The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 30 - 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 9th October 2008, 12:29 PM   #291
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
With real stereo-recordings the radiation angle of the Carlsson is very wide, but the imaging remains sharp. With synthetic reverb production it is the other way round: very narrow sweet-spot (the mentioned square) and more diffuse imaging. The CFS has a wide radiation angle as well. It has a slightly less sharp imaging, but still the reach out and touch effect. As mentioned the impulse response of the reflected signal is important. Synthetic productions have a large radiation angle as well, but impaired realism of the image that is clearly ahead of the Carlsson, however.
As mentioned only the Carlsson gives the feeling of being in a real room.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 01:02 PM   #292
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
I'm always wondering what "real" means? Have you ever been in the concert hall where the original sound recording took place? If yes, have you ever changed seats and experienced how the sound changes? Have you ever heard what the mixing engineer made of this recording in his control room?
For me there's only more or less spaciousness and envelopment. As there are no standardized setups for control and listening rooms, this discussion here of "real" or "right and wrong" doesn't make much sense at all.

Best, Markus
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 01:28 PM   #293
pelanj is offline pelanj  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
I guess "real" room means, that one has a feeling of being in another room than the one he actually is in - at least that is what I consider "being in a real room". It does not mean anything true to reality for me - Markus pointed out, that I really do not know the reality. I experimented very little with adding artificial reverb to rock recordings - with very unsatisfactory results. It only worked on my e-guitar dry signal - then I really felt the same way as if I played in a small garage or cathedral - even with a small open-backed combo amp (mono).
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 01:57 PM   #294
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by pelanj
I guess "real" room means, that one has a feeling of being in another room than the one he actually is in
exactly, nothing more and - of course - nothing less
an illusion

best regards!
graaf
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 02:22 PM   #295
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally posted by markus76

Have you ever been in the concert hall where the original sound recording took place? If yes, have you ever changed seats and experienced how the sound changes?

Usually I donīt get the opportunity to wander around during a concert
Wandering in the listening room with a Carlsson setup should be avoided. When I shift towards the side the performers shift with me, while the room stays where it is. But, as said quite at the begining of the thread (or was it an other one, unfortunately there are too much of that sort) the goal is the maximum "you are there feeling", not getting as much information out of the recording as possible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 02:25 PM   #296
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
And as you use the word "envelopment": It is an envelopment I find "acoustic", whereas I perceive the envelopment of a reverb device as psychedelic.
The psychedelic effect of these recordings is reduced when listening to them in the "Carlsson Square" instead of a conventional setup, but at the expense that the performers are becoming big and diffuse.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 02:41 PM   #297
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally posted by el`Ol the goal is the maximum "you are there feeling", not getting as much information out of the recording as possible.
Then you should switch to multichannel NOW. Only more speakers can generate the reflections necessary for more inartificial spaciousness and envelopment. This is simply because these reflections need to be of a certain level, delay and direction.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 02:54 PM   #298
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally posted by markus76


Then you should switch to multichannel NOW. Only more speakers can generate the reflections necessary for more inartificial spaciousness and envelopment. This is simply because the reflections need to be of a certain level, delay and direction.

Well, if I was Ralph Glasgal and had the money for tons of speakers and DSPs, maybe. The only highend 5-channel system I have listened to was a system with 7 Mangers: 2xdipole, 1xmonopole L+R, 2xradial L-R, R-L, and I wasnīt impressed. The owner didnīt have a 5-Channel player at that time, so I canīt say how multichannel sounds with that system. But as far as I know there isnīt even an accepted standard for "real acoustic" multichannel recordings, some exhumated the Decca Tree...
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 03:18 PM   #299
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Well, listening to a multichannel system without a multichannel signal is sort of ... pointless?
But as there's no standard for stereo either I would give it a try.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 03:42 PM   #300
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by markus76
Well, listening to a multichannel system without a multichannel signal is sort of ... pointless?
But as there's no standard for stereo either I would give it a try.
there is a standard for stereo - intensity stereo - XY, MS or panpotted
as to AB stereo:
Quote:
Due to compatibility problems, delay time stereophony is rarely used.
see: http://www9.dw-world.de/rtc/infotheq..._recording.pdf

or are they wrong?

best regards!
graaf
  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 11:42 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2