The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 142 - 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 22nd April 2010, 07:51 PM   #1411
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by StigErik View Post
- our two ears together are virtually omni.
I don't believe it. More like 2 supercardioid mics in an X/Y configuration.

A dummy head microphone might be interesting to work with, but how do you take into account the 2 mics? Count it as an omni? I don't think it is.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2010, 09:20 PM   #1412
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by StigErik View Post
Luckily, most of us have two ears......

When I listen to a mono source and turn my hear around, the frequency balance dont change all that much - our two ears together are virtually omni.
That's not because our ears are omni, it's because of the processing power of the thing between our ears See how much the HRTFs for different directions vary.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2010, 12:49 AM   #1413
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
So this is the average room response at the listening position(s). The bass boost on the receiver is turned up a bit or else that 200-300 Hz floor bounce suck out makes it sound too light. Both ends of the couch have a pretty smooth response, and the middle has the most bumps. Anyone care to comment on what going on with all the variation?

Thanks,

Dan
Hi Dan

This variation is standard and unavoidable. Your data has one of the clearest demarcation between the modal and statistical regions that I have ever seen. Just below 200 Hz it becomes clearly modal and above that clearly statistical. The peaks and dips above 200 Hz are not significant until you average out the five curves. Then this average has significance. the theory behind all of this is very complex and not very well documented.

I would not assume the hole is a floor bounce. There are lots of other things that could cause this. There is usually a jump in reponse when the room transitions from modal to statistical and this happens at that exact same point.

As to the mics being omni, I completely disagree with this. The correlation between what we measure and what we hear is a lot more complicated than simply the pattern of the microphone. As Markus says, its all in our heads!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2010, 02:07 AM   #1414
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
I never said it is as simple as what type of mic to use. Please re-read my post. I did say that I think the omni mic is wrong. The problem is hugely complex, as we all know. 2 ears, a head, a brain. They are all working to make what we hear not sound like what a mic hears. Our eyes don't work exactly like a camera, either.

But I think there should be some steps in a better direction. At least with my fat head I do NOT hear all frequencies equally from all directions. Yes, I have tested this. My 2 ears, head and brain are not an omni-directional, point source microphone.

If we want to consider the room and loudspeakers as a system, we need to admit that the directionality of our hearing is going to play a large role. In a typical listening room a high percentage of what hits our ears is reflected sound. If we don't hear all frequencies equally from all directions, that can make a big difference to the tonal balance.

I have just started doing listening position measurements and EQ with a cardioid mic, so this is all fresh. But it has already gotten me to a much better tonal balance. And a lot of other things have cleared up as a result.

There is a lot of talk about a speaker's power response - how it spreads the energy around the room. It's important because we listen in reflective environments. The way in which our measurement mic picks up the energy at the listening position should be just as important.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2010, 03:01 AM   #1415
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Personally I don't think that the mic you use makes any difference at all and if it did, then I'd use an omni. Your logic is simply to try and "simulate" hearing, and I don't buy it. Sorry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2010, 04:33 AM   #1416
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
No surprise. The omni is certainly the conventional, traditional choice. But it doesn't work well for me. I've tried to explain why it does not work well for me (and I believe for others.) It's unlikely that most people will except it. No worries.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2010, 06:39 AM   #1417
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by panomaniac View Post
I have just started doing listening position measurements and EQ with a cardioid mic, so this is all fresh. But it has already gotten me to a much better tonal balance. And a lot of other things have cleared up as a result.
Cardioid mics do not have a linear frequency response in the far field at low frequencies because of the proximity effect. If you compensate for the mic's bass roll-off, you will most certainly get at different tonal balance - one that I personally do prefer.

My own preferred target, as measured with an omni mic, has a 10 dB rise in response between 150 and 20 Hz. That would probably measure quite flat with a typical cardioid mic.
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2010, 02:35 PM   #1418
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
That is very true for vocal mics. Almost all have that low end roll-off which, as you mention, would lead to a bass heavy EQ. Most supercardioids are vocal mics (and vice-versa)

But there are a few supercardioid mics out there that don't do that. The Schoeps mk41 is a shining example. Very good pattern and response. Like all Schoeps, it isn't cheap, so I'm not running out to buy one. I have used them for recordings tho. The mk41 is known in the biz as a very neutral sounding mic. And here is the interesting part. It's well liked as a mic that "sounds like what you hear" in far field recordings. Hmmm....

My biggest problem right now is that I don't know the frequency response of my cardioid mic. Bought it too long ago. I do remember it having a droop in the low end, but not as bad as a vocal mic. So I have to take it with a grain of salt. I hear room problems (or maybe speaker) circa 180Hz that the mic does not. Still a work in progress.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2010, 05:54 PM   #1419
diyAudio Member
 
dantheman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Hi Dan

This variation is standard and unavoidable. Your data has one of the clearest demarcation between the modal and statistical regions that I have ever seen. Just below 200 Hz it becomes clearly modal and above that clearly statistical. The peaks and dips above 200 Hz are not significant until you average out the five curves. Then this average has significance. the theory behind all of this is very complex and not very well documented.

I would not assume the hole is a floor bounce. There are lots of other things that could cause this. There is usually a jump in reponse when the room transitions from modal to statistical and this happens at that exact same point.

As to the mics being omni, I completely disagree with this. The correlation between what we measure and what we hear is a lot more complicated than simply the pattern of the microphone. As Markus says, its all in our heads!
This make a lot of sense.

Here's a large part of my problem:

Click the image to open in full size.

This is the woofers response. One box is fiberglass filled, the other is not. The box is well oversized and the bass output is just too low. You can also see that the cone break up isn't anything like Eminence's graph. That's giving me fits in the crossover. So we're back to the rim resonance problem as far as that goes. Any one know of a manufacturer's graph you can trust? I gotta put a notch filter in that woofer.

Anyway, I think this clear demarkation of modal behavior could be a good thing for me. Looks like adding in a nice eq and I should be able to dial flat at the listening positions easily, but we'll see how that goes.

Dan
__________________
My Blog
My Music Recordings
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2010, 12:40 AM   #1420
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
You can also see that the cone break up isn't anything like Eminence's graph. That's giving me fits in the crossover. ... Any one know of a manufacturer's graph you can trust?

Dan
Hi Dan

I'd have to say No, I don't know of any speaker manufacturers who are going to give you rock solid data. B&C is about the best that I have come across, but even they have their variations. And remember that one driver isn't going to be the same as another driver - production variances can be quite large. Lot to lot variations even more. But basically I would agree that the driver you posted does not seem to have very much usable bandwidth (at least not the top - unstuffed I presume - graph). The other one is pretty typical. How a driver handles the first few breakups is IMO the difference between a good one and a bad one.

Last edited by gedlee; 24th April 2010 at 12:43 AM.
  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
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
Using a diffuser cone for up-firing speakers tspringer99 Multi-Way 15 24th January 2006 03:56 AM
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 06:05 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