The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 100 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24th March 2010, 10:32 PM   #991
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Gestalt recognition is different from perception of sound source direction (localization).
can You read?

where is anything about "Gestalt recognition" in the quoted text? or about "localisation"?

He is talking about pitch perception - p e r c e p t i o n

Please do yourself (and us) a favor and read it again and again and again and again.....
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 10:35 PM   #992
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Its far better that the crazy schemes being proposed here.
still crazy schemes are far better than the "Commercial Sector"
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 11:01 PM   #993
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
The Carlsson was a commercial product until Stig Carlsson's death and a few years more, is still popular in Sweden and nobody would call it "crazy" there.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 11:14 PM   #994
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
The Carlsson was a commercial product until Stig Carlsson's death and a few years more,
to make myself clear - by "Commercial Sector" I don't mean "every commercial product" but something more specific

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
is still popular in Sweden and nobody would call it "crazy" there.
obviously crazy Swedes don't care about the data and being right, peer-reviewed and in agreement with big books

damned Vikings!!

__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 02:34 AM   #995
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
graaf, there's no need in trying to be sarcastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
source width?

You perhaps mean apparent source height? Or are You just mixing up facts?
No, I'm not mixing up the facts. ASW corresponds to height when looking at summing localization in the median plane because sound sources are not perceived in clear-cut shapes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
Please, show us the data concerning impact of a vertical reflection on sound localisation

(the above request is purely rethorical)
There is one study I'm aware of (sorry, only German): T. Behrens, H. Prante, C. Maschke, ‘Untersuchungen zur Summenlokalisation in der Medianebene’. Proc. of DAGA 94, Dresden, pp. 1157-1160. (1994)
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 02:51 AM   #996
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
can You read?

where is anything about "Gestalt recognition" in the quoted text? or about "localisation"?

He is talking about pitch perception - p e r c e p t i o n

Please do yourself (and us) a favor and read it again and again and again and again.....
Please try to express yourself in a more objective way.

There's probably nothing about localization in that text but it was you that referred to that text in the context of localization. I just pointed out that localization and gestalt recognition (which includes pitch perception) are two different topics that should not be mixed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 03:50 AM   #997
Key is offline Key  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
That is correct. If the playback room itself does not add enough spaciousness without compromising imaging - a very common situation, but not in my rooms - then multi-channel is the best solution, even if it is simulated. Its far better that the crazy schemes being proposed here.
Again I fail to see the distinction. I can play discrete surround sound. You know the handful that are available compared to the seemingly infinite amount of stereo recordings which somehow seems to work better. But yeah I can playback DVD-A, SACD, Hi Res etc.. You seem to be drawing arbitrary lines about what a system should perform. Are we really looking for a true "reference system"? Are we authentically looking for the optimal or just for some self gratification that it's already been found here?

Nothing I am proposing here is exactly new or crazy, just unaccepted and unknown to you and in general most "experts". People understand a little bit about what I am talking about and I have seen plenty of theories tossed around. But do we know that we have truly heard the full potential of stereo and the recordings that we already have in our collection? I don't think in general most people have let alone what could be accomplished with newer and better techniques which will benefit both traditional stereo and stereo-surround.

The thing is from my perspective the people that will reject my ideas without even giving it a listen, based on erroneous theories about causation, are just as bad as people who are phobic of crossovers. My crossover just works spacially is all. In my experience as someone who first thought the entire idea was ** I can honestly say in retrospect that getting this surround decoder to work was the single best upgrade to my listening habits besides getting "good speakers" to do it with.

Edit: I Quoted Gedds but I was more ranting in general lol and a little directed at the original question posed by markus. Reading it back that rant seems heated but please don't take me that seriously :P

Last edited by Key; 25th March 2010 at 03:59 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 08:25 AM   #998
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
it was you that referred to that text in the context of localization.
What are You talking about?

fortunately it is all up there in the previous posts

I stated that "we never ever hear the frequency content of the direct sound as such"

nowhere nothing about localization

then You put my above statement into question and suggested that I am mixing up facts and also proven wrong

I respond with the quoted text, that's all, everyone can read it

what I see now is rather You making up facts about what I have posted here, shame on You!

and we know something about localisation in vertical plane, it doesn't rely on binaural cues (no wonder) but on HRTF and pinnae, even uncle google knows it:

Quote:
12 Sound localisation
12.5 Localisation of sound in the vertical plane
Much of our ability to localise sound in the vertical plane is due to the shape of the outer ear, in particular the pinna. The pinnae provide a monaural cue to localisation. The bumps and ridges on the pinnae produce reflections, and delays between the direct path and the reflected path make vertical localisation possible. Vertical localisation is seriously impaired if the convolutions of the pinnae are covered.
discussed also here:
AES E-Library: Vertical Localization of Sound from Multiway Loudspeakers

ps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
ASW corresponds to height when looking at summing localization in the median plane because sound sources are not perceived in clear-cut shapes.
Did Behrens, Prante und Maschke write it?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 25th March 2010 at 08:31 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 10:32 AM   #999
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
There have been some studies concerning localization in the
vertical plane.

