In proper hijacking you need at least to participants:
The hijacker and the one (willing ?) to be hijacked ...
Concerning the ceiling flooder:
Why not make a little collection of easy to implement DIY
proposals, which worked well for those who already tried it ?
This would give lots of people watching this thread the
opportunity to collect own experience with that concept.
If the concept is cheap and easy to implement and gives
good results in many - especially small - rooms it would
be a candidate for a hot thread in e.g. in the fullrange forum.
------------
If the "in room power response smoothing" hypothesis i mentioned
before has some truth in it, it may explain why it can work for
some 2-ways also.
My personal opinion on "ceiling flooding" is, that it is (also) a
method to show a certain speaker has strongly changing
directivity with frequency. If it sounds better "ceiling flooded"
it is a hint that the speaker should be revised according to
have more uniform dispersion IMO.
My dipole line arrays e.g. would not like to be tilted or ceiling
flooded ... you loose the sound highly directed at the listener,
giving impact and resolution over the hole listening range.
Contrary to Mr. Geddes in my opinion uniform directivity is
advantageous in the whole "non modal" frequency range of a room.
How to handle the modal range of a room is a different kind
of thing, where also more than one strategy may lead to good results.
Graaf, what do you think about your chances to convince advocates
of horns and waveguides having their speakers ceiling flooded ?
You are proposing a different concept taking advantage from
deficiencies of the conventional cone loudspeaker.
You are earning resistance. Are you really surprised ?
You should be happy instead, because i suspect you being a
person needing resistance to further develop your ideas,
i know those persons ... just do it !
Instead of convincing supporters of different concepts you could
ask those listeners less dependent on "facts of science" to simply
try it.
The feedback would result in further data. It would point towards
the conditions necessary for the concept to work well and it could
be refined if necessary.
I think this is why we have a forum, to exchange ideas even if
those ideas are not scientifically established or contradict
current "best practice".
Best Regards
I remember - all I wanted to say was that some of my observations were confirmed, like: "a little bit surprisingly I cannot localise the speaker at the floor, it never happened", "the sound is coming a bit far away, from 'somewhere'", "there is no sweet spot in the room. If I stay more than 2 meters from the speaker the sound is the same everywhere", "turning my head has no effect on the sound" etc. with mono and a conventional two-way
and I remember You didn't like mainly because of some small detail in the recording lost and that there was need of correction of spectral imbalance
and of course - the bass, as expected especially in case of room boundary placement of a speaker that is not designed for that
but it is not a problem with the flooder as such, the bass can be reproduced by separate dipole sub/subs or the flooder itself can be made all omni - like tinitus did, equalization mandatory in this case of course
I haven't but el'Ol has - in his flooder setup the speaker was at ear height
perhaps this was one of the reasons for His preference for shorter Carlsson's clones
best regards,
graaf
actually I've been thinking about of a kind of interim résumé including such collection of proposals already made, because it is really difficult to read through the whole thread to find them
perhaps it would be even better to start a new thread?
well, I seriously think that Your chances would be bigger
I am happy but also a bit tired, not like in the old days...
convincing? well, I always felt that I was only responding to criticisms
well, actually I did it several times but perhaps my invitations just drowned in the controversial depths of this thread
not much of such positive feedback in this thread
well, this was exactly my intention when I was starting the thread two years ago
not to convince anyone but to share ideas and to learn
best regards,
graaf
...
Then it would be less avantgarde, and maybe the people with less-controversial-accepting mind wouldn't have to grasp their inhalators so fast
- Elias
That's not very nice. Although we seem to share some kind of
"fullrange directivity" or "dipole" tribe. From time to time this
thread looks like a tribal conflict. I do not think we need this.
If there was something else giving directivity at least from
non modal room region upwards than dipoles or cardioids or
line arrays i would regard it highly interesting.
Horns/Waveguides need that much space - especially for
depth and mouth area - in lower frequency regions,
that many listeners (WAF) would not accept them in their rooms.
What is different with dipole bass is mainly the lack of room
pressurization IMO. Even a dipole depends on exciting room
modes in the modal range of the room. By rotating it is able to
excite room modes selectively. A monopole can only be
moved to change excitation of modes.
Last edited:
Yes, those observations are correct.
But for the loss of small detail, it was not mainly a bass problem, instead it is a problem of everything below about 1kHz. The monopole box room response does not match the reality somehow. When I A/B compared the floor speaker with my dipole line array (both one speaker MONO), the 'flooder' has no capability in delivering the small detail of the recording below 1kHz like the dipole line array can do. This is a problem for me.
However, I have a cure for this. Use a high directivity speaker below 1kHz and wide directivity speaker above 1kHz. I do it and it works very well
However, when mentioning this method, some people have to start looking for inhalators again You see, it cannot work! Would you like to try it? You have all the hardware ready to do it. This could be a key to understanding more, depending on the observations you can make of such a arrangement.
