it hasn´t, take a closer look at the pictures - the tweeter is effectively integrated into the floor
Looks like the one I thought to be a tweeter is a port 
Anyway, I'm not convinced ! I think there is too much of direct sound from the tweeter. If I place a dome tweeter on the floor and aim it to the listening position I locate the sound coming from the floor. I cannot see how Snell type 1 would be any better.
Anyway, I'm not convinced ! I think there is too much of direct sound from the tweeter. If I place a dome tweeter on the floor and aim it to the listening position I locate the sound coming from the floor. I cannot see how Snell type 1 would be any better.
I agree. The sound would come from the floor just like the sound of a "flodder" will come from the floor if there's no other source (real or reflection) that is strong enough to override precedence. But hasn't all of this already been presented and discussed months (years?) ago?
Looks like the one I thought to be a tweeter is a port
Anyway, I'm not convinced ! I think there is too much of direct sound from the tweeter. If I place a dome tweeter on the floor and aim it to the listening position I locate the sound coming from the floor. I cannot see how Snell type 1 would be any better.
it is different - take a closer look at the photos
You cannot see?
Why don't You ask diyaudio users who owned it? Read this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/136887-snell-type-1s.html
Did You actually try it?
oh really? precedence effect in the vertical plane?
Bloomline Acoustics
What should I see ? Give me some bias and tell what to see, then maybe I see it too
From the Snell thread the owner says:
Yes I've tried. I got plenty of dome tweeters laying around from past failed projects
There is a big difference if the floor placed dome is facing towards the listening position or the ceiling. But only blocking the direct sound by a absorbing pillow makes the dome not to be perceivable as a source.
I think the Snell could work IF the baffle would be tilted much more backwards, horisontally.
Give me some bias and tell what to see, then maybe I see it too
Bias? Plain stupid ignorance, that's what is needed...
By the way, here's what James Croft has to say about the Snell Type One: http://www.faktiskt.se/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1110107#1110107
hmmm ...
I haven't heard the Snell. From my own flooder tweeters (tweeters on floor and up-firing), I get very good imaging of normal height.
Maybe the central channel helps pulling it up, but I don't sense the changes in height from left-center-right panning as well.
Maybe I could try turning off the central channel to see if there'd be any problem in height.
I haven't heard the Snell. From my own flooder tweeters (tweeters on floor and up-firing), I get very good imaging of normal height.
Maybe the central channel helps pulling it up, but I don't sense the changes in height from left-center-right panning as well.
Maybe I could try turning off the central channel to see if there'd be any problem in height.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-156.html#post2547090
still what it has to do with precedence effect?
what the precedence effect has to do with sound source localisation mechanisms in the vertical plane?
Markus first talked about summing localisation in the vertical plane, then about breaking of the precedence effect in the vertical plane, now he talks about plain stupidity, well, I certainly can see some consistence in his posts here
What should I see ? Give me some bias and tell what to see, then maybe I see it too
look at the picture below and then try to draw lines for specular reflections from the tweeter towards the listener
but the one who complained about it also says:
and the other one - quoted by You commented:
so the sound was certainly NOT as coming from the floor
but in case of a mono flooder the direct sound was not absorbed, am I right?
Attachments
Last edited:
certainly Snell "Type" 1 was suboptimal as an implementation of FCUFC (floor coupled up-firing configuration) principle
but it is an interesting early historical example and Mr Crofts' comments on the problem of soundstage height throw some light on the question of better performance (in that regard) of the implementation of FCUFC as proposed in this thread
Last edited:
Phantom imaging works not only horizontally but vertically too. There's not much literature about it. Audyssey wrote a paper about it. There's also a JASA paper by Roffler/Butler "Factors That Influence the Localization of Sound in the Vertical Plane".
Really no "magic" in a "flodder". If a design creates a high level of reflections, spaciousness and ASW increase. (Phantom) sources are no longer pin-point sharp and it becomes impossible to tell if the image is directly at the floor.
Depending on the level of reflections, image shift will occur which elevates (phantom) sources.
Listening room specific spaciousness might be a pleasant effect for certain recordings but not for each and every recording.
My listening room, also my living room, is very reflective.
I've tried several positions for the flooder tweeters:
1) right behind main OB (visually blocked)
2) behind main OB, pushed against the wall, not entirely visually blocked
3) bring them upfront, beside main OB -- side by side, tweeters at the inside
By intuition, the tweeters on floor, especially not visually blocked, would greatly affect the perception - they're down there. But actually not the case, at least in my room.
The tweeters operate above 3kHz with shallow filter below that. Cases 1) and 2) mentioned above are sounding very similar, or I should say I can't notice any significant differece. Maybe at the threshold between really-something and mental effect.
Case 3) is interesting, I can see the tweeters lying there, but the sound images are obviously not. They are floating around. The major difference with other 2 is the sense of distances with images. This is of course much closer, with some emphasis on various details, and overall a shallower depth.
Slightly different in spaciousness, all 3 provide very well-defined imaging. I'd not say pinpoint, because their sizes are different, as they should be.
By the way, I often listen with my eyes closed.
I've tried several positions for the flooder tweeters:
1) right behind main OB (visually blocked)
2) behind main OB, pushed against the wall, not entirely visually blocked
3) bring them upfront, beside main OB -- side by side, tweeters at the inside
By intuition, the tweeters on floor, especially not visually blocked, would greatly affect the perception - they're down there. But actually not the case, at least in my room.
The tweeters operate above 3kHz with shallow filter below that. Cases 1) and 2) mentioned above are sounding very similar, or I should say I can't notice any significant differece. Maybe at the threshold between really-something and mental effect.
Case 3) is interesting, I can see the tweeters lying there, but the sound images are obviously not. They are floating around. The major difference with other 2 is the sense of distances with images. This is of course much closer, with some emphasis on various details, and overall a shallower depth.
Slightly different in spaciousness, all 3 provide very well-defined imaging. I'd not say pinpoint, because their sizes are different, as they should be.
By the way, I often listen with my eyes closed.
In my monoflooder test the speaker was facing the ceiling. In that case I could not locate the speaker.
Then I tried to turn the speaker facing the listening area, and immediately the speaker was localisable or the sound was coming from the floor.
now - what was the directivity of the speaker? Wasn't it a typical directivity of a 2-way minimonitor?
Was there any significant increase of the level of the direct sound when it was tilted vs lying flat?
I've experience the same using a 8" full range speaker (Visaton B200). Aiming at the first ceiling reflection point lifted the sound stage from the floor. The reflection was even so strong that certain sounds came from a location near the ceiling. It's a simple breakdown of precedence with our brain trying to make sense of the additional sound source and fusing everything into one large spacious image.
There are many systems employing 3D stereo field. Ambisonic comes to mind first
Others include 3D vector amplitude panning, like the one proposed by Lokki.I don't understand the point. Sound direction can be localised without any reflections. In Snell Type 1 there is strong direct sound from the tweeter, which can result to image localised low.
Yes there was a big difference in the treble range. I posted measurements long ago in some of these threads.