The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 235 - 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 7th May 2013, 09:52 AM   #2341
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
same scheme as before but some additional explanations and numbers:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg floor and wall coupled UFS (2).jpg (144.3 KB, 98 views)
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 10:02 AM   #2342
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
same scheme as before but some additional explanations and numbers:
ps. one important number is missing in the above scheme - the first reflection off the front wall in a typical conventional setup is delayed by ca 3-3.5 ms

with FCUFS there is no such reflection and secondary wall-ceiling reflection is delayed by ca 7 ms as stated above, again much better result without the need of moving the speaker 1 m into the room ...usually to the dismay of other family members
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 12:34 PM   #2343
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
pps.
and - as far as lateral reflections are concerned - if FCUFS are positioned in Beveridge arrangement (see the first post of this thread), then it is realistic even in a medium living room (5x6 m) to have all of them delayed by more than 10 ms

Linkwitz's requirements of "reflected sounds delayed by >6 ms" and of "the reflections are full spectrum copies of the direct sound" easily met in almost any room, nice, isn't it?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 7th May 2013 at 12:50 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 01:31 PM   #2344
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I'm reluctant to build something that isn't a exact copy of something that works for you. I've heard it one time too many that I've done "something" wrong along the way.
There have been numerous posters claiming that they've found the holy grail but every time I took a closer look, those concepts weren't any better than what I already knew. Dipole, Stereolith, "flooder", "SSS", etc., you name it.
I've worked as a recording, mixing and mastering engineer for years and I'm pretty sure I do know what the limitations of stereo are. Nevertheless I'm always open to try something "new". There's always the possiblility that I've missed something.
So would my FRS 8 pipe perform like your speaker which you claim is capable of reproducing realistic spaciousness? If not I'd like to built your speaker. What drivers did you use? Would a DCX2496 suffice?
I use DCX2496 effectively in several versions employing Pluto concept.

First build for proof of concept used Peerless 830392 and same rubber boot as Linkwitz. Tweeter was North D25-06S.
. Crossover was set around 1.4kHz L-R 48dB/oct slopes. Level matching, EQ, and delay where tweaked to get smoother response, and a decent reverse polarity null. Detail/clarity blew away any other speaker I had listened to. A good friend, an excellent woodworker, and teacher of jimbe dressed up a pair using same drivers:

Click the image to open in full size.

In above pic note sub behind left speaker.

830392 is rather excursion limited.

My next build uses SEAS L16RN-SL called out by Linkwitz. Instead of adapter to 4" pipe, I went with 6" pipe.

I bought Aura 2" as called out, but also Peerless 2". In part to be a little different I use the Peerless. Crossover point of 1kHz is used. EQ for bass extension works well, but when pushed IMD reduces clarity/detail of space between instruments/voices. With sub speakers may be pushed very hard. I use bridged Hafler Pro2400 for sub, a second Hafler Pro2400 for SEAS drivers, and a Halfer Pro1200 for tweeters.

Implemented as such with DCX2496, IR measurements may be used for basis of inverse transfer function for flattening frequency response and phase response via two channel convolution setup.

Detail is sharper, space between instruments better defined. Sound of drum stick making contact with metal is clear, concise and hangs in space with no trace of sound originating from speakers. Attack of drum is palpable much more as real drum.

With multichannel sound card and convolution, DCX2496 is skipped, allowing use of much steeper crossover; >100dB/oct. With this I've used two bridged Hafler Pro2400 to drive SEAS, and Pro2400 in stereo for tweeters. IMD is well controlled, transients can be driven right to below amplifier clipping without deterioration in character of sound. I don't expose my ears to this more than a few minutes at a time.

Last edited by Barleywater; 7th May 2013 at 01:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 01:39 PM   #2345
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Randers, Denmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundtrackmixer View Post
Your world is small compared to the whole world in general. Does your experience extend to the american consumer? I doubt it. Does it extend to all audiophiles and videophiles? I doubt that as well. Everyone I know has a movie or music system that costs way more than $1000. Does your experience cover these folks? Yes - I have sold several high end systems



Here another example of blanket statements that do not stand up under scrutiny. So you have heard EVERY modern recording out there and honestly say that most of them sound mediocre. I don't think so. Secondly, it is no more important to make a mix sound good in a car as it is on a two channel stereo. We create separate mixes that translate well in both. What you hear on the radio is quite frankly a different mix than what you will hear on the CD. The mix for iTunes is different from the one you hear on the radio. It has been this way for years. I think you are aware of the loudness war, and I think you agree that most recordings are not made to satisfy the audiophiles?. An audiofile recording to me is Tom Waits - Small Change, several Kari Bremnes. I also love the music from Bush of Rammstein even though the recordings are far from audiophile

Lastly, I do not know a recording engineer, mixing engineer, or a mastering engineering that uses his car as a reference for anything. If they did, we would have mixes that sounded good in one car, and terrible in another. Not all cars have the same acoustical footprint Yeas normal cars have similar footprint as well as ordinary living room share a similar footprint, and it would be silly to use all the individual cars acoustical properties as a reference point. This is why we use the cubes - they have a similar frequency response to most car speakers and the sound is consistent because the room signature does not change. This I don't understand, why use the cubes for something that is so far away from the environment in scope? I have also used the cubes, but definately not to emulate carspeaker, but rather cheap boomboxes and low fi stereos





