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 17th July 2013, 12:14 PM   #3141
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Don't waste your time. I asked for this years (!) ago. He never provided that information and probably never will. Even if you follow his "recommendations" (e.g. Stereolith) but don't agree with his opinion, he'll tell you that you're biased anyway.
c'mon Markus - You haven't followed any recommendations from me

Yes, You are biased, clearly, and in particularly stark contrast to Elias, in the context of the Stereolith thread

it can be clearly seen in the outcome of the Stereolith thread which from You is just putting me on Your ignore list while from Elias it is starting new and interesting thread on "Single Speaker Stereo"
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2013, 12:30 PM   #3142
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas View Post
You're not holding out an 8" driver with a 1" dome tweeter and a claimed crossover of 2.5kHz as a constant/consistent directivity device through the midrange, are you?
no I am not

BUT it is not at all necessary

with a coincident driver all I want is to avoid serious inconsistencies between the direct and reflected wavefront, that's all

and it's actually precautionary because perhaps even this is not really required for totally satisfying results - as tinitus' experiments with multiple drivers lying around on the floor have shown
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 17th July 2013 at 12:36 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2013, 08:30 AM   #3143
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Recently I have done some critical listening tests with various test records (from XLO, Tacet and many more) to KEF Ci200 in a FCUFS setup with relatively more delayed ceiling reflection than in my usual setup (listening seat much closer to the speakers than usual), speakers positioned along the long wall, side wall about 1 meter from the speaker. I chose this setup, which I think is suboptimal for FCUFS, deliberately.

My conclusion is that ONLY virtual sound sources that are:

1) closely miked, with no or little reverb

2) panned full L or full R

(tend to) seem to be coming from the speakers.

For example with a dry mono recording played through one FCUFS only the sound seems to be coming from the speaker.

With the same mono recording played through both speakers the sound seems to be coming from the center at the listener's height.

But the effect IS real and some recordings (crappy recordings IMHO but nevertheless) under some circumstances suffer audibly from it.

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2013, 10:28 AM   #3144
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
My conclusion is that ONLY virtual sound sources that are:
1) closely miked, with no or little reverb
2) panned full L or full R
(tend to) seem to be coming from the speakers.
Does this imply, that above does NOT happen with your recommended setup?
Btw - how is your usual setup exactly? Listening distance etc.

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2013, 07:43 AM   #3145
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
in my usual setup there are several differences: listening distance ca 4 m (vs 3 m in the test setup), much smaller UniQs with better dispersion, closer to side walls (ca 75 cm vs ca 150 cm in the test setup), some shelves on the front wall above the speakers which can produce some earlier, elevated, scattered reflections

but what is more important I have never experienced anything like the sound coming from the speaker ie. from the floor level when I was listening to a single FCUFS mono setup for some time (I posted my observations once in this thread) BUT the listening distance was more like 5 m then - deep in the reverberant field

anyway - the point of my post in which I have reported my recent test was to acknowledge that there are some situations when some virtual sound sources can indeed be perceived as "situated close to the floor level"

however it looks like this effect is recording dependent rather than anything else - dry recorded sounds suffer from it

and under certain conditions - apparently sufficiently present in my usual setup and also in the mono setup I tested once and absent in the recent test setup - room reflections can somewhat substitute for the lack of recorded reverb thus lifting the virtual sound source up from the floor/speaker level

