There will be terrible lobing, another word for comb-filtering between the two drivers, around the xover F. Yikes.
Perceptually I did not notice it. The ceiling reflection fills the comb holes propably. That's one benefit of tilting the tweeters up
- Elias
It is more of a problem in front of the console than it is on the surface itself. Room analysis of my studio proves this, so once again you don't know what you are talking about. The speakers we use in the editing and mixing rooms have a very narrow vertical dispersion pattern, and they are raised over the monitoring bridge. At that height a seated person can still hear the direct output of the speaker without all of the surface reflections from the console. We also treat the front of the console, even though the height of the speakers makes that unnecessary.
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".
Yes it is blindly guessing. You seem to operate under the assumption we are not aware of the problem, and there is no fix. That is your ignorance, not ours. We have been aware of the problem for years, and there have been very good fixes in existence for years thank to Russ Berger and Bob Hodas. I guess creating problem were there is no problem keeps you busy.
This from Gearslutz
Additionally, it was also Russ who, while still with Joiner Rose , to my knowledge, first pioneered the use of mechanically isolated pedestal mounted speakers placed several feet back of the console placed at bridge height in order to avoid reflections off the mix surface.
This is a prime example of you not knowing what you are talking about AGAIN!
Your request is denied, and once again you mind your business, and let me mind mine.
And I will continue to reject and deny your request and tell you to mind your own business. If you want to keep that circle turning, that is your business.
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?
My answer to your question is because I want to, and it is none of your business.
I vote for professionals
LOL
perhaps because it was a stereo setup in a normal listening room? not a mono in a narrow kitchen
Possibly.
how far from the speakers was it becoming a mess? approximately
Remember, I was not at his factory to conduct a scientific experiment. I was there listening to the new speakers going into my studio. I can say this, from the listening seat about 9 or 10ft away(approx) it was already too diffusive for my taste. Further away than that, it was a mess. I can sit 10ft away from my Dunlavy's(which is the recommended distance to get to the fusion point of the drivers) and the imaging was rock solid and razor sharp. I could move even 12-13ft away, and the imaging still remained rock solid and razor sharp. I am sure the tight vertical dispersion pattern is responsible for this.
If I was going to say anything nice about a flooder, I would say I liked the flooder with the Tannoy coaxial drivers much better than the other two with separate tweeters and mid/midbass drivers. None of them did deep bass PERIOD. All of them had a less airy top end than my ATC's, Dunlavy's, the custom made speakers in my music listening room and the Thiel's. They also had FAR less resolution of inner detail and high frequency harmonics.
This makes sense, but it does not account for the fact that the flooder's were all much too diffusive at 10ft away than my Dunlavy's at the same distance. So even with that symmetry, the sound was not ideal IMO.
This is another definitive statement that cannot be quantified in real life. It all depends on the arrangement of the furniture. In this case, neither has a real advantage over the other, it is at the listeners discretion. The end user can create horizontal symmetry just as easy as he can create vertical symmetry.
This was not my experience. The further away I got from the flooder's, the more messy they became when it comes to precise imaging. They weren't that precise up close, but they were FAR worse from a distance. It just became a wash of sound up front with very little detail in the sound field.
Wouldn't a front firing speaker with a wide lateral dispersion pattern also have a wide sweet spot and stable sound stage? This is my experience, so the flooder has no advantage in this area as well.
I agree with Markus on this. The flooder has just one thing going for it, no floor bounce. When the floor bounce is addressed with the front firing speakers, then it has no advantages, and a whole lot of undesirable issues for my taste.
I am going to say this. What is considered natural is a matter of subjective opinion. Natural compared to what? It seems to me that once again fine details would be lost, and this would be no different than listening to a pair of Bose 901's up close to the front wall.
Markus, if it is not in the recording, it is artificial IMO. I like spaciousness as well as the next person, but I would prefer that spaciousness to actually be what the microphone picked up in the hall, or whatever spaciousness is added in the studio via a space generator(which these days are so good you cannot tell the processing from the real thing).
Agreed
This has been my point all along. Though I have to say that added spaciousness does not necessarily mean loss of detail and less localization. With multichannel audio you can keep the detail and localization in the front three channels, and have the sense of spaciousness located in the left/right side, and left/right rear speakers. As long as the levels between channels are tightly calibrated, you can have your cake and eat it to. You just can't have it with stereo.
I know this is not the case with everyone, but I have far more multichannel recordings than I do stereo ones. I still purchase SACD's(and have hundreds of SACD's in my collection), and now with Bluray releases coming out, I have over 350 concert and non video recordings on that format as well. I stopped buying stereo recordings over a decade ago when DVD-A and SACD hit the market. Fortunately for me, I love jazz and Classical even though I have been able to find a few R&B recordings on the formats as well. There are online sites that also have a lot of SACD releases available, so it is a seek and you shall find kind of thing with multichannel.
Soundtrackmixer's statement:
"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."
This was specifically in relation to a near floor radial loudspeaker as being "unacceptable" because of its wide dispersion generating increased reflections.
