The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

What is ridiculous about it?

It is just psychoacoustics.

If you say so:rolleyes:

And it has been confirmed in the "Archimedes" Eureka-funded scientific research project I linked above.

Has this been peer reviewed? Has it been submitting to AES or any other organization? If not, its validity is questionable and untested.

Ceiling reflection is detrimental to the sound quality of a conventional forward firing speaker but it affects quality in a different way than floor reflection.



It is the floor reflection that destroys the sense of realism:

That last statement is pure crap, and this is where you lose credibility with me. A floor bounce is so apart of our everyday hearing we have largely learned to ignore it. Ceiling bounces are a different story entirely. We have not learned over time to use the ceiling or sky as a way of determining direction like we have the floor. As a matter of fact our ears do very poorly at determining direction coming from above our heads.

As Pano has stated, if you like the flooder system that is one thing. But to snow job the rest of with these crappy theories is just plain annoying.
 
and this is exactly my point, this is exactly why FCUFS work! Can´t You see?

Yes I can see....I can see BS when I read it. If this is supposedly the best approach how come nobody has endorsed it except this one study? Why are there are no commercial products, or any peered reviewed papers that support it? How come what I have read from Toole's work does not support anything I have read from you in this thread? Or any work I have read since I started in audio?

Yes I truly see the nonsense here.
 
If this is supposedly the best approach how come nobody has endorsed it except this one study?

Which study? There is no conclusive study that established the fact that a speaker on the floor is the best thing since sliced bread.
Sure, the floor bounce might be a distance cue (revealing the location of the speakers) and loud first reflections (from the ceiling) can override earlier localization cues (e.g. from the direct sound) but those are pretty weak arguments for putting a speaker on the floor.
 
Last edited:
Which study? There is no conclusive study that established the fact that a speaker on the floor is the best thing since sliced bread.

Of course you are right, and that was my point exactly. I was referencing this comment

And it has been confirmed in the "Archimedes" Eureka-funded scientific research project

Sure, the floor bounce might be a distance cue (revealing the location of the speakers) and loud first reflections (from the ceiling) can override earlier localization cues (e.g. from the direct sound) but those are pretty weak arguments for putting a speaker on the floor.

I agree. My next question is how can a track mixed and mastered on a front firing speaker translate well to a speaker sitting on the ground and firing upward? I cannot see this working very well, just like movie soundtracks sound overly diffused played back through bipolar speakers
 
I was looking for the loudspeakers and room system thread, and wtf ?!? :masked:

So, advantages it shall be ? Is it allowed to disscuss any disadvantages of flooders in this thread :rolleyes:


oh c'mon Elias! :) what cues? Consider the system as a whole ie. the floor coupled speaker AND its ceiling reflection - HRTF? Consider that we have here high freqs BOTH from below and from above :)

It is possible to mask the origin location of the source by presenting relatively strong almost simultaneous reflections to the listener in addition to the direct sound.

But how does this relate to goodness or badness of floor reflection ?


the difference is caused by the fact that a ceiling/coming-from-above reflection is not - unlike a ground/floor reflection - a spatial cue per se

So in your theory above sounds are no cues ? Do you locate birds singing flying above to the horisontal plane ? ;)
 
A floor bounce is so apart of our everyday hearing we have largely learned to ignore it. Ceiling bounces are a different story entirely. We have not learned over time to use the ceiling or sky as a way of determining direction like we have the floor.

Take into account that this same thing is exactly the case with stereo itself ! There is no similar situation in nature like 2 sound sources in 60 deg angle emitting the same sound at the same time. The reason some people hear phantom images in between the speakers is due to lack of adaptation to this effect in nature during the past millions of years. If our hearing would be accurate, we would be allways hearing 2 speakers in their exact locations.

It may very well be that due to lack of adaptation of ceiling sounds in nature, there is similar effect taking place like in phantom imaging. It is possible, that ceiling sounds can be used as a tool to generate effects. Why not to take the possible benefits out of it.
 
Take into account that this same thing is exactly the case with stereo itself ! There is no similar situation in nature like 2 sound sources in 60 deg angle emitting the same sound at the same time. The reason some people hear phantom images in between the speakers is due to lack of adaptation to this effect in nature during the past millions of years. If our hearing would be accurate, we would be allways hearing 2 speakers in their exact locations.

Elias, when stereo vinyl came on the scene, engineers already knew that two channels was not enough for good soundstaging. However, we have managed to get fairly decent sound from two channel as a result of years of experimentation and experience. Flooders do not have that level of long term experimentation behind it, as a matter of fact you cannot even find information on flooders when you google. Our familiarity with two channel allows most of us(myself not included though) to ignore the drawbacks, and adapt to what is there.

It may very well be that due to lack of adaptation of ceiling sounds in nature, there is similar effect taking place like in phantom imaging. It is possible, that ceiling sounds can be used as a tool to generate effects. Why not to take the possible benefits out of it.

