The best way to achieve that is using additional speakers.
Where's the contradiction? Sound pressure goes up by 6dB when radiating in half space.
I see, so this is "all that" You have tried?
You have placed "a" loudspeaker ("a" loudspeaker that is "a loudspeaker not meant for such placement"?) with the back on the floor? no single way or anything coincident at least, no Beveridge placement, neither anything resembling the Carlssons
But there is nothing even alluding to a ceiling flooder or any similar concept and statements regarding early reflections are actually pretty standard, "old school", not like Toole or Moulton for example
Strange, I can see no trace of it in the writings You have linked to, not even slightest allusion.
I would even say that anything aimed to the ceiling seems not to fit in Herr Pfleiderer sound philosophy at all. Did He recommended to place them ideally 1.5 away from the walls and at least 80 cm above the floor? Such recommendation I can read in the linked writings of Him.
I like what He writes about the need of waveform fidelity and consequently using time coherent coincident speaker, and also about bassreflex and so on.
But regarding room-speaker interface I cannot see any similarities to my propositions.
I also think that His arguments about early reflections <4 ms as degrading waveforms are based on misunderstanding. His speaking of "phase" suggests that He used steady state signals as reference. In my opinion use of steady state signals is misguiding in this context because speech and music is 100% of transient character.
Human hearing analyses transients in time domain and resolution of this analysis reaches tens of MICROseconds.
best,
graaf
Last edited:
The truth is that you need compensation for a free-standing speaker, not for an in-wall speaker.
I think Markus means these extra tweeters that shall compensate the treble loss of the reflections.
but it does, it is true
actually it is more complicated, fortunately for us there is a simple spreadsheet written by Roy Allison:
Other | The Classic Speaker Pages
under "Bestplace Speaker Placement program by RDL, Inc., version 1.0"
best,
graaf
overall interesting analysis but the above quoted statements are simply false with regard to my ceiling flooder
localization and focus of transient sounds like drums, cymbals and
consonants is actually quite stunning, to say simply realistic would be injustice to what I can hear, stunning is the right word
best,
graaf
Depends on how you look at it. How does a drivers frequency response look in 2π or 4π space? What needs to be compensated for? At lower frequencies direct and reflected sound becomes one - where to draw the line?
oh yes, I can it see now
anyway it is more Carlsson approach (all those multiple tweeters aiming all around) than a ceiling flooder
best,
graaf
I hesitated to confess I have that CD. I just dug it out for testing. Technically as bad as musically. Maybe it was recorded in a church, but I am very sure there were no stereo microphones used.
I had almost forgotten I have a CD from him. That's really hardcore-diffuse. Long, long ago that I listened to it last time, but from my memory I would prefer it with the Spendor BC1.
You questioned my experience in an unkind manner so I linked Pfleiderer to show you that all these ideas and practices are not new to me. His book - I still have it - introduces a couple of ideas that he dumped later on. So did Moulton, Carlsson, etc. That's just how this audiphool circus works.
but which CDs? I was not refering to particular recordings just to very different performers as typical examples of very different auditory spaces
I never listened to Sonab speakers (the ones whith the multiple cone tweeters). I wonder whether Stig Carlsson switched to the design I use because it is better or because he could use just one modern dome tweeter.
I have En Attendant somewhere but my favourite is Missa Cantilena, as to musical quality, well, de gustibus est non disputandum
I don't remember En Attendant well from sound qualityperspective but Missa Cantilena spatially was not bad
As to Schulze my favourite is Timewind and I use that CD for test purposes, among many others like Kind of Blue for example, therefore I was refering also to Davis
best,
graaf
perhaps He just experimentally came to the conclusion that his final design with slanted top (the OA50-58 series) is better than the older one Shahinian-like with multiple tweeters
when one cannot find clear instructions what to do in the books (because we cannot qualify what we can quantify ) one HAS TO experiment, and it's hit-and-miss in the end
the only alternative is fetishization of someone else's experience like mainstream pros for example
but the problem is that their priorities can be different and in consequence it makes their experimentally proven methods irrelevant in a different perspective
best,
graaf
Last edited:
Hi,
Seconded majorley.
There are some interesting "room tweaks" that can help by creating very weak harmonically coupled secondary sources (the infamous harmonica plate tweak or related items) and thus "detract attention" from the signle source.
And hence are often found where exposing such is part of the Job (Studio's, reviewers etc).
Interesting. Which implementations have you compared? I find the units I encountered way too compromised in many major areas (no bass, no dynamic range, not SPL handling) to enjoy them.
Ciao T
Seconded majorley.
There are some interesting "room tweaks" that can help by creating very weak harmonically coupled secondary sources (the infamous harmonica plate tweak or related items) and thus "detract attention" from the signle source.
And hence are often found where exposing such is part of the Job (Studio's, reviewers etc).
Interesting. Which implementations have you compared? I find the units I encountered way too compromised in many major areas (no bass, no dynamic range, not SPL handling) to enjoy them.
Ciao T
...
Have you got some links or pics ? I know only of the usual absorbers
and diffusers ...
OK, just for fun we could organize a contest with different
disciplines:
- Built the ultimate Klaus Schulze Speaker
- Built the ultimate Kraftwerk Speaker
...
My best Klaus Schulze speaker i built with a friend of mine
>25 years ago.
It was a 180 degree omi design with a fat folded TL,
bass driver mass loaded over bottom tuned at about 20 Hz,
a 180 degree midrange horn with a cylinder jacket shaped mouth,
and - yes - a tweeter firing towards the ceiling.
A good Kraftwerk speaker e.g. has to look very different IMO ...
fun is Ok.
but seriously - what are You talking about?
where do You have "drums, cymbals and consonants" on a typical Schulze?
and let me repeat once again:
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
Last edited:
perhaps out of habit?
a comment from: Early reflections or not - Gearslutz.com
because on the other hand (also from gearslutz):
yes, it is strange, DMLs are around for quite a while with no visible success
I wonder why? Are they really so bad?
below an illustration of an evolution of thinking - from controlled to constant
or was it just another "audiophool"?
best,
graaf
Attachments
Last edited: