The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

Originally Posted by graaf

oh yeah, surely, grotty

did You at least give them a listen? anyway...

Yes. I heard a number of audiovectors. Let me just say that Lowthers are mostly an aquired tatse that I mostly do not share and the audiovectors are pretty much an aquired taste on top of an aquired taste. Even with a reflector the sound is quite diffuse and reverbrant, very unnatural.

Over the years I have probably heard a dozend different speakers that all included lowthers radiating upwards. Some only that, some with a horn like (among others Audiovectors) some with front drivers and some without.

Originally Posted by graaf

I'd take a pair of the cheap Supravox Signature Bicone drivers in an open baffle over any of these.

oh yeah I know - they "needed to be used with a reflector"... well, somewhat not neccesarily perhaps

these guys listen to them without any reflector and like the sound:

And this is relevant in what way? I know people who listen to B*se Lifestyle systems and like the sound. I know people who listen to B*se 901's and like the sound. I know people who listen to MBL Omni's and like the sound.

Does this mean any of these "I like the sound" systems provide a realistic reproduction of music?

Originally Posted by graaf

or perhaps it was exactly the missing reflector that made the original sound grotty?

I heard audiovec tors done about ever which way.

Even the ones from Lowther Germany with reflector and extra frontfiring driver where not good, next to using a single Lowther driver in a dual horn with a smaller front horn and acoustic equaliser directing midrange and treble with narrow and constant directivity AND flat frequency response towards the listener and using a rear horn with corner loading to bring p the bass.

I could mention the brand of this speaker, but it is not my aim to promote this brand, just the principles. The funny thing is that their front horn actually derived from the Audiovector, just pointed in a way that made sense for two speaker stereo reproduction, instead of single speaker mono (which the original audiovector was designed for).

The bottom line is, I have heard Omni's on many occasions, I have heard various ceiling pointing speakers at fewer occasions. I have also heard many "full range dipoles" (e.g. ESL's). When placed in normal, fairly "live" rooms with only modest distances to walls they invariably serve up the sound with a large dash of extra reverb and a fair bit of colorations.

If I wanted that kind of sound I'd use an Alesis Miniverb digital reverb (or maybe an Eventide), mainly because these units have a "bypass" button, for when I get tired with the effect (around 3 minutes), something which such types of speakers miss.

Please do not misunderstand me - I (and many others) get that you personally like the results of pointing your speakers at the ceiling. We understand that to your preferences the results please you and are preferred to other configurations. That is great and more power to you and please enjoy the music.

What is wearing is merely the way you are trying to folg this ancient long dead horse as the next solution to the room/speaker problem, which they emphatically are not (they are the opposite actually).

On the contrary, may I ask you if you ever tried a pair of speakers with appreciable directivity from fairly low frequencies with an even and slow rise in directivity towards higher frequencies? For example such as may be found using a Supravox 215 Signature Bicone Driver with a supertweeter on an open baffle?

You may be in for the next revelation, after the Lowthers and near Lowther (and actually even worse) Fostex's...

Ciao T

PS, please realise, I have been in this game so long, I have heard and often owned about any kind of system possible. At age 14 or so I had open baffles with old German Radio Speakers hanging near the ceiling pointing towards my bed. I thought this sounded quite good, lying down (which it did). I have build Omni's and tried them with and without reflectors during the 80's omni craze only to dismantle them very quickly, reusing the drivers for other systems.

I even owned B*se 901's for a few weeks, before trading for some JBL monitors. Boy, these 901's were bad, I could almost not believe it given all the positive advertising and all and assumed my hearing was wrong or some such (I was young, ingnorant and had just escaped from communist germany, so I guess my misstep can be excused).

The bottom line of all these decades is that a reasonable constant and narrow directivity is generally preferable, for an accurate reproduction of music in acoustically small spaces that lack large amounts of acoustic treatment. But that is me and I value this accuracy.

[Pano]

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

I know people who listen to MBL Omni's and like the sound.

