The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 56 - 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 24th February 2010, 08:21 AM   #551
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Now that we are back to Picasso, does anybody have an idea how to bring 3D brush strokes into a block of acrylate or resin? Paper-coated wire mesh can be done by everyone

Last edited by el`Ol; 24th February 2010 at 08:31 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th February 2010, 11:25 AM   #552
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
That would be Vincent van Gogh.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th February 2010, 12:03 PM   #553
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
@el`Ol & markus. Keep on topic please. No personal arguments.

__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 01:10 PM   #554
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Did you read Bob's book?
Bob Katz on David Moulton:

Quote:
I love Dave Moulton as a person and as an educator for reproduced sound. I consider him a good friend, but I don't agree with his tastes and preferences in loudspeaker technology which results in imaging, dispersion and soundstage that I disagree with. With great respect, though!
from: Gearslutz.com - Powered by vBulletin

note great respect from Katz
I can't see this respect here on the forum, especially from some people constantly accusing other users for disrespecting them



note also an interesting statement: "imaging, dispersion and soundstage that I disagree with"

funny, how can anyone disagree with "imaging and soundstage"?
dislike it yes but disagree with it? strange...
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 25th February 2010 at 01:31 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 01:54 PM   #555
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
...
therefore I call pinpoint imaging of musical sound sources in stereo sound system an artefact
...

I am close to agreeing.

Often when i read in a HiFi Mag (i done it very seldom in the last years)
things in the sense of

"Speaker A is superior over Speaker B because it shows the singer
on that particular recording exactly one meter in front of the piano
while Speaker B shows the singer right beside in the plane of the piano ..."

i just think "oh man, please just leave us alone ..."

Locatedness in (Synfonic) Concerts is to me very dependent
on the acoustic situation.

The major differences to most reproduction systems are to me:

- holistical listening experience
(details form a whole, they are not details anymore unless you decide
to listen to them as details)

- envelopment
(you are in there, it is large, surrounding you, what you hear and
feel with the body especially at lower freqeuncies goes together)

- reluctance of the room
(the concert hall is the space for the
acoustical event to take place and for supporting it
but does not show up directly
by detectable or bodily sensable room resonances)

- localization is also in depth, some things are near, some things are
farther away, but things farther away do not lack detail

To come close to that bouquet in a common living room is quite
a job. It is only possible by placing knowledge of
the hearing system and room acoustics in the first place and
not over estimating certain aspects but
bringing them into a sane relation.

E.g. i listened to quite a lot speakers trying to come close to
a virtual point source, but i cannot say those to be superior
concerning the bouquet mentioned before.

Some larger panel speakers and well designed horns are quite
good at that IMO.

Kind Regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 01:59 PM   #556
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
more interesting opinions of some professionals from: Gearslutz.com - Powered by vBulletin

those opinions are strictly on topic as they concern speaker-room interaction and the role of reflections

first an opinion from acoustic treatment expert (manufacturer of acoustic treatment products):

Quote:
have to disagree with David's basic premise stated at the outset:

"early reflections provided by the room are 'good' data for our hearing, and they contribute mightily toward the perceived timbre and spatial details of the music coming from the speakers."

There are two camps. One side believes that the room's contribution to what you hear is useful and valuable, and the other side is adamant that the goal is to reduce the room's contribution as much as possible. It's difficult to proclaim anyone "wrong" when it comes to subjective stuff like this, but I am firmly in the group that prefers to minimize the room's contribution for several reasons:

1) When your room contributes its own resonances and comb filtering, everything you play is tainted in the same way.

2) Imaging, and the ability to discern detail, is always made worse in the presence of early reflections.

3) Avoiding the room's own sound gets you closer to the original mix engineer's intentions.

4) In rooms the size many/most people use these days, any room tone is bad room tone. Boxy and boomy are two terms that come to mind.

However, things change in larger rooms - like those I bet you're used to working in. When the ceiling and side wall reflection points are ten feet away or more, the main problem - comb filtering - is reduced enough to be less damaging.
and now an opinion (from the same thread) from Bob Olhsson (producer widely considered as legendary: "one of those few legends that went through the years as dedicated music lover, producer, mastering engineer, technician and a friend of artist"):

Quote:
Dave Moulton did a simple demo for me in a bare room that turns most of what we thought we knew about acoustic treatment and imaging right on its ear.

He had designed some speakers that deliver a flat response across 180 degrees. The imaging in the bare room was holographic, among the best I've ever heard. His conclusion is that early reflections aren't any problem at all but early reflections that don't have a flat frequency response are a big problem because they change the perceived tonality of the speaker.

Something that led him to this was the fact that many of the best translating control rooms a lot of us "old timers" ever encountered did not have any early reflection treatment while some of the worst have been certified LEDE rooms.

The problem with room tuning and early reflection absorption is that they are oversimplifications that have little to do with how we actually hear. Dave actually has serious academic credentials in addition to having been an engineer at Columbia Records. He also, last I heard, wasn't in the room design business.
yes, holographic is the right word
and yes David Moulton is not in room design business nor in loudspeaker business, He has no marketing agenda in room design nor in loudspeakers, only ideas
His business is music production, education and consulting

and one another opinion from another one acoustic treatment expert (manufacturer of acoustic treatment products):

Quote:
To really understand these issues we need to change how we refer to reflections. Early reflections and the "normal" way they are discussed are definitely a convenient shorthand, but no altogether accurate.

Reflections have:
1) Direction.
2) Timing.
3) Intensity.
4) Spectral content.

Whether reflections are audible or not is a function of timing and intensity. The earlier the reflection the more intense it has to be to be heard, the further on after the initial event and it can be lower in db and still distinguished.

Reflections that just cross the threshold of being audible widen the soundstage and increase the size of instruments without any timbral change. As they continue to be "more audible", then you hear timbral changes and eventually echo.

It is important to understand that this effect is not a binary early/late, audible/not audible. The effects of reflections are a function of time and intensity.

Direction (sidewalls and back are the best) and spectral content (the same as the initial sound is best) also matter, but I am starting to hear the yawns.
yes, the yawns is the right word
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 25th February 2010 at 02:16 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 02:15 PM   #557
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
To come close to that bouquet in a common living room is quite
a job. It is only possible by placing knowledge of
the hearing system and room acoustics in the first place and
not over estimating certain aspects but
bringing them into a sane relation.
yup, "loudspeakers and room as a system"

Quote:
E.g. i listened to quite a lot speakers trying to come close to
a virtual point source, but i cannot say those to be superior
concerning the bouquet mentioned before.

Some larger panel speakers and well designed horns are quite
good at that IMO.
yes, once again - "loudspeakers and room as a system" - the success is not guraranteed by the design principle itself (virtual point source, dipole, horn etc.) but in the combination of it and the room and the speaker placement in the room

best regards,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 02:18 PM   #558
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
graaf, does your second last post add anything new to the discussion?
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 02:26 PM   #559
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
graaf, does your second last post
sorry, exactly which one?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 02:27 PM   #560
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Don't know if this has been posted before,
but i think it is still an entertaining exercise
on that matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC-sxvNzC8I
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  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 02:49 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