The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

Sure you can make it more realistic if the goal of each and every paintings has to be photorealism. What about the art? It gets destroyed in that process.

What if the artist considers his art not to be a static image but something that can be enjoyed in a variety of ways? Similar to a movie that gives you the choice of 3-D.

One of my favorite albums is Electric Ladyland. Being released in 1968 I'd consider it an early stereo recording or basically one of the first stereo recordings that was really interesting. To tell you the truth from the lack of information on the album and it's intended playback I couldn't tell you if it's supposed to be played in quad, stereo, 3 channel or what (it's pretty clear you shouldn't play it in mono because of cancellation).

All you have is speculation and some really ambiguous quotes from Hendrix and interviews with Eddie Kramer. Hendrix says there is 3-D sound on the album but doesn't say exactly how to hear it the way he heard it. And well it's my thinking that if you could make the 3-D somehow more accurate he would want you to listen to it that way as long as you are still enjoying the music.

From my experience most recordings are like this. You truly can't tell if it's supposed to be listened to on headphones, nearfields, midfields, Stereo or surround decoded. It's anybodies guess what's correct. We don't even have an objective picture of which of those and what flavor of those is actually the most accurate.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a "they are here" scenario?

CFS is "they are here", Carlsson is "you are there". Both have a good localization if there is integrity of the ceiling reflection. And in contrast to other speakers "localization" it is not only the information about the position, it is the feeling that the instrument is really there.
You probably can have this experience with a ceiling-mounted second pair of your CD speakers, delay lines and some amount of crosstalk. Unfortunately I never had the opportunity to listen to a 2+2+2 recording from the MDG (not enough channels, not enough speakers). I can imagine this is the real thing.
 
I don't know that text by Hartley. Doesn't really make sense to narrow HiFi down to music reproduction.

I invented the phrase "high fidelity" in 1927 to denote a type of sound reproduction that might be taken rather seriously by a music lover. In those days the average radio or phonograph equipment sounded pretty horrible but, as I was really interested in music, it occurred to me that something might be done about it.
I investigated the nature of sound, the behavior of the human ear, the minimum requirements of good sounding equipment, and finally produced something which did appeal to others also interested in musical reproduction.
from Audio Design Handbook, page 200

I did not invent the word "audiophile" but I am grateful to the man who did because it is a very convenient term to apply to a certain type of audio equipment user. I do not want it to be thought that I have any derogatory opinions of audiophiles. On the contrary I greatly value their existence if only because they are good for trade. But that they exist emphasizes the logical need in this argument for a clear definition of both parties to the discussion.
I shall call a man who has no interest in the mechanics of audio reproduction but is concerned only with the most faithful reproduction of existing music a "music lover"; the man who is more interested in stunts or the overpowering reproduction of drums, triangles and, if it comes to that, the components of "concrete music," an audiophile. In doing just that I imply that his major interest is in the means and not the end.
There is nothing discreditable in this. There is no absolute law which says that a long-haired musician is any more desirable a creature than a gimmick hound. So long as we remain an ostensibly free people we have a right to amuse ourselves as we want to, but it should be a point of honor that our amusement doesn't impinge on the free enjoyment of others. Some audiophiles make their presence heard over a very wide area. Then there are the folk in between. A music lover has every right to inrerest himself in the machinery that produces his music but, if he takes the advice of an audiophile, he may find himself landed with an outfit that doesn't give him what he wants. Some people are perfectly happy with a 10-watt amplifier feeding a modest speaker system. If it sounds good, then why should they waste money on something more elaborate? Some audio engineers are very fond of music, and design equipment to satisfy themselves. Others are not very interested in real music but get a kick out of devising complicated systems that emit perfectly overwhelming sounds. Let everyone do as he will; but my motto is "live and let live" and the aim of this chapter is to guide the reader in the way he wants to live, not the way the other man says he should.
from Audio Design Handbook, pages 201-2

Don't tell me there is no coloration in a modern speaker. I can hear it, and why shouldn't I? What makes the difference between a Stradivarius or Amati and a mass-produced fiddle is the stuff of which the instruments are made. What makes the difference benveen the woodrvind and brass of the orchestra is the stuff of which the instruments are made. What makes the difference between a Steinway and a Bechstein is the stuff of which they are made. You just don't get away from it, and the sound you get from a paper-coned woofer is quite difterent from the sound you get from an aluminum-cone tweeter or an electrostatic speaker for that matter. I can hear it, and music lovers can hear it. But I suspect the audiophile doesn't bother. He seems to want to reproduce the sound of a triangle more triangular than the real thing. I don't mind one little bit if that is what He wants; all I beg is that he doesn't call it high fidelity.
from Audio Design Handbook, pages 206-7

Ask people at diyaudio.com why they are in this hobby?
Are they in it for the news so that thay can listen to them with high accuracy? Are they in it for watching movies at home with cinema-quality sound?

