The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 48 - 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 22nd February 2010, 07:19 PM   #471
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
This is a good answer and I see where you are coming from. I'm just not so sure in all cases VERs cause image smear as much as a lack of lateral reflections and copies of the sound in general
Not not sure because? you just don't like the idea, or you actually have some "data" to the contrary? "Data" of course being something objective and not just a simple personal impression from a simple listening test.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2010, 07:22 PM   #472
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
For me I am looking for the speaker that is easiest to build and at the same time is the easiest for a person's psychoacoustic processor to blank out acclimate to or make invisible.
so You are probably looking for this:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...ml#post2088246

only I would suggest Fostex or similar low Qts 8-incher that can be housed in a small and short closed cabinet instead of Visaton in TL
Fostex should be treated in the way I describe in another thread at "fullrange" section of diyaudio, and the thing needs some correction for lifting the bass
but it is much easier to make than folded TL for Visaton

the thing has been called CFS (for "ceiling firing system" aka "ceiling flooder", copyright by Mr el`Ol)
and probably the best placement for it is described in the very first post of the thread
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2010, 07:59 PM   #473
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
In the light of facts only one approach is reasonable: make the sound field in the listening space similar to the sound field of the original, whereas the original is the sound field of the mastering/mixing room. In my opinion only loudspeakers with high, constant directivity will provide such a sound field in domestic listening rooms that don't allow for major room acoustic optimizations.

How the optimal sound field should look like and how recording and mixing techniques would need to adapt is a different discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I don't think it can be defined in any other way. The common stereo or multichannel audio reproduction chain is not capable of recreating the sound field (at your ears) from the original venue. It's the mixing engineer in his specific control room with specific loudspeakers that tries to create something that might or might not sound like reality. The consumer does not know what the engineer intended. So all the consumer can do is to recreate that specific control room or something that represents the average control room. Any different effort will result in something that is no longer accurate. It may sound more "real" but it's certainly not the original.
I understand Your point of view

You aim at "accuracy" because You think that it is something achievable, in contrast to "realism" which finally depends on "recording and mixing techniques" so we can do nothing about it at the stage of sound reproduction (what is lost at the stage of production is lost ultimately)

but I sincerely think that in fact it is all quite the contrary

it is rather the "accuracy" that is really unachievable because we have no access to any reference "original sound" necessary to define such "accuracy"

we have no access to that particular "sound field of the mastering/mixing room" that You are speaking of

after all there are various "mastering/mixing room" arrangements and various electronics and monitors

therefore ultimately "accurate" would have to mean "the same electronics and monitors and room arrangement" as the producers has used when making that particular recording
it is something completely unachievable for many obvious reasons

and only "to recreate that specific control room" would be enough, "to recreate (...) something that represents the average control room" would not

but we are not lost, we still have the other alternative "ideal", that of "realism" which is understood as fidelity to the basic elements of real experience of real auditory event

and from that perspective we are not doomed to "whatever is in the recording", doomed too "something that might or might not sound like reality"

and it is not at all about "recreating the sound field (at your ears) from the original venue", it is not at all necessary!
it is about recreating anything sounding like a real sound field
that is necessary and at the same time sufficient for satisfaction of most music lovers
sound sources sounding "like real", space sounding "like real", not necessarily 100% exactly as "original sound sources", "original space" but at least essentially resembling them

You say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
"Any different effort will result in something that is no longer accurate. It may sound more "real" but it's certainly not the original.
I ask - where is this mythical original?

And who cares for such an original if it is evident for all listeners that in fact it is fake? perhaps nice, perhaps 99% "accurate" but ultimately fake

On the other hand what we all have and which we all can use as a reference is basic real experience of real auditory event
One doesn't need to go to that particular "original venue" to have criteria to assess "realism" of sound reproduction, any similar real auditory event would supply sufficient criteria for telling the real from the fake
because all experiences of real auditory events are the same in their basic structure

and experience of the presence of some real auditory event before us, "the reach-out-and-touch effect", is achievable even in stereo but not by means of standard front-firing speakers
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 22nd February 2010 at 08:04 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:31 PM   #474
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Not not sure because? you just don't like the idea, or you actually have some "data" to the contrary? "Data" of course being something objective and not just a simple personal impression from a simple listening test.
I wonder why Dr Toole apparently is not "so sure" as well

Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee
Toole is a strong proponent of a large amount of VER because of its increase in the spaciousness effect. He appears to discount the negative aspects of this on imaging however. (Dr. Toole, does not make many statements about “image”, perhaps being concerned over its loose definition.)
but of course - He puts "emphasis on "preference" as opposed to "accuracy"", yes, it is true

nevertheless He bases his statements not on "simple personal impression from a simple listening test" but rather on rigorous multiple tests with many participants
one cannot counter with an argument like "his ideas support Harman products"

also an argument that "His support for this is a little weak and in some points it is contradicted by his own data " misses the point

the point is that scientifically determined normal listener's preference simply contradicts certain interpretation of "the data"

perhaps this interpretation is wrong because as Markus76 put it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
The influence of reflections is not fully understood. Everybody is guessing and declares his own experience the truth.
(...) We just don't know yet what the important properties are and how to measure them.
or perhaps this certain interpretation of "the data" harmonizes with preferences of a certain type of listener with certain, peculiar expectations ie. the audiophile

perhaps the problem is that "imaging" is very loosely defined audiophile concept indeed, and especially the so-called "pinpoint imaging" that is not known to be found in nature and that nobody besides the audiophile seem to care about at all?

