The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

[CLS]

...
how high does DML reach?

Top of my RTA shows, 20kHz.

It's an overall downtilt response, rolling off towards HF with a very shallow slope, but no abrupt drop. It keeps this trend all the way to the top.

Above 3kHz, (very) nearfield SPL of WG'ed tweeter is obviously higher than the DML panel. But their actual contributions to the in room response are hard to tell.

 

[Elias]

Elias, width is 5 meters and I can put SSS also easily. Just was looking for ways how to combine such embient effect with Infinite baffle (which has its own advantages also but totally "flat" soundstage)

It may be best to build a prototype. Then you'll get immediate feedback how it sounds.

 

[Charcoal]

yes, agree. Just hoped may be someone tried already.

 

[Elias]

It's a 3-ch linear matrix system. Left = L-0.5R / Center = 0.5 (R+L) / Right = R-0.5L

It was originally DML panels for all 3-ch, and then the side channels were replaced by the current OB (for its much narrower dispersion). So I've yet to tried OB alone except briefly tests of the xover tuning in this setup.

So did you try the matrix with three identical dipoles ?

It's hard for me to go back to 2-ch stereo.

 

[Elias]

Just hoped may be someone tried already.

Unfortunately it may not be that popular yet

If you do, let us know how it goes.

 

[CLS]

So did you try the matrix with three identical dipoles ?

...

I didn't, for pratical reaon The room is too shallow to find proper space behind dipole central channel.

He did => http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-sound-single-loudspeaker-31.html#post2907305




BTW, TBH my matrix is not a 'standard' one with x=0.5. Becuase the dispersing characters are very differet among the center and sides, their effective volumes and frequency responses to the listening position (or the whole space) are difficult to be sure. Oh well, my measuring skill is lousy, too

Nevertheless, eventually my central DML panel is quieter than it should, also with less HF content compared to the sides. So overall it's probably similar to the shelfing filter you proposed.

And, AFAIK, the mega system mentioned above used similar filter on the central array, too

 

[graaf]

He did => http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-sound-single-loudspeaker-31.html#post2907305

He tested pretty much everything, even a flooded 12'' whizzered bare driver

In despite of my deficient hearing, my improper room and as a result my approximative speakers, I've done some acoustical funny tests.

"The" driver is an indonesian made 12" with a mega wizzer. It's filmsy coil and 39 g mms claim 15000 Hz. Its other great quality is it's price (33 euros for both).

As the goal of this game is only comparative, the configuration "naked driver" + digital equalisation will be enough. Of course, without EQ, it's a nightmare. They are also extremely directive in the HF.


...
Experience 2 :

Same drivers, same EQ, this time simply put on the floor, as close as possible from the back boundary, 4.5 m from each other, 6 meters from the listener.
Since a while I wanted to verify this, to make sure that graaf or tinitus were not too sick.

Result : it's shocking when considering that it's the same drivers than 1 minute ago. All the claims of these gentlemen are real, with the drivers set up like a flower pot (but decoupled from the floor with thick rubber).
Not only the soundstage occupies all the wall (9 meters here) but there is eventually a strong center presence, it's ok for girl and guitar as for giant choruses or symphony. The trains circulate progressively. I insist it's not a mess up.
The Hf is not perceptually reduced (- 2 dB roll off at measure), and that's puzzling because the part over 2500 Hz stays in a 10° cone @ 0 dB. Even with one only running, the source is unlocalizable. Subs are not mandatory except for organ.

For me, adept of multi ways-multi amped systems, this is a double bottom kick : the flooder and the FR. Just the envelopment and perspective are not very good, all this is a kind of 2D image. But for 33 euros...

...
Experience 3 :

Same drivers, but now almost stuck by the magnet, back to back. You will all recognize a side firing, but it's also a linear quadrupole. The big novelty is that this time the drivers are only at 1 meter in front of the listener in the horizontal plane. But in the vertical plane they are 3 meters high, and still far from the ceiling.
...
The restitution style is globally close from the flooder but complementary : more envelopment, but missing the beautiful center presence.