Or rather they are in it for the music?

what happened was rather broadening of the term "high fidelity" - an idea from the marketing department, and now the term is understood to mean nothing other than just "high quality" when referring to audio and video equipment
and because this quality is defined in technical, abstract terms, the "fidelity" became just "fidelity to strict technical requirements", dehumanized and quite the contrary to the original meaning of "high fidelity"

and in the last years we can witness the next stage of this (d)evolution - the term "high fidelity" is slowly being replaced by "hi-end" - purely marketing ideal

for Hartley it was satisfaction of a music lover that was a measure of quality of consumer audio equipment, then it became satisfaction of technical requirements ("satisfaction of microphones"), now more and more it is money and satisfaction of spending money on fancy boutique gadgetry with the right trademarks on it ("the money is the product")
 
Last edited:
Err, I guess that's the same. You perceive the sound sources in your room?

sometimes with solo instruments and voices, perhaps when acoustics of the recording is close to the acoustics of my room

but most of the time it is like audible equivalent of a hologram, by way of an analogy I would say that I can "hear a different space before my ears", clearly distinguishable from the space of my room, somehow superimposed on it, with things happening in this space
most of the time this space I perceive as much bigger than my room and the front wall, the side wall and the ceiling before me disappear

but I don't have an experience of being transported somewhere else ("You are there"), it is just an experience of "there" being transported "here before me"

anyway Markus, You know, I am just hallucinating, it is all just "creamy soup instead of minnestrone" and horrible, sacrilegious deformations of the original artistic intent of the Picasso-producer ;)
 
Last edited:
in contrast to other speakers "localization" it is not only the information about the position, it is the feeling that the instrument is really there.

and this is realism, isn't it? :)

I believe that CFS in Beveridge arrangement I describe in the first post in this thread would be closer to "You are there", unfortunately WAF prevented me from such room arrangement

but oh no el`Ol! You are completely wrong! You just HAVE TO BE WRONG

read "the books", get all "the data" and You will understand that it all just has to be horrendous, undefined and unfocused "cream soup"

and also a sacrilegious act on the sanctity of ART of the sound producer (aka Picasso) ;) :clown:

It was artistically supposed to sound flat and artificially and You make it sound "really there".
 
Last edited:
Did you read Bob's book?

Bob Katz on David Moulton:

I love Dave Moulton as a person and as an educator for reproduced sound. I consider him a good friend, but I don't agree with his tastes and preferences in loudspeaker technology which results in imaging, dispersion and soundstage that I disagree with. With great respect, though!

from: Gearslutz.com - Powered by vBulletin

note great respect from Katz
I can't see this respect here on the forum, especially from some people constantly accusing other users for disrespecting them



note also an interesting statement: "imaging, dispersion and soundstage that I disagree with"

funny, how can anyone disagree with "imaging and soundstage"?
dislike it yes but disagree with it? strange...
 
Last edited:
...
therefore I call pinpoint imaging of musical sound sources in stereo sound system an artefact
...


I am close to agreeing.

Often when i read in a HiFi Mag (i done it very seldom in the last years)
things in the sense of

"Speaker A is superior over Speaker B because it shows the singer
on that particular recording exactly one meter in front of the piano
while Speaker B shows the singer right beside in the plane of the piano ..."

i just think "oh man, please just leave us alone ..."

Locatedness in (Synfonic) Concerts is to me very dependent
on the acoustic situation.

The major differences to most reproduction systems are to me:

- holistical listening experience
(details form a whole, they are not details anymore unless you decide
to listen to them as details)

- envelopment
(you are in there, it is large, surrounding you, what you hear and
feel with the body especially at lower freqeuncies goes together)

- reluctance of the room
(the concert hall is the space for the
acoustical event to take place and for supporting it
but does not show up directly
by detectable or bodily sensable room resonances)

- localization is also in depth, some things are near, some things are
farther away, but things farther away do not lack detail

To come close to that bouquet in a common living room is quite
a job. It is only possible by placing knowledge of
the hearing system and room acoustics in the first place and
not over estimating certain aspects but
bringing them into a sane relation.

