No Graaf, I am saying that speaker modeling of spreadsheet is crude, making it very poor predictor of how real speakers will sound in real room.
Your use of tool is out of context.
Rudolf's use of real speakers demonstrates this clearly.
You mean that the calculation of delays is "crude"? What does it mean?
what is the context?
What exactly does it demonstrate and in what way?
Last edited:
You mean that the calculation of delays is "crude"? What does it mean?
I have to agree as well. Spreadsheets and software are good tools for setting us up for what to more or less expect, but more often than not, modeled information when compared to actual measured information isn't quite as precise as we'd like.
We can't rely on "predicted" measurements unless we can actually point to a real measurement on the other side of it and say "See, it's precisely the same."
Of all the audio tools I've seen for modelling / prediction of rooms, speakers or anything that relies on air dynamics, nothing is ever accurate enough that the actual result doesn't need to be verified.
Sure, the tool might work assuming all the variables (driver, air, room) are mathematically perfect, but none of them ever are. It just can't happen. Speakers aren't positioned to the nanometer, rooms aren't square to the nanometer, walls aren't made of 2 meter thick depleted uranium and air doesn't stand atomically still.
Tools and simulations can provide some useful "expectations" but that word becomes "speculation" once we establish that we're arguing about the tool's results rather than an actual result.
Sure, why not?
Like I said, walls are not made of depleted uranium..and are never true / square to within atomic perfection as a simulation assumes. You can look at a simulation and say "it'll be about 10ms." ...what you can't do is say "it's going to be 10.000000000 ms always and forever no matter what because this software says so, therefore I don't need to actually plug in a microphone and check it."
Yes.
This is why FCUFS works like crap for majority that have explored it, including me.
Crude calculator can not substitute for real radiation pattern of real speaker, and real reflections from real room.
+1,000,000,000,000,000 on this entire comment. Watching him run from one opposing comment to another trying to throw water on it is like watching the keystone cops chase down a criminal. It would be funny if it were not so well...boring.
I have to concede that, while I have tried FCUFS for a very short time, and probably not EQ'd / corrected properly, it only reminds me of the conversation I had with my girlfriend, who came into the audio room and noticed what I had done...
Her: Your speakers are lying on the floor..
Me: Yeah, I'm trying something new to see how it sounds...
Her: Does that woman that's singing sing while laying on her back?
Me: I don't believe so...
Her: Just checking...
I didn't think that far ahead when we had that conversation.
I'd imagine the response would have been something about how we don't sit on the ceiling to listen, no matter what orientation the sounding device has.
It's all meant to be slightly humorous anyway, we know things aren't quite that simple, it's just amusing to hear the reaction from someone who really has no interest in reproduction, aside from "hey, can you put these woofers in my car so it has more bass."
"why not" is not an answer
when You say that it can be different than explain how so, please
but please, think what change can result from such imperfections in a real room??
Can in reality in a real listening room the speed of sound be significantly/measurably/audibly different for the direct sound path and for the reflected sound path??
Does the particular wall material affect the speed of reflected sound in any significant/measurable/audible way??? Does it make any real difference if it is made of uranium or ordinary brick or drywall or anything?
Does it have to be "10.000000000 ms always"?
Does it make any significant/audible difference if it is 9.99, 10.00 or 10.01?
not because "this software says so" - the software is just for fast calculation and clear visualisation - it's because this is basic acoustics and LOGIC
Do You need to write a full mathematical proof when You want to rely on the equation that 2+2=4?
Do You need to jump through the window to check if gravity really works in a real world?
...geez guys, what's the point?? the REAL point
Last edited:
"explored"?
Truth is that none of You guys ever have done a proper FCUFS test. This is why what You have done worked like crap. Because this was it - crap - not FCUFS
Laying some speakers on their backs in some placements doesn't amount to a proper FCUFS test.
Rather it is a lousy parody of an audio test. Unworthy of the name and shameful.
Physicists routinely physically test theories and models against reality, it's the logical next step in the scientific method. That's how this works, we develop theories, we work with software and math for guidance / prediction, then the theory or idea is physically tested and the results are shared.
I'm not attacking computer modelling, I'm simply saying computer modelling is a tool that's used to aid, and we should use it for what it's supposed to be used for, helping us arrive at a physical, testable result not clung to as if it was the result.
I understand that I exaggerated some when I use figures like 10.0000000, but it's only for illustration. The actual results might not be that far off from predicted, but we'll never be sure as long as we're stuck between step 3 and step 4 of the scientific method.
Everyone can sit here and argue for another 300 pages, but that's all it is, a pointless, banal exercise.
If any of this is to actually be explored properly, you, being the primary protagonist, will eventually have to make an effort to proceed to the next step. You should be prepared, however, that some (or even most) people won't like it. I remember back when I first said that I was going to do my "crap" test, people seemed genuinely interested in what I thought about it, it was only after I tried it for a day and decided I didn't like music coming from the floor that the test became crap.
I'd try it again, but what I (and I can assume some others) need from you are measurements, so we know what we're trying to duplicate or, you could just fly us all out there to listen to your system.
One of those two things is going to have to occur, or we're going to continue to be stuck in this rut, arguing over 2ms here, 5ms there, this reflection sounds bad, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, ad infinitum.
