The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 64 - 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 1st March 2010, 09:19 PM   #631
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
Not difficult but expensive if it has to have WAF.
what about deflecting? wouldn't it be cheaper, higher WAF and at the same time more effective (absorption is never 100%)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
Better-suited drivers will be cheaper.
cheaper perhaps but better?

anyway - I want to keep it simple so that anyone can do it
therefore I stick to 8'' Fostex one way
add separate tweeter and woofer and simplicity is lost
also I don't believe that really good two-way could be cheaper

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2010, 07:20 AM   #632
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
therefore I stick to 8'' Fostex one way
I have chosen the Fostex for one more important reason that is that in the case of a closed box the Fostex needs only small volume to work, and small volume plus careful choice of box proportions means less problems with the waves reflecting and standing inside

also the big magnet of Fostex serves as such as a nice standing wave breaker in a shallow box

another advantage of going omni like in CFS from the "driver-enclosure as a system" perspective is that decoupling the speakers drivers from the enclosure becomes very easy:

Beautiful Swingin' Speaker

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2010, 07:29 AM   #633
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
I see you are not interested, but if you wanted to do the folded TL thing I suggested for the Visaton B200 you could get that cheaper with the Philips 9710.
eBay Verkäufer: revani67: Audio Hi-Fi
Who is interested can get the TSPs from me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2010, 02:53 PM   #634
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
There is a video where someone drops an egg on a 3 cm gel cushion from 10 meters height without breaking it. But this is the last thing I would spend my money on
why? what is wrong with that?
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2010, 03:52 PM   #635
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
This would be highend (and it is not meant positively when I use this word). Put lots of money in measures one hardly hears in direct A/B comparison instead of putting more money in the essential things.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2010, 08:17 PM   #636
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Hello,

This is kind of a strange thing.. As I see it, you like to maximize room reflections by using wide radiating monopole box, and at the same time you like to minimize room reflections by finding a placement for that box. The obtainable result is highly room dependent, surprisinlgy But the point is in a given room by this method you can only achieve the goal up to a certain limit.. Is that limit enough?? Does it satisfy you?? What if other method could get better end result??

For me, the most straightforward and efficient method for minimizing early room reflections is to use highly directive source. Not a monopole box! Then the room placement is not so critical!


Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
... 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
...
- first reflection from the front wall is delayed only by ~2 ms
- first reflection from the side wall is delayed only by ~4 ms


I think it is up to YOU to decide if those reflections are detrimental or not for you. Afterall this is a diY audio What we are doing here is to do audio for ourselves, right?

Any psychoacoustic study will tell you a set of observed perceptions for a specific feature of human hearing for average population. They will not tell you how YOU perceive it! Also they will not tell you what you should like, or not like. Talking about listening room reflections it is perfectly valid for the end user to like or dislike them. It's up to you to decide.

I find it amusing when some forum members seem to thing everyone are the same and their perceptions are identical. There are not!

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




- 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 2nd March 2010, 08:51 PM   #637
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
This is kind of a strange thing.. As I see it, you like to maximize room reflections by using wide radiating monopole box, and at the same time you like to minimize room reflections by finding a placement for that box. The obtainable result is highly room dependent, surprisinlgy But the point is in a given room by this method you can only achieve the goal up to a certain limit.. Is that limit enough?? Does it satisfy you?? What if other method could get better end result??

For me, the most straightforward and efficient method for minimizing early room reflections is to use highly directive source. Not a monopole box! Then the room placement is not so critical!
O.K., let's surrender. This reflection thing is too hard for us.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2010, 06:02 AM   #638
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
This would be highend (and it is not meant positively when I use this word). Put lots of money
lots of money for 3 cm Alpha Gel cushion perhaps (I don't know) and I also think it would be an overkill
But what I am thinking of is rather to use some recycled air-infused Sorbothane from "SorboAir" insoles

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
in measures one hardly hears in direct A/B comparison instead of putting more money in the essential things.
well, I know that probably the effects of vibrations of speaker enclosure's walls are more or less audible for some and more or less inaudible for others, depending also on circumstances, BUT decoupling of the driver is just nice engineering idea advocated by many competent engineers including members of BBC research staff from it's classic era, Linkwitz, Yoshii-san and many others
It seems that ideally the driver and enclosure should be decoupled, though the idea is not implemented frequently because it is just not that easy to be implemented appropriately in standard front-firing box speakers.