E.g. i listened to quite a lot speakers trying to come close to
a virtual point source, but i cannot say those to be superior
concerning the bouquet mentioned before.

Some larger panel speakers and well designed horns are quite
good at that IMO.

Kind Regards
 
more interesting opinions of some professionals from: Gearslutz.com - Powered by vBulletin

those opinions are strictly on topic as they concern speaker-room interaction and the role of reflections

first an opinion from acoustic treatment expert (manufacturer of acoustic treatment products):

have to disagree with David's basic premise stated at the outset:

"early reflections provided by the room are 'good' data for our hearing, and they contribute mightily toward the perceived timbre and spatial details of the music coming from the speakers."

There are two camps. One side believes that the room's contribution to what you hear is useful and valuable, and the other side is adamant that the goal is to reduce the room's contribution as much as possible. It's difficult to proclaim anyone "wrong" when it comes to subjective stuff like this, but I am firmly in the group that prefers to minimize the room's contribution for several reasons:

1) When your room contributes its own resonances and comb filtering, everything you play is tainted in the same way.

2) Imaging, and the ability to discern detail, is always made worse in the presence of early reflections.

3) Avoiding the room's own sound gets you closer to the original mix engineer's intentions.

4) In rooms the size many/most people use these days, any room tone is bad room tone. Boxy and boomy are two terms that come to mind.

However, things change in larger rooms - like those I bet you're used to working in. When the ceiling and side wall reflection points are ten feet away or more, the main problem - comb filtering - is reduced enough to be less damaging.

and now an opinion (from the same thread) from Bob Olhsson (producer widely considered as legendary: "one of those few legends that went through the years as dedicated music lover, producer, mastering engineer, technician and a friend of artist"):

Dave Moulton did a simple demo for me in a bare room that turns most of what we thought we knew about acoustic treatment and imaging right on its ear.

He had designed some speakers that deliver a flat response across 180 degrees. The imaging in the bare room was holographic, among the best I've ever heard. His conclusion is that early reflections aren't any problem at all but early reflections that don't have a flat frequency response are a big problem because they change the perceived tonality of the speaker.

Something that led him to this was the fact that many of the best translating control rooms a lot of us "old timers" ever encountered did not have any early reflection treatment while some of the worst have been certified LEDE rooms.

The problem with room tuning and early reflection absorption is that they are oversimplifications that have little to do with how we actually hear. Dave actually has serious academic credentials in addition to having been an engineer at Columbia Records. He also, last I heard, wasn't in the room design business.

yes, holographic is the right word
and yes David Moulton is not in room design business nor in loudspeaker business, He has no marketing agenda in room design nor in loudspeakers, only ideas
His business is music production, education and consulting

and one another opinion from another one acoustic treatment expert (manufacturer of acoustic treatment products):

To really understand these issues we need to change how we refer to reflections. Early reflections and the "normal" way they are discussed are definitely a convenient shorthand, but no altogether accurate.

Reflections have:
1) Direction.
2) Timing.
3) Intensity.
4) Spectral content.

Whether reflections are audible or not is a function of timing and intensity. The earlier the reflection the more intense it has to be to be heard, the further on after the initial event and it can be lower in db and still distinguished.

Reflections that just cross the threshold of being audible widen the soundstage and increase the size of instruments without any timbral change. As they continue to be "more audible", then you hear timbral changes and eventually echo.

It is important to understand that this effect is not a binary early/late, audible/not audible. The effects of reflections are a function of time and intensity.

Direction (sidewalls and back are the best) and spectral content (the same as the initial sound is best) also matter, but I am starting to hear the yawns.

yes, the yawns is the right word
 
Last edited:
To come close to that bouquet in a common living room is quite
a job. It is only possible by placing knowledge of
the hearing system and room acoustics in the first place and
not over estimating certain aspects but
bringing them into a sane relation.

yup, "loudspeakers and room as a system"

E.g. i listened to quite a lot speakers trying to come close to
a virtual point source, but i cannot say those to be superior
concerning the bouquet mentioned before.

Some larger panel speakers and well designed horns are quite
good at that IMO.

yes, once again - "loudspeakers and room as a system" - the success is not guraranteed by the design principle itself (virtual point source, dipole, horn etc.) but in the combination of it and the room and the speaker placement in the room

best regards,
graaf