The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 151 - 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 15th February 2011, 06:26 PM   #1501
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Hello,

Stable phantom imaging in a stereo triangle at 8kHz will certainly not happen. If you pour wax into your pinnas you might have a slight change

Easy to test: put a 7kHz high pass to your speakers and listen to some stereophonic sounds.

In this case I hear only two tweeters at +/-30 degrees, if direct to reflection ratio is high. In case direct to reflection ratio is low sound is just 'spacious'. But no phantom in either case

Phantoming happens at lower freq ranges.

Due to this reason I avoid speakers with high directivity tweeters, like horns. I think it's better to have 'spacious' treble than contradicting imaging.


- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 06:42 PM   #1502
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
Hello,

Stable phantom imaging in a stereo triangle at 8kHz will certainly not happen.
...
Hello Elias,

maybe i did not make clear enough what i was talking
about when writing "presence to brillance region" ...

Presence region is often assumed starting at 2Khz and is
correlated with the curves of equal loudness:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/ISO-KurvenANeu.gif


A presence filter used in studios has often significant
influence on frequencies even lower than 1Khz

http://www.elektroniktutor.de/analog...ct/filter5.gif


If we go up in frequency including the brillance range and
also including the directional band for 'above' localization
- which was the starting point for my thoughts on
balance between presence and 'sparkle' range -
we end up in a frequency range from 2Khz to 8Khz or
even larger i was talking about.

Kind Regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de

Last edited by LineArray; 15th February 2011 at 07:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 07:22 PM   #1503
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
...

That range could also be called "the highs" if you like,
when adding that uppemost octave for convenience
and the younger listeners. My goal was to describe my
observation, that a change in vertical directivity pattern
occuring between presence and the 'above presence'
region affects the sense of "sparkle" and the
- subjective- integration of the presence region
experienced over different listening positions in the room,
even with on axis frequency response being the same.

Kind Regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de

Last edited by LineArray; 15th February 2011 at 07:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 02:28 AM   #1504
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default Vertical/horizontal directivity

I am yet to see a sensible 'quantization' of vertical and horizontal directivity patterns of speakers and their effects on reproduction and realism.

But much before such rarefied arguments became fashionable, particularly in regard to 'popular' two-way bookshelf speakers, many of us had noticed tangible differences in imaging and what we call 'realism' when speakers were oriented vertically or horizontally.

Hi-fi audio sometimes is unfortunately a confused attempt at reproducing a ruler-flat FR at one moment, while at the other we bewail the loss of 'imaging' and root for that, and there are surely many other 'schools' of thought, in fact as many as there are enthusiasts!

I personally go for a situation where the reproduction is able to "emotionally" recreate what the original audio event was capable of--irrespective of absolute FR, particularly the LF and HF limits. And I have found that a simple system like an OB with a passable response from about 100 Hz to 10 kHz, set up in a 'free-field' condition was able to give more subjective satisfaction than systems that were in most ways "superior" to the above in many ways. "Accurate beaming" HF, in my humble opinion, never went with an "accurate" reproduction. I agree with LineArrays thoughts in so far as that they point to the "need" for the brilliance region to contribute to "realism", and also the need for a 'wider', uniform vertical dispersion, with as few confusing colourations as possible, in order to achieve better realism and less 'bitchiness'.

It is of paramount importance that more knowledgeable minds should devote time and effort to identify these factors and contribute to our better understanding of these factors vis-a-vis our pursuit of "reproduced realism".

May realism reign!
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 06:40 AM   #1505
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Erfurt, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to syntheticwave
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
Taken from

The difficulties of audio reproduction


"
Conventional loudspeaker reproduction cannot create such an experience because the right box is only approx. 30 degrees off from the median axis. However, more tight spacing causes more correlation and is, consequently, less attractive. In the center of the concert hall the ceiling reflections are hardly contributing to an improvement of spatial impression. Such reflections in line with the center are counterproductive, normally. "


It seems to me, that proper localization of phantom
sources can hardly be achieved by designs which
radiate the presence to brillance region predominantly
towards the ceiling.

......

If the localization of phantom sources can rely on
balanced direct sound (and uncolored lateral reflections),
a moderate presence of - also uncoloured -
ceiling reflections might improve "spaceausness"
but not seriously disturb localization of phantom
sources.

The ceiling reflections hardly abate the Interaural Cross Correlation coefficient. That's correctly. Thus those reflections are not causing the effect of "more space". However, there are very important in terms of "correct space".

In the recording room the reflections arrive from all possible directions. Reducing the playback onto the horizontal level of the listener is a significant loss. In the second chapter of the linked website is described a simple mirror source model of the spatial sonic field in the recording room. It describes a way for restoring the concert hall acoustics on a snowy meadow. Theoretically, of course, however, becomes graspable, on what score, we cannot dispense reliable ceiling reflections.


H.

