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?
mixing and mastering is done on a variety of speakers and in a variety of environments - including cars. This is done to make sure the final mix sounds good even on a boombox.
I know, but I got tired of reading that argument about the equipment used in the mixing stage. Surely we don't have to buy that same range of speakers they used in their process?
what about Don Keele's CBTs? Do You consider them unsuitable for HiFi applications? Because You won´t find anything like them in studios. And they are even a bit flooder-like
what about Don Keele's CBTs? Do You consider them unsuitable for HiFi applications? Because You won´t find anything like them in studios. And they are even a bit flooder-like
Do You know any???
I do, because I have tried flooder.
I think the most notable disadvantage is a lack of pin-point-imaging (HiFi term). The images are bigger than pins with flooder and bigger than what one may have been used to with conventional speakers. Flooders are no suitable for keyhole peekers.
That said, there is another issue, even more severe. If one wishes to satisfy his audiophile desire to listen to his loudspeakers it does not go ! Because the speakers are no longer perceived as sound sources. What a disaster !
what about Don Keele's CBTs? Do You consider them unsuitable for HiFi applications? Because You won´t find anything like them in studios. And they are even a bit flooder-like
I didn't say anything was unsuitable, I distinctly said it was an "effect".
Can you understand the difference?
I cannot tell you how wrong you are on this. Yes the speakers we mix and master on are from different manufacturers, but their design is similar. They are front firing speakers like 99% of the homes have in their listening rooms.
I have never heard of a single mix done in a car. What we use to simulate a car speaker is a one driver box speaker sitting on the edge of the console.
While studio's have different sizes, their shapes vary between a box to a rectangle. We don't mix in round studios, octagons, or any other shape. The results would be far too unpredictable
If you bought a front firing speaker, then you have already bought the same range of speakers used in mixing and mastering. It is the technology, not the different manufacturer that is the issue here.
Let's face it. I know of no studio that uses a flooder to mix or master audio. I know of no Bose 901 or any other speaker that uses a majority of reflections as part of its dispersion pattern used in mixing or mastering. So if you play audio back on these types of speakers, you are creating an "effect" and that is it.
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?
Unless you have a very, very large room, you are listening in the nearfield. AES defines nearfield as anything less than 10ft away. Not many here have a listening room that allows them to hear their speakers from 10ft or more away.
You can do whatever the heck you want to do, it is your room and your system.
I think your point here is pretty damn weak. The lion share of speakers in recording studios, tracking studios, editing studios, and mastering studios are front firing cones and domes. Not Martin Logans, and not dipoles. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people purchase front firing cones and domes, not Martin Logans or dipoles.
Overreaching your point shows there is a definite weakness in it.
Can You then tell me please what exactly You mean by "an effect"? And please stop all this Bose-ing here
FCUFS has nothing in common with Bose approach.
Whether your speaker's primary output is positioned to bounce off the ceiling or back wall it has the common element of adding additional room reverberation, delay, and phase shifting that was not present in the recording.Can You then tell me please what exactly You mean by "an effect"? And please stop all this Bose-ing here
In recording parlance, reverb, delay, phase shifting, etc. are all called effects.
As a mix engineer, mixing on front firing speakers, I know how the effects I add sound when played back in a typical room with typical front firing speakers.
The mix I created would sound quite different on your speakers.
You prefer the added "spaciousness" effect the FCUFS add, similar to effect presets I recall hearing on some consumer receivers where one could choose between "small hall", "nightclub" and "stadium".
Your FCUFS may sound sound similar to the "small hall" setting.
Thank you so much for saving me the time of having to say this myself - I could not have said it better.
Can You then tell me please what exactly You mean by "an effect"? And please stop all this Bose-ing here
Bose and FCUFS have nothing in common only in your mind. Both rely primarily on reflections as part its dispersion pattern. The difference is YOU choose the direction you want those reflection to arrive from. Between these two reflective approaches, I would choose the Bose way over FCUFS. Why, because it better mimic's what we would hear in a concert hall, performance venue, and a inclosed outdoor stage area - the most common places we hear live music. The first reflections from a musical instrument on stage is a floor bounce. The next, the side and rear walls. Lastly is the ceiling. Performers are closer to the ground than to the ceiling in concert halls, performance spaces, and even live outdoors. I know of no venue that places the performers closer to the ceiling than the floor. Speakers in our listening rooms are closer to the floor and side walls than to the ceiling.
I cannot see any real world room/instrument interaction that supports FCUFS as being used as a reference for playback. It is nothing more than an "effect" much like a digital room emulator.
virtually all HiFi setups add such "effects", relatively very few home systems are reflection free and FCUFS create much better reflection pattern - please take a closer look at it before further commenting. First post of this thread for example. This is NOT Bose method of making sound.
on virtually all HiFi setups it would sound more or less different
But it doesn´t sound like this. My point against using then word "an effect" is exactly that it suggests some kind of sameness imposed on everything that is being played while in fact this is not the case.
Actually when You listen to a recording through a pair of good headphones, then on a conventional stereo and finally on a FCUFS system then You realize what is LOST on a conventional setup and brought back by FCUFS. This is not "an effect" - this is ACCURACY and it shows that stereo medium is capable of much more realism than we tend to think.
not anymore and I recommend using coaxials instead like KEF UniQ or Tannoy DC
I did described it somewhere, it was an asymmetrical treatment of the main cone and of the whizzer cone
impulse response of FCUFS has been measured by others and results have been posted in this and other threads by el'Ol and Radugazon IIRC
Does it mean you no longer use flooder ?
What comes to flooder disadvantages I just remembered a couple more
I did my flooder tests while I was using dipole line arrays as my main system. Compared between, flooder lacked small detail of the sound which was presented by high directivity arrays. This was considered as an disadvantage at the time.
not just the direction but also its level and delay gap and the overall reflection pattern and D/R ratio, these choice makes the difference, read Toole´s book
Does it mean you no longer use flooder ?
What comes to flooder disadvantages I just remembered a couple more
a bit unfair comparison
an improvised FCUFS vs DLAs which excell at small detail I have KEF UniQ FCUFS now.
Last edited: