The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers

[el`Ol]

Originally Posted by graaf

points for Mr Carlsson
35° upwards is well suited for seated listener at the typical distance from the speaker of ca 3 m, and 45° inwards is perfect for classic Blumlein isosceles stereo triangle: