How so ? If the sound is coming from the ceiling reflection, then all the elevation cues are ceiling cues.
+1,000,000
The problem that I am having with this "flooder" thing is that no studio mixes on a flooder type system. So this becomes a sonic gimmick with absolutely no point of reference whatsoever. It is an effect, and nothing more.
oh c'mon Elias!
what cues? Consider the system as a whole ie. the floor coupled speaker AND its ceiling reflection - HRTF? Consider that we have here high freqs BOTH from below and from above
so it is a real thing, isn´t it?
You call it "an effect" but isn´t "stereo" itself "an effect" either? So - is it the only problem You're having with this "flooder" thing?so it is a real thing, isn´t it?
Please don't BS me, it weakens your arguement. Almost all music is mixed and mastered on front firing stereo speakers. By playing the music back on a flooder system, you are totally changing the presentation and the carefully eq'd frequency response the mastering engineer was trying to create.
All studio use either stereo or multichannel speaker setup with front firing speakers. Nobody uses a flooder.
You'd think Muzak would, considering.
Are You trying to be rude, this time? You almost succeed.
Are You proud of Yourself?
The presentation is more realistic. Do You think that all unconventional speakers - planar, linesource, omni or unconventional setups like Ambiophonics should be banned from the HiFiland? Also You can Eq the system anyway You like. Audiophiles are doing this all the time. And NOBODY knows the engineer's intention. Most probably not even one listener has a system and acoustics identical to the one used in a studio at home. Probably You won't be able to find two identical studios. Therefore the only true measure of HiFi is the real thing.
good analogy with 3D glasses! It´s quite like 3D conversion. But why Picasso?? Think rather about old movies or photos, if such a process was technically feasible.
- That post was not addressed to you.
- Do you know what Muzak is?
- Do you know how it's normally played?
Based on who's expert opinion? Or is this subjective conjecture?
No, but none of these are based on a speaker sitting on the ground and firing upwards towards the ceiling. These are well understood technologies, the flooder is not - and it is not used in any studio I know of.
Eq cannot change the presentation from a spatial stand point of view. The presentation would always be diffused even when I as an audio engineer would want it more tight and specific.
We know the speaker set up, and have an idea of what speakers the mixer/mastering guy has. I have never seen a flooder speaker system mentioned ANYWHERE.
Your former statement is a perfect example of why this statement is weak and irrelevant. Since you won't be able to find two studios alike, then what makes you think that not having two rooms in our homes alike a necessity - or that equal parity with a studio environment is all necessary? I don't have to have the acoustics of the Cary Grant dubbing stage to accurately play back the movie iRobot in my own reference. I do have certain established speaker and amp guidlines that get me there without 1:1 parity.
If you know number 3, then you'll understand why Muzak could well be mastered with ceiling flooders.
- That post was not addressed to you.
- Do you know what Muzak is?
- Do you know how it's normally played?
It could also be mastered with computer speakers sitting on a computer desk. The results would not be all that different.
If you know number 3, then you'll understand why Muzak could well be mastered with ceiling flooders.
You don't understand the idea very well. The only thing a ceiling flooder has in common with a ceiling speaker is the word "ceiling" in their respective names.
Anyway, tell me please do You like this particular speaker (see the image below)? Do You know it? Did You have an opportunity to listen to it?
So what? How many studios that You know use linesource? Or omni? Or planar? Or Ambiophonics?
Now consider a floor bounce - You can equalize its effect on frequency response but You cannot correct its detrimental effect on spatial presentation.
Diffuse? Really? Have You ever heard a flooder setup?
Get You where exactly? To a perfectly unrealistic presentation?
If you know number 3, then you'll understand why Muzak could well be mastered with ceiling flooders.
- That post was not addressed to you.
- Do you know what Muzak is?
- Do you know how it's normally played?
It could also be mastered with computer speakers sitting on a computer desk. The results would not be all that different.
None, which is why they should not get anymore attention than your flooder system. These are niche designs and formats, and so little use that few to nobody knows anything about them.
First you have to establish that a floor bounce has a detrimental effect on the spatial presentation. You have not proved that at all. It is well understood, and is more likely ignored by the ear/brain mechanism. Everything in our auditory life includes a floor bounce of some sort, we do live close to the ground. However, a flooder system does not work well with our hearing mechanism, because we cannot clearly perceive horizontal spatiality with a reproduction system that has a strong vertical dispersion pattern. What sound in nature flows from the ground upward to the sky, and then downwards towards our ears when in most cases the open sky would prevent it.
A Bose 901 would be considered a flooder setup, just in the vertical plane. It was diffused, and it was designed for a wide vertical dispersion pattern. What makes you think a flooder system with a horizontal biased dispersion pattern would be any different. Reflections create diffusion.
I am going to ask you this again. What expert with the perfect system decided it was a perfectly unrealistic presentation? And who decided a flooder system was the perfect presentation? Personal biases are irrelevant I am afraid. Sorry, I cannot buy what you are selling here.
Are You trying to tell people what they should do?
It has been established eg. in the "Archimedes" Eureka-funded scientific research project: EUREKA Project E!105 ARCHIMEDES - EUREKA
It was a joint project of Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Bang & Olufsen and KEF led by Prof. Soren Bech.
Here is how one of the member of the test panels comments on this:
see: A round table about room acoustics, and bass traps.
all right?
Interesting. Can You please post any references for this statement?
sorry, no similarities, perhaps You don't understand the idea very wellAre You telling me that Your biases are impersonal?
c'mon! I have now read a substantial part of this thread regarding the flooder approach, and I think I understand the idea. And I just want to say this: if these flooders have a significant advantage over conventional direct firing speakers, why are they still a niche? Why are they not ruling the showrooms of the dealers?
Don't tell me something about "because the vendors don't want/understand/wtf it". Not all of them are idiots. A flooder is not more complex than a conventional speaker, so it can't be a higher manufacturing cost.
Maybe there's something really wrong with this approach. Think about it.
Don't tell me something about "because the vendors don't want/understand/wtf it". Not all of them are idiots. A flooder is not more complex than a conventional speaker, so it can't be a higher manufacturing cost.
Maybe there's something really wrong with this approach. Think about it.
There are many reasons.
First of all I think it's the same reason why eg. active crossovers are a consumer market niche. Is anything really wrong with them?
Another reason is that I think designers of those various flooder-like speakers didn't understand the design very well so they all were imperfect, flawed in one way or another.
Last edited: