That is because you are allowing your emotions to drive you instead of reading and comprehending what is actually written. I have said the same thing twice, and still you wrongly interpreted it.
It is not about the coefficients, it is about how they are used in the room. You notice that all of the the reflection control is tightly packed together? In small rooms we don't do that, we spread the reflection control evenly around the room. Secondly, we don't need nearly as much in small rooms as you do in larger rooms.
I disagree. If you have made a floor reflection inaudible, then there is no time localization cue to notice. A floor bounce occurs within the fusion period of the direct output, it is not a separate time event to be noticed separate of the direct output. Since floor bounces occur everyday in nature, our ears have learned to mask it out. Besides, I use speakers that have very controlled vertical dispersion in the mids and highs, so floor and ceiling bounces are weak at best, and that shows up very clearly in the room analysis measurements.
You can compare them, but you don't acoustically treat them the same way. We sit near the floor, but we don't sit near the ceiling. We can have coffered ceilings, but not coffered floors. We don't put carpet on the ceiling, but we do on the floor. We put furniture on the floor, but not on the ceiling. Each location requires different types of acoustical approaches, and that goes the same for a concert hall or performance space versus a listening room at home.
perhaps because with conventional speakers they cannot do anything to make them coherent enough to hear any difference?
If that were true, then why not state that? Here is why I think you are full of it. We know very well how to treat incoherent reflections. Once you know how to treat them, they no longer pose a problem. Once again to your thick head, you treat the problem not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Read the quote again brightness.
well, It cannot be at all proven how anything "sounds like" because it is subjective
But as far as measurements are concerned it is sufficient to prove that early reflections are essentially similar copies of the direct sound.
Yes that is clear. But not all reflections coming from a flooder are early.
Let me ask You to take a look at the scheme that I have posted and to take the law of reflection into account, ok?
Theory is great. But what I am interested in is how it works in the field. You can quote theory all day long, but if it does not match what I hear in normal rooms, then the theory is just a theory. The reality is a flooder does not flood the room with only coherent reflections. It is a combination of coherent and incoherent reflections spaced over time. While the coherent reflections are helpful, then incoherent ones are not - and it is these that change the timbre of the signal. If you attempt to treat the incoherent reflections, you will effect the coherent ones as well. When you are flooding the room with reflections, there is no way to separate coherent from incoherent reflections.
If the law of reflection is considered, are you telling me that all reflections(no matter what frequency) that strike a surface remain completely coherent to the direct output no matter how many surfaces are reflected? I don't think so. Maybe this applies to rooms with smooth non absorptive walls, ceiling and floors, and no surface coverings anywhere, but that does not describe the typical listening room here in America. In this country textured walls, popcorn ceilings, furniture in the room and carpet on the floors. The walls reflect some frequencies, and absorb others. Textured walls scatter high frequencies in very unpredictable ways as does popcorn ceilings and the blades of ceiling fans(also a predominate feature) and large light fixtures. We have carpets that absorb some frequencies, and reflect others. We also have furniture that reflects and absorbs different frequencies as well. The only way your statements and theories ring true is if the room is completely empty, the walls and floor totally reflective and devoid of any absorbing surfaces. I know of no such room with these characteristics, which means your theories and statements are more perfect world than real world.
You can always tell us what exactly were those "flooders"?
Sorry, was not interested in the speaker itself, but how they sounded. All three flooders imparted too many changes to the sound to be considered true to the source. As a matter of fact, they were not even close to what I heard in my studio(s). The speakers in my multichannel listening room sounded far closer to what I heard in my studio than the flooders did.
Are You sure that the sound was not coming from the floor?
Actually no, I never perceived that. However, they did sound remarkably similar to a Bose 901, but with a less dense reflective pattern.
Last edited:
But as you stated the time domain localization would still be there.
From the midrange up.
You are still making a whole lot of assumption with your scheme. Does your scheme take into consideration that some frequencies will be partially absorbed by the wall? No it does not. Does it take into consideration that wall could be textured? No it does not. Does it take into consideration the ceiling may also be textured? No it does not. Does it take into consideration the floor could be carpeted? No it does not. Your scheme makes the assumption that the walls reflect all frequencies equally, the ceiling is perfectly smooth, and the floor has no carpet. We don't live in those kinds of rooms, so your scheme is not representative of real life.
Well, Arthur Noxon submitted a white paper in 1990 to the AES committee on this, and it states this;
A coherent reflection can have the same spectral content as an incoherent reflection. They would look identical to a spectrum analyzer. However, the isolated coherent reflection would produce comb filter, phase add and cancel effects when added to the direct signal. The single incoherent reflection would simply add sound power to the direct signal.
His white paper was peer reviewed and validated in 1992. It really does pay to look at multiple sources of information, not just one.
