the box can be closed and the baffles can be removable as for easy listening they are unnecessary
And you really think reflections are confined to the ceiling. Please, once those reflections hit the ceiling they scatter. After that you cannot control the direction those reflections scatter.
Please don't think you are talking to a stupid person.
Do I think so? Not at all
Scatter? Really? Do You live in a kind of a cave with an irregular diffusive ceiling?
So you are here in my house knowing everything I do. graaf, you are bordering on insulting my intelligence. I did read the book, I just didn't read anything that says ceiling reflections are better than floor bounce. Can you understand this?
You apparently don't know how digital auto correction works.
It is no more illogical than you telling me a speaker that fires towards the ceiling reveals more of the ambiance in a recording. That is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on this board. There is no way to separate the ambiance in the recording from reflections happening in the room. Since we already know reflections change the tonal character of the sound, then you cannot convince me that a speaker that throws most of its output towards the ceiling is somehow better than a speaker where most of the its outputs is headed towards our ears. My BS meter is going off the charts with your weak snow job of comments.
How do you know? You are making ASSumptions here. Don't even pretend you know the extent of my experience listening to speakers of all kinds.
So you are telling me that a flooder has the same(or better) imaging than my Dunlavy's, ATC, Thiels, or my custom studio monitors? Are you telling me there is absolutely no smearing of the detail coming from a flooders output?
Ok. How does it work?
stupidest? really? then please search this thread for "dereverberation"
and read this: Moulton's Takes
I am just asking.
"better" is something very subjective and Your preferences may be different from mine, the topic (the pros' vs ordinary music lovers' preferences) has been discussed here at diyaudio and is covered by Toole in His book
Are You telling me that Your preferences are better than mine?
Markus,
I am suggesting single straight pipe that is ceiling-firing; and a bracket that allows suspension of pipe in horizontal plane at ear height so that it becomes front-firing. This eliminates variable of multiple enclosures, and avoids internal reflection from pipe bend.
In ceiling-firing mode, direct sound in horizontal plane has constant polar pattern. All frequencies on polar plot are circles. Equalization has no effect on polar response, and should have no effect on perceived spaciousness.
With pipe suspended in front-firing mode, polar response is not uniform and changes to EQ and to toe-in may change perceived spaciousness. Your Nathans reveal this.
I'm reluctant to build something that isn't a exact copy of something that works for you. I've heard it one time too many that I've done "something" wrong along the way.
There have been numerous posters claiming that they've found the holy grail but every time I took a closer look, those concepts weren't any better than what I already knew. Dipole, Stereolith, "flooder", "SSS", etc., you name it.
I've worked as a recording, mixing and mastering engineer for years and I'm pretty sure I do know what the limitations of stereo are. Nevertheless I'm always open to try something "new". There's always the possiblility that I've missed something.
So would my FRS 8 pipe perform like your speaker which you claim is capable of reproducing realistic spaciousness? If not I'd like to built your speaker. What drivers did you use? Would a DCX2496 suffice?
There have been numerous posters claiming that they've found the holy grail but every time I took a closer look, those concepts weren't any better than what I already knew. Dipole, Stereolith, "flooder", "SSS", etc., you name it.
I've worked as a recording, mixing and mastering engineer for years and I'm pretty sure I do know what the limitations of stereo are. Nevertheless I'm always open to try something "new". There's always the possiblility that I've missed something.
So would my FRS 8 pipe perform like your speaker which you claim is capable of reproducing realistic spaciousness? If not I'd like to built your speaker. What drivers did you use? Would a DCX2496 suffice?
Webster's definition other than 1b and 2 seems to describe the FCUFS radiation pattern as well as your picture of the FCUFS with arrows reflecting from various wall, floor and ceiling positions.scattering? really?
The polar pattern of the FCUFS varies considerably with frequency, so the irregular distribution of different frequency bands to different room locations and your ears must be endlessly entertaining to you.
Attachments
You seem to know it all, so why should I spend my time explaining it to you.
Moulton conclusion was this. Recorded reverberation is far more audible than live reverberation, at least for a simple recording technique. A single person reading text in a reverberant workroom does not in anyway represent a 110 piece orchestra in a concert hall with 7 -10 microphones capturing its sound. Nor does it represent electronic instrument all recorded direct in a performance space (like most concert recordings are captured). Music is steady state, not intermittant and transient like dialog. So this point is a fail along with your others.
Moulton:
made the case: we now know that wide dispersion of high frequencies, resulting in a reasonably flat power response laterally, is ideal behavior.
NB: Why laterally and not vertically?
DRM: Right now there seems to be a fairly clear sense that vertical reflections (from the floor to the ceiling) tend to upset our perception[/quote]
This statement right here contradicts everything you have stated so far, and what I have learned about speaker/room interaction. This also coincides with what Toole states in his book, and his many white papers I have collected over the years.
Bob Hodas has spoken quite frequently about how deterimental ceiling and floors are to good imaging and accurate tonal balance. In every project, mixing, and mastering room he has tuned he addresses both floor and ceiling with absorption(ceiling), and EQ to counter the floor bounce.
You asked nothing, you made an assumptive statement and then put a question mark behind it.
I don't give a damn about your preferences, it does not interest me and that is not the topic of this current discussion. What interests me is your false claim that ceiling reflections are better than a floor bounce when you cannot provide any evidence that this is true. Your own link disproves this, Toole's book does not support this, and Bob Hodas, Tomlinson Holmann, Dennis Erskine, Ethan Winer and most other acousticians do not support your beliefs as well. They have all said a vertical reflections with the same spectral content as the direct sound has been found to distort timbre - hence why they recommend either absorption or diffusion for the ceiling.
