The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

points for Mr Carlsson :)
35° upwards is well suited for seated listener at the typical distance from the speaker of ca 3 m, and 45° inwards is perfect for classic Blumlein isosceles stereo triangle: 45°-45°-90° (unlike typical audiophile equilateral triangle)
I am sitting in the usual 60° stereo triangle. That the speakers cross in front of me is probably only a trait of the Ciares. In my experiments with the test enclosures and some pillows this proved to be better, also without tilt.
My only CD that works better with 90° (both with conventional speakers and with Carlssons) is this:
Xenakis: Psappha/Okho/Persephassa [US-Import]: Iannis Xenakis: Amazon.de: Musik
For 4x90° surround sound it requires a special decoder. You can get the software here:
AVS RESEARCH Research in psycoacoustic audio area
 
well, in that specific sense I would even say the less focus the more realistic spatial quality

because there is no such sound source in reality, no musical instrument, in case of which energy is focussed in one point

real sound sources are sound spots of determinate sizes, some of them quite big

best,
graaf

That would be correct if "conventional" speaker setups would project pinpoint sized sounds only. That's not the case. So I don't see the merits of a setup that just blows up all images the same amount. I'd like to have a setup that allows a range of different sound sizes which is controlled by the recording. Realism might not be the goal for each and every recording. It's just a small part of sound reproduction.

Best, Markus
 
So I don't see the merits of a setup that just blows up all images the same amount.

and who told You that? :) fables about this "blowing up the same amount"?

Realism might not be the goal for each and every recording. It's just a small part of sound reproduction.

so in these words - as I understand them - You are actually admitting indirectly that what I propose can give more realistic sound reproduction, aren't You? ;)

anyway, what I want is more realistic high fidelity like Hartley understood it in the very beginnings of all this Hi-Fi business and this is exactly what I get with ceiling flooder, no blowing up of any kind

You may also take that pill and leave the matrix of "audio hell" - of all that "circle of confusion", of hopelessly chasing what was the artistic intention of the producer and so on

or You may choose to stay inside
it is up to You

I know that for many "the chase is better than the catch" and I can understand that but I prefer just to enjoy the music as closely resembling what I can hear live as possible or at least pleasant to listen to
I just don't care about the producer's artistic intention as such

that' s all

best,
graaf

ps.
this post is not OT, please do not remove it!!! :)
I beg You! :) :) :)
 
Last edited:
and who told You that? :) about this "blowing up the same amount"?

Err, you and my own experience. How could it be any different? If you add reflections to the whole recording how should that affect only certain sounds?

so in these words - as I understand them - You are actually admitting that what I propose can give more realistic sound reproduction, aren't You?

You change the spatial attributes of a recording arbitrarily. Yes, this could lead to more realism on certain recordings but that's not accurate reproduction because you alter each and every recording the same way. It's like listening to each and every type of music within only one aditory space. Drums in a church? I know people did it but who liked it?

anyway, what I want is more realistic high fidelity like Hartley understood it in the very beginnings of all this Hi-Fi business and this is exactly what I get with ceiling flooder, no blowing up of any kind

My experience is different.

You may also take that pill and leave the matrix of "audio hell" - of all that "circle of confusion", of hopelessly chasing what was the artistic intention of the producer and so on

or You may choose to stay inside
it is up to You

I know that for many "the chase is better than the catch" and I can understand that but I prefer just to enjoy the music as closely resembling what I can hear live as possible

Oh, I enjoy very much listening to music with my controlled directivity speakers and the many different auditory scenes they project. Actually you're the one that wants to change his setup :D
 
Err, you and my own experience. How could it be any different? If you add reflections to the whole recording how should that affect only certain sounds?

what is Your experience with ceiling flooder in the placement I advocate or with Carlssons?

anyway, of course it affects all sounds but it does not lead to blowing up to unrealistic sizes neither to making everything sound the same

It's like listening to each and every type of music within only one aditory space. Drums in a church?

You are probably not going to believe me but I assure You that it is not the case, quite the contrary actually
when I listen to eg. Mala Punica I can hear church acoustics and when I listen to eg. Miles Davis with Coltrane I can hear small venue sounding like jazz club, when I listen to Klaus Schulze I can hear His imaginary spaces floating all around (and all walls, ceiling and even the floor disappear) and so on

in fact with ceiling flooder I experience much more diverse auditory spaces from recording to recording than in case of conventional stereo which in comparison sounds always just more or less flat

My experience is different.

again - what is Your experience with ceiling flooder in the placement I advocate or with Carlssons?

as El'Ol rightly observed these are not typical omnis
I called it omni or quasi-omni for simplicity because they share some common characteristics

perhaps all misunderstanding is because of this "omni" oversimplification :(

You certainly cannot make any judgments on flooder or Carlssons based on Your experience with some omnis

Oh, I enjoy very much listening to music

great! happy listening! :)

best,
graaf
 
Markus, I just wanted to say when we talk about our listening experiences we don't talk about ideal concepts, so we should better not use their names in an unreflected way. I was not happy from the beginning of this thread on that Graaf used the word "omnidirectional" or "omni", and strictly speaking it is also not correct when you use the term "constant directivity".
 