Do I really want an "effect" or do I really want to hear what is on the media? I am more of a latter guy than a former guy. Since I am not a hater, I respect if somebody likes a bit more seasoning than I do.
 
Elias, when stereo vinyl came on the scene, engineers already knew that two channels was not enough for good soundstaging. However, we have managed to get fairly decent sound from two channel as a result of years of experimentation and experience. Flooders do not have that level of long term experimentation behind it, as a matter of fact you cannot even find information on flooders when you google. Our familiarity with two channel allows most of us(myself not included though) to ignore the drawbacks, and adapt to what is there.

In theory 2 media channels are enough for 2 eared listeners. More than 2 media channels is unneccesary and completely redundant. It is just the matter of generating ear canal signals from those 2 channels. That is of course the difficulty, how to do it. Stereo triangle is one method, headphones another, there are other methods too.

The number of loudspeakers is not restricted to the number of media channels.



Do I really want an "effect" or do I really want to hear what is on the media? I am more of a latter guy than a former guy.

But here is the point, two speaker stereo triangle does not provide you with "what is on the media". At the listening position there is gross amount of comb filtering due to interference field from the two speakers. The difference of a real source in the center and the phantom image is the comb filtering (among others). The comb filtering pattern is not on the media, it is of cource created by stereo triangle.

Flooders do one thing good, they can help to overcome this basic flaw of stereo triangle. By adding multible of room reflections the annoyance of comb filtering is decreased. Also the sweet spot is much bigger (also related to interference field). In addition head movements no longer affects the perceived sound, the head can be turned and moved freely.
 
My next question is how can a track mixed and mastered on a front firing speaker translate well to a speaker sitting on the ground and firing upward? I cannot see this working very well, just like movie soundtracks sound overly diffused played back through bipolar speakers

just like? FCUFS is not similar to a bipolar speaker at all, and when it is also coupled to the adjacent wall as I recommend in this thread then in the lateral plane it is just 180 deg. constant directivity like on/in-wall line source, like Beveridge
 
Last edited:
Flooders do one thing good, they can help to overcome this basic flaw of stereo triangle. By adding multible of room reflections the annoyance of comb filtering is decreased. Also the sweet spot is much bigger (also related to interference field). In addition head movements no longer affects the perceived sound, the head can be turned and moved freely.
what You say are the advantages of omni- and also polydirectional speakers. FCUFS have more to offer than just that :D actually if coupled also to the adjacent wall a FCUFS behaves more like Beveridge than a typical omni :cool:
 
just like? FCUFS is not similar to a bipolar speaker at all, and when it is also coupled to the adjacent wall as I recommend in this thread then in the lateral plane it is just 180 deg. constant directivity like on/in-wall line source, like Beveridge

Since we don't use on/in wall line sources anywhere in the mixing or mastering workflow(whether music only or movies), then playing music or a soundtrack back on FCUFS is nothing more than a "effect" that is all. Much like bipolar, and Bose 901's are "effect" speakers as well. It is not representative of anything used in the mixing and mastering workflow.
 
Since we don't use on/in wall line sources anywhere in the mixing or mastering workflow(whether music only or movies), then playing music or a soundtrack back on FCUFS is nothing more than a "effect" that is all. Much like bipolar, and Bose 901's are "effect" speakers as well. It is not representative of anything used in the mixing and mastering workflow.

I can´t understand what can be objectively wrong with transducers free from distortions caused by the floor and incoherent lateral reflections? Yes, they are wide 180 deg dispersion and loud lateral reflections reduce IACC. It is known that engineers, audio pros in general prefer higher IACC in their working environment but it is also known that lower IACC is preferred generally by all listeners for music enjoyment because it brings spaciousness that is characteristic for real sound sources. Dr Toole explains all this in His book. This "effect" makes the sound reproduction more realistic. What is wrong with that??
 
Since we don't use on/in wall line sources anywhere in the mixing or mastering workflow(whether music only or movies), then playing music or a soundtrack back on FCUFS is nothing more than a "effect" that is all. Much like bipolar, and Bose 901's are "effect" speakers as well. It is not representative of anything used in the mixing and mastering workflow.

Isn't it true that a lot of mixing/mastering is done on nearfield monitor speakers? And yet most reproduce the music in the farfield on most speakers. Line arrays keep you in that nearfield and remove the floor/ceiling reflection.
What's wrong with that? :D
 
Since we don't use on/in wall line sources anywhere in the mixing or mastering workflow(whether music only or movies), then playing music or a soundtrack back on FCUFS is nothing more than a "effect" that is all. Much like bipolar, and Bose 901's are "effect" speakers as well. It is not representative of anything used in the mixing and mastering workflow.

And since I don't treat my listening room like a mixing room, I can't hear music at all? You can find mixing/mastering rooms with all kind of speakers including dipoles like Martin Logan. I haven't seen any flooders though, but who cares.