You said that:
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.
Have You considered what happened exactly when You turned the speaker towards the listening area?
because You said that:
It was a normal 2-way 12 l box with 1" dome tweeter and 6.5" bass.
so do You really think that what changed after You had turned it towards the listening area was the "fine balance of floor and ceiling reflected sound, and propably direct sound too"?
Could be this fairly typical two-way speaker with 1" dome tweeter that You used for Your test so atypically directional?
When the box was placed on the floor and aimed to the ceiling, there are no dominant direct sound at high freqs but there are multible of reflections (ceiling, walls) arriving almost at the same time window. This propably resulted ambiguity in perceived location.
As soon as the box was turned towards the listening position to get stronger direct sound at high freqs, the image is at the floor.
There is nothing mystical here.
- Elias
How much stronger? Which frequencies? Has the direct/ceiling reflected sound ratio really changed at all?
Please consider the directivity of a typical 1" dome tweeter.
That's bad news for flooder approach
How something that is fundamentally based on the second worse, the ceiling reflection, could prove itself into something good, (admitting that it may have avoided the most disturbing, the floor reflection, by a proper design) ?
So let me get this straight. One guy says the floor reflection should be addressed, and all of a sudden that is a rule or law that should govern accurate reproduction? This is inspite of the fact that all studio have speakers in rooms that have floor reflections, and floor reflections are an everyday part of a humans life?
Everything in a humans auditory life has floor reflections as part of the equation. Traffic on a street, a sonic boom from overhead, jackhammers, voices, airplane traffic overhead, rail trains, subways - jeeze I could go on. Floor reflections are part of the human auditory evolution. Thousands of years ago, animal and human footsteps alerted others of an approach. Remove that cue, and how do you determine approaching things? How do we know when waves crash?
Whoever is selling and parroting this, I am not buying it.
and I was hoping for a serious discussion, silly me
This is a classical take my jacks and go home behavior. Listen, folks are going to disagree with you. If this is your response, then you only interest is talking and agreeing with yourself, or others who think exactly like you.
How do you learn from that?
Or maybe it is that you are not are willing to learn, and know it all. I certainly can't say that, which is why I am here.
What about cancellation of radiation from speaker of wavelengths comparable to those of distance from LF speaker to floor? Might leave a hole in upper LF response. No?
Floor reflections, like capacitors and digital audio are omnipresent and easy to understand. Therefore they are easy and convenient to vilify. Nothing more than that.
Doesn't this occur in nature? Our ear/brain mechanism can easily ignore what is not there(a cancellation), but is not very good at ignoring something audibly intrusive(like a peak). Omce you understand the concept, it is easy to account for it during playback.
Our hearing as evolved over time to be a close to the ground mechanism. Even with floor bounce cancellation, we can still identfy the direction of objects, their size, and how close they are. We have adapted to this.
I don't dispute what happens in nature but reproduction of recorded sound is not a natural event, especially in a small room.
Insofar as we're creating an illusion, I think it better if all the cues for the illusion be present. Having gaps in frequency response of direct sound say, at wavelengths between 12" and 18" is a good piece of an important octave.
I think this can have an effect on timbre even if we can manage the locational function.
Insofar as we're creating an illusion, I think it better if all the cues for the illusion be present. Having gaps in frequency response of direct sound say, at wavelengths between 12" and 18" is a good piece of an important octave.
I think this can have an effect on timbre even if we can manage the locational function.
Frank, I am sorry if I am being disrespectful, but it is not possible to create all of the cues for illusion when the variability of the end user has no perspective, and is reliant on their own subjective views of the quality and resolution of the recording. It strongly depends on how wide the gap you speak of really is, and that varies so profoundly between speaker, speaker height, and the dispersion pattern of the speaker at various frequencies.
The best auto based room correction can render your argument to a minor insignificant status. Even REW can point out a cancellation at the offending frequencies and recommend or send a corrective curve. Floor bounce is not a new phenom, it is well recognized amoug amatuer and professional speaker designers. I think this is a mountain out of a molehill perspective.
The best auto based room correction can render your argument to a minor insignificant status. Even REW can point out a cancellation at the offending frequencies and recommend or send a corrective curve. Floor bounce is not a new phenom, it is well recognized amoug amatuer and professional speaker designers. I think this is a mountain out of a molehill perspective.
my response? over 500 posts in this particular thread only
the particular issue raised by Elias has been discussed already as well
in one sentence - ceiling reflection is detrimental in case of a conventional forward firing speaker - the case that was tested in the quoted academic research
I have answered to all those questions many times before.
Is it any wonder that I have finally become tired? Is it really that difficult to understand?
But You have to know the thread to understand it.
So please read the entire thread before judging me on account of just one of my posts
please
read the thread please
we are talking here about perception of reflections in TIME DOMAIN not about perception of bounces in frequency domain
Based on what I have seen over the years, there is much more emphasis on the Frequency domain than the time domain. Lot's of speaker manufacturers try and pay careful attention to the frequency response of their speakers, but almost none on time alignment. So it seems this a majoring in minors argument here.
From what I have read, both floor and ceiling reflections are terrible both in time domain and frequency domain. How can a speaker that sits on the floor, and points towards the ceiling possibly be good on audio signals based on that? Aren't they both delayed signals reaching the ear after the direct output of the speakers? Doesn't that stimulate floor to ceiling resonances more than a speaker pointing into the room on a speaker stand?
Our ears have adapted to floor bounces, but not so much to ceiling bounces. Floor bounces occur
Last edited:
I hope it was more than just a try.
I am not going to say keep trying
It suffices to say that perception of sound, eg. of a sound reflection, in time domain is independent from its perception in spectral/frequency domain.
We can perceive a reflection in time domain and we can perceive its effect on frequency spectrum - quite separately.
These are separate issues - perceptually.
Many engineers seem to overlook the perceptual - psychoacoustic - perspective.
Similarly they overlook the fact that time in sound perception is not just phase.
Hearing is working in time domain well before any complex waveform stabilizes with phase relationships in it.
Last edited: