The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 49 - 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 23rd February 2010, 03:56 AM   #481
Key is offline Key  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
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.
For me I have a hard time finding any authentic rigor in terms of audio tests that are published. If there are companies that have performed tests that are rigorous enough to be accepted as objective they are keeping them to themselves as far as I can tell. All I ever see are isolated tests. So I am trusting my intuition and anecdotal experimentation as usual but I do have some simple theories that make sense.

If you take a look at what wave synthesis involves and compare it to just a simple stereo signal recorded cardiod isolated from reflections like a lot of modern recordings are done. If you take away the generated reverb done by the mixer what is missing? Copies of the original sound hitting you at various angles. How come binaural seems to give a better illusion than stereo? Could it be that you basically have speakers 90 degrees out from center? It seems pretty simple to me that when I turn on my little reverb/wavesynth/reflection plugin that the phantom center will become more intelligible. When I turn it off it goes back to being that normal 2-D mono sound which seems comb filtered but actually isn't.

I can agree to an extent that you need to standardize if you want to end the circle of confusion. But the problem is we are most likely putting the cart before the horse. The truth is that if you are asking what is the most accurate way to reproduce what the mastering engineer or mixing engineer is using you are playing a guessing game and at the same time probably asking the wrong question to begin with. We should be asking "What should the listener, mastering, and mixing engineer be using to monitor?". My opinion is that the target is a little more liquid than concrete if you want to ensure the best possible experience for most all situations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 04:07 AM   #482
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
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.


We certainly don't agree on accuracy if you think that music or preference has anything to do with it.
Indeed, to reproduce sound effects has nothing to do with music
Neither does it need to be very accurate to do so

If its not about reproducing music, we have different goals, and thus we need different tools

Im convinced that we first need understand music, to be able to judge whether its been reproduced accurately
Well, maybe I should rather say reproduced properly

You could easily have two different speakers reproduce accurately, or close
Its your understanding of music that determines which you choose as accurate

But sure, if its about "sound pressure", then its totaly different

Personally I prefer to focus on "finesse"
I dont like to be constantly "under pressure", or have the feeling of a "marathon"
I consider listening to music as a relaxed pleasure

One reason why I said that we may not even agree on how to define good sound
I listen to music
I NEVER think one bit about hifi when listening to music
Sure, I have been there too, and know how it is

If I hear something good, I think, "my she is good", or "what a nice bass, or "good drummer", etc
I never think "impressive amps" etc, or at least not very often
I really do my best to avoid focus on tech
So, to me its about music only, yes
Sound effects, I wouldnt waste a minute or 1 dollar on that
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 06:00 AM   #483
diyAudio Member
 
dantheman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Indeed, to reproduce sound effects has nothing to do with music
Neither does it need to be very accurate to do so........ Sound effects, I wouldnt waste a minute or 1 dollar on that
I know it's pointless to discuss any of this, but what the heck, I'm strangely addicted to it. Addiction to pointlessness is far to common as far as I can tell.

IAC, you should give it a shot some time. Reproducing the recording does matter and it doesn't seem reasonable to discount it for anything discussed thus far. It's a lot to give up so you can have a goal w/o definable characteristics. There are plenty of "sound effects" in music recorded or live.

Dan
__________________
My Blog
My Music Recordings
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 06:23 AM   #484
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
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...
I think none of us has ever heard a "true" omni, because none exists, only approximations from different directions. One is the radial. I made an experiment with reflector cones that lead to an enormously wide and very flat imaging, even further away from a realistic performance than a conventional speaker. I heard something very similar with the Duevel Sirius. The problem might be that such speakers have rather less ceiling reflections than conventional ones. I heard German Physiks speakers in a small and dead bin, so I can't say much about them. The MBLs are a bit diffuse, but have more three-dimensionality, speakers I could live with from this point of view. I hated their 300000 playback chain for other reasons (neutrality), but this was probably due to the "monkey coffin" power amps.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 06:46 AM   #485
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
I think none of us has ever heard a "true" omni, because none exists, only approximations from different directions.
Okay, I bite. There where and are (especially in Germany) many pretty good approximations of the omni that came/close close enough to a "true omni", I probably over time heard most. Then there is of course the Wollcott Speaker which I also had the chance to hear.

Then there are multiway horn systems which are the polar opposite - I recently heard one that was hornloaded to below 100Hz, sure crazy stuff, but one has to hear them too.

You may (if you like) ask me which system(s) managed to sound more real... :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
The MBLs are a bit diffuse,
Are you sure you are German? Your flair for understatement would put many an englishman to shame. And trust me, it's the speakers. They sound as bad with other chains... :-)

Anyway, I still nail my colours to the "Controlled AND Narrow Directivity" as the solution that produces the most convincing illusion of listening to real music. Omni's or indeed semi-omni's are at the polar opposite, I have never heard them produce anything that startled me with realism, only ever with extreme artificiality.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 07:28 AM   #486
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
You're describing Audio's Circle of Confusion. The solution is standardization.
and what are the prospects of standardization?
and even if it is theoretically possible it would bring solution only for future standardized recordings

and what about recordings we have now? I see no way out from this circle of confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
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.
For a moment I accept this argument (based on false analogy) just for the sake of discussion - and I ask - how do You think You can break the "Audio's Circle of Confusion"? How without standardization? To what original would You "adjust the lighting"?

BTW - how can You possibly know what exactly Picasso saw? how can You tell what exactly a poet had in his mind? etc.

hey Markus, the analogy You have put forth is just out of place
can't You see it?