I would like to stress that this doesn't lead to loss of image definition. Perhaps it is no longer pin-point by standards of some pin-point stereo lovers but it is defined and can be perceived as separate and distinct sound source.
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2013, 12:47 PM   #3146
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
in my usual setup there are several differences: listening distance ca 4 m (vs 3 m in the test setup), much smaller UniQs with better dispersion, closer to side walls (ca 75 cm vs ca 150 cm in the test setup), some shelves on the front wall above the speakers which can produce some earlier, elevated, scattered reflections
Your usual setup looks like a lot of strong early reflections in a highly reverberant field to me. I can well understand that you don't experience a sharply defined source (whether loudspeaker or phantom image) in that setup.
Quote:
... I have never experienced anything like the sound coming from the speaker ie. from the floor level when I was listening to a single FCUFS mono setup for some time ... BUT the listening distance was more like 5 m then ...
That way you did your best to hide the origin of sound from your brain.
Quote:
anyway - the point of my post in which I have reported my recent test was to acknowledge that there are some situations when some virtual sound sources can indeed be perceived as "situated close to the floor level"
... which is equivalent to "close to the speaker".
Quote:
however it looks like this effect is recording dependent rather than anything else - dry recorded sounds suffer from it
If I point the rear radiation of my dipoles directly at the first reflection point on the front wall and do nothing to attenuate or diffuse it, even add some SPL to the rear tweeter - in that case I can "glue" even the worst recording to my front wall. There will be not a single recording which stays at the speaker. This is absolutely steerable by the power of the front wall reflection. But this is not my regular setup of course.
Quote:
and under certain conditions - apparently sufficiently present in my usual setup and also in the mono setup I tested once and absent in the recent test setup - room reflections can somewhat substitute for the lack of recorded reverb thus lifting the virtual sound source up from the floor/speaker level

Quote:
I would like to stress that this doesn't lead to loss of image definition. Perhaps it is no longer pin-point by standards of some pin-point stereo lovers but it is defined and can be perceived as separate and distinct sound source.
You can look at it whatever way you want - it is no longer the image definition as recorded in the studio. It is no longer "high fidelity". If you love the one more than the other it is solely a question of your personal taste.

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2013, 06:33 AM   #3147
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
Your usual setup looks like a lot of strong early reflections in a highly reverberant field to me. I can well understand that you don't experience a sharply defined source (whether loudspeaker or phantom image) in that setup.
I don't really know what You mean by "sharply defined" but virtual sound sources in my setup are certainly realistically defined. No wash of sound or anything like that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
That way you did your best to hide the origin of sound from your brain.
why worry?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
You can look at it whatever way you want - it is no longer the image definition as recorded in the studio.
an emotional issue? c'mon

there is not such thing as "the image definition as recorded in the studio"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
It is no longer "high fidelity". If you love the one more than the other it is solely a question of your personal taste.
no, it's a question of REALISM, dry recorded sound glued to the speaker, even at an ear height, is just totally artificial - totally unrealistic

and high fidelity is about REALISM, what else?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2013, 09:26 AM   #3148
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Randers, Denmark
The pin point realism from studio recordings is only on the recording, it's not there in real life. The very dry recordings that can be heard is also not realistic. Very few locations if any at all, where you have concerts are dry (without any reverb or delay of some sort).

But, for a speaker to be realistic it should also be able to reproduce unrealistic recordings. But, it should not be the studio monitor that's the reference. The studio moitor it self, is only a playback device, and basically you don't know if the sound going into the mic's actually sound this way. A speaker output can be valued in many different way, and we as listeners gives these values different weight - there is no right and wrong only wrong. So between all the wrong reproducting speakers there is, we choose the one we think is the least wrong (to our taste)
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2013, 10:40 AM   #3149
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
That way you did your best to hide the origin of sound from your brain.
Do You know ambiophonics or just the basic idea of an ambiopole or of the transaural stereo?
Have You tried it?

The idea that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin View Post
the sound can seem more natural if the speakers are hidden and the listener is less conscious of the physical sound sources.
[bolds mine] is not new.
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 5th September 2013 at 11:01 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2013, 10:50 AM   #3150
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjeldsen View Post
But, for a speaker to be realistic it should also be able to reproduce unrealistic recordings.
strictly speaking there is no such thing as "realistic speaker" vs "unrealistic speaker"

neither there is anyting like "realistic recording" vs "unrealistic recording"

there is "realistic sound" vs "unrealistic sound"

HiFI recording and HiFi speakers suport realistic sound, that's all
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  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 10:42 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