Dr Toole is not the only person with an opinion on this right? He is one guy, and there are other people with as much knowledge as he has as well. Listening to only one source leaves you with a one dimensional perspective on any given issue. Toole states that comb filtering gives the sound a sense of spaciousness, and "realism" to some folks. He also states there is no free lunch as well. That sense of spaciousness can cover find detail, bloat and smear images, blunt transients, and cause the signal to lose its impact. Bob Hodas, Dennis Ernstine, and Arthur Noxon has noted this in their white papers to AES. Also keep in mind, comb filtering is a result of speaker/room interaction, and is not usually found on the source itself. That means it is an "effect" created by the speaker/room interaction and is therefore not representative of the source.
Okay, then prove that all reflections from a flooder are coherent at the listening position. I bet you cannot do that either, at least not in a typical listening room in America. Too many variables exist here, and let's face it, not all rooms are the same in Europe either. I am not interested in hypothetical theory, but actual measurements in a room full of furniture, walls and ceiling that could be textured, and a floor that could have an area rug or wall to wall carpet in it. You must take all variables into consideration because that is real life, not a hypothetical perfect world scenario.
I am not interested in the driver, I am interested in the speaker/room interaction. The polar response of the driver will change once it is put into a box, and that box is located in a real room near walls and floors. A free field measurement will be different from a measurement that includes two, four or even six surfaces.
Last edited:
You can use any statement you choose. Whether that statement is factual or not remains to be seen. In this case, the statement is true.
Since you as the end user do not listen to the master in my studio, then better is purely a subjective opinion. You are hearing the source in isolation. Accurate does not describe better or best, but true-ness to the source. A speaker is closely accurate(nothing can be totally accurate because of variabilities) to the source or not. Based on the three flooder's I listen to, they are not accurate to the source, but they could sound great to a person who likes its artificial spatiality. I cherish near accuracy over artificial spatiality, and I am sure others would prefer the reverse.
I also prefer accuracy, but that is not isolated to front firing speakers but rather describes a speaker without phase distortion. I have absolutely no hall effect when playing with upfiring speakers. I do prefer them a bit tilted towards the listening spot though.
I'm sure this is also about preferences, and I don't favour speakers with narrow sweatspots like B&W nautilus series, I'd rather listen to Dali Euphonia with much better (better in my world) dispersion. The Nautilus needs a lot toe in, the Dali needs no toe in at all.
I'm sure this is also about preferences, and I don't favour speakers with narrow sweatspots like B&W nautilus series, I'd rather listen to Dali Euphonia with much better (better in my world) dispersion. The Nautilus needs a lot toe in, the Dali needs no toe in at all.
Graaf,
Now I feel so left out.
I just mentioned yesterday that the direct sound from an FCUFS comes from the floor/wall juncture.
sorry!
I thought You wrote that from theoretical point of view Was it a mono or stereo setup? Have You listen to it in a normal listening position ie. seated 2-4 m away from the speaker? What sort of recording/music it was?
the topic has been thoroughly discussed in this thread and seriously I doubt that what You experienced can be explained that way.
It is all puzzling, we have contradicting reports on the same page and we don't know what's the cause of those different results.
It wouldn't because in this case it is not a gain from reflection
how high? up to 20 kHz?
yes it does, yes it does, yes it does, yes it does, no it doesn't
Coefficient Chart
I wonder whether we read the same book.
again - I wonder whether we read the same book.
please define coherent, specifically coherent vs identical
I am not convinced, again:
Coefficient Chart
uhm, You don't know what You were listening to?
No names, no design details? then perhaps these were not FCUFS at all? Because here some people swear that this must be the case and that it simply follows inevitably from Haas efect, HRTF vertical localisation mechanism etc. etc.
No names, no design details, no sound coming from the floor experience
Are You SURE that those were really FCUFS?
Keele CBT has loudest and closest transducer at floor level, yet image erection places image above floor. So much for Haas effect in this instance.
Of course, CBT is designed as floor coupled array with highly reflective floor. Is it possible that some of the same math and physics apply to FCUFS?
Of course, CBT is designed as floor coupled array with highly reflective floor. Is it possible that some of the same math and physics apply to FCUFS?
Prove it.
Correct.
It says carpet, not carpet with pad underneath. So no it does not. It does not mention popcorn ceilings, so no it does not. Another failed example here.
I am wondering as well.
Again, so am I.
If you don't know what it means by now, quit this discussion immediately.
The same fail as last time. It does not even include combinations such as wooden floor with joists, covered by a 1 1/2 pad, and carpet with 1" pile. It does not cover my coffered ceiling, or even address the diffusion on my walls.
This is too basic to cover all of the variables found in typical rooms. Benches and seats(how descriptive) are not cushy love seats and sofa's.
uhm, You don't know what You were listening to?