Last edited by syntheticwave; 16th February 2011 at 06:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 02:44 PM   #1506
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default Vertical/horizontal directivity

@Syntheticwave
The trouble, to my largely 'uneducated' mind appears to be the plethora of directions from which the needed signals as well as the reflections come to bombard the poor listener's ears. Coherence of any sort suffers, obviously, the soundfield being one big spaghetti of mashed up signals, direct and reflected.

Dont you think we have been stuck with the "two ears, two speakers" setup for long enough? Its simplicity and "quick results" have lulled us into virtual inaction in chasing the Holy Grail of reproduced realism, with the "emotional content" intact.

My own as yet incomplete and imperfect experiments in reproducing M-S signals as such using two full-range (100 Hz -- 10 kHz) closely spaced OB speaker drivers have given me some encouraging results. Good or bad, I dare say they are "way different" from what you perceive with the 'conventional' stereo speaker arrangement.

Who knows what tomorrow shall bring...
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 03:19 PM   #1507
Sheldon is offline Sheldon  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
reproduction and realism.
Interesting way to frame the dichotomy. Too often arguments occur when the participants use the same word as one another, but assign different meanings to it. The technically oriented use "accurate" in its technical sense - output exactly follows input. The experience oriented use "accurate", when they probably mean "realistic" (as in; makes me believe "they are here" or "you are there").

The problem with "accurate", though it is easy to define, is that we can typically define it only for a subset of the signals that reach our ears. So, while it may be accurate with respect to some well defined parameters, our choice of parameters is critical to the what we perceive.

On the other hand, "realistic", is a matter of what we perceive, not necessarily complete accuracy of all (or even any) audio content. That's more complicated, because it is the sum total or our individual perception preferences and all the information we process at the time (and yes, including whether we like the look of special stones on our cables).

Seems like research is moving more into the complicated area of which components of audio reproduction are important to creating a certain kind (or different kinds) of "realism". In the meantime if we don't confuse "accurate" with "realistic", we might avoid some unproductive disagreement.

Sheldon
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 03:26 PM   #1508
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Hello,

Something like this?
Stereolith Loudspeakers Question


- Elias

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
My own as yet incomplete and imperfect experiments in reproducing M-S signals as such using two full-range (100 Hz -- 10 kHz) closely spaced OB speaker drivers have given me some encouraging results. Good or bad, I dare say they are "way different" from what you perceive with the 'conventional' stereo speaker arrangement.
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 04:34 PM   #1509
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Erfurt, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to syntheticwave
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
@Syntheticwave
The trouble, to my largely 'uneducated' mind appears to be the plethora of directions from which the needed signals as well as the reflections come to bombard the poor listener's ears. Coherence of any sort suffers, obviously, the soundfield being one big spaghetti of mashed up signals, direct and reflected.

Dont you think we have been stuck with the "two ears, two speakers" setup for long enough? Its simplicity and "quick results" have lulled us into virtual inaction in chasing the Holy Grail of reproduced realism, with the "emotional content" intact.

My own as yet incomplete and imperfect experiments in reproducing M-S signals as such using two full-range (100 Hz -- 10 kHz) closely spaced OB speaker drivers have given me some encouraging results. Good or bad, I dare say they are "way different" from what you perceive with the 'conventional' stereo speaker arrangement.

Who knows what tomorrow shall bring...


....let me coming back to the main page of the linked site. I believe, that describes exactly your thougths:

"In the recording room, the sound source is originating a complex pattern of reflections. Truly spatial audio reproduction has to restore the wave fronts of the source itself, as well as its reflections, from its correct starting point irrespective of the listener's position. That is impossible in the traditional, phantom source based procedures. Assigning all spatial information to some channels, as we have performed since Alain Blumlein's time, cannot truly reconstruct the genuine impression of space and size of the recording room. The complex structure of the sound field is not simply describable as a signal difference between some single points.

By attempting to increasing the immersion with the number of channels, we have lost the substance of the sources itself. We are not really immersed into the sonic field. The sound sources are only around us. Ghostlike now, somehow dematerialized, and disappearing, in case we want draw near. This site describes a different procedure, aiming at the opposite. During playback becomes complemented the purely, dry in mono recorded sound of the source itself by the correct reflections. A synthesis creates those wave fronts in the same manner, as the recording room creates all of them from the pure signal of the sound source itself. That's shown in the little animation above. The following chapters will delineate the way. First we will be describing the complex problems of the traditional audio procedures."



As become described, would it be possible, establish a virtual, three dimesional copy of the genuine sonic field. All we need is leave the worn- out traditional procedures.


H.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 07:53 PM   #1510
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
"Accurate beaming" HF, in my humble opinion, never went with an "accurate" reproduction.
I don't think stereo is a bad thing. What good examples of beaming may have shown us is the problem with reflections on intelligibility and the stereo signal.

I first noticed this with car twin-cones and later HiFi full-rangers. As perfect as the concept is not, there is something about the limited dispersion of the higher frequencies that is revealing to the whole process of in room reproduction.

You may have discovered it with dipoles. I am exploring it with waveguides. We want the sound to be dispersed evenly, and not necessarily off to the sides where we would be encouraging the earlier reflections.
  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 04:56 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