The 801's in studio's are then premised as a superior solution in that respect (i.e. NOT generating reflections or at the very least fewer reflections of less consequence).
The fact is that the 801's ARE wide dispersion - and they do generate reflections assuming there is any reflective surface. The console work surface is often a very large highly reflective surface, and in those installations where I've seen them used (the 801's) - are in fact generating direct reflections off of that work-surface.
I'd like to see an actual installation with these speakers that avoided this problem, but I haven't (..and I've seen more than a few over the years). Nor do I think it's at all common practice.
Ex. Here is B&W's own promotional picture:
Abbey Road Studios - Bowers & Wilkins | B&W Speakers
Does anyone looking at that picture seriously think sound is NOT reflecting off of the work surface of that console? (..and that's disregarding any number of other reflective surfaces in the room.)
How about this one (also at the same studio):
http://www.madshrimps.be/files/imag...AudiophilespeakersforPC-Keith Suppe-23108.jpg
They may not be achieving "best practices", but with similar equipment - who does? Is it common to do so?
Then there is the issue of the nature of those reflections..
Assuming most objects in the home are away from the speakers and the listener, is a floor flooder that much worse? Might it be better? Not the quantity of the reflections, but rather their quality.
You ever heard of treating the side walls with acoustical treatments? Studios have been doing this now for the past three decades. Abbey Roads control rooms have their side walls treated with acoustical panels just in case you didn't know.
Do you know that the 801 do not radiate mid and high frequencies 180 degrees behind the cabinet? That does have to happen for those frequencies to reflect off the glass.
(puts on little white glove and raises pinky as not to offend a weak sensibility). Scott, have you ever heard of room analysis and subsequent room treatment? It is this little excercise where an experienced acoustician comes into a room, analyzes it in various ways including the amount of reflections in the room(and a dozen or more things) and how it affects the frequency response of the room/speaker interaction. Then they consequently fix any and all issues that the interaction affects. We have these neat little tools that tells us where to put speakers with certain dispersion characteristics in the room before the room is built, so we know exactly where to put the speakers once the room is completed. If you are going to make comments on studio technology, please keep up with the technology.
Both Markus and I have explained to you already that reflections off the console are no longer a problem because some enterprising people have figured out where to put acoustical treatment, and how to mount the speakers so as to reduce and eleminate reflection from the front of the console as well as the surface. So you can give this a rest now, as you are trying to create an already solved problem, and it sound a little silly from this perspective.
What you haven't seen and haven't learned could create several whole worlds and universes. There are thousands and thousands of studios you have never seen, that does not mean acoustical issues that you mentioned have not been solved. Read the book Markus has mentioned, it will allow blinded eyes to actually see.
Are you really naive enough to believe a promotional photo shoot setup would be the same as a working setup? LOLOLOL. Have you ever been to Abbey Roads Studio? I have, at least two dozen times. Apparently you have not because if you had, you would have noticed this room is the multipurpose monitoring/control room. The orchestra or band sits on the other side of the glass, and the glass allows the recording engineer to see the performers while recording. During recording, the speakers are there for you to hear the performers, but not setup for critical listening. For critical listening, there is a very thick acoustcal panel that drops down from the ceiling that can cover the glass, the speakers can be raised and tilted downward so its output is aimed directly at the ears, and the rear front part of the console is covered with absorption material. The object of a photo shoot is to make the room look as attractive as possible, even if it violates all kinds of acoustical rules. A working room looks pretty darn unattractive, but it solves all of the acoustical issues that the room/speaker interaction creates. I guess if your studio experience is limited to non existant, you would not know this. This is a poor example largely built on a lack of information.
Your link does not work. And yes, it is pretty common to follow best practices, or you don't get much business.
If the quantity of reflections affects the quality of the audio, then no the flooder is not better. We cannot make any assumptions, they are useless in reality. We cannot assume most objects are away from the speakers, some rooms don't make allowances for that.
Last edited:
The problem is that two speakers at ±30° can't deliver spaciousness that is perceived as "real". Those two locations can't provide enough information about spaciousness to our hearing. Only reflections from lateral and elevated locations hold that information. Now there are different solutions to the problem, some are better (multichannel) and some are cheaper (utilizing reflections from the listening room).
Two speakers at ±30° can't deliver spaciousness that was perceived as "real" by whomever mixed the track one listens to.
The end user is free to add more spaciousness by whatever means they find they like.
I find I dislike the random "spaciousness" and floor location of the direct sound of a FCUFS.
When I desire more "spaciousness" I prefer using a "phantom speaker" (or speakers), by which I mean the connecting the + of a rear or side speaker to the + on one amp side, the - to the + on the other amp side, which results in only L/R difference information to that speaker, a kind of 'triphonic" effect requiring no encoding or decoding.
The phantom speaker then gives a third discrete source of any difference information, which can be very revealing of detail.
It also allows for stereo to be heard in almost any placement in the room, I found it very nice on my sailboat, where there was actually no place to sit in the traditional "sweet spot".
The phantom speaker does not need to be the same as the mains, and since bass is not generally panned L/R, does not need extended low frequency response.