what if "precise pinpoint imaging" is in reality just an artefact that is indeed produced only when some special conditions are met like "no VERs"?

but then - the real question is who cares? after all an artefact is just an artefact
and high fidelity is something else, it is not about artefacts, is it?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 22nd February 2010 at 10:37 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2010, 10:46 PM   #475
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
ps.
as to "the data" argument

I believe that consistent listeners' preferences determined through scientifically rigorous listening tests under controlled conditions also belong to the category of "the data"

moreover, these data seem to me even more relevant than data collected by a microphone under anechoic conditions
after all sense of hearing doesn't work as microphone and listening rooms are rather "echoic" as hell
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:27 PM   #476
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
I think I will stick to "what sounds right"
I believe thats about the best one can hope fore
It will also approach "accurate", especially in terms of "beat", "timing", "definition", etc
Well, in fact it covers just about every fancy word existing in audio

But Im not sure we all have the same understanding of the definition "accurate"

graaf, your position sounds about right too

I think we all too often hear bad excuses fore poor sound
Well, maybe we dont even agree on how to define good or poor sound

Please dont tell me there are exact data and specs on that
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:55 PM   #477
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Ok, let me try it from a totally different angle

Music can be broken into very accurate mathematic

But music played stricktly that way sound mechanical
A good musician gives the music "soul"
And its by "twisting" the purely accurate
Some are better at it than others
Some never learn it
Other are masters

And thats about what music reproduction is about too
Good music reproduction reveals those fine feeling that a good musician puts into his music
You may call it "nuances"

Funny to think about
Playing music, you better lay off the stricktly accurate
But we need accurate technology to reproduce it
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 12:53 AM   #478
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinitus View Post
Music can be broken into very accurate mathematic
Accuracy has nothing to do with music, the two things are entirely seperate. I can acurately reproduce the sound of war, and that's not music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinitus View Post
I think I will stick to "what sounds right"
I believe thats about the best one can hope fore
It will also approach "accurate", especially in terms of "beat", "timing", "definition", etc
Well, in fact it covers just about every fancy word existing in audio

But Im not sure we all have the same understanding of the definition "accurate"
We certainly don't agree on accuracy if you think that music or preference has anything to do with it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 01:33 AM   #479
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
I understand Your point of view
With all due respect, no you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
You aim at "accuracy" because You think that it is something achievable, in contrast to "realism" which finally depends on "recording and mixing techniques" so we can do nothing about it at the stage of sound reproduction (what is lost at the stage of production is lost ultimately)

but I sincerely think that in fact it is all quite the contrary

it is rather the "accuracy" that is really unachievable because we have no access to any reference "original sound" necessary to define such "accuracy"

we have no access to that particular "sound field of the mastering/mixing room" that You are speaking of

after all there are various "mastering/mixing room" arrangements and various electronics and monitors

therefore ultimately "accurate" would have to mean "the same electronics and monitors and room arrangement" as the producers has used when making that particular recording
it is something completely unachievable for many obvious reasons

and only "to recreate that specific control room" would be enough, "to recreate (...) something that represents the average control room" would not
You're describing Audio's Circle of Confusion. The solution is standardization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
but we are not lost, we still have the other alternative "ideal", that of "realism" which is understood as fidelity to the basic elements of real experience of real auditory event

and from that perspective we are not doomed to "whatever is in the recording", doomed too "something that might or might not sound like reality"
The optimal reproduction system has to be capable of delivering a wide range of auditory spaces. Realism is only a subset of audio reproduction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
and it is not at all about "recreating the sound field (at your ears) from the original venue", it is not at all necessary!
it is about recreating anything sounding like a real sound field
that is necessary and at the same time sufficient for satisfaction of most music lovers
sound sources sounding "like real", space sounding "like real", not necessarily 100% exactly as "original sound sources", "original space" but at least essentially resembling them
Depends on how real the auditory illusion needs to be. We don't know which subset of listening cues is "right". You hear something real when listening to your omni loudspeakers - I hear something that reminds me of sound perception in concert halls. Not my favorite space to listen to the news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
I ask - where is this mythical original?