I am going to ask this again. If the flooder was so superior to a front firing speaker, then why has no manufacturer had any luck selling them, and why is there either very little or no information on them on the web?
This is the web information I found on a flooder, seems fairly descriptive of Graaf:
Attachments
LOL, That is about right. Here is the thing that bugs me most. He mentions a study done in Denmark which states that the floor bounce is the worse on audio signal than the ceiling. First, he never mentions it was a simulation, not a test with real speakers and a real room. Second he does not mention that the floor in the simulation was a hard uncovered surface. My personal reference HT and music listening room has a very thick cushy pad, and high pile carpet. The study also stated the audible effects of the floor bounce was confined to the mid and high frequencies of which a thick pad and high pile carpet would easily absorb. What he also does not mention is that the so called study also stated the second worst reflection comes from the ceiling.
Graaf is not telling the whole story here, he is telling bits and pieces in an attempt to make his point. Rather than deal with the acoustical problem of the floor bounce from front firing speakers, he wants us all to change our speakers to flooders, and introduce another host of problems in the name of avoiding the floor.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a very good approach - especially when just changing the bathwater is all you need to do.
Peter Lyngdorf of TacT participated in the study that Graaf mentions. He states this.
The single most disturbing reflection in the room is the floor reflection. That is what makes the speaker sound like a radio and not like the actual event. The second worse reflection is the ceiling reflection. Sidewall reflections, if they are sufficiently delayed (more than about five milliseconds) and are left/right symmetrical, can be actually beneficial to the sound.
So tell me, how does this actually support the flooder concept?
Last edited:
Is the picture unclear? Are any explanations necessary? Do You know the law of reflection?
In audio we use the word scatter as in wikipedia where we can read that: "In ordinary English, to scatter is to distribute randomly." and: "In conventional use, this also includes deviation of reflected radiation from the angle predicted by the law of reflection. Reflections that undergo scattering are often called diffuse reflections and unscattered reflections are called specular (mirror-like) reflections"
Do You know what a diffuse reflection is? Do You think You can have a diffuse reflection off a regular ceiling?
Doesn't that depend on a driver used?
I use KEF UniQ and I recommend UniQs or Tannoy DC coaxial drivers, check them out to find whether their "polar pattern ... varies considerably with frequency" please
I ask because I read that:
from: Recording: Acoustic Treatment vs. Digital Room Correction - Pro Sound Web
Is the above statement true or not?
it was not Moulton, it was Professor William Hartmann
Are You sure? Do You know what a steady state is?
not really because in Archimedes project they tested only conventional forward firing speakers
I agree - actually that's the very rationale for the FCUFS - to eliminate those detrimental effects that ruin the performance of conventional forward firing speakers
What sort of evidence would satisfy You? Anything else beside a bunch of peer-revied scientific papers?
Why not just try and trust Your own ears?
explained above
And again - I agree for conventional forward firing speakers - that's why FCUFS has an advantage over them
no manufacturer ever has been selling FCUFS properly so called and as to similar though imperfect concepts I can name a few manufacturers that quite succeed - search the thread for them, they are not the big boys but the big boys almost never support anything they didn't invent themselves, that's business, isn't it?
Do You really think that the free market's inner logic always favours better products?
Last edited:
not really - You haven't read the whole thread
it was an effective simulation of a conventional setup
good for You but hardly a practical solution for everyone and due to many reasons midrange reflective floors are most common
this question has been discussed and explained in this thread
it is very difficult/expensive or hardly practical - and I just propose a relatively cheap simple and SAF-friendly diy alternative, is anything wrong with that on a diyaudio forum?
Do I?
what problems exactly?
Mr Lyngdorf has been already quoted in this thread, also by myself.
now - look what Mr Lyngdorf offers commercially under His name:
Lyngdorf Audio - DP-1
This is a very instructive example. Does the design of the DP-1 address any of the problems identified in the Archimedes study so praised by Lyngdorf?
Of course not. That's how the business works. An illustrative answer to Your naive question "why has no manufacturer" etc.
Isn't it clear? FCUFS eliminates the single factor that "makes the speaker sound like a radio and not like the actual event".
The word "flooder" was not my invetion, You can find the first use of it in this thread.
I prefer floor coupled up-firing speaker
Lyngdorf's DP-1 desn't have a bass speaker. This is what he obviously recommends for that purpose Lyngdorf Audio - BW-1
"The BW-1 is a dedicated BassDirect speaker designed for front wall placement in 2+2 systems. When placing the flat designed cabinet against the front wall, the direct sound as well as wall and floor reflections will arrive simultaneously at the listening position - resulting in unsurpassed attack and precision. It's the perfect match for the Lyngdorf DP-1 - or any other main speaker."
but I think that he is promising too much here... typical marketing "scientific" jargon?
By the way I like floor-coupled bass and subwoofer systems! I mean the sound of them.
"The BW-1 is a dedicated BassDirect speaker designed for front wall placement in 2+2 systems. When placing the flat designed cabinet against the front wall, the direct sound as well as wall and floor reflections will arrive simultaneously at the listening position - resulting in unsurpassed attack and precision. It's the perfect match for the Lyngdorf DP-1 - or any other main speaker."
but I think that he is promising too much here... typical marketing "scientific" jargon?
By the way I like floor-coupled bass and subwoofer systems! I mean the sound of them.
Last edited:
anyway, in the Archimedes project:
Lyngdorf praised the project but he did nothing to implement the findings from it in his own commercial design, pure business logic.