The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by markus76

The sound is localized somewhere between the speaker location and the strong single reflection. The bigger the delay between arrival of direct and reflected sound, the bigger the apparant source width.

I didn't notice any vertical shift with the flooders. I had the image in in front of me when having the speakers in front of me, just less focus and a shift backwards. I had some "desintegration" of the phantom images when sitting too close to the speakers. I couldn't reproduce graaf's effect of localization in front with the speakers standing on the floor. In this case the speakers became localizable. But this doesn't mean this effect can not be produced with other drivers. The two Ciares I tested behave quite differently, so maybe the Fostex is a completely different cup of tea.

The most extreme non-localization I had was with DIY DMLs with magnetostatic drive and a diaphragm similar to the Linaeum.
Oliver, as you have built something similar, did you make the same observation?

[graaf]

Originally Posted by el`Ol

I couldn't reproduce graaf's effect of localization in front with the speakers standing on the floor. In this case the speakers became localizable.

which speakers? the "Carlssons"? with tweeters?

[LineArray]

Originally Posted by el`Ol

...
The most extreme non-localization I had was with DIY DMLs with magnetostatic drive and a diaphragm similar to the Linaeum.
Oliver, as you have built something similar, did you make the same observation?

Do you mean localization of the loudspeaker or of the
phantom images of instruments and singers itself ?

Concerning the speakers to be perceptually non-localized
the DMLs i have built so far are simply superior to everything i have
heard before. My Dipol 08 design is now simply outperfomed when it
comes to "disappearing speaker" act, especially in a "wet" listening
environment.

I would expect the same for every DML regardless to manufacturer
which has a quite balanced reproduction. This would include the
Walsh Transducer (Ohm) and the more recent relatives like DDD,
though i had no opportunity to listen to those.

When listening to well produced sterephonic material
- chamber music e.g.- the phantom images seem to be
less focussed as with many conventional speakers.

On the other hand there is a realistic depth and the image is
very very stable when you change your listening position.
I it is nearly like you could walk through the images and the
listening room and its properties steps back.

All in all a very "lifelike" imaging is possible and the absence of
"pinpoint focus" is something one might get accustomed to after
a while, when before adjusted to good conventional speakers.
After beeing accustomed to DML i regard the absence of pinpoint
as more realistic. But it might be a kind of adaption process.

To me the subjective difference in imaging between loudspeaker
reproduction and a real concert event has shrinked as i had seldom
"pinpoint" localization in a concert, not even the strike of a triangle ...

We should remember that we go to concert with eyes open normally.
When listening with closed eyes, to me there is seldom pinpoint
localization. It seems to be an artefact from stereophonic loudspeaker
reproduction IMO which is often hyped as "realistic" by some
audio magazines.

Sound sources are located (by direction and distance) in space and
have an extension in space. There is subjective overlap, which makes
up the ensemble of musicians as a cohesive whole.

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by graaf

which speakers? the "Carlssons"? with tweeters?

I mean the simple test enclusures, not the Carlssons.
The Carlssons behave not so extreme. Image shifts less downwards when moving the speakers downwards, and also less change in focus.
To my ears the Carlssons with tweeters behave the same as those without tweeters what concerns imaging. Crossover to the tweeters is 5 kHz.

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by LineArray

Do you mean localization of the loudspeaker or of the
phantom images of instruments and singers itself ?

I only built a single one of them. No localization of both performers and speakers. I had iron/magnets for a second one, but I had severe resonance problems, so I cancelled the project.

I listened to DDD, MBL, Duevel, Podium Sound, Goebel, but all stereo and with different music in different rooms. But I think all of them had less focus than the Carlssons.
Mostly when I go to concert I sit some distance away from the musicians, but in the cases when I get a seat close to them I find there is clear source localization. But in principle I don't find it very bad when I sit further away.
As said the conditions were very different, but from what I heard I liked the imaging of the Duevel least because of the flatness and wideness. This speaker was far ahead of the "exots" in most other respects, however.

[graaf]

[QUOTE=LineArray;2130934]"disappearing speaker" act, especially in a "wet" listening environment.

flooder is champion in this respect

Originally Posted by LineArray

When listening to well produced sterephonic material - chamber music e.g.- the phantom images seem to be less focussed as with many conventional speakers.
(...)
On the other hand there is a realistic depth and the image is very very stable when you change your listening position.
I it is nearly like you could walk through the images and the listening room and its properties steps back.

All in all a very "lifelike" imaging is possible and the absence of "pinpoint focus" is something one might get accustomed to after a while, when before adjusted to good conventional speakers.
After beeing accustomed to DML i regard the absence of pinpoint as more realistic. But it might be a kind of adaption process.

(...)
Sound sources are located (by direction and distance) in space and
have an extension in space. There is subjective overlap, which makes
up the ensemble of musicians as a cohesive whole.

my experience with the flooder is exactly the same as Yours with DML, and also my thoughts on the subject of life-like vs pin-point

after adaption to such experience it is very difficult to go back to conventional setup

best,
graaf

[graaf]

Originally Posted by el`Ol

I mean the simple test enclusures

I can't remember them
were they with flat top or slanted? with single full range? of what diameter?

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by graaf

flooder is champion in this respect

The HX160 ceiling flooder (on ear height) was not much behind the DML when playing mono. But with two of them one could hardly hear any stereo, so I find reaching for the extreme is not very desirable for most listeners, at least not for me.

[graaf]

Originally Posted by el`Ol

The HX160 ceiling flooder (on ear height) was not much behind the DML when playing mono. But with two of them one could hardly hear any stereo, so I find reaching for the extreme is not very desirable for most listeners, at least not for me.

strange, perhaps it has something to do with suboptimal placement in Your room and/or relative speakers-listener position? I have observed that the further the better

I had spectacular stereo with Fostex flooders, reliability of which I checked many times with various test CD's like the one from XLO for example

best,
graaf

[el`Ol]

Maybe 6.5" drivers are just not beamy enough.