The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

I regard the contributions of Mr. Geddes and
i also learned from his points of view.

I have not listened to his loudspeakers up to
now and i do not know if there will be ever an
opportunity.

Since my favourite approaches to loudspeakers
are different i can hide comfortably behind
my amateur status.

But i share the "constant" or "smooth as possible changing"
directivity with frequency approach. Differences are in preferred
implementation. Which is not a problem.
 
I meant "puristic" due to coincidence with a certain concept.

The approach you go is "simplistic". That is something different to me.

ok, suits me fine, I don't argue about words :)

A simplistic implementation is not necessarily bad, if one can show the implementation to coincide with that concept in mind.

and what about a situation when a project is not implementation of any theory but rather intuitive experiment that appears to somehow work as expected (that is it sounds better)?

If the concept is to have sound reflected via the ceiling, there would be implementations that fullfill that concept more or less.

I am a friend of discussing concepts and implementations successively because concepts as well as religions often cause excitement for those who stand for them.

well, I am not proposing any concept and I thought that I made it clear in the very first post of this thread and couple of times after

I am just presenting my 200 USD-idea and I am encouraging all interested people to TIY it (try it Yourself)

may I?

The conformity of a given implementation to a concept - or a specification - can be discussed with far less emotional effort. This is because is does not matter for the discussion, whether the participants support the concept or not.

I am not supporting any concept and I don't have any problems with emotions
I am not in this with an aim of being proven right

that is not my game

If yes: What is your concept ?

Haven't got any. It is clear from my very first post in this thread that I started.
I only have some intuitions, project built and working to these ears and I encourage everyone interested in better, more realistic high fidelity, to TIY it

may I?

of course I make some hypotheses, speculations as to how it works and it is my intention to provoke some discussion which might lead to explain some things that seem to happen

may I?
is it ok on DIY audio forum? or do You think that I am trolling?

If no: See above.

? see what?

See the problem ?

I can see that someone's got a problem, but not me

I am not engaging in any "rightness" or "best concept" competition, in any "intellectual coolosity" contest
It seems to be rather an ambition of some other people, but not mine

Would you assume for your concept that a constant power input
to the room (independent from frequency) belongs to the concept?

perhaps, I don't know

If yes: Can you please show us how you achieve that in your implementation ?

unfortunately I cannot do any measurements if this is what You ask

If no: Why does the power need not be independent from frequency when using your concept.

sorry, I am not sure whether I understand this question at all

Please do not hide behind literature. I'd like concrete answers concerning your favoured concept and your specific implementation.

? How come that You are suggesting that I am hiding behind literature??

Where are Your questions that I was reluctant to answer earlier in this thread??

I post a lot of links to literature only with thought-provoking in mind. I think these are interesting writings. I consider bringing them here good for discussion. I hope that people more informed than me can comment on them. Actually couple of times I received thanks for posting such links, even from Dr Geddes Himself.

how about that?

Because this is what other participants in this thread at least try to do: Bringing in their favourite concepts and their experience in implementation.

? Are You suggesting that I am trolling in a thread that I started myself?

What do You think I brought here in my first and following posts?

Wasn't it very specific implementation that I have described with details?

Certainly I wasn't presenting any concepts because in the very first post I have explained that I am an amateur and my project, concept (by which I mean an idea - not theory) came out of intuition and not out of any systematic theorising

How could I make myself more clear?! How?

Advocating concepts and mixtures of concepts based on literature

I present some ideas because for me taking positions or just throwing thoughts is starting point of any discussion. Don't You think?

Do You really think that I should rather shut my mouth becasue I am not peer-reviewed and don't hold any degree in engineering?

For God sake - can I ask questions on the internet forum??????

I cannot see you answer those questions or at least trying.
I can only see you hide away ...

once again - what are You talking about?
where are those questions that I was reluctant to answer earlier in this thread? where are they?

A common answer of people who do not like dealing with details:

Are You pointing at me? I don't like details? With what am I dealing in the very first post in this thread?

and excuse me for that what I was trying to make clear in my first post (I see now that I was trying in vain) that I am not a guy with theory

because theories are well above below my intellectual scope

is that ok or shall I be ashamed?
 
Last edited:
ok, suits me fine, I don't argue about words :)
-----snip------
and what about a situation when a project is not
is that ok or shall I be ashamed?

I'll give you this GRAAF, that is one heck of a reply. You have a lot of determination to defend your position and a lot of guts to stick in this thread against so much adversity both from forum members and research. There is no doubt you love what you are doing and you'd like others to as well. I bet it is enjoyable to listen to.

Can I just make a suggestion? Have a gander a Dr. Toole's book, then come back to this discussion. It took me a couple weeks to read (3 or 4). You can go a lot further than that book, but that will really tell you most of what necessary to know. Then just try what Dr. Geddes recommends. You don't need GedLee speakers to do it (though they sure look great on paper and you won't likely match them for the time and money-- I know I haven't). I went ahead and gave it a shot b/c no research I've read refutes the concepts and everything I've read suggests it is a great idea. I gave up fighting it and I got to tell you that I have no desire to try anything else.

