Our idea of famous and well known is quite different. Famous is Angelina Jolie. She is known everywhere. Well know in Hollywood is not famous, it is well known in Hollywood. Understand the difference? Doing very well for himself does not denote rich. He does not live in Bel Air, Holmby Hills or Brentwood where the truly rich live. Well off and rich are two different things here in the states.
You must have been the smartest person in your class
Maybe because he is a speaker builder that likes to try different designs to see how they sound. Isn't this what DIY speaker builders do? Since he loves to build speakers, I think he would take umbridge with you stating that he wasted his time. This is another of many assumptions on your part. I thought the design was unsuitable and unusable for critical listening, others like yourself may disagree. Can you see how dumb your comments are(well maybe not, they are yours)?
Do you ever get tired of making profoundly stupid statements?
Do you really think he designed those speaker just so I could here them? That is ridiculous and it proves you are not using your brain at all. I am SURE I was one of many listeners that heard those speakers or he would certainly have not spent the time building them. Your characterization of situations are about as dumb and twisted as I have ever read on any forum in the last few years.
Last edited:
I'm aware, but it doesn't solve the problem, or even most of the problem.
(..and please refrain from the snide remarks.)
How do you know? Have you measured even a small amount of studios out there? I don't think so, you are blindly guessing, without any knowledge or facts to support your comments.
I am going to say this to you again - don't tell me how I should respond. You respond your way, and let me respond with mine.
I agree but that spaciousness isn't artificial. It's probably the only real thing in the reproduction chain. But that's just semantics. In the end the whole (re)production chain is an artificial process. I agree that there's more accurate and less accurate reproduction but Blumlein-stereo as a format is lacking one thing (amongst others): spaciousness. I and obviously a majority of people do prefer a more spacious presentation (one of the results of the Harman studies) because it sounds more realistic, more satisfying. The price is loss of detail and less locatedness of phantom images. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also agree that multichannel is better suited to present spaciousness as intended by the artist but it's a fact that most music is only available in stereo. This probably won't change any time soon.
Direct sound from the loudspeaker - particularly because it is elevated - hits the console or desk, not unlike hitting the floor. This is not about the front or top front edge of the console or desk, but rather about the work-surface itself.
Unless you have some sort of absorber over the entire console (which would make it unusable) - there will be a variety of upper freq. broad-band reflections. Worse, those reflections are very near your ear.
..and no, that's not "blindly guessing".
..as for "telling you how to respond" - actually I *requested* that you refrain from a very specific activity. There is a difference, and it's one of courtesy.
Like-wise: I will continue to make those requests if you continue to make belittling comments (..which is not always the case - but even one is irritating enough for me to make the request.)
I've got a particular question for you:
-why do you post in this forum?
This is not a question that's meant to be "coy" - it's a serious question that I've wondered about for awhile now. Where is the interest in DIY anything? Particularly, where is the interest in DIY loudspeakers?
Last edited:
Direct sound from the loudspeaker - particularly because it is elevated - hits the console or desk, not unlike hitting the floor. This is not about the front or top front edge of the console or desk, but rather about the work-surface itself.
Unless you have some sort of absorber over the entire console (which would make it unusable) - there will be a variety of upper freq. broad-band reflections. Worse, those reflections are very near your ear.
..and no, that's not "blindly guessing".
It's recommended to place nearfield monitors behind the console and not on the meter bridge. For best results cover the back and top of the meter bridge with absorbent material. See Newell, "Recording Studio Design".
I believe that a stereo test in Your listening room would be more representative and a more fair comparison to a conventional setup.
precedence effect is a binaural mechanism and HRTF cues - as I have explained above - should typically be neutralized
well, actually I believe that in Your case HRTF cues weren't neutralized, the HRTF frequencies coming from below and from above weren't balanced
consider Markus experience with Visaton B200 - its high directivity caused some images to appear as high as near the ceiling because there was much more HRTF frequencies coming from ceiling reflection than from the direct sound
in You case the small driver has rather low directivity perhaps to low and there is too much direct HRTF frequencies in the direct sound, perhaps
then perhaps the geometry of the kitchen with very early lateral reflections all coming from a narrow angle possibly somehow contributing to the unmasking of the position of the speaker, hard to say
anyway - Your kitchen can hardly be regarded ad representative of a typical listening room
I listened to my mono FCUFS setup across a 4x5meters room with the speaker near the corner opposite to my listening chair, quite different situation.
I believe that there would be no interference precluding such a basic "is the sound coming from tle floor" test
My tape measure is in inches, requiring extensive calculation for conversion
Hereby I wish to express my highest appreciation and deep gratitude for all Your toil
Last edited:
Poor, or just different? Who get's to decide which ones are poor, and which ones are best?
I vote for professionals
perhaps because it was a stereo setup in a normal listening room? not a mono in a narrow kitchen
how far from the speakers was it becoming a mess? approximately
What was His opinion?
