The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 102 - 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 25th March 2010, 03:57 PM   #1011
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
Maybe 6.5" drivers are just not beamy enough.
yes - I suspect this and You being to close in Your room to the stereo base
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 04:02 PM   #1012
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
...
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.
It is interesting and meets my experience, that a speaker good at
certain aspects may although not be good at imaging.

I agree with localization, when sitting near to the musicians but even
at concerts i normally prefer a little distance for "overview" ...


@graaf:
Concerning the ceiling flooder i think it is a bit strange to rely
on the frequency dependent beaming of a fullranger ...

I could imagine making a ceiling flooder from an array of mini
widerangers which is Xoed with a time delayed woofer.

The woofer would cover the modal to transitional range of the room
say up to 500 Hz and the widerange array would cover the "rest".

Radiation pattern (electronic phase control ?) would be aligned
to minimize sound directly radiated to the listener and could
be made more frequency independent compared to a fullranger.

Maybe a waveguide could do the job too ...

(There was this strange Lowther cabinet ...)

Not my cup of tea but would be a more "puristic" implementation
of the idea.

But your reporting points to your setup is already optimum ...
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 04:33 PM   #1013
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
yes - I suspect this and You being to close in Your room to the stereo base
With the HX201 it was better not to be so far away. For good (not too diffuse) imaging it seemed to be essential that the ceiling reflection had a nice impulse response, and it degraded with too much distance.
I admit I haven't made this test with the HX160 in my workshop. And in my listening room a much higher distance wouldn't have been possible anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 04:39 PM   #1014
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
Concerning the ceiling flooder i think it is a bit strange to rely
on the frequency dependent beaming of a fullranger ...
well, it's a strange box

it is an approach of making strenghts out of weaknesses

but is the alternative less crazy?

think of it:
an array of mini widerangers plus a time delayed woofer plus perhaps electronic phase control or maybe a waveguide

geeez, I give up!

my flooder is meant to be a simple DIY project for every music lover

Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
(There was this strange Lowther cabinet ...)
yes, the Ace
It was nice

Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
Not my cup of tea but would be a more "puristic" implementation
of the idea.
well, can there really be anything more puristic than single driver in a simple small box?

best regards,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 04:41 PM   #1015
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
You may search Gramophone's Archive with "Sonab" or "Carlsson":

Gramophone Archive

login to view the articles as PDFs

enjoy!

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 06:45 PM   #1016
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
I meant "puristic" due to coincidence with a certain concept.

The approach you go is "simplistic". That is something
different to me. A simplistic implementation is not
necessarily bad, if one can show the implementation
to coincide with that concept in mind.

If the concept is to have sound reflected via the ceiling,
there would be implementations that fullfill that concept
more or less.

I am a friend of discussing concepts and implementations
successively because concepts as well as religions often
cause excitement for those who stand for them.

The conformity of a given implementation to a concept
- or a specification - can be discussed with far less
emotional effort. This is because is does not matter for
the discussion, whether the participants support the
concept or not.

If you say it is OK to let the ratio of direct vs. ceiling
reflected sound be dependent from the dispersion
characteristics of your special driver in use,
i am fine with that.

Someone else would use a different driver in a different
room. Is the implemention of "someone else" then
conformimg to your concept as well ?

If yes: What is your concept ?
If no: See above.

See the problem ?


To ask a different question:

Would you assume for your concept that a constant power input
to the room (independent from frequency) belongs to the concept?

If yes: Can you please show us how you achieve that in your implementation ?

If no: Why does the power need not be independent from frequency when using
your concept.

Please do not hide behind literature. I'd like concrete answers
concerning your favoured concept and your specific implementation.

Because this is what other participants in this thread at least try
to do: Bringing in their favourite concepts and their experience in
implementation.

Advocating concepts and mixtures of concepts based on literature
is nice, but when it comes to a decision for a certain concept
(or ones favourite mixture of concepts, no problem)
and committing to it, then we enter the realm of implemention.

An implementation can always be challenged by questions like
"In how far is this or that aspect of the concept conformed ?"

I cannot see you answer those questions or at least trying.
I can only see you hide away ...
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 07:23 PM   #1017
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
What is your concept ?
That's a question I carry around with me since post 1.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 07:30 PM   #1018
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
A common answer of people who do not like dealing with
details is:

"Im a concept designer (or architect). I do not care about
implementation because this is below my intellectual scope."

Unfortunately the (small) subset of buildings or technical
constructs which work well on this planet, has been designed
by people either knowing the details of implementation and
recent technology very well or at least by those able to
cooperate with specialists who are aware of
the details.
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de

Last edited by LineArray; 25th March 2010 at 07:32 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 07:40 PM   #1019
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Geddes loudspeakers?
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2010, 07:44 PM   #1020
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
(or architect)
No Gaudis still among us.
  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 06:45 PM.


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