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2010, 06:46 AM   #639
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
Hello,
As I see it, you like to maximize room reflections by using wide radiating monopole box, and at the same time you like to minimize room reflections by finding a placement for that box.
not really by using such a strange wide radiating monopole box I just want to have constant directivity as cheaply as possible
the truth is that such a quasi-omni is closer to the ideal than any dipole or waveguide, because all reflections on a given lateral plane are spectrally exactly the same period
such a strange box have two more big advantages over conventional front-firing alternatives from the start:
- the first is complete elimination of significant first reflection off the floor, which according to virtually all psychoacoustical studies is detrimental to realism of reproduction
- the second is sufficient delay of ceiling reflection

the only other alternative solution with which such results are achievable is true line source, Beveridge ESL for example, very costly alternative
in fact my strange boxes (I like that name ) were conceived as cheap practical simulation of Beveridge ESL radiation pattern

and then I want to have just many options with regards to audible reflections, a form of "reflections steering" by the use of careful placement and deflectors, becasue some reflections are considered bad but some other are considered quite good

so there is nothing contradictory in my approach

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
the point is in a given room by this method you can only achieve the goal up to a certain limit.. Is that limit enough?? Does it satisfy you?? What if other method could get better end result??
It would be great! but I doubt - as to "better", note that "satisfy" and "better" are two separate issues

and frankly speaking I am perfectly satisfied now with my mono setup and I don't care for stereo imaging/soundstaging at all

what I am doing here is just playing with ideas for the benefit of all who may be concerned, all dissatisfied audiophiles interested in trying something different, especially ordinary music lovers - lacking in woodworking and other technical skills, with room arrangement difficulties and other WAF concerns
therefore I want to keep it as simple and as cheap and as decor-firendly as possible

I am doing this because I am interested in audio, I have some experience with such things and I just like playing with ideas, especially when it is pro publico bono, it's just a matter of déformation professionnelle - I am an academic lecturer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
For me, the most straightforward and efficient method for minimizing early room reflections is to use highly directive source. Not a monopole box! Then the room placement is not so critical!
"straightforward and efficient" perhaps yes but not the best, it is out of the question

to get the best You either need true line source like Beveridge ESL or strange box plus some systemic thinking about "loudspeakers and room as a system"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
I think it is up to YOU to decide if those reflections are detrimental or not for you. Afterall this is a diY audio What we are doing here is to do audio for ourselves, right?
right 100%!!
Let there be no misunderstanding - all I am doing here is giving You some more choice, You will not read about things I am writing about in this thread anywhere else on the web

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias View Post
I find it amusing when some forum members seem to thing everyone are the same and their perceptions are identical. There are not!
I would say they are as far as everyone discussing here is biologically a specimen of the genus Homo sapiens

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 3rd March 2010 at 07:07 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2010, 08:56 AM   #640
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Yesterday I tested The Kef iQ70 in a shop. It has about the price I paid for my speakers and the Kef coaxials are said to have the most realistic imaging among the conventional speakers.

My test result is that they deliver the same "information" as my Carlssons in the horizontal plane, but not the "reach out and touch effect" and not the 3-dimensionality. One of my "hate discs" was the same catastrophy there, so probably I was too fast in my conclusion that the Carlssons are incompatible with synth reverb recordings.

Again my request for an up-to-date synth reverb recording with good imaging. Can I write decoded lossless files on CD with a freeware program? If so it would be nice if someone could send me one. If I needn't pay anything it could also be pop.
  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 04:45 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