Umm, you care about this stuff, I care about what it sounds like. I know they were flooders, so don't insult my intelligence here.
then perhaps these were not FCUFS at all? Because here some people swear that this must be the case and that it simply follows inevitably from Haas efect, HRTF vertical localisation mechanism etc. etc.
No names, no design details, no sound coming from the floor experience
Are You SURE that those were really FCUFS?
Yes, I am completely sure. The problem here is that you have no point of reference, you hear this design in isolation. I had a chance to compare this design with my studio speakers and with my own recordings. They altered the recordings so much I could hardly recognize them. It was like a new unfamiliar mix I have never heard. Most audio engineers would call it massive spatial distortion, and I would have to agree and add so much more. All three speakers had no deep bass at all, and were dynamically challenged when compared to my reference speakers. This goes along with the other observations I listed earlier. I would deem them unsuitable speakers for mixing and mastering. There is no way any mix would translate very well if I used these speakers, and the end user used conventional front firing speakers.
There was no name. They were designed and built by a very close friend and very famous Hollywood studio speaker designer and builder(His designs are in a majority of post houses here, and quite a few of the large studios as well). I do know one used a Tannoy coaxial driver, and the other two had separate tweeters and mid/bass drivers. They looked just like the examples a couple of pages ago, but with a different cabinet color. I wasn't interested in any more than that, I wanted to hear them PERIOD.
How can you possibly get accuracy when your speaker system has such a different presentation than a front firing speaker(which all mix and mastering studios have)? You are going to have far more reflections than a front firing speaker has. The dispersion angle is completely different (horizontal versus vertical). Based on that alone, accuracy is thrown out the window when compared to the reference mixing and mastering speakers. You are now favoring an "effect" over accuracy at this point.
It is no secret that a lot of studios use the B&W 801 Nautilus speakers in their mixing and mastering rooms. That is because they are very accurate unforgiving speakers. Audio engineers need to hear everything in the recording, not a lot of uncontrolled reflections floating around the room.
Though an older version the measured performance is similar (at least with respect to polars):
See figure 6:
B&W Nautilus 801 loudspeaker Measurements part 2 | Stereophile.com
Except at 2.2 kHz and above 8 khz, it's not what you would call a "directional loudspeaker" (..of course most aren't).
As to the room treatment and reflections, the worst is the console itself. (..or desk and monitor). Usually a lot worse than what most casual listener's deal with (..with respect to sound above the modal region).
Last edited:
look at the scheme - there is no first order reflection in the direction of the listener
You must be kidding
it's just an example, You want a bigger chart? No problem:
http://www.wsdg.com/dynamic.asp?id=resources/technology/absorbtion
I am searching the book and I can't find anything like You say it's there. Where is it?
evasive answer, whay should I quit? Because You don't know how to answer to my question?
Last edited:
ok, thank You
quite a fascinating story, so a very famous professional (=busy, serious, rich) had built Himself (in His garage?) three cheap examples of obviously unusable Boseish "effect speaker" and then brought all three pairs to Your place for You to listen to them?
When was it?
Once again, that scheme is not representative of a typical room here. Too many variables for you to use that as an example. Not buying it.
You must be kidding
No.......
And still no combinations.
Keep looking.....
Your question was as lame as some of your theories.
I am not surprised that you don't seem to "get it".
ok, thank You
Right....
Your story is equally fascinating. However, your imagination in this case is a little ambition-less, amateurish, and a little hokey. He does not work out of his garage, he has a medium size factory. He does not consider himself famous and he is not rich but doing very well for himself. You cannot say ANYTHING is cheap until you have actually seen it, blind guesses are about as helpful as fleas. I listened to all three "Boseish" speakers in one of the listening rooms in his factory. I hated the sound so much I would not have even bothered to bring them home. I would consider the design unusable, not just his speakers.
am I to understand that in the States "wall to wall carpeting" "with pad underneath" "rules"?
You called him "very famous", and by rich I understand just that "doing very well for himself", nothing more.
And surely He's is busy. And a professional.
Then I wonder why He ever wasted His time to build something like that, three attempts at something that another professional considers "an unusable design" and for seemingly obvious reasons??
And then He would present all those three "excercises in ignorance" to His professional guests "in one of the listening rooms in his factory"???
Was it a kind of a difficult time for Him? A sort of a momentary lapse of reason?
very puzzling
Last edited:
why not? Are You telling me that a typical room has tilted walls and a sloped ceiling etc.?
I know the book, what You say isn't there.
Chapter 9 "The Effects of Reflections on Sound Quality/Timbre",
paragraph 9.1 "The Audibility of Acoustical Interference - Comb Filtering", conclusion: "The upshot is that in any normal room, audible comb filtering is highly improbable" (page 151)
Your question was as lame as some of your theories.
please explain, or just link any source where it is defined as You use the term, why not?
it is a discussion forum - no question is lame here, just answers, especially evasive answers from people who present themselves as professionals