Last edited:
Markus, I just wanted to say when we talk about our listening experiences we don't talk about ideal concepts, so we should better not use their names in an unreflected way. I was not happy from the beginning of this thread on that Graaf used the word "omnidirectional" or "omni", and strictly speaking it is also not correct when you use the term "constant directivity".

In fact I didn't use the wording constant directivity. I used controlled directivity. But we're going round in circles again.


Do we know what dominates tonality and spatial attributes of sound reproduction in acoustically small rooms with loudspeakers?
Yes, the direct frequency response and the number, loudness, angle, spectrum and delay of room reflections.

Do we know how to quantify these properties?
Yes.

Do we know how to qualify them?
No.

Best, Markus
 
Do we know how to qualify them?
No.

yes, so much for reading fat folios from German academics (with all due respect), profound AES papers (with all due respect), deep theorizing (with all due respect) and ... so on

unless You try it for Yourself You don't know much

the proof of the pudding is in the eating as goes the saying

Poor Graaf. Most people will rather invest an hour to tell you it can´t work than five minutes to test it themselves.

an hour?! how about TWO YEARS! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I started this thread 15th April 2008

yeah, whatever
:cool:

---------------------------------------------------

this is not OT - please do not remove it :) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Well, you simply ignore the fact that I have tried all of that and still don't think it is the right thing to do.

how can I ignore a fact not made known to me? because You never nowhere in this thread stated before that You had tried ceiling flooder in Beveridge or corner placement or any of Carlssons speakers

this is something new that You have tried "all of that" is discussed in this thread, and of course I cannot ignore it :)

I am surprised - that is all I can say
 
Last edited:
Markus, I think your stuff is controlled directivity as much as our stuff is omni. Ever wondered what happens below 1.5 kHz? Do you think all your reflecting surfaces (you have them, too, yes, really) get the same spectrum as the direct sound?

A true omni is a constant directivity
- or if you want the weaker term -
controled directivity source too.

The ceiling flooder does not seem to mimic an omnidirectional source,
but a source having increasing directivity with frequency thereby
using the ceiling as a reflector to indroduce diffusivity.

The direct sound even falls off with rising frequency.

If equalized to compensate the - usually falling with frequency -
overall radiated power into the room this may lead to a balanced
frequency response in a wide area of the room.

The delay introduced may contribute to a notion of "depth" which may
be nice with some recordings.

What is sacrificed is localization and focus, if present on the
recording. Think of transients from drums and cymbals ... and
the consonants of the human voice.

After having sacrificed that you get robustness as you need
not listen in a sweet spot anymore, because there is no place
in the room - not even a spot - where those qualities are present.

Some of those systems try to save some focus by delivering a minimum
amount of directed sound to the listener e.g. by a tweeter or a
fullranger additionally radiating towards the listener utilizing precedence
effect.

To make a speaker less room dependent and deliver balanced frequency
response in a variety of listening rooms, controled - if not constant
- directivity is IMO a major goal to achieve.

Of course such a speaker my have a problem to disappear itself
as a detectable sound source, especially if the spatial information
of the recording is deficient or the recording has significant flaws
as sybilance and the like.

The "controled directivity highly direct radiating speaker" is more
revealing concerning concerning those deficiencies and for that
reason may not be the optimal choice for some listeners, which
prefer beeing "enveloped" in the music and like put a distance
between themselves and the properties of different styles of recording
and the reproduction device itself.

I do not want to restrict that to "by the way" listeners, it is just a
certain type of enjoyful listener.

To have the best of both worlds - lets call them 'analytical' and
'ambient' - seems difficult.

Since experimenting with DML i know that both worlds can be mated
to a degree nearly impossible with conventional speakers.

But i am still working on that, sometimes missing the 'localization' and 'focus'
dimension to some degree. But especially for the type of enjoyful
listener i tried to descibe above, this is for shure an alternative, even
in the recent available state of the technology.

For the 'analytical' ones there seems still work to be done on DML,
but i am convinced those can be statisfied too as time has come.
 
Last edited:
It was some 20 years ago when I first placed a loudspeaker with the back on the floor after reading Peter Pfleiderer's book "HiFi auf den Punkt gebracht". You can read about his "philosophy" under "Acoustics" here: Peter M. Pfleiderer phase minimal recording techniques

Quite similar thoughts about loudspeakers as Stig Carlsson: Reflections that merge with the direct sound, especially coming from the same direction as the speakers are bad, and the remaining reflections should have a spectrum that is closer to that of the direct sound.
But what I find extremely strange is the claim that in-wall placement causes a 6 dB gain. Every DIY beginner should know that moving the speaker away from the wall causes a 6 dB loss.