You know, I never liked them much until this past weekend. I heard another pair at the Capitol Audiofest in D.C. In a big room there were darn good. Of course they were playing music well suited to the speaker. Big symphonic and opera, it's hard to make those sound too big. Right room, right music and they are rather nice. They disappeared and got out of the way. A delight.

Just a data point.

[graaf]

ok, let me just write that:
1) original Audiovector without reflector can be regarded as an example of a flooder
2) some people like the sound of original Audiovector without reflector
3) I am an audiophile and I take as personal attack and rude insult any suggestions that the sound I like is grotty

best regards,
graaf

[ThorstenL]

Hi,

Originally Posted by graaf

3) I am an audiophile and I take as personal attack and rude insult any suggestions that the sound I like is grotty

You heard Audiovectors with only the upwards firing drivers (no fronts) and no reflector and you liked the sound? Really?

From what I heard the epitaph I used was a milder one, intended for a family audience. If you REALLY like that kind of sound, I'll say again you are very welcome to liking it, just do not expect me to like it.

Ciao T

[graaf]

...and as I am not allowed to answer appropriately to personal attacks and rude insults from some users in this thread I am finally leaving it

for me it is EOT

everyone interested in the flooder idea is invited to watch Joachim Gerhard's "MPL" thread at the "Full Range" section as Mr Gerhard expressed kind interest in it

best regards,
graaf

[Pano]

This is a matter of personal taste. We have established that. Time to move on, gentlemen.

[LineArray]

Some non scientific discussion of terms.

Realistic
Compared to the "reality" of an assumed sound event,
which has taken place outside the reproduction chain.

Reproducible
The reproduction chain produces invariant results in
different listening rooms.

Authentic
The reproduction "feels" qualitatively like a real - non reproduced -
event whithin its genre.

Agreeable
The behavior of the reproduction chain does not hurt our ears,
unless the chain is to reproduce something which is explicitly
meant to do so.


Problem with the 'R' ones:

"Realistic"
Term implies the notion of being scientifically provable but methods
to do so are either non existent or there are concurring methods which
lead to different measures, thereby increasing the risc of loosing the
the 'A' terms out of sight.

"Reproducable"
Similar problem like "Realistic" but with some effort results of
a reproduction chain in different environments can be compared.


Problem with the 'A' ones:

Both terms are only valid within an individual and subjective measure.
Tests with a larger amount of listeners have to be conducted to find
reliable measures or intersubjective tendencies.


----
My current non binding suggestion, which may be altered in the
near or far future:

1) Give priority to the 'A' ones in a 50/50 weighting.

2) Spend some effort to make the results of the reproduction
chain as reproducible as possible and account for listening
room compensation if necesasary.

3) Drop 'Realistic'. Go swimming instead, make love or do what
you want which is good for your health. This way you can extend
your remaining lifetime enjoying the 'A' ones.

[LineArray]

I am not competent in the realm of music production.
But recently i browsed over a magazine which listed
many microphones which are in use for different puposes
today.

Among that several vocal microphones, special mikes for
bass-drums (there was a two way mike ...) etc.

The microphones were described according their polar
sensitivity, their sonical character and the preferred
conditions for use.

"Realistic" does not even seem to be a term which is
interesting to describe the character of a microphone
which is used in sound production.

Just an amendment

[markus76]

It's a shame that this interesting topic was dominated by a single speaker concept. There are so many interesting facets to the topic. It might be best to rename this thread so the label on the box matches its contents.

By the way, very interesting interview with Chris Kyriakakis (Audyssey). He states that speakers at around 60° increase spaciousness whereas height speakers increase sense of depth.

[Elias]

Hello,

How about this vintage idea?

Dipole on the floor, and ceiling facing tweeter?

Can this be regarded as a flooder?


http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/download/SFB-review.pdf


Why this is interesting is because my earlier experiment placing a common 2-way box on the floor beside the side wall facing towards ceiling did not make the perceived sound to come from the floor, which I found to be quite surprising.

This idea I would expect to sound better than the box because of the dipole bass and midrange. For a test, of course one would use modern elements in a similar design

- Elias