So you are saying here that the Bose 901 sound pretty simular to the Klipschorn? No I'm more general, the different types should sound similar, otherwise somethin is completely wrong with the tuning af the speaker, but that has nothing to do with the type of constuction. Different types have different strengths and weaknesses, but they should overall not change how the mix should be perceivedAre you saying what I mix and master on a Dunlavy SCV will sound pretty much the same as a flooder does? YesAre you saying a speaker with a controlled dispersion pattern will sound pretty much the same as a omnidirectional one? You know this is nonsense right? No, that is not nonsens, If the perceived sound is way different, then I consider the speaker to have a defect

And of course I have heard both fully FIR corrected Lyngdorf system as well as omnis, tons of frontfiring speakers, dipoles, bipoles. And I have heard lots of crap, but that was the designer, not the type of speaker it self




And you don't think this makes one speaker sound different from another?



This is great. Most people would rather optimize the best sound for where they sit, because they know NO speaker will sound the same no matter where you sit. If you sit near a wall in your living room, you are not going to hear the same sound in the center of the room. Imaging changes, and so does the frequency response. I disagree - even with front firing spreaker you can experience the effect (do I dare use that word), that it sound similar all over the room - maybe not in the corners and very hard spots, but I hope you get my point



I think this comment is also nonsense. The are huge differences in how ANY speaker design will sound in ANY room. No speaker is going to sound the same no matter what room they are put in. It is impossible with acoustical signatures of each room being unique. I agree

A flooder is nothing more than a "effect" speaker It can be, but it doesn't have tojust like a Ohm Walsh, A Bose, AR Magic speaker, MBL 101E Radialstrahler, and DBX's Soundfield one. You are just "washing" the room with reflections to create a sense of spaceAgain you can decide to implement it that, way but you don't have to. The effect is the same as what you get from a space generator processing box we use in the studio. That is hardly true. You like to exaggerate, and sometimes it a good way to state your point of view, and sometimes it's not

My question here is how does one separate the natural reflections in the recording from those generated by the speaker interacting with the room? How does the speaker create phantom images halfway between the center of the room and the left or right speakers? It is really tough to do that when the majority of your output is reflected.I agree, but he majority of output don't have to come from reflections

Last edited by Kjeldsen; 7th May 2013 at 01:45 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 01:52 PM   #2346
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Barleywater,

Why not use a KEF Uni-Q?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 04:23 PM   #2347
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
I ask because I read that:

from: Recording: Acoustic Treatment vs. Digital Room Correction - Pro Sound Web

Is the above statement true or not?
Here is the problem with your angle. For me it is not acoustical treatment versus Digital room correction, it is both.




Quote:
it was not Moulton, it was Professor William Hartmann
I don't care if it was Peter, Paul, and Michael, it was a poor choice of an example since it in no way describes music.




Quote:
Are You sure? Do You know what a steady state is?
Since rather than addressing what I stated you are desperately going to focus on two words. We will use continuous instead. Music is not speech, since you insist on avoiding the obvious.




Quote:
not really because in Archimedes project they tested only conventional forward firing speakers
So what. The conclusion remains the same. Floor bounce = bad, ceiling reflection = bad. I can hardly see how that would change with a speaker firing its output towards the ceiling. You are parsing everything in an attempt to find some sort of angle, and it is not working very well.




Quote:
I agree - actually that's the very rationale for the FCUFS - to eliminate those detrimental effects that ruin the performance of conventional forward firing speakers
But it hasn't. It just created a new problem. Reflections = smearing, and ceiling reflections = bad. Your own example says it pretty clearly.




Quote:
What sort of evidence would satisfy You? Anything else beside a bunch of peer-revied scientific papers?

Why not just try and trust Your own ears?
Once again you are making the assumption that I have not heard a flooder. Do you really think you are the only person who has built this kind of speaker? And no, peer reviewed is necessary because people make a lot of claims(like yourself), and those claims must be tested and verified as true.




Quote:
explained above
You were found wrong above...you want to try again.




Quote:
And again - I agree for conventional forward firing speakers - that's why FCUFS has an advantage over them
It applies to all speakers, not just forward firing. It applies even more to a speaker that fires all of its output upwards. Don't BS me, I am not stupid.




Quote:
no manufacturer ever has been selling FCUFS properly so called and as to similar though imperfect concepts I can name a few manufacturers that quite succeed - search the thread for them, they are not the big boys but the big boys almost never support anything they didn't invent themselves, that's business, isn't it?
Excuses, excuses. They don't market or sell this type of speaker because it offers no advantages over conventional front firing speakers. Only in your imagination do you THINK it does. If it did, the big boys would be all over it.

Quote:
Do You really think that the free market's inner logic always favours better products?
No I don't, but I also know they don't favour inferior products like a flooder speaker either.