Just my 2 cents,

Dan
 
...
... and what about a situation when a project is not implementation of any theory but rather
intuitive experiment that appears to somehow work as expected (that is it sounds better)?
...

I am fine with that and played around with lots of setups in many rooms over the years too.

Among those were arrangements with fullrangers using no crossovers or equalizers and i
accidently know how a fullranger under that conditions pointing towards the ceiling
sounds like, even at different angles.

The magic of such an arrangement is mostly gone, as soon as a matured speaker is placed in
the same room ... the "wow" effect then boils down the to the certain aspects this arrangement
is good at and the myriads of other aspects come to mind again after the long term adaption
of the listener=builder is destroyed.

Listener=Builder is always a crucial constellation. I always set high value on presenting
my own speakers to critical listeners after emerging from pure prototype state.

My Dipol 08 design e.g. had undergone a complete revision of the crossover alignment after
a friend kept insisting about lacking presence, which could not even be shown in the frequency
response. I started to change the crossover thinking "What would i do when i h a d his
perception ?" I had to adapt to the result afterwards. It hurt, believe me.
In the end i was very statisfied myself and additionally convinced, that the new
alignment is very "common sense".

That does not mean that a more "ad hoc arrangement" like you propose it cannot be further
developed or could not serve as a starting point for a new concept.

I have a problem with you proposing it as a "complete solution" to the speaker-room
interaction problem at the current state. Because i know which problems you run into
that are not adressed within your system up to now. There is some way to go, even when
staying with the simplistic approach, at least to some extent.

...
... it is my intention to provoke some discussion which might lead to explain some things that seem to happen
...

The great participation in this thread shows, that this has already happened ...

But you will have to live with the fact, that some contributors will not follow the
idea of a fullranger firing to the ceiling without any equalizing will solve
all problems of "speaker room interaction".

...
... Do You really think that I should rather shut my mouth becasue I am not peer-reviewed and don't hold any degree
in engineering?
...

Definitely not. You are not the kind of man who keeps silent because someone else wants him to, right ?

I regard that highly btw.


Kind regards
 
i accidently know how a fullranger under that conditions pointing towards the ceiling sounds like, even at different angles.

depends on many circumstances like exact position (including height), specific room acoustics (most of our audiophile room is rather optimised for conventional setup) and also on specific fullranger (omni tends to make all resonances more audible)

The magic of such an arrangement is mostly gone, as soon as a matured speaker is placed in
the same room ...

rather the magic of Your specific arrangement was mostly gone

Let me ask - what is the point of discouraging other people from making their own experiments?

Why are You feeling uncomfortable?

Listener=Builder is always a crucial constellation. I always set high value on presenting my own speakers to critical listeners after emerging from pure prototype state.

I had to adapt to the result afterwards. It hurt, believe me.
In the end i was very statisfied myself and additionally convinced, that the new
alignment is very "common sense".

well, I am not a designer, not even an amateur designer

I am just a music lover who wasn't happy with conventional setups and who started to experiment following some intuitions inspired by concepts from some informed people like Carlsson or Beveridge or Yoshii

that is all

That does not mean that a more "ad hoc arrangement" like you propose it cannot be further
developed or could not serve as a starting point for a new concept.

this was my aim when I was starting this thread
I hoped that someone more informed and with technical skills would get interested, would try it and tell us what could be done with that

two years passed and informed people don't care to try anything, they prefer to discredit me

Isn't it disappointing?

I have a problem with you proposing it as a "complete solution" to the speaker-room interaction problem at the current state.

well, as You said it is just a proposition, feel free to investigate it and to criticise IT

I don't shout "here I have dicovered a Holy Grail! on Your knees You pagans!"
I just say - "here I have something, what do You think?"

Because i know which problems you run into that are not adressed within your system up to now. There is some way to go, even when staying with the simplistic approach, at least to some extent.

You know? Then why don't You just tell us?

But you will have to live with the fact, that some contributors will not follow

I am ok with those who criticise giving specific reasons and willing to discuss.

What I don't like is arrogance of informed people who don't like to be asked questions (they consider it disrespectful) and who show this my-way-or-wrong-way or first-read-the-basics approach.

Especially when they come from "Commercial Sector" and - what an irony - like to accuse educators of having "marketing agenda" (the case of Dr highly regarded and Mr David Moulton)

BTW - would reading a specific book by eg. Dr Toole (specific - because I read many articles by Him) change the way I hear what I hear?