A good idea could be a combination of both : flooder + glider(!), trivial, one for the center, one for the sides (envelopment), all this with some wood around the drivers and a DSP able to control their respective EQ and delay.

however I believe that with lower directivity speaker then 12" used by Radugazon, better dispersion of a better highs, and moved further from the front wall preferably into a Beveridge placement the flooder itself can achieve the same level of 3D

frankly speaking after the above quoted post I came to believe that my mission here had ended when all that seems to be really needed for best sound is a suitable bare driver, optimized stereo triangle geometry and an affordable EQ of the Behringer kind which means ...no fancy carpentry at all?? no sophisticated soldering of fancy ribbon aircores and PIOs? ...then it is obvious that there is no chance of success for such a solution here at diy speaker forum

 

[Mooly]

graaf has just earned himself a short break. Anymore OT posts, provocation and disruptive behaviour may well see permanent suspension of posting privileges.

 

[graaf]

interesting flooder experiments:

6moons audio reviews: Polking fun at DIY speakers

The upfiring model has the same bass inadequacy which could easily be compensated with a pair of subwoofers. Ambience is the real killer. The atmospheric presence is so airy and natural that it transcends hifi to a musical illusion that can be linked only to live concerts. It breaks all the laws of hifi attributes. It makes me wonder whether performer localization we’ve treasured so much might have grown too pin-point sharp to remain real.

indeed adjustable pivoting ceiling speakers seem to be perfect for flooder arrangement - this is my latest find in the field, quite independent from this 6moons article which I discovered just today - the desired ratio of direct/reflected can be easily adjusted ad hoc to listener's preferences

I think that Monitor Audio 380LCR would be a very interesting high quality driver for the purpose

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

 

[Elias]

6moon's experiments and implementation looks more like Pluto with omni midrange and tweeter aimed to listener and they are quite high not at the floor.

I've also had the idea of having the tweeter mounted on a hinge to adjust the direct to reflection ratio. All of my experiments say tweeter should not be aimed directly to the listener, or otherwise the speakers become localisable which is naturally not the goal.


- Elias

 

[graaf]

new Duevel Enterprise:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

more flooder-like then the Planets - basically the same crossover point (somewhere aourn 4 kHz), but bigger midwoofer and much less of the splashing-the-sound-around, no diffusor for the midbass, it's just shooting at the ceiling

and apparently signficantly better soundstage performance than the Planets with their big ball above the midbass:

The 3D image appears to be larger and more stable, with a better focus on instruments and singers.

[Review] Duevel Enterprise omnidirectional loudspeakers [English]

 

[graaf]

throw away the diffusors and make the top of the box just a little bit slanted and here You are:

Direct Acoustics Silent II

here reviewed by Stereophile:
Direct Acoustics Silent Speaker II | Stereophile.com

 

[Juhazi]

^That's nothing new, Sonab did that in the sixties-seventies

CarlssonPlanet.com • Everything about the Carlsson loudspeakers

I have a pair of these at my summer cabin. They fill the room with music (ambience) and must be placed quite far away from each other to get stereo image

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

 

[graaf]

^That's nothing new,

who claims it is "new"?

actually there is a whole lot of information on Carlsson Orthoacoustics in this very thread

in fact truth is that there is nothing new in this business for a long long time

 

[graaf]

ps.

must be placed quite far away from each other to get stereo image

try Beveridge placement (described in this thread) if You can

 

[lolo]

ps.

try Beveridge placement (described in this thread) if You can

I tried that recently actually, with two small and cheap bookshelf speakers. WOW! some recording greatly benefit from it, the effect is just crazy, ECM label for example. For others, it's a big mess. The room is 5.2m wide, speakers where slightly angled towards listening position at the apex and placed 1.8m from the front walls so there was a decent ITG gap.
But what is most important, the ITD gap, the tweeters firing up, or the larger spread?

