I didn't notice any vertical shift with the flooders. I had the image in in front of me when having the speakers in front of me, just less focus and a shift backwards. I had some "desintegration" of the phantom images when sitting too close to the speakers. I couldn't reproduce graaf's effect of localization in front with the speakers standing on the floor. In this case the speakers became localizable. But this doesn't mean this effect can not be produced with other drivers. The two Ciares I tested behave quite differently, so maybe the Fostex is a completely different cup of tea.
The most extreme non-localization I had was with DIY DMLs with magnetostatic drive and a diaphragm similar to the Linaeum.
Oliver, as you have built something similar, did you make the same observation?
Do you mean localization of the loudspeaker or of the
phantom images of instruments and singers itself ?
Concerning the speakers to be perceptually non-localized
the DMLs i have built so far are simply superior to everything i have
heard before. My Dipol 08 design is now simply outperfomed when it
comes to "disappearing speaker" act, especially in a "wet" listening
environment.
I would expect the same for every DML regardless to manufacturer
which has a quite balanced reproduction. This would include the
Walsh Transducer (Ohm) and the more recent relatives like DDD,
though i had no opportunity to listen to those.
When listening to well produced sterephonic material
- chamber music e.g.- the phantom images seem to be
less focussed as with many conventional speakers.
On the other hand there is a realistic depth and the image is
very very stable when you change your listening position.
I it is nearly like you could walk through the images and the
listening room and its properties steps back.
All in all a very "lifelike" imaging is possible and the absence of
"pinpoint focus" is something one might get accustomed to after
a while, when before adjusted to good conventional speakers.
After beeing accustomed to DML i regard the absence of pinpoint
as more realistic. But it might be a kind of adaption process.
To me the subjective difference in imaging between loudspeaker
reproduction and a real concert event has shrinked as i had seldom
"pinpoint" localization in a concert, not even the strike of a triangle ...
We should remember that we go to concert with eyes open normally.
When listening with closed eyes, to me there is seldom pinpoint
localization. It seems to be an artefact from stereophonic loudspeaker
reproduction IMO which is often hyped as "realistic" by some
audio magazines.
Sound sources are located (by direction and distance) in space and
have an extension in space. There is subjective overlap, which makes
up the ensemble of musicians as a cohesive whole.
I mean the simple test enclusures, not the Carlssons.
The Carlssons behave not so extreme. Image shifts less downwards when moving the speakers downwards, and also less change in focus.
To my ears the Carlssons with tweeters behave the same as those without tweeters what concerns imaging. Crossover to the tweeters is 5 kHz.
I only built a single one of them. No localization of both performers and speakers. I had iron/magnets for a second one, but I had severe resonance problems, so I cancelled the project.
I listened to DDD, MBL, Duevel, Podium Sound, Goebel, but all stereo and with different music in different rooms. But I think all of them had less focus than the Carlssons.
Mostly when I go to concert I sit some distance away from the musicians, but in the cases when I get a seat close to them I find there is clear source localization. But in principle I don't find it very bad when I sit further away.
As said the conditions were very different, but from what I heard I liked the imaging of the Duevel least because of the flatness and wideness. This speaker was far ahead of the "exots" in most other respects, however.
I can't remember them
were they with flat top or slanted? with single full range? of what diameter?
The HX160 ceiling flooder (on ear height) was not much behind the DML when playing mono. But with two of them one could hardly hear any stereo, so I find reaching for the extreme is not very desirable for most listeners, at least not for me.
strange, perhaps it has something to do with suboptimal placement in Your room and/or relative speakers-listener position? I have observed that the further the better
I had spectacular stereo with Fostex flooders, reliability of which I checked many times with various test CD's like the one from XLO for example
best,
graaf
It is interesting and meets my experience, that a speaker good at
certain aspects may although not be good at imaging.
I agree with localization, when sitting near to the musicians but even
at concerts i normally prefer a little distance for "overview" ...
@graaf:
Concerning the ceiling flooder i think it is a bit strange to rely
on the frequency dependent beaming of a fullranger ...
I could imagine making a ceiling flooder from an array of mini
widerangers which is Xoed with a time delayed woofer.
The woofer would cover the modal to transitional range of the room
say up to 500 Hz and the widerange array would cover the "rest".
Radiation pattern (electronic phase control ?) would be aligned
to minimize sound directly radiated to the listener and could
be made more frequency independent compared to a fullranger.
Maybe a waveguide could do the job too ...
(There was this strange Lowther cabinet ...)
Not my cup of tea but would be a more "puristic" implementation
of the idea.
But your reporting points to your setup is already optimum ...
With the HX201 it was better not to be so far away. For good (not too diffuse) imaging it seemed to be essential that the ceiling reflection had a nice impulse response, and it degraded with too much distance.