So what kind of argument is that - "go read the books"? pure arrogance

the idea of a fullranger firing to the ceiling without any equalizing will solve
all problems of "speaker room interaction".

where did I write "without any equalizing"? That is not my point. We were even discussing equalizers.

best regards,
graaf
 
Last edited:
The magic of such an arrangement is mostly gone, as soon as a matured speaker is placed in the same room ... the "wow" effect then boils down the to the certain aspects this arrangement is good at and the myriads of other aspects come to mind again after the long term adaption.
Is that also true for your DML speakers?
In fact the speakers that impressed me most at the Highend show (which I have attended three times) had very poor imaging: The Martion Orgon active four-way horn system and the Analysis Audio ribbon/magnetostat dipole speakers.
 
Is that also true for your DML speakers?
In fact the speakers that impressed me most at the Highend show (which I have attended three times) had very poor imaging: The Martion Orgon active four-way horn system and the Analysis Audio ribbon/magnetostat dipole speakers.

I auditioned the analysis audio "omikron" for several hours in the
distributors listening room.

It is a well tempered, detailed and maturated speaker for me
... that sounds like a telephone outside the sweet spot or small
preferable listening area especially when you stand up.

It has a serious problem with directivity of magnetostatic
midrange/woofer and tweeter ribbon not matching.
 
I tried to.

well, where and when? I ask because I am really interested and probably have overlooked that post

I searched 50 posts of Yours in this thread. I have found couple of them covering the virtues of DML's and the rest covering various other topics like room modes, Your line arrays, music, some theoretical investigations, not to mention "ultimate Klaus Schulze Speaker"...

but no, I haven't found anything like proposition of development of the "ad hoc arrangement" like I propose

rather I can see proposition of total abandonment of my proposition:

I could imagine making a ceiling flooder from an array of mini
widerangers which is Xoed with a time delayed woofer.

The woofer would cover the modal to transitional range of the room
say up to 500 Hz and the widerange array would cover the "rest".

Radiation pattern (electronic phase control ?) would be aligned
to minimize sound directly radiated to the listener and could
be made more frequency independent compared to a fullranger.

Maybe a waveguide could do the job too ...

perhaps It can be regarded as a new concept in the sense You wrote here:

That does not mean that a more "ad hoc arrangement" like you propose it cannot be further
developed or could not serve as a starting point for a new concept.

but certainly as an answer to my question "what can be done with that?" (meaning the simplistic flooder) it can be read only as "throw it away!"

best regards,
graaf
 
Last edited:
on the other hand I have found interesting attempt at reconstruction of the flooder concept:

The ceiling flooder does not seem to mimic an omnidirectional source,
but a source having increasing directivity with frequency thereby
using the ceiling as a reflector to indroduce diffusivity.

The direct sound even falls off with rising frequency.

If equalized to compensate the - usually falling with frequency -
overall radiated power into the room this may lead to a balanced
frequency response in a wide area of the room.

yes, I like this explanation. This in fact seems to be what the flooder is doing (would Your time delayed array do the same? is this the same concept?)

I would only say that - usually falling with frequency - perhaps does not apply as much as in the case of conventional speakers because the flooder is projecting sound into the upper part of the room which is typically much less absorbtive than the lower and it is absorption (togehter with directivity of the loudspeaker) that causes this fall of overall radiated power in function of frequency, isn't it?

on the other hand I cannot confirm this statement:

What is sacrificed is localization and focus, if present on the
recording. Think of transients from drums and cymbals ... and
the consonants of the human voice.

After having sacrificed that

I cannot witness that anything is sacrificed in that respect.

best,
graaf
 
I auditioned the analysis audio "omikron" for several hours in the
distributors listening room.

It is a well tempered, detailed and maturated speaker for me
... that sounds like a telephone outside the sweet spot or small
preferable listening area especially when you stand up.

Exacly this is where DMLs prevail. But is it sufficient to prefer your DMLs to the Analysis?
 
Linkwitz has a lot of credibility with me because he actually does admit he could be wrong about his hypothesis. And I guess I like his general question about trying to find what is the most accurate we can do with stereo in a room. In a general sense I agree with what he says about stereo being a totally satisfying experience that can be very realistic. The main thing I differ with him about is I think he should give stereo-surround another go but with a different speaker placement and decoder.

If he truly can get the imaging I can get with 4,5, or 6 speakers with 2 then I would gladly switch to a speaker more like that design. But he has already admitted that you do not get that kind of perceptual coverage which to me is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Hello Graaf,

I have one (1) monopole box borrowed from my friend at house and I'm thinking to try ceiling firing arrangement with that. It's a 12litres bookshelf speaker with 6.5" midrange and a dome tweeter. I understand that the dome radiation may be too wide for floor placement, but I can also use acoustic absorption panels to block the direct sound if needed.

Would you advice the best arrangement for a such a test? I'll place the speaker on the floor facing upwards. Along the side or front wall? Or a distance from a wall?

Note again it will be a MONO :)

- Elias