The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

[markus76]

Originally Posted by el`Ol

OK,
doesn't seem as if someone can do this with a bit of Basotect in one's basement.
Electroacoustic System Specialists

A good book on control room design is Philip Newell's "Recording Studio Design".

[graaf]

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

I find their imaging by far too diffuse and imprecise to be a reasonable representation of musical reality

perhaps You would not find the flooder imaging "far too diffuse and imprecise"
it is not omni strictly speaking

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

To be the subjective removal of walls

I experience disappearing walls with the flooder

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

if not, there is no point having it, no matter what reams of research papers say.

yes, very true

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

It may best not to elevate such personal preference (be it either the one for highly directional systems, for highly diffuse systems or indeed for the common midway approach between the extremes) to a religion and to proselytise for converts...

yes, I can see some form of religion here in this thread, religion of the book or rather books

good and right books by righteous orthodox authors because there are also wrong books by wrong authors (audiophools proposing crazy schemes) like "Total Recording" or "Art of Sound Reproduction"...

best,
graaf

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

Originally Posted by graaf

perhaps You would not find the flooder imaging "far too diffuse and imprecise" it is not omni strictly speaking

I think I messed (in a 2nd hand hifi shop) with Carlsons long before their 2nd coming (in the early 90's). And my judgement was "diffuse and imprecise". Oh, and "no bass" and a long list of other complaints and I remember a complete bewilderment as to how anyone could get basic acoustics so messed up as to actually design something like that... :-)

Remember, I come from a studio background... My first "High End" System I ever heard was a Studio Setup.

And I have on quite a few occasion had the chance to walk from the control booth into the concert hall.

As said, I do not care how you listen to it, but I can tell me if you where to put on one of my old minimalistic recordings (who knows where they ended up after 1989 - probably in a landfill) and replay it with ceiling flooders it would sound nothing like what I recorded or what I heard in the control room, while what I heard in the control room bore at least a more than passing semblance to what I heard in the hall.

Of course, if you like what you hear with ceiling flooders much better, that what you'd hear in the control room or the concert hall, who am I to gainsay you?

Originally Posted by graaf

I experience disappearing walls with the flooder

Let me perhaps be absolutely clear what I mean with "disappearing walls".

It means (assuming the recordings allow this of course) essentially to be transported into a clearly much larger and different acoustic space, much more in line with (say) a large Chapel or a Church or indeed a large concert hall.

For example, the different acoustics of the Royal Festival Hall and the Barbican (both in London - the Barbican with it's horrible acoustics regularly in use for Tony Faulkners "High End" recordings of LSO - the RFH a much favoured haunt of mine to enjoy concerts) on minimalistic recordings become quite clear, though it does not quite extent to full 3d sonic hologaphy.

Is that what you experience through ceiling flooders? The replacing, to a substantial degree, of the listening space by larger and often identifiable performance spaces?

Originally Posted by graaf

yes, I can see some form of religion here in this thread, religion of the book or rather books

Actually, I am getting more of a feel of the second coming of the Prophet Zarquon or Carlsson or whatever his Naim be... Again, it seems to be a question of viewpoint.

Ciao T

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by graaf

religion of the book
graaf

I have ordered the book and will see whether its statements are similarly overstretched here as those of some religious ones in certain circles.

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

I think I messed (in a 2nd hand hifi shop) with Carlsons long before their 2nd coming (in the early 90's). And my judgement was "diffuse and imprecise". Oh, and "no bass" and a long list of other complaints and I remember a complete bewilderment as to how anyone could get basic acoustics so messed up as to actually design something like that... :-)
Ciao T

You mean the Sonabs?
I don't know them and so I can't say anything about them. When I say Carlssons I only mean those of the "second coming" sold under the Carlsson label, but strictly speaking I don't know them either, just my clones.

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

Hi,

As said, I do not care how you listen to it, but I can tell me if you where to put on one of my old minimalistic recordings (who knows where they ended up after 1989 - probably in a landfill) and replay it with ceiling flooders it would sound nothing like what I recorded or what I heard in the control room, while what I heard in the control room bore at least a more than passing semblance to what I heard in the hall.

As I said earlier I find that the biggest advantage of the pure flooder in contrast to my "2nd coming Carlsson" clones and conventional speakers is adding some "acousticness" to poorly done studio recordings. If they managed to add nothing to real acoustic recordings this would be kind of magic.

About the 2nd generation Carlssons:
What they - in contrast to conventional speakers in a conventional setup don't add (or at least to a smaller extent) is floor- and front-wall reflections. Just if someone tried to reduce them to something that has stronger-than-usual ceiling reflection.

[Key]

Originally Posted by markus76

Sure it does because you have to guess about a soundfield's directional characteristics when deriving additional channels from a 2 channel stereo signal. Multichannel signals are (or can be) truely directional.

Okay let me see if I can explain what the advantages are to my system so you get it. Let me just give a simple answer to the discrete surround sound thing - every discrete surround sound mixer I have met will use a decoder in a pinch. Sometime the decoder just does things the mixer can not do. But this isn't so much where I see a decoder helping.

When you mix a song it seems to me that there is a certain goal for "subjective constancy" if you know it or not. Many engineers might not know the specific scientific name for what they are trying to do but never the less they understand exactly how to make the mix stay roughly the same under vastly varying physical conditions - very different rooms and playback systems.

If you track in stereo using my system or one that is equivilent I know from experience that the end result will be much better. It gives you a very clear window to look into the mix at. Can you do the same thing with normal stereo? Yes, some are VERY skilled at being able to hear the actual mix through inferior playback equitment. If you can mix a subjectively constant mix on a set of NS-10s to me it's like painting a picture with an eye patch on one eye and a catarack on the other. Can you do it? Yes, but it's not the easiest way to do it.

You might think I am selling a magic bullet here but it's still not going to make a bad mixer good - it'll just let them hear first hand how bad they are. But basically if you make a mix and it sounds awesome in Hex, Quad, Stereo, that weird Q-Soundesque simulated surround in stereo, and mono the mix will translate to most any system. Wanna take a guess what album was mixed using a very similar setup?

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

Originally Posted by el`Ol

You mean the Sonabs?

Yes. I also came across the later ones. But I never really extensively played with them.

I notice that in the 60's to 70's there was a craze for more or less omnidirectional speakers (including Amar Bose's Ball and the Grundig spherical speakers, JBL Aquarius and so on).

I suspect the Carlsson designs derive from this IMNSHO misguided craze.

Ciao T

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

Originally Posted by el`Ol

As I said earlier I find that the biggest advantage of the pure flooder in contrast to my "2nd coming Carlsson" clones and conventional speakers is adding some "acousticness" to poorly done studio recordings.

Would not perchance using a Lexicon reverb or maybe an Eventide (or just the latest waves reverb plugin in you PC Playback Software) used in the signal path for such recordings only be a better choice than making a speaker system specifically for these issues?

Unless such recordings make up most of ones listening of course or one has the space and budget for many top notch speakers of fundamentally different acoustic structure/dispersion/directivity of course.

Ciao T

[markus76]

Originally Posted by Key

Okay let me see if I can explain what the advantages are to my system so you get it.

Sorry Key, I still don't get it. If the music industry doesn't want to use a new standard that is already adopted by a lot of consumers then that's ok with me. But proposing an alternative standard that allows only inferior control of the sound field and uses as many additional loudspeakers as the existing standard doesn't make any sense to me.