 

[graaf]

I tried that recently actually, with two small and cheap bookshelf speakers. WOW! some recording greatly benefit from it, the effect is just crazy, ECM label for example. For others, it's a big mess. The room is 5.2m wide, speakers where slightly angled towards listening position at the apex and placed 1.8m from the front walls so there was a decent ITG gap.
But what is most important, the ITD gap, the tweeters firing up, or the larger spread?

how exactly were the speakers placed? on the floor or raised on stands? I understand they were not firing up?

I would say that everything is important but for the Beveridge placement most important is that reflections off the front/back/opposite wall are more delayed than in conventional stereo triangle and the larger spread ...but in the case You described it was probably too large - 5.2m? what was the listener's distance from the stereo base?

what is important in the original Beveridge setup is also elimination of the floor and ceiling reflections by means of a true line source

in the setup I have proposed here the floor reflection is eliminated as well - with very short directional speaker firing up - and the ceiling reflection is perceived by our sense of hearing as a part of THE primary source of sound BUT - unlike a ceiling speaker - a source that doesn't create its own first order floor reflection - that is I believe a very important difference

For others, it's a big mess

what others? ECM recording are famous for their quality

what kind of a big mess precisely? what happened?

 

[lolo]

Here is a quick sketch to explain better:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

I did seat the speakers on two low chairs, around 50cm from floor and also straight on the floor, firing up but slightly angled towards the listening spot. I also Eq by ear with electri-Q. My attempts with two bare B200 did not bring anything good so I sticked with the bookshelves.

The reason I tried that is I could not get a realistic image with the usual 2.5m spread on this track (the original record is much better) which I also attended live, a moving piece for my wife and I.

A Filetta, Paolo Fresu, Daniele di Bonaventura "Mistico Mediterraneo" - Pommiers 2011 fragm. 1 - YouTube

Keep in mind that the speakers used are very cheap, maybe 50€/pair, but I wasn't after quality, just image presentation.

Well, when the group singers start on the left, instantanely my wife and I looked at each other and thought, holly cow, they are here, the size, placement and spread of the source became right. Same happened on all ECM recordings I tried after, they just sounded "right".
Then, classical rated from "ok", to poor. I tried many as well and we are still only talking image presentation, nothing else.
Last, studio electronic music. I used Jarre original Oxygen, Telefon Tel Aviv, Steve Roach Lost pieces and some Kenji Kawai tracks. That did not work at all.

As a sidenote, my ceiling is only 2.3 high. Lately I managed to get my dipoles further in the room whilst not loosing too much spread. The longer ITD gap made the speaker really dissappear on almost EVERY recording.

Hence my question, what is the most important:
-the spread? I believe for stereo it has to be large. So we need large rooms unfortunately.
-ITD: something great happends when you get around 10ms.
-tweeters firing up? I don't know, haven't tried that with the dipoles.

I could also compare with a true omni source in the nearfield. The thing is, I would love my system to be on the wall, for convenience and aesthetics, so will not give up just now on that.

Voila, my 2c!

 

[Juhazi]

Carlsson / Sonab speakers are designed to sit next to wall. The bass output is designed to take benefit of boundary gain. I have never had a chance to place them optimally for a uniform stereo triangle, in three different houses! I've had them for 15 years now.

It is almost impossible to place any speaker optimally or orthodoxically at home. When I lived alone, I had big 3-ways that had wheels - it was easy to roll them to optimal position.

 

[graaf]

Here is a quick sketch to explain better:
...Voila, my 2c!

thank You so much!

Then, classical rated from "ok", to poor. I tried many as well and we are still only talking image presentation, nothing else.
Last, studio electronic music. I used Jarre original Oxygen, Telefon Tel Aviv, Steve Roach Lost pieces and some Kenji Kawai tracks. That did not work at all.

what was wrong? relative sizes of the virtual sound sources, their placement or spread?

I wonder what makes the difference between ECM recordings and the rest that You listened to