You have completely failed in making a convincing argument for the flooder speaker. Nobody sells them, nobody is talking about them(except you), there is no proof they are superior in any way to front firing speakers, and you have spun, parsed, cajoled your way through all of this.

Gaaf, you are not fooling anyone here. We know you like the design, and are trying to build it up as the best thing since chocolate pudding. But the claims you are making about its benefits are false and weak. Why don't you just admit you like the design and leave it at that instead of flooding the thread with nonsense, mistruths, and informational twisting?
__________________
Soundtrackmixer - M.P.S.E/AES/SMPTE member
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 05:00 PM   #2348
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Randers, Denmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundtrackmixer View Post

No I don't, but I also know they don't favour inferior products like a flooder speaker either.
http://www.carlssonplanet.com/v1.php

Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 05:23 PM   #2349
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Yes - I have sold several high end systems
Wow, several system. Man does that give you a world of knowledge and experience

Quote:
I think you are aware of the loudness war, and I think you agree that most recordings are not made to satisfy the audiophiles?. An audiofile recording to me is Tom Waits - Small Change, several Kari Bremnes. I also love the music from Bush of Rammstein even though the recordings are far from audiophile
Pop, rock and soul recordings are not aimed at the audiophile, they are aimed at the masses. It is not the job of these genre's to satisfy audiophiles, they are largely aimed at radio play. Classical and Jazz did not experience the loudness war, and they were designed for the audiophiles. It pays to keep things in context and not get things twisted. And let's be clear here, the loudness war for the most part is over, so you can stop using that as a crutch and excuse.

Because you love the music, does not make a recording by these artists "audiophile". Your subjective opinion is yours, I may not think any of the recordings by these artists are particularly "audiophile".

Quote:
Yeas normal cars have similar footprint as well as ordinary living room share a similar footprint
So a Volkswagen Bug has the same footprint as a SUV? My Honda CR-Z has the same footprint as a Nissan Altima? I don't think so. My living room is quite different than my neighbors, so they cannot have the same footprint.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

Quote:
This I don't understand, why use the cubes for something that is so far away from the environment in scope? I have also used the cubes, but definately not to emulate carspeaker, but rather cheap boomboxes and low fi stereos
Maybe we are not trying to do a 1 to 1 match with with a car interior because of the variability of them. I think it is stupid to use ANY car as a reference, as they all have different acoustical properties based on their internal volume, seat materials, speaker placement, and how many people are in it. The box approximates the fidelity of the speakers, and that is all we are looking for.

Quote:
No I'm more general, the different types should sound similar, otherwise somethin is completely wrong with the tuning af the speaker, but that has nothing to do with the type of constuction. Different types have different strengths and weaknesses, but they should overall not change how the mix should be perceived
So who decides which tuning is right, and which is wrong? You? You cannot decide for me if my tastes are different from yours. 10 different front firing speakers can sound completely different, and who decides which is right? There are front firing speakers that have controlled directivity, wide directivity in the mids and highs, and everything in between, and they don't sound alike. There presentation is going to be different based on their design goals, so it is naive to assume all front firing speakers sound similar, all omnidirectional speakers will sound similar, or that ANY design will sound similar to another.

If you think a flooder and my Dunlavy's sound alike, then you need your ears checked toot sweet. They couldn't sound more different. You really need to wisen up here.

Quote:
No, that is not nonsens, If the perceived sound is way different, then I consider the speaker to have a defect
If you think a speaker with controlled dispersion should sound the same as a omnidirectional speaker, then you are not showing yourself as very bright here. These speakers are going to interact with the room very differently, and therefore will sound very different from each other. A omnidirectional speaker will have a more diffused and spacious sound, and the controlled directivity speakers will have more pin point imaging, be a more intimate sounding speaker. Two different presentations of the same mix.

Quote:
I disagree - even with front firing spreaker you can experience the effect (do I dare use that word), that it sound similar all over the room - maybe not in the corners and very hard spots, but I hope you get my point
I don't know what a hard spot is, it does not mean anything. NO speaker will sound the same all over the room. Room modes and nodes prevent this from happening. You can even move an inch to the left or right, and the bass response will be different. That is basic room acoustics. Do you understand basic room acoustics? I does not appear so based on your comments.

Quote:
That is hardly true. You like to exaggerate, and sometimes it a good way to state your point of view, and sometimes it's not
If it seems like I am exaggerating it is because you like to skip detail, and don't appear to know what you are talking about.

If you don't think it is true, then you have never heard a space generator. The effect a flooder gives is basically the same effect as the box gives. The difference is the box can be finely adjusted for its effect, and the flooder cannot.

Quote:
I agree, but he majority of output don't have to come from reflections
Then it makes the design pointless.
__________________
Soundtrackmixer - M.P.S.E/AES/SMPTE member
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2013, 05:25 PM   #2350
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjeldsen View Post
I know what the design looks like, and I know what you they sound like. So what's the point of this?
__________________
Soundtrackmixer - M.P.S.E/AES/SMPTE member
  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 09:03 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