The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 63 - 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 27th February 2010, 10:05 AM   #621
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
@Key:

Yes i think it would be naive to assume, that recording and mastering were
not the processes affecting imaging at most.

What is gone is gone. Most of HiFi hogwash results from whishful thinking,
that something not present on the recording could in some way be restored
by some magic. Or that something nasty on the recording could in some
way be washed away.

Only well balanced recordings can serve for judging reproduction equipment.
( OK , what is a well balanced recording, which kind (mix) of stereophonic
technique is used ...)

In my experience there are good recordings with minimalistic equipment
(just 2 microphones) but there are also very good productions which
use the whole arsenal.

A good reproduction chain - to me - is one which is
capable to produce a whole bunch of balanced recordings in an enjoyful
manner, thereby showing (not overpronouncing) their specific
characteristics.

Example sibilance:
I have some recordings with a slight tendency to
sibilance. If the reproduction chain is balanced enough, the impression
will not "keel over" into nastyness. A reproduction chain prone
to sibilance will tend to push every recording into that direction and
those marginal recordings will keel over for shure.

Example deep bass content:
How much is bass heavy ? How less is "too lean" ?
Recordings differ greatly concerning deep bass content.

A reproduction chain with well controled impulse response in the bass and
room modes excited in a balanced manner, will tolerate a greater variety
of recordings. The "fat" recordings keep listenable - given the deep bass
content is "informative" - and the bass content in the leaner recordings
can still be experienced.

Sibilance and deep bass content e.g. both affect imaging.
The bass is essential in making up a perceptive picture of the
"sound event space". Sibilance attracts our ears to the speakers
as sound sources , which can destroy any imaging immediately.

Of course there is much more to imaging on recordings, but i have taken
sibilance and deep bass content as an example.


Kind Regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de

Last edited by LineArray; 27th February 2010 at 10:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2010, 06:24 PM   #622
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineArray View Post
... but there are also very good productions which
use the whole arsenal.
Examples?
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2010, 12:33 PM   #623
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
e.g. for symphonic music:

Hector Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique, Cleveland Orchestra / Lorin Maazel,
Production: Robert Woods, Recording Engineer: Jack Renner
Telarc 1985

Gustav Holst, The Planets, Le Orchestre National de France / Lorin Maazel,
Production: Roy Emerson, Sound Engineers: Guy Level, Jacques Boifgallais
CBS/Sony 1982

Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, Philharmonia Orchestra / Valdimir Ashkenazy,
Production: Andrew Cornall, Sound Engineer: Colin Moorfoot
DECCA 1982

Would fall into the category "early digital productions", but are recordings
i regard as high quality in "credibility" of space and imaging, brillance,
balance, low frequency content and color of the instrumental groups.

Although each different.

Kind regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2010, 12:57 PM   #624
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
presumably heavy on the minimalistic side:

"Les plus belles pages de la Musique Ancienne" Polyhonia Antiqua,
Ensemble de Musique Ancienne d' Aix en Provence, Direction: Yves Esquieu
Disques Pierre Verany

A "Fest" for choir - and solo voices, spatial imaging ...


Jazz / Funk Studio Productions:

Miles Davis "TUTU"

Sadao Watanabe, "My Dear Life", Flying Disk 1986 (Tokyo)
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2010, 01:31 PM   #625
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Thanks, Oliver.

Do you think these two are the same recordings?
http://www.amazon.de/Grosse-Werke-Fr...7363169&sr=8-1
Masterpieces of Early Music [US-Import]: Polyphonia Antiqua: Amazon.de: Musik
9 from Germany would be better than 20+14 from the US.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2010, 02:12 PM   #626
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Hi,

cannot say, the US import lists the same label "Pierre Verany" ..
so maybe it is more probably the same recording.