Another suggestions I have too: Have you considered using a dipole flooder? That could help to overcome most of the room issues below 1kHz, and still maintain the ceiling reflection idea.
- Elias
However, I have a cure for this. Use a high directivity speaker below 1kHz and wide directivity speaker above 1kHz. I do it and it works very well
el'Ol did try it but ok, I can try it as well, I will need some appropriate stands, I will see what can be done, during those two years passed my own exprimenting/testing capacities have diminished because of new kids and other life circumstances
tinitus did it and posted His observations here, they were favourable
*I was writing to fast - it should be ALL DIPOLE of course - so yes dipole flooder has been tested
best,
graaf
Oh yes! Somehow I missed that
Damn, now I have to do an experiment!
I'm going to use 8" fullrange in a small dipole baffle on the floor. I think I'll attach a tweeter there somehow too, because the 8"er I have cannot produce much above 8kHz. I'll try to do this in a few days.- Elias
I find that the image is slightly less precise without the back wall absorption and the bass is not as smooth. Since the backwall represents a reflection, a timing error, EQ cannot correct for this. If the back wall is heavily damped then it acoustically not there and as such distance to it as not relavent. If it is not damped hen I am sure that distance is a factor, but not somthing that I have looked at (obviously since I always heavily damp this wall).
for a guy who is in this hobby searching for better sound for about half of his life (I am speaking of myself) it is simply an insult, it is like
graaf
I'm sorry that you feel picked on and that your thread was hyjacked. I was just trying to help. Obviously your entire line of investiigation is based on subjective impressions and not any real science. In that case I don't have much to add since sound is a "science" to me and I discount individual subjective impressions of anything. I've never tried a ceiling flooder and I'm not likely ever to do that - what I read is "it sounds different" of that I have no doubt, but "different" isn't "better".
Yes, front - back, left - right, all depends on your perspective. I do mean behind the speakers. Toole recommends this as well.
The thread topic is "Loudspeakers and room as a system" and not "Ceiling flodder is the best thing since sliced bread", so there's nothing to feel sorry about.
Dr. Geddes,
A couple questions, and my apologies if you've covered this before. Do you have a projector screen or a TV between your speakers?
What do you damp that wall with and how thick? The WHOLE wall or just between the speakers?
To what frequency to you hope to absorb? 500Hz(ish)? Or just as deep as possible? You say it smooths out the bass, but Dr. Toole suggests absorption is not very effective against the walls and corners at damping bass. Do you build a weak wall to resonate and thus damp bass?
Thanks,
Dan
A couple questions, and my apologies if you've covered this before. Do you have a projector screen or a TV between your speakers?
What do you damp that wall with and how thick? The WHOLE wall or just between the speakers?
To what frequency to you hope to absorb? 500Hz(ish)? Or just as deep as possible? You say it smooths out the bass, but Dr. Toole suggests absorption is not very effective against the walls and corners at damping bass. Do you build a weak wall to resonate and thus damp bass?
Thanks,
Dan
In my case I use foam. Thats because I have a lot of it, from scraps etc. I have used very heavy drapes as well. And yes I do the whole wall - everything from the speakers back. There should not be any sound coming from the direction of the speakers but the speakers themselve. This includes - and this is very important - nearby diffraction. My room has nothing in the front except the speakers and the screen and the screen is very low diffrcation.
My whole room is damped at LF so I don't need LF damping behind the speaker, and yes, there probably isn't much LF damping from the foam, not compared to the CLD walls.
Thank you. I wish I could build CLD walls. Perhaps my place is flimsy enough to not really need them. Can anyone recommendation a good source (cheap) for a lot open cell foam? Anyone interested in a group buy if we can do cheaper in bulk? Things I've seen will cost quite a bit of money.
Curtains also sound like a good idea as they could be opened and closed easily for people with flat televisions. They could possibly even improve the decor. I'll run that by the wife.
Dan
Curtains also sound like a good idea as they could be opened and closed easily for people with flat televisions. They could possibly even improve the decor. I'll run that by the wife.
Dan
If I didn't get the foam as scrape, I wouldn't use it. Find an old pair of used drapes - it will be a lot cheaper. Or just buy the material at the craft store. A lot of times they will have an end lot on sale. I prefer Barbie prints myself.
Sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure this will fit in with my decor:
Maybe something like this would be better:
I'm not even going to discuss opening those curtains.
Dan
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Maybe something like this would be better:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'm not even going to discuss opening those curtains.
Dan
Get 6" thick fiberglass and mount it with a 6" air gap. Cover the front with burlap to hold fibers back. That will give you good absorption down to 200Hz and below.
Play around with this calculator to find out what characteristics to look for: Porous Absorber Calculator V1.56
Here you'll find some more information: Acoustic Treatment and Design for Recording Studios and Listening Rooms
Best, Markus