I'm going to go back to just reading this thread and waiting to see if ...I dunno, some advantages are demonstrated rather than just nit-picked and argued about.
But what's the point?
Haven't basic acoustic theories been verified zillion times already?
Need the laws of logic be verifiied experimentally?
Do I really need to reinvent the wheel myself to satisfy You????
That's not computer modelling - it is basic acoustics! sweet geez...
The software is not for modelling - it is just for visualisation!
It is all clear as light.
If it doesn't work it is because You implement it improperly or You just don't like it because of Your expectation bias
that's all
Why measurements?
Do You want to duplicate my measurements??? Or rather to test the setup that I propose????
Therefore what You need instead is to read again carefully what is a FCUFS and how to implement it.
And then test it.
Or at least test the Beveridge placement method as this is actually what's been discussed in this thread recently and visualised with the help of the linked speadsheet.
It's something that You can easily test with Your speakers. No FCUFS needed
Last edited:
It's predictive. You can't substitute end results for predictions. It's much better to read something like "It looked like the delay would be xxxxx according to prediction, so I measured it and sure enough, it was!"
And we would all go "Ahh, ok." and move on. Instead, the thread stumbles on and on and on and on, because it's 50 pages of:
"The spreadsheet says this is the delay."
"How can you be sure?"
"It's basic acoustics! "Computers don't make mistakes!" "I shouldn't have to prove anything to you!" "You guys are all terrible and you should feel terrible!"
"But, shouldn't you do at least some testing?"
"I don't need to test it, it's basic!" "You should all understand!" "It's as plain as day!" "I don't have to prove anything!" I'm not reinventing the wheel for you!"
"But Graaf, like 6 people are asking for room measurements / delay measurements..."
"This is madness! Do you really think _____??!"
On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....................................................................
I don't want to duplicate your measurements, but if I do any of my own experiments, I'd like to have them for comparative purposes and my own edification, and as a general guideline.
If you LOVE what you hear with what you have, then yes, I'd like to get as close as possible to it in order to give it a fair shake.
There will be NO possibility that anyone will say "that was a crap test!"
The cheap alternative is stacking up as crap for most who have explored this.
I've constructed short full range speakers, and placed as described in post #1.
Imaging above speaker is frequency dependent and listener distance and listener height dependent.
This is crappy compared to same speaker placed on stand to make it forward firing full range placed at about ear height for preferred listening position.
I too have experimented with in detail. So what?! Were there issues, heck ya!
Didn't have the means to measure then, but then I did alot more than toss together a simple fullranger in a box and then dismiss it right off for perpetuity or argue for the sake of arguement.
I find it rather disgraceful for ANYONE whom has no measurements to debunk this. Regardless of their so called knowledge on the subject of acoustics, the effect occurs, so why not allow us to further investigate? Leave alone those whom prefer to waste their time & money and move on to a subject you are well versed and believe in.
Is that too much to ask?
Yes I'm asking to let the kids play, make their mud pies and eat them too! It's almost always better to let people learn the hard way than to say your wasting your time, over and over and over again.
Thank you,
Mike
Didn't have the means to measure then, but then I did alot more than toss together a simple fullranger in a box and then dismiss it right off for perpetuity or argue for the sake of arguement.
I find it rather disgraceful for ANYONE whom has no measurements to debunk this. Regardless of their so called knowledge on the subject of acoustics, the effect occurs, so why not allow us to further investigate? Leave alone those whom prefer to waste their time & money and move on to a subject you are well versed and believe in.
Is that too much to ask?
Yes I'm asking to let the kids play, make their mud pies and eat them too! It's almost always better to let people learn the hard way than to say your wasting your time, over and over and over again.
Thank you,
Mike
I find it rather disgraceful for ANYONE whom has no measurements to debunk this. Regardless of their so called knowledge on the subject of acoustics, the effect occurs, so why not allow us to further investigate? Leave alone those whom prefer to waste their time & money and move on to a subject you are well versed and believe in.
Is that too much to ask?
I'm not looking to debunk or argue anything, I've just been following this thread for a really, really long time. It's something I'm interested in, and as the thread title states, there should be advantages. All I'm looking for is repeatable, demonstrable information, but for the last, oh I dunno, year or so, it's just been people playing verbal judo back and forth with very little quantifiable information that you have to wade through 50-100 posts at a hop to find.
I don't want to debunk or argue or make anyone feel challenged, I just like pretty pictures and experiment methods, with their associated benefit / tradeoff, rather than conjecture and discord.
I mean, I can spend my morning over in the subwoofer forum and watch someone like bjorno explain the benefits (and drawbacks) of a T-TQWT enclosure and see math, charts, research, information, drawings, implementation ideas, etcetera. An entire approach can be reasoned out, demonstrated, proved or disproved in a matter of 2 or 3 pages, and I end up with PDFs and CAD drawings, various stuffing schemes to try, placement do's and don't's..and thread bookmarks that are literally packed with solid information.
I guess I'm just waiting to see if this thread ever takes a direction even remotely close to that, or remains the Labraea tar pit of dissension and obstinate posturing.
I really hope it does, I'd like to have a proper FCUFS speaker in my collection that I know is done right.