Kind Regards
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2010, 05:13 PM   #627
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
ok! let's go back to the very first post

after some thinking here is (see attached scheme) a new option for the CFS speaker's placement in a room of typical proportions and appr. wxd 4x5 metres and appr. h 3 m (as in the previous example in the first post)

this placement is optimized with regard to use of very specific type of driver that is classic low Qts 8-inches fullrange like Fostex FE206E

this optimization takes into account one more "room-speaker" idea that is of "boundary room augmentation"

being very short (appr. 20 cm) the CFS speakers are likely to get most advantage from "boundary room augmentation" and as they utilize low Qts driver in a closed box "boundary room augmentation" is what they also really need to get any bass from a closed box without significant electronic correction

To get most advantage from "boundary room augmentation" I place them near the room corners with the distance of acoustic center of the speaker:
- to the floor – ca 20 cm
- to the front wall – ca33 cm
- to the nearest side wall - ca 53 cm
The chosen distances are following the golden proportion 0.62/1/1.62 just to make it nicer

Roy Allison's RDL spreadsheet for visualisation of "room boundary augmentation curves " is showing an upward (climbing towards the low end of course) curve that matches very nicely the downward curve of a Fostex in a closed box.
In results the final simulated response looks like -6 dB @45 Hz and -10 dB @35 Hz, not bad for such a driver in a small simple box without any electronic corrections.

and taking into account this "boundary room augmentation" the SPL max at low frequencies is ~88 dB @50 Hz and 82 dB @35 Hz within the driver's linear displacement

so much for the advantages of this CFS speaker's placement option, now on to some problems
with stereo basis of ca 280 cm and the listener's distance from both speakers (the path of first wave) of ca 250 cm:
- first reflection from the floor for such short speaker is not reaching the listener at all (just like in the previous example)
- first reflection from the ceiling is delayed by ~9 ms ( (just like in the previous example)
- first reflection from the opposite wall is delayed by ~10 ms
- first reflection from the back wall is delayed by ~14 ms

so far so good BUT "boundary room augmentation" which means abandoning of the Beveridge placement (of the previous example, shown in the first post of this thread ) comes at a price:

- first reflection from the front wall is delayed only by ~2 ms
- first reflection from the side wall is delayed only by ~4 ms

IF those reflections are indeed detrimental to the sound (which is not certain but let us assume that they are) then something must be done with them

absorbtion is one option but it is difficult for an amateur to get it sufficiently broadband and effective

but what about deflecting? Has anyone tried deflectors at home? They could be made of glass to make them less obtrusive. Or is it a bad idea?
Given that the loudspeakers are so short the deflectors could be also short and quite inobtrusive.

As shown on the attached scheme one pair of deflectors could be used to deflect first front wall reflection towards the back wall and a second pair to deflect first side wall reflections towards the back wall

What is Your experience with deflectors?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg bez*tytułu.JPG (10.8 KB, 161 views)
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 1st March 2010 at 05:17 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2010, 07:19 PM   #628
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
You are at a point where one can ask the question: Why not go completely into the corners?
This is a concept:
The enclosure is a pyramid like in my Carlssons. A 5" minibass is located in one corner of the pyramid, as close to the walls as possible. This allows corner loading up to 1 kHz. Above that a horn tweeter takes over.
A CFS for Markus.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ecklautsprecher.JPG (8.5 KB, 160 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2010, 09:06 PM   #629
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
You are at a point where one can ask the question: Why not go completely into the corners?
(...)
A CFS for Markus.
yes, ultimately something like this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...ml#post1682178

certainly putting them into lower corners guarantees no bad early reflections apart from mysterious (cause nobody knows how the hearing interprets it) ceiling reflection

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
This is a concept:
The enclosure is a pyramid like in my Carlssons. A 5" minibass is located in one corner of the pyramid, as close to the walls as possible. This allows corner loading up to 1 kHz. Above that a horn tweeter takes over.
Yes, interesting
though I would like to stick to 8'' Fostex one way and with it simply I don't want corner loading up to 1 kHz.
What I need is progressive augmentation of lower midrange and bass only.

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2010, 09:56 PM   #630
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
IF those reflections are indeed detrimental to the sound (which is not certain but let us assume that they are) then something must be done with them
absorbtion is one option but it is difficult for an amateur to get it sufficiently broadband and effective
Not difficult but expensive if it has to have WAF. Better-suited drivers will be cheaper.
  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 03:04 AM
Floor Standing Speakers. gurpreetsingh Full Range 11 12th June 2012 07:42 AM
side/ rear firing speakers Good/Bad? mcmahon48 Multi-Way 1 6th February 2009 01:28 PM
How far can the driver of a down-firing sub be from the floor? The Paulinator Subwoofers 11 16th May 2007 09:10 PM
Woofer: side firing pair vs front firing? tcpip Multi-Way 13 9th September 2005 03:13 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 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