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, 06:47 PM   #311
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
yeah, ok!

thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2008, 06:48 PM   #312
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally posted by markus76
As "classic" stereo recording techniques are discussed in that paper I assume they speak of mono/stereo compatibility.
Mono-compatible recordings were often done with the Decca tree.

Quote:
Originally posted by el`Ol


I donīt know the percentages, but I always thougth the 30cm setup is the most common for cardioid microphones. Maybe I am wrong.
I cleared it that way: looked at thomann.de and saw that virtually all expensive stereo microphones are dipole microphones (Blumlein pair, the most expensive are ribbons). So probably I was wrong that the BP is a rarity, but I think I was right about the common use of the cardioids.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2008, 06:54 AM   #313
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Anyone who can tell us the percentages (XY, MS, Blumlein pair, 30 cm distance cardioid)?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2008, 11:37 AM   #314
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by el`Ol
Anyone who can tell us the percentages (XY, MS, Blumlein pair, 30 cm distance cardioid)?
yeah it will be useful to know

perhaps 90% or even more is multi-miked panpotted stereo?
which is not necessarily something wrong per se as stereo principle stays the same as in case of correct Blumlein stereo

we should also take into account that audiophile market can differ significantly in that respect
it is interesting to know how "true stereo" is understood for instance at Naim, a renowned audiophile gear and record company:

http://www.thenaimlabel.co.uk/true_stereo.htm

actually their "true stereo" microphone setup looks like so called ORTF and is not "true stereo" as understood by Blumlein
and it is simply incorrect from the perspective of theory behind the stereo patent but not as badly as AB-stereo (where no literally no theory explains what is going on)

why spaced microphone arrays cannot work properly is explained i.a. in this interesting essay by Robert E. Green: http://www.regonaudio.com/What%20Can...%20Stereo.html

also DW "Infotheque" leaves no space for doubt:

Quote:
poor directional resolution, the displacement of remote lateral sound sources toward the middle and the risk of a so-called "hole" in the middle
here: http://old.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projek...tmikro_en.html
we can read that:

Quote:
The coincident pair (also named XY) is best chosen for optimal sound localization in the room
(...)
AB stereophony (...) is best chosen for a most natural image of the real spatiality.
but why?

ORTF is a kind of compromise:
Quote:
near-coincident pair (equivalence stereophony) is a combination of both level and runtime differences to create a pleasing room image in addition to good localization of sources.
not "optimal", not "most natural" - just "good", "pleasing"

best regards!
graaf
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2008, 01:41 PM   #315
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Will have to get this and do my own recordings:
http://www.thomann.de/de/haun_mbnm62...enzflaeche.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2008, 02:05 PM   #316
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
On the other hand, arenīt boundary microphones built to reduce room resonances and so reduce the "sense for the room"? And does the Carlsson as a "boundary speaker" reduce the sense for the listening room in order to enhance the sense for the recording room?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2008, 02:39 PM   #317
pelanj is offline pelanj  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Where should be the boundary microphone ideally placed? On a wall? On the floor? On the ceiling? And what does make any microphone a boundary microphone? My idea of this principle is very vague.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2008, 09:43 AM   #318
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
hi again!

take a look at those pictures:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...95#post1634295
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...97#post1634297


and then at the image I attached to the post No 1 in this thread

how about that!

it is nice to see that Mr Linkwitz came to the same conclusion about omnidirectional speaker's placement in small rooms

best regards!
graaf
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th December 2008, 04:17 PM   #319
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
another one interesting "corner" speaker (representing an approach a bit similar to short Carlsson speakers):
http://www.gampermartino.com/project...corner-sounds/

best!
graaf
Attached Images
File Type: jpg corner_speaker_blue_05.jpg (29.1 KB, 340 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th January 2010, 06:43 PM   #320
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Update to the Carlsson project:
After listening to the prototypes for many months I now have the final version running with much better damping inside (rock wool instead of polyester fleece) and outside (Basotect instead of polyester felt). While I am very happy with the tonal improvement I dislike what happened to the imaging. The prototypes had an excellent imaging when fed with real-acoustic recordings and some problems with synthetic acoustic: The instruments were either fixed to the speakers or formed a clump of mud between them. Now the real acoustic recordings are diffuse and without depth, whereas the synth acoustic recordings are much better now and in fact the field where the speakers perform best.
I suspect that the basotect is to blame. I held the polyester felt to my ears and found that they have almost complete transmission, so the triangles probably formed reflectors rather than absorbers before.
Now I am trying to find a compromise. Thinner Basotect may be a solution, but I would be happy to get rid of it completely because it is very fragile. What about real wool felt?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg CIMG0108.JPG (53.0 KB, 226 views)

Last edited by el`Ol; 29th January 2010 at 06:46 PM.
  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 07:36 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