I would encourage anyone that likes additional "spaciousness" in their playback to compare the phantom approach to try the "phantom speaker" approach.
Art
Why can't two speakers deliver spaciousness that is perceived as real?
What can two speakers at ±30° deliver that is perceived as real?
Reflective surfaces hold no information, and reveal no information about the illuminating source that isn't directly ascertainable.
Last edited:
Ineffective angle and same angle as direct sound.
Not much. They can deliver pin-point localization and very detailed/clear/transparent auditory events if overall reflection level of the listening room is very low.
They can add spaciousness. This is a perceptual quality that gives auditory events a certain size, they seem to occupy a space. I've never found that quality in configurations that lack certain reflections.
Good summary and read is Helmut Wittek's thesis "Perceptual differences between wavefield synthesis and stereophony"
Last edited:
I reduced IAAC in my room by putting an ambiophonic style acoustic barrier in front of me. I reduced ipsilateral reflections by mounting acoustic barriers left and right from my ears. Both actions effectively enhanced the quality of the perceived original recording space. But in both cases the original space retreated - both in perceived physical distance and emotional distance. It was "real" but no longer involving.
Small detail in source location, size and reverb. But they don't give me the impression of being "part of the event".
Rudolf
I agree, matrix stereo with more than 2 speakers is multiple times better than omni-like flooder. Better in imaging and spaciousness.
- Elias
We have to move away from how the general setup including room is. No room/speaker combination will ever be even close to the real thing. This is a hobby, and we build one of a kind speaker, that work or might not work in our rooms. The opfiring speaker definately works in my room, and most import suits my needs for listening. The feeling of being there have nothing to do with the the perceived sound being 100% as the original. Aiming for that is simply not possible. There a 1000 theories and 1000 designers thinking they have created nirvana for you. I have tried and listened, (and build) to a lot of different designs. Some designs do add so much to the recording that it's obvious that it's not very accurate. Others (the welldesigned) have small differences but nothing I would consider effect related or them not being true to the original recording. It's the small differences that the audiophile cares about, but not the majority.
I once had a mixing tech in the store, where he would like to listen to an allready released Madonna remix. It's just for fun, since he had some hours to spend. It was TACT and Dali Euphonia MS5. He was very impressed, because it revealed more than he had heard before. He knew where tracks was merged, but this was not audible in the studio, but on this setup he could easily hear it. He was impressed, but stated that he would never have a system this accurate in his home. It would kill the music.
I loved this system because It was easier for me to listen to complex rock recordings like Tool Lateralus. With this I just want to point out that we have different preferences, and no one can claim to be right. But I hope the majority on DIYaudio is so curious, that they will not kille an idea just because it seems to be radically different from what is known.
I once had a mixing tech in the store, where he would like to listen to an allready released Madonna remix. It's just for fun, since he had some hours to spend. It was TACT and Dali Euphonia MS5. He was very impressed, because it revealed more than he had heard before. He knew where tracks was merged, but this was not audible in the studio, but on this setup he could easily hear it. He was impressed, but stated that he would never have a system this accurate in his home. It would kill the music.
I loved this system because It was easier for me to listen to complex rock recordings like Tool Lateralus. With this I just want to point out that we have different preferences, and no one can claim to be right. But I hope the majority on DIYaudio is so curious, that they will not kille an idea just because it seems to be radically different from what is known.
Last edited:
Markus,
Walls of my current listening room: One long wall is floor to ceiling brick for half its length, and the other half is glass. Front wall is completely glass. Remaining walls are wood. Does this qualify as reflective?
Listening in room I get pin-point localization, the breadth and depth of a symphony hall, the intimacy of "girl and guitar", wall of sound rock, club sound.
As Soundtrackmixer points out, many fantastic recordings are rendered almost exclusively by microphone selection and placement, often many microphones. Levels and panning are tweaked, and often little else happens or needs to happen during show/session.
Mileage may and does vary.
Barleywater,
What is your point?
There is a perceptual quality "spaciousness" that can't be transmitted via Blumlein stereo recordings. Critical spatial encoding steps via HRTF are simply missing. There is some spaciousness in stereo recordings (see these samples) but nothing that sounds particularly realistic in terms of spaciousness (to me).
Furthermore your frame of reference is probably different from mine. A friends comment to my setup: "I've never heard anything better".
My current recipe:
- Acoustic symmetry
- Smooth and complete (!) frequency response
- Long reflection free time
- Very low modal ringing <500Hz
- Strong but delayed lateral or contralateral reflection (probably also laterally elevated)
What is your point?
There is a perceptual quality "spaciousness" that can't be transmitted via Blumlein stereo recordings. Critical spatial encoding steps via HRTF are simply missing. There is some spaciousness in stereo recordings (see these samples) but nothing that sounds particularly realistic in terms of spaciousness (to me).
Furthermore your frame of reference is probably different from mine. A friends comment to my setup: "I've never heard anything better".
My current recipe:
- Acoustic symmetry
- Smooth and complete (!) frequency response
- Long reflection free time
- Very low modal ringing <500Hz
- Strong but delayed lateral or contralateral reflection (probably also laterally elevated)