The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 58 - 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 25th February 2010, 07:02 PM   #571
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
...
2.2.5 Room Interaction and Sound Localization
The reaction of diffuse sources, such as DMLs, to room boundaries is less severe than traditional piston loudspeakers.
(...)
DML sources produce room reflections that are less correlated to the direct sound than those radiated from piston sources and thus, constructive and destructive interference of sound is minimized.
I think that is basically what i said. It describes a highly
useful property of that kind of speakers with respect to minimize
loudspeaker room interaction.

Realistic (though exemplaric) data concerning directivity you can
find e.g. in Fig. 5 of the second paper.

Polar plots of DML look very different according to size, panel material
and mounting conditions.

To think about: The strong desire for directivity in piston acting
Loudspeakers when minimizing room interaction comes from
strong interference of conventional (non diffuse) loudspeakers
with room boundaries ...

Although you can shape DML directional too, this is not neccessary to
the extent you have to do it when minimizing boundary interference
for conventional speakers.

This in turn gives a very wide listening area of nearly constant
quality. It is simply "amazing" ...


Kind Regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 07:10 PM   #572
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
I'm sure lots of people have noticed this. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that what I am experimenting with is cutting edge or anything. It's not exactly new but maybe the specifics and just putting all the pieces together in a way that actually works that might be somewhat new.
I agree that own experience has always a different value than theoretical
knowledge. Although i know the mentioned book from Jens Blauert
- it is in fact one of my favourites -
i am experimenting sometimes, even though it is not leading edge.

Kind Regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 08:54 PM   #573
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
What's unorthodox about Carlsson speakers?
have You ever anywhere seen anything similar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
The OA5x tries to mimic a flush mounted speaker and comes with some built-in absorber panels to kill first reflections.
there are much simpler ways to "mimic a flush mounted speaker" than making a very short speaker with drivers firing diagonally up to the ceiling

the Carlsson way means also effective handling of early reflections from the side-walls, floor and ceiling, much more than "to mimic a flush mounted speaker"
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 25th February 2010 at 09:23 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 09:23 PM   #574
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
have You ever anywhere seen anything similar?
I've seen a couple of "unorthodox" speakers, yes, but the interesting thing is the design principle of a speaker. The Carlson looks not "unorthodox" to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
there are much simpler ways to "mimic a flush mounted speaker" then making a short speaker with drivers firing diagonally up to the ceiling

the Carlsson way means also effective handling of early reflections from the side-walls, floor and ceiling, much more than "to mimic a flush mounted speaker"
Did you read the Carlson paper? It exactly describes the same principles that led to flush mounting or constant (high) directivity concepts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 09:34 PM   #575
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I've seen a couple of "unorthodox" speakers, yes, but the interesting thing is the design principle of a speaker. The Carlson looks not "unorthodox" to me.
ok, great!

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Did you read the Carlson paper? It exactly describes the same principles that led to flush mounting or constant (high) directivity concepts.
What kind of a question is this?

Let me answer accordingly with similar questions:

Did you read my first post in this thread? Did You read Harold Beveridge's paper on room-speaker interface? Or Moulton's? Or Linkwitz's presentations?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 25th February 2010 at 09:36 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 09:47 PM   #576
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
Did you read my first post in this thread? Did You read Harold Beveridge's paper on room-speaker interface? Or Moulton's? Or Linkwitz's presentations?
Yes. Do you realize that these names and their concepts stand for very different sound fields?
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 09:56 PM   #577
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Now tell me what is wrong with my proposition? What calculation is wrong? What asumptions are mistaken?

Surely there are VERs <1 ms from the adjacent wall but I cannot hear anything bad that could be attributed to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
In the < 2ms. region we found that the VER would actually sound like nonlinear distortion, and are highly dependent on absolute SPL, but also muck up the image. At greater than about 2 ms. the effects transition more to coloration than image. At about 10 ms. the negative effects of reflections begins to go away and by 20 ms. the reflections become positive being perceived as "spaciousness", reverb, etc.
I can hear no mucking up of the image, nothing unnatural that "sounds like nonlinear distortion", and certainly no audible unnatural image shift nor widening nor blowing up - which in that case is quite expected because those VERs are coming from the same direction as the first wavefront within just +/- couple of degrees
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 10:05 PM   #578
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Has your last post anything to do with Carlson and my comment that his designs are not unorthodox??
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 10:14 PM   #579
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Yes. Do you realize that these names and their concepts stand for very different sound fields?
what do You mean by "very different sound fields"?
Yes I realize that in each case there is very different sequence of room reflections, that is for sure BUT question is - how does it translate into audible sensations?

Can we tell from the perspective of audibility which of those "sequences of room reflections" is optimal or at least better than other or at the very least audibly "very different" from other? Can we?

This is the question - how those "very different sound fields" translate into what we hear?

Because each of those "very different sound fields" room reflections differ in direction, timing, intensity and spectral content whether (and to what effect) reflections are audible or not is a function of timing and intensity, and direction and spectral content and so on and so on

perhaps from the psychoacoustical perspective of audiblity and of detrimental effect the differences are not that huge as from the physical perspective of "very different sound fields"?

What do You think?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 10:29 PM   #580
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
I answered this now a couple of times. How often do you want me to repeat it?

Since Blauert introduced the term "auditory event", science tries to understand how our perception of sound relates to the physical properties of sound fields - we still try.
  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 07:59 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