And who cares for such an original if it is evident for all listeners that in fact it is fake? perhaps nice, perhaps 99% "accurate" but ultimately fake
The original is what was heard by the mixing engineer. His contribution is part of the art. You probably would alter a painting because it doesn't look the way you want it to. I would never do that. I would adjust the lighting until I could see exactly what Picasso saw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
On the other hand what we all have and which we all can use as a reference is basic real experience of real auditory event
One doesn't need to go to that particular "original venue" to have criteria to assess "realism" of sound reproduction, any similar real auditory event would supply sufficient criteria for telling the real from the fake
because all experiences of real auditory events are the same in their basic structure

and experience of the presence of some real auditory event before us, "the reach-out-and-touch effect", is achievable even in stereo but not by means of standard front-firing speakers
I claim that what you're describing is only one specific auditory event. There are many more. Walk into a field covered in snow and listen: pinpoint localization. It doesn't get more real than that.

By the way, we "learn" auditory spaces. A newborn baby is not able to localize sounds. A great read is Barry Blesser's "Spaces Speak" (Spaces Speak, Are You Listening: book overview).

Last edited by markus76; 23rd February 2010 at 01:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 03:51 AM   #480
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
Well I guess I am making exceptions with the high end when I say omni. To me it can be 6dB down @ 10kHz 40 degrees and I still consider it an omni
So, we are not talking about a true omni, but a very generic variable directivity speaker which starts out with 0dB directivity and becomes progressively more directive as frequency rises?

If the change of directivity is fairly smooth without obvious peaks and dips this kind of speaker works okay, much better than a true omni, that is for sure, but much less well than a true constant directivity (including low frequencies) system.

It is also basically the same turned out en masse by the speaker making industry with varying degrees of success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
I am working back from the results I have achieved and I guess I am wondering how these results translate to different speakers or if it's just the speakers I use which are giving me the results. The results I am getting I don't think are some "oh the music breathes much better" type of thing. It's like smacking you over the head with a frying pan obviously better reproduction.
I have heard many (true) omni's and they always hit me over the head with a frying pan, that is true, but not by how good they are...

In the end it is everyones preference. I have friends who have and actually like Bose 901's and we are still friends and do not continuously argue about Speakers...

Ciao T

Some POST SCRIPVM

BTW, a system with very well controlled directivity and directional bass is the MEG RL-901K, it is a basically conventional large format 3-Way Studio monitor (active) with the LF unit working into a short transmission line / resistive vent and using a suitable EQ for flattening the LF response lost. The DI stays around 8-10db very flat for most of the Audio band.

How this is achieved is of more than passing interest BTW, IMNSHO.

The LF section as said is basically a variation of the U-Frame, giving cardiode LF with a 10dB rear null down to 30Hz (using active cardiode LF systems can get a null better than 20dB BTW) with the maximum null (and hence TL tuning frequency) around 100Hz. The cost is that the speaker needs a fair bit of equalisation below 100Hz to get real bass output, but I can attest it has excellent and very low bass nevertheless.

The midrange is a smallish cone on a narrow open baffle with a rear "muffler" fitted and suspended in front of the LF cone. The result is an essentially flat DI in the coverage range of this cone Driver (550Hz-2.8KHz).

By selecting the right (dome) tweeter the directivity is again well matched to the cone driver, at high frequencies a phaseshield in front of the tweeter actually broadens the dispersion at the cost of some HF rolloff, which is equalised.

If I remember right (this may have changed in intervening years - I remember the technology of the 1980's RL-900 East German Studio Monitor which it is derived from, never opened the new version), the filter was first order around the midrange with derived lowpass and high pass filters for the LF and HF Driver. Analogue all-pass filters where used to correct the delay between the different drivers. The result is also a very good impulse response, something German Studio Monitor designs tended to emphasise since the Eckmiller coax of the late 1930's.

In principle, in an age where Behringer makes very cheap digital crossovers that allow a fair bit of equalisation which can be easily modified for pretty good sound and where "gainclones" make easy and cheap DIY Multiamplification at pretty good quality both easy and cheap it should not be difficult to DIY such a system at a quite reasonable cost, using whatever similar size drivers take ones fancy.

Heck, with cost of Behringers A500 Amp or the Alesis RA500 you can even afford to buy a stack of them and mod them for best SQ instead!

Even more fun, as someone had mentioned standardisation, in the last days of russian communist occumpation of the eastern parts of germany such a standardisation had been achieved,

The basically same frequency response in the mid and high range and (dictated by size as to cutoff frequency) the same DI was shown by all the then manufactured HiFi Speakers AND it was found in the Studio Monitors as well.

The Recordings made and mastered using a MEG RL-900 translated very well into a domestic setting with the BR-25 or BR-50 Boxesm, which used basically the same Midrange and High Frequency drivers as far as cone geometry, general frequency response, waveguide shape etc. where concerned.

In Germany the BR-25 and BR-50 Speakers made in East Germany still hold some degree of "cult" status and the BR-50 was sold as selected (for matched and flattest FR) studio Monitor in the West for obscene sums of REAL money when I first arrived there in early '89.

Shame that all of this went down the tube in the german re-unification, though the east german audio scene has had a late comeback and I am sure it amuses many of us to no end to notice that MEG Monitors are now the most widely used in the public Radio and TV Services in the new unified Germany (even if late, revenge is sweet.. )
  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 07:08 PM.


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