I mean He tried three times and didn't scrapped it so one can think that He saw something promising in it.
of course - it sounds exactly the same as spaciousness of real sound sources live - there is nothing artificial in it
and optimized FCUFS setup brings it back
In a sense You can but only if You optimize the setup. Purely improvised, methodologically flawed tests doesn't reveal the potential.
Let's get back to the thread topic. What are the unique advantages of a floor-coupled speaker? There's really only one: no floor bounce.
Unique disadvantage: sound is coming from the floor.
We could mount a speaker to/in the ceiling - no ceiling bounce. Or mount it in the side wall - no side wall bounce. You get the idea.
A floor-coupled speaker is just another dogmatic approach downplaying and ignoring what is really important: how should the sound field ideally look like? Which reflections? What delay, angle, spectrum, level? What are the acoustic properties of the specific listening room?
Without proper answers to these questions, any speaker design can only be discussed in terms of "what it does" but never "if it's good".
Unique disadvantage: sound is coming from the floor.
We could mount a speaker to/in the ceiling - no ceiling bounce. Or mount it in the side wall - no side wall bounce. You get the idea.
A floor-coupled speaker is just another dogmatic approach downplaying and ignoring what is really important: how should the sound field ideally look like? Which reflections? What delay, angle, spectrum, level? What are the acoustic properties of the specific listening room?
Without proper answers to these questions, any speaker design can only be discussed in terms of "what it does" but never "if it's good".
Yes. Back to the topic and away from personal jabs, insults and bickering. If that continues, the thread will be closed. You have been warned.
c'mon Markus
I can see contradictions in You posts
Now:
Before:
Now:
Before:
Can You please explain those plain contradictions?
virtually nobody knows that and truth about FCUFS and failures of some experimental FCUFS setups is that FCUFS requires a certain symmetry - a vertical symmetry to balance HRTF frequencies from the direct sound and the ceiling reflected sound.
In this aspect it is not unlike a convetional setup which also requires symmetry - but horizontal symmetry.
The practital advantage of FCUFS is also in that the vertical symmetry is much easier to achieve in a typical living room than a horizontal symmetry.
But we need a speaker of an appopriate directivity, a reflective ceiling and keeping a certain listening distance within a range of symmetry. In practice of a typical listening room it means not too close.
In return we have much wider sweet spot and stability of the soundstage among other advantages.
I can see contradictions in You posts
Now:
Before:
Now:
Before:
Can You please explain those plain contradictions?
virtually nobody knows that and truth about FCUFS and failures of some experimental FCUFS setups is that FCUFS requires a certain symmetry - a vertical symmetry to balance HRTF frequencies from the direct sound and the ceiling reflected sound.
In this aspect it is not unlike a convetional setup which also requires symmetry - but horizontal symmetry.
The practital advantage of FCUFS is also in that the vertical symmetry is much easier to achieve in a typical living room than a horizontal symmetry.
But we need a speaker of an appopriate directivity, a reflective ceiling and keeping a certain listening distance within a range of symmetry. In practice of a typical listening room it means not too close.
In return we have much wider sweet spot and stability of the soundstage among other advantages.
Earlier I had quite promising results from floor coupled bass-midrange dipole and tweeter horn at ear level.
The cross over freq cannot be much above 1 kHz otherwise image is unstable vertically.
The cross over freq cannot be much above 1 kHz otherwise image is unstable vertically.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
2 reasons:
Increased overall spaciousness, and tweeters not localisable as sound sources.
see also orig post #1937
I think these upwards tweeter horns are a brilliant idea for home environment acoustics.
- Elias
Hello from a late entrant to this thread. Since in the early pages there was talk of the problems of delay of reflections compared to the direct sound, I thought the following is on topic.
In the 70's there was a controversial hifi magazine writer in England called Jimmy Hughes. His set up (still got it I believe) had his speakers mounted very near the side walls, about 4 -6 feet from the rear wall, angled in, pointing AT THE REAR WALL! He came across this technique by accident, and an open mind.
His contention was that this produced a more more natural sound, with strangely no loss of stereo. I have heard his system and I agree with his views. Not enough space in my house to copy it though.
The reason I fell that this is relevant is that of course, there is no direct sound, so the problem (of delay of reflections compared to the direct sound) is eliminated.
As he said in his original article, it costs nothing and takes but a few minutes to try it out, if you have a clear enough rear wall. So please don't say it cannot work, but feel free to say it does not work(in your setup).
Stephen
In the 70's there was a controversial hifi magazine writer in England called Jimmy Hughes. His set up (still got it I believe) had his speakers mounted very near the side walls, about 4 -6 feet from the rear wall, angled in, pointing AT THE REAR WALL! He came across this technique by accident, and an open mind.
His contention was that this produced a more more natural sound, with strangely no loss of stereo. I have heard his system and I agree with his views. Not enough space in my house to copy it though.
The reason I fell that this is relevant is that of course, there is no direct sound, so the problem (of delay of reflections compared to the direct sound) is eliminated.
As he said in his original article, it costs nothing and takes but a few minutes to try it out, if you have a clear enough rear wall. So please don't say it cannot work, but feel free to say it does not work(in your setup).
Stephen