An experiment from Roffler and Butler 1968 using tonebursts
showed the vertical angle of the auditive event to be independent
from the vertical angle of the loudspeaker. The frequency of the
tonebursts was the main cue.

The experiment is cited by Blauert 1974.

Blauert made experiments with terz filtered noise and found
"directional frequency bands" that cause localization in the
vertical plane. These bands correspond to the angle dependent
filter function of the pinna.

A characteristic peak at about 8Khz occurs when sound from
above hits the pinna.

---
I once used that effect - or the inverse if you like -
when i placed an ensemble of speakers under the
ceiling at a stand on a fair.

I made a notch filter that tried to match the inverse of the
pinna effect. The goal was to achieve reluctant sound and
to avoid that "supermarket feeling". I made the filter's Q
adjustable in two steps and asked some people, without
telling them the setting, which version was more "comfortable":

Without notch / low Q / high Q.

There was strong preference for the filtered versions.
The low Q notch filter, which meant moderate
compensation of the pinna effect was slightly preferred
to the high Q version.

This was long ago, so i haven't got the exact values
anymore. It was not for science, it was just an ad hoc idea.

Of course the speakers could still be localized, but the
uncomfortable feeling, that "sound comes from above"
could be reduced.

On the other hand one can assume that a tweeter
arrangement peaking at ~8Khz has the corresonding
effect - an irritation of the vertical angle or extension
of the listening event has to be expected.

Respecting the directional bands found by Blauert
is a good good idea, when designing loudspeakers.
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 12:14 PM   #1000
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
here is another interesting study taking into account "floor reflection transfer function":
http://dev.icad.org/Proceedings/2005...rguson2005.pdf

Quote:
3.2. Influence of room acoustics
The influence of the floor reflection is of particular interest when considering Pratt’s effect. It is more common for sound sources to be in the lower half of a room than in the upper half (near the ceiling), and in outdoor situations there are no ceiling reflections. In human activity, a floor (or ground) is almost omnipresent, and its distance from the ears depends on posture. A single reflection produces interference between the direct and reflected sound, which in spectral terms results in a comb filter.
The delay between direct and reflected sound determines the density of the filter peaks and notches (which are regularly spaced on the linear frequency scale), and a short delay restricts the notches to the high frequency range. The strength of this comb filter effect from a floor reflection depends on the relative intensity of direct and reflected sound at the receiver position, which is determined by the path length difference and surface absorption and scattering.
most interesting is the "Franssen Effect":
Franssen Effect

Quote:
In the Tone Demonstration, a 1000-Hz tone is used as the carrier.
In this case, almost all listeners report that the sound is always located at one loudspeaker. And this is the loudspeaker to which the brief tone was presented (the same loudspeaker from which you heard the short noise burst in the Noise demonstration). That is, you hear the full five seconds of sound coming from the location of the loudspeaker that only presented the sound for 100 ms. Or put another way, you hear the tone coming from a loudspeaker that is no longer presenting any sound. However, the location that you perceived as the sound's source is the loudspeaker that presented the sound first, and thus its location seems to dominate your perception of the sound's location.
In public demonstrations the tone is often left on for many seconds while the person presenting the demonstration removes the wires from the loudspeaker that everyone is pointing to as the source of the sound. Even with no wires going to the loudspeaker (or in some cases, even with the loudspeaker removed from the room), the audience still reports that the source of the sound is at the location of the (missing) loudspeaker.

The acoustics of the room in which the demonstration is being played will affect the strength of the illusion. For instance, it does not work in an anechoic room (see Hartmann and Rakerd in the references below).
Franssen Effect

And here is the dessert - Hartmann and Rakerd study "Localisation fo sounds in rooms" in three parts:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms1.pdf
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms2.pdf
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/rooms3.pdf

and much much more:
Michigan State Acoustics/Psychoacoustics

enjoy!
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 25th March 2010 at 12:33 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using a diffuser cone for up-firing speakers tspringer99 Multi-Way 19 23rd July 2014 02:04 AM
Floor Standing Speakers. gurpreetsingh Full Range 11 12th June 2012 06:42 AM
side/ rear firing speakers Good/Bad? mcmahon48 Multi-Way 1 6th February 2009 12:28 PM
How far can the driver of a down-firing sub be from the floor? The Paulinator Subwoofers 11 16th May 2007 08:10 PM
Woofer: side firing pair vs front firing? tcpip Multi-Way 13 9th September 2005 02:13 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2