I admit I haven't made this test with the HX160 in my workshop. And in my listening room a much higher distance wouldn't have been possible anyway.
well, it's a strange box
it is an approach of making strenghts out of weaknesses
but is the alternative less crazy?
think of it:
an array of mini widerangers plus a time delayed woofer plus perhaps electronic phase control or maybe a waveguide
geeez, I give up!
my flooder is meant to be a simple DIY project for every music lover
yes, the Ace
It was nice
well, can there really be anything more puristic than single driver in a simple small box?
best regards,
graaf
You may search Gramophone's Archive with "Sonab" or "Carlsson":
Gramophone Archive
login to view the articles as PDFs
enjoy!
best,
graaf
I meant "puristic" due to coincidence with a certain concept.
The approach you go is "simplistic". That is something
different to me. A simplistic implementation is not
necessarily bad, if one can show the implementation
to coincide with that concept in mind.
If the concept is to have sound reflected via the ceiling,
there would be implementations that fullfill that concept
more or less.
I am a friend of discussing concepts and implementations
successively because concepts as well as religions often
cause excitement for those who stand for them.
The conformity of a given implementation to a concept
- or a specification - can be discussed with far less
emotional effort. This is because is does not matter for
the discussion, whether the participants support the
concept or not.
If you say it is OK to let the ratio of direct vs. ceiling
reflected sound be dependent from the dispersion
characteristics of your special driver in use,
i am fine with that.
Someone else would use a different driver in a different
room. Is the implemention of "someone else" then
conformimg to your concept as well ?
If yes: What is your concept ?
If no: See above.
See the problem ?
To ask a different question:
Would you assume for your concept that a constant power input
to the room (independent from frequency) belongs to the concept?
If yes: Can you please show us how you achieve that in your implementation ?
If no: Why does the power need not be independent from frequency when using
your concept.
Please do not hide behind literature. I'd like concrete answers
concerning your favoured concept and your specific implementation.
Because this is what other participants in this thread at least try
to do: Bringing in their favourite concepts and their experience in
implementation.
Advocating concepts and mixtures of concepts based on literature
is nice, but when it comes to a decision for a certain concept
(or ones favourite mixture of concepts, no problem)
and committing to it, then we enter the realm of implemention.
An implementation can always be challenged by questions like
"In how far is this or that aspect of the concept conformed ?"
I cannot see you answer those questions or at least trying.
I can only see you hide away ...
The approach you go is "simplistic". That is something
different to me. A simplistic implementation is not
necessarily bad, if one can show the implementation
to coincide with that concept in mind.
If the concept is to have sound reflected via the ceiling,
there would be implementations that fullfill that concept
more or less.
I am a friend of discussing concepts and implementations
successively because concepts as well as religions often
cause excitement for those who stand for them.
The conformity of a given implementation to a concept
- or a specification - can be discussed with far less
emotional effort. This is because is does not matter for
the discussion, whether the participants support the
concept or not.
If you say it is OK to let the ratio of direct vs. ceiling
reflected sound be dependent from the dispersion
characteristics of your special driver in use,
i am fine with that.
Someone else would use a different driver in a different
room. Is the implemention of "someone else" then
conformimg to your concept as well ?
If yes: What is your concept ?
If no: See above.
See the problem ?
To ask a different question:
Would you assume for your concept that a constant power input
to the room (independent from frequency) belongs to the concept?
If yes: Can you please show us how you achieve that in your implementation ?
If no: Why does the power need not be independent from frequency when using
your concept.
Please do not hide behind literature. I'd like concrete answers
concerning your favoured concept and your specific implementation.
Because this is what other participants in this thread at least try
to do: Bringing in their favourite concepts and their experience in
implementation.
Advocating concepts and mixtures of concepts based on literature
is nice, but when it comes to a decision for a certain concept
(or ones favourite mixture of concepts, no problem)
and committing to it, then we enter the realm of implemention.
An implementation can always be challenged by questions like
"In how far is this or that aspect of the concept conformed ?"
I cannot see you answer those questions or at least trying.
I can only see you hide away ...
A common answer of people who do not like dealing with
details is:
"Im a concept designer (or architect). I do not care about
implementation because this is below my intellectual scope."
Unfortunately the (small) subset of buildings or technical
constructs which work well on this planet, has been designed
by people either knowing the details of implementation and
recent technology very well or at least by those able to
cooperate with specialists who are aware of
the details.
details is:
"Im a concept designer (or architect). I do not care about
implementation because this is below my intellectual scope."
Unfortunately the (small) subset of buildings or technical
constructs which work well on this planet, has been designed
by people either knowing the details of implementation and
recent technology very well or at least by those able to
cooperate with specialists who are aware of
the details.
Last edited:
