rooms
"living room" has functions and architects are supposed to take those functions into account when they work
it has to be not to small and not to big and to have proportions most suitable for all of its functions to be best realized
typical sizes, typical proportions, and not very diverse acoustics because it is a function of furnishing and decor - typical furniture, carpets, curtains etc.
"living rooms" of typical size and with typical furnishing and decor (that is most of them) are very similar from the point of view of fundamental acoustical characteristics i. e. the RT60

if I'm wrong than correct me, comments welcome!

[gedlee]

Originally posted by AJinFLA
Thanks Lovechild, that's it.

It's the fact that whereas the Summa (as expected) outperformed the JBL (most likely) due to it's highly optimized horn and resulting mid-upper frequency performance, it was at most the equal of the Gradient.
The Gradient using what has to be considered an ever more compromised horn than the JBL - an active speaker cone with a rolled surround termination, poor throat with VC attachment, etc, etc.
Why was the treble and mid performance of such a non-optimal horn, made up of good, but far from stellar drive units, at least the equal of the SOTA driver/OS waveguided Summa?
Was the Gradient extensively measured? Was the controlled directivity the dominant factor for the Gradient even when the JBL fared so poorly?

I think that we are talking about different speakers. The Gradients that we used did not have horns. They were a readily available "Hi-End" loudspeaker of some rupute, which made them a good basis for comparison. But they were entirely direct radiators.

Unfortunately I don't have any measurements from the Gradients.

The Gradients were very good sounding speakers, granted, but here is the thing. They were 12 dB LESS efficient than the Summas with a least 20 dB less Max SPL capability. Thus, while they were good sounding, they would never even come close to be acceptable at high volumes such as in a Home Theater playing a live performance of Cream (for example). Its a whole lot easier to get good sound with limited headroom than it is to get the same sound with 20 dB more output.

[gedlee]

Originally posted by graaf
Re: soongsc

listening rooms seem to be acoustically not so diverse, they are quite standarized, that is - quite typical
after all they are in most cases our living rooms
"living room" has functions and architects are supposed to take those functions into account when they work
it has to be not to small and not to big and to have proportions most suitable for all of its functions to be best realized
typical sizes, typical proportions, and not very diverse acoustics because it is a function of furnishing and decor - typical furniture, carpets, curtains etc.
"living rooms" of typical size and with typical furnishing and decor (that is most of them) are very similar from the point of view of fundamental acoustical characteristics i. e. the RT60

if I'm wrong than correct me, comments welcome!

Well, I think that you are wrong. My listening room is anything but typical and its NOT a living room.

This is the whole point of this thread. Are we trying to squeeze some speakers into our wifes living rooms and call it a "sound system"? (I'm not.) Or are we trying to find the ideal solution for really exceptional sound reproduction (again as I am). Because if our "goals" are not the same then its highly unlikely that our approachs or our results will be comparable.

As I have said before, if you are limited in what you can do (because of space or whatever) then I sorry for you - I wish you the best. But this stuff is my life and I take it very seriously. When I discuss things here it is from this "extremist" point of view and you have to keep that in mind. I am seeking "the very best that can be achieved". If I have to knock out a few walls to do that then so be it - I've done that before. But basically its just easier to start from scratch with a new room and design it right from the ground up (I do that a lot.). Thats what I specialize in. (I don't install Bose cubes in living rooms.)

[gedlee]

Originally posted by soongsc
I vision a diversified opinions on the subject with no conclusions. But it would be fun to see what all comes out of this. Might end up like those cable threads.

Since the room has no less influence on sound than probably design of the speakers themselves, perhaps a standard room characteristic be assumed to that the focus can be more on the Loudspeaker?

I am sorry, but I have drawn many conclusions in this regard thank you. To me its not "diversified opinions". You will find that most "experts" agree (Floyd Toole and I agree on virtually everything - some minor differences, but on the whole we see eye to eye.)

There is no way to standardize the rooms, but there is a way to make virtually any room acceptable to excellent. Its all a matter of design, but you have to know what to do. Much of the "diversified opinions" out there are simply incorrect. Granted, sorting out the "wheat from the chaff" can be a difficult thing to do , but read some of the classic texts, like Kutruff, or Floyd Tooles stuff and you will come to understand the realities.

[graaf]

Re: Gedlee

and what about that unusual Stereolith thing?

and as to "diversified opinions" -
You write that opinions are not so diversified amongst real "experts" and that You and Floyd Toole agree "on virtually everything " but don't the results of Toole's research sugest that early lateral reflections are good?

for me this seems to be one of the conclusions of this abstract: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Acoustics...ll%20Rooms.doc

isn't it inconsistent with what You say and consistent with what Moulton says "quite incorrectlly"?

clearly I don't understand something
if it is a misunderstanding could You clear it up please?

[AJinFLA]

Originally posted by gedlee

I think that we are talking about different speakers. The Gradients that we used did not have horns. They were a readily available "Hi-End" loudspeaker of some rupute, which made them a good basis for comparison. But they were entirely direct radiators.
Unfortunately I don't have any measurements from the Gradients.

Hi Earl,

The Gradients tweeter is mounted coaxially at the throat of the midwoofer - hence my "non-optimal" horn comment. The cone does indeed provide horn loading and directivity control.
Here are some measurements
Gradient Revolution
Here is the Seas drive unit (or an extremely close relative) Seax coax
http://www.ele.tut.fi/~artoko/audio/...surements.html
http://www.ele.tut.fi/~artoko/audio/...al%20polar.pdf
Clearly the tweeter horn loading is not as refined as the Summa, with reflections of the surround and a moving cone around the throat, yet it seemed like this listening panel was not bothered by it. Was the directivity characteristics of the Gradient the dominant factor?
Here is the raw tweeter response of a similar Seas coax T18RE

The Gradients were very good sounding speakers, granted, but here is the thing. They were 12 dB LESS efficient than the Summas with a least 20 dB less Max SPL capability. Thus, while they were good sounding, they would never even come close to be acceptable at high volumes such as in a Home Theater playing a live performance of Cream (for example). Its a whole lot easier to get good sound with limited headroom than it is to get the same sound with 20 dB more output.

No arguments there, the Summa uses SOTA pro drivers, the Gradient, a modest Seas home unit. I think it further illustrates my point as to the very different speakers resulting in a statistical tie. As I noted before, the Gradient is probably not intended for as high SPL output as the Summa, but there is no reason why the Gradient platform could not be used with pro units, such as a B&C coaxial, etc. if the goal was live SPL capability.

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

..and since the thread is about small rooms, the response of the Gradient in two different rooms: http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...16/index5.html
http://www.regonaudio.com/Gradient%2...udspeaker.html
It would be interesting to see the Summas response in those living rooms.

cheers,

AJ