ART and it's perception is one thing and physiology of human senses is of something completely different

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
The optimal reproduction system has to be capable of delivering a wide range of auditory spaces.
yes of course, the exact point is that for me, for Linkwitz (see quotation above) and for many others various unorthodox designs discussed in this thread are better exactly at this - at "delivering a wide range of auditory spaces" - than front-firing speakers

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Realism is only a subset of audio reproduction.

Depends on how real the auditory illusion needs to be.
in high fidelity? what are we talking about?
is high fidelity not about realism of reproduction??

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Not my favorite space to listen to the news.
listening to the news? what are we talking about?
is high fidelity about listening (with perfect accuracy?) to the news?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I claim that what you're describing is only one specific auditory event.
no, I am talking about "delivering a wide range of auditory spaces", let me quote Linkwitz:

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
One might postulate (...) a sameness to all sound playback because the listening room acoustics from reflections right close to the loudspeakers get mixed in heavily with the recorded acoustics. The exact opposite is heard. Recordings become more differentiated, the whole range from dead to wet acoustics is clearly perceived.
exactly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Walk into a field covered in snow and listen: pinpoint localization. It doesn't get more real than that.
rather "it doesn't get more audiophile than that" because it is "mother nature's anechoic chamber"

once again a question with exclamation mark - listening to music on "a field covered in snow"?!

what a strange idea! has it anything in common with high fidelity?

BTW it was H.A. Hartley who "invented the phrase "high fidelity" in 1927 to denote a type of sound reproduction that might be taken rather seriously by a music lover"

and what we have now?
Walter E. Sear cries "What have they done to my art?!" with sound production in His mind.

state of the art of sound reproduction is equally questionable in my opinion
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Hartley%20%20Books%20005.jpg (68.3 KB, 202 views)
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 23rd February 2010 at 07:35 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 07:51 AM   #487
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post

You may (if you like) ask me which system(s) managed to sound more real... :P
I'm curious.

About the MBLs I have to say that I heard them in a very large room, with the distance from me to the speakers about as large as that from the speakers to the rear wall, similar the distance from the tweeters to the ceiling, the distance to the side walls even larger.

I only visit that show in Munich once a year, where I don't get the opportunity to listen to much else than the usual stuff. I know Cessaro, I don't know how far they get to your ideal. I heard old purist recordings, hard to describe what I heard. A large room with the instruments/vocalists pinned to the walls. I heard something similar with my purist recordings in combination with 6.5" Loth-X fullrangers.

Not the topic here, but I have to say I hate dipoles most.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 08:15 AM   #488
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
I'm curious.
The horn system was spookily real. It completely eliminated the walls of the fairly small room completely and spread a real and apropriate image of a large hall and orchestra. BTW, this system was so seriously non-commercial and off the wall, I'd better not mention who's system it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
Not the topic here, but I have to say I hate dipoles most.
Dipoles do have major challenges, especially "full range" ones. Luckily enough the kind of Dipoles I build are not really true full range dipoles. Only the low frequencies are dipolar, higher up the rear radition from the driver gets pretty much killed off by the basket/magnet lowpass.

So in this case we start with a DI of 3.7dB (Dipole according to SL) with a rise to 6dB at around 500Hz and then staying at 6dB into the middle single KHz, then rising smoothly to around 10dB at 10KHz. I like to add a "supertweeter" to both broaden dispersion (and reduce DI) at the upper passband and to extend the HF.

So again we have a system that is much closer to "controlled and even directivity" than more conventional speaker. And funnily enough it sounds a lot like hornloaded systems, but with a little more relaxed requirement on getting into the focus Spot "just so".

On the other hand I dislike true full range dipoles almost as much as i dislike omni's...

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 01:00 PM   #489
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Actually the approach you descripe is the least reasonable - the situation required by this approach has never happended in the history of stereo and it will never happen in the future either.

In theory it sounds easy - just copy the control room acoustics in your listening room and use the same loudspeakers as in the control room, and you are done with it! No further discussion needed!

The problem. Listener never has the required information about the control room. Nor the loudspeakers used.

One might copy the "average control room" into his listening room. That would mean yamaha minimonitors placed below your ear hight at about 1 meter distance on the top of the mixing console?? You copy this to your listening room, by placing 2-way bookshelf speakers on a tilted table located below your nose. Throw a bucket of Legos on the table to mimick the reflection pattern from the control room mixing console knobs. Be sited on a swivel chair, make sure you cannot stay still for a second.

Only then you are able to hear what the (average) mixing engineer was hearing.

Not going to happen in any domestic situations.



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.
Strange thing is though, how you jump to conclusion that only constant directivity will suffice even you don't know what was the directivity of the control room speakers. If his speakers were not constant directivity, and if yours are, you are not hearing the same thing.

If control room speakers were flush mounted on your favourite recording, only option you have to hear what the mixing engineer was hearing is to break your living room walls, right?



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.

The consumer does not care what the engineer intended. Consumer wants to hear the performance - i.e. the reason to buy the records.

- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2010, 01:02 PM   #490
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinitus View Post

If I hear something good, I think, "my she is good", or "what a nice bass, or "good drummer", etc
I never think "impressive amps" etc, or at least not very often
I really do my best to avoid focus on tech
So, to me its about music only, yes
This is the musicians dillemma and why they are typically not good evaluators of sound reproduction. They only hear the performance. If the performance is good then the reproduction is good and vice-versa. Until you can learn to seperate those two very distinct things - the performance and the reproduction - you will never understand what I am talking about. One can be good and the other bad, they are distinctly seperate things.
  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 05:16 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