The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

[LineArray]

I regard the contributions of Mr. Geddes and
i also learned from his points of view.

I have not listened to his loudspeakers up to
now and i do not know if there will be ever an
opportunity.

Since my favourite approaches to loudspeakers
are different i can hide comfortably behind
my amateur status.

But i share the "constant" or "smooth as possible changing"
directivity with frequency approach. Differences are in preferred
implementation. Which is not a problem.

[LineArray]

Originally Posted by el`Ol

No Gaudis still among us.

I think Gaudi must have been hard-bitten too ...

[graaf]

Originally Posted by LineArray

I meant "puristic" due to coincidence with a certain concept.

The approach you go is "simplistic". That is something different to me.

ok, suits me fine, I don't argue about words

Originally Posted by LineArray

A simplistic implementation is not necessarily bad, if one can show the implementation to coincide with that concept in mind.

and what about a situation when a project is not implementation of any theory but rather intuitive experiment that appears to somehow work as expected (that is it sounds better)?

Originally Posted by LineArray

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.

well, I am not proposing any concept and I thought that I made it clear in the very first post of this thread and couple of times after

I am just presenting my 200 USD-idea and I am encouraging all interested people to TIY it (try it Yourself)

may I?

Originally Posted by LineArray

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.

I am not supporting any concept and I don't have any problems with emotions
I am not in this with an aim of being proven right

that is not my game

Originally Posted by LineArray

If yes: What is your concept ?

Haven't got any. It is clear from my very first post in this thread that I started.
I only have some intuitions, project built and working to these ears and I encourage everyone interested in better, more realistic high fidelity, to TIY it

may I?

of course I make some hypotheses, speculations as to how it works and it is my intention to provoke some discussion which might lead to explain some things that seem to happen

may I?
is it ok on DIY audio forum? or do You think that I am trolling?

Originally Posted by LineArray

If no: See above.

? see what?

Originally Posted by LineArray

See the problem ?

I can see that someone's got a problem, but not me

I am not engaging in any "rightness" or "best concept" competition, in any "intellectual coolosity" contest
It seems to be rather an ambition of some other people, but not mine

Originally Posted by LineArray

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

perhaps, I don't know

Originally Posted by LineArray

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

unfortunately I cannot do any measurements if this is what You ask

Originally Posted by LineArray

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

sorry, I am not sure whether I understand this question at all

Originally Posted by LineArray

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

? How come that You are suggesting that I am hiding behind literature??

Where are Your questions that I was reluctant to answer earlier in this thread??

I post a lot of links to literature only with thought-provoking in mind. I think these are interesting writings. I consider bringing them here good for discussion. I hope that people more informed than me can comment on them. Actually couple of times I received thanks for posting such links, even from Dr Geddes Himself.

how about that?

Originally Posted by LineArray

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

? Are You suggesting that I am trolling in a thread that I started myself?

What do You think I brought here in my first and following posts?

Wasn't it very specific implementation that I have described with details?

Certainly I wasn't presenting any concepts because in the very first post I have explained that I am an amateur and my project, concept (by which I mean an idea - not theory) came out of intuition and not out of any systematic theorising

How could I make myself more clear?! How?

Originally Posted by LineArray

Advocating concepts and mixtures of concepts based on literature

I present some ideas because for me taking positions or just throwing thoughts is starting point of any discussion. Don't You think?

Do You really think that I should rather shut my mouth becasue I am not peer-reviewed and don't hold any degree in engineering?

For God sake - can I ask questions on the internet forum??????

Originally Posted by LineArray

I cannot see you answer those questions or at least trying.
I can only see you hide away ...

once again - what are You talking about?
where are those questions that I was reluctant to answer earlier in this thread? where are they?

Originally Posted by LineArray

A common answer of people who do not like dealing with details:

Are You pointing at me? I don't like details? With what am I dealing in the very first post in this thread?

and excuse me for that what I was trying to make clear in my first post (I see now that I was trying in vain) that I am not a guy with theory

because theories are well above below my intellectual scope

is that ok or shall I be ashamed?

[graaf]

Originally Posted by markus76

Geddes loudspeakers?

Your commercials please take to the "Commercial Sector", ok?

[markus76]

Linkwitz!

[dantheman]

Originally Posted by graaf

ok, suits me fine, I don't argue about words
-----snip------
and what about a situation when a project is not
is that ok or shall I be ashamed?

I'll give you this GRAAF, that is one heck of a reply. You have a lot of determination to defend your position and a lot of guts to stick in this thread against so much adversity both from forum members and research. There is no doubt you love what you are doing and you'd like others to as well. I bet it is enjoyable to listen to.

Can I just make a suggestion? Have a gander a Dr. Toole's book, then come back to this discussion. It took me a couple weeks to read (3 or 4). You can go a lot further than that book, but that will really tell you most of what necessary to know. Then just try what Dr. Geddes recommends. You don't need GedLee speakers to do it (though they sure look great on paper and you won't likely match them for the time and money-- I know I haven't). I went ahead and gave it a shot b/c no research I've read refutes the concepts and everything I've read suggests it is a great idea. I gave up fighting it and I got to tell you that I have no desire to try anything else.

Just my 2 cents,

Dan

[graaf]

Originally Posted by graaf

because theories are well above below my intellectual scope

correction - of course it should have been above my intellectual scope
I was writing to fast using cut&paste

yeah, they are above

[dantheman]

Originally Posted by graaf

correction - of course it should have been above my intellectual scope
I was writing to fast using cut&paste

yeah, they are above

I highly doubt that.

Dan

[LineArray]

Originally Posted by graaf

...
... and what about a situation when a project is not implementation of any theory but rather
intuitive experiment that appears to somehow work as expected (that is it sounds better)?
...

I am fine with that and played around with lots of setups in many rooms over the years too.

Among those were arrangements with fullrangers using no crossovers or equalizers and i
accidently know how a fullranger under that conditions pointing towards the ceiling
sounds like, even at different angles.

The magic of such an arrangement is mostly gone, as soon as a matured speaker is placed in
the same room ... the "wow" effect then boils down the to the certain aspects this arrangement
is good at and the myriads of other aspects come to mind again after the long term adaption
of the listener=builder is destroyed.

Listener=Builder is always a crucial constellation. I always set high value on presenting
my own speakers to critical listeners after emerging from pure prototype state.

My Dipol 08 design e.g. had undergone a complete revision of the crossover alignment after
a friend kept insisting about lacking presence, which could not even be shown in the frequency
response. I started to change the crossover thinking "What would i do when i h a d his
perception ?" I had to adapt to the result afterwards. It hurt, believe me.
In the end i was very statisfied myself and additionally convinced, that the new
alignment is very "common sense".

That does not mean that a more "ad hoc arrangement" like you propose it cannot be further
developed or could not serve as a starting point for a new concept.

I have a problem with you proposing it as a "complete solution" to the speaker-room
interaction problem at the current state. Because i know which problems you run into
that are not adressed within your system up to now. There is some way to go, even when
staying with the simplistic approach, at least to some extent.

Originally Posted by graaf

...
... it is my intention to provoke some discussion which might lead to explain some things that seem to happen
...

The great participation in this thread shows, that this has already happened ...

But you will have to live with the fact, that some contributors will not follow the
idea of a fullranger firing to the ceiling without any equalizing will solve
all problems of "speaker room interaction".

Originally Posted by graaf

...
... Do You really think that I should rather shut my mouth becasue I am not peer-reviewed and don't hold any degree
in engineering?
...

Definitely not. You are not the kind of man who keeps silent because someone else wants him to, right ?

I regard that highly btw.


Kind regards

[graaf]

Originally Posted by LineArray

i accidently know how a fullranger under that conditions pointing towards the ceiling sounds like, even at different angles.

depends on many circumstances like exact position (including height), specific room acoustics (most of our audiophile room is rather optimised for conventional setup) and also on specific fullranger (omni tends to make all resonances more audible)

Originally Posted by LineArray

The magic of such an arrangement is mostly gone, as soon as a matured speaker is placed in
the same room ...

rather the magic of Your specific arrangement was mostly gone

Let me ask - what is the point of discouraging other people from making their own experiments?

Why are You feeling uncomfortable?

Originally Posted by LineArray

Listener=Builder is always a crucial constellation. I always set high value on presenting my own speakers to critical listeners after emerging from pure prototype state.

I had to adapt to the result afterwards. It hurt, believe me.
In the end i was very statisfied myself and additionally convinced, that the new
alignment is very "common sense".

well, I am not a designer, not even an amateur designer

I am just a music lover who wasn't happy with conventional setups and who started to experiment following some intuitions inspired by concepts from some informed people like Carlsson or Beveridge or Yoshii

that is all

Originally Posted by LineArray

That does not mean that a more "ad hoc arrangement" like you propose it cannot be further
developed or could not serve as a starting point for a new concept.

this was my aim when I was starting this thread
I hoped that someone more informed and with technical skills would get interested, would try it and tell us what could be done with that

two years passed and informed people don't care to try anything, they prefer to discredit me

Isn't it disappointing?

Originally Posted by LineArray

I have a problem with you proposing it as a "complete solution" to the speaker-room interaction problem at the current state.

well, as You said it is just a proposition, feel free to investigate it and to criticise IT

I don't shout "here I have dicovered a Holy Grail! on Your knees You pagans!"
I just say - "here I have something, what do You think?"

Originally Posted by LineArray

Because i know which problems you run into that are not adressed within your system up to now. There is some way to go, even when staying with the simplistic approach, at least to some extent.

You know? Then why don't You just tell us?

Originally Posted by LineArray

But you will have to live with the fact, that some contributors will not follow

I am ok with those who criticise giving specific reasons and willing to discuss.

What I don't like is arrogance of informed people who don't like to be asked questions (they consider it disrespectful) and who show this my-way-or-wrong-way or first-read-the-basics approach.

Especially when they come from "Commercial Sector" and - what an irony - like to accuse educators of having "marketing agenda" (the case of Dr highly regarded and Mr David Moulton)

BTW - would reading a specific book by eg. Dr Toole (specific - because I read many articles by Him) change the way I hear what I hear?

So what kind of argument is that - "go read the books"? pure arrogance

Originally Posted by LineArray

the idea of a fullranger firing to the ceiling without any equalizing will solve
all problems of "speaker room interaction".

where did I write "without any equalizing"? That is not my point. We were even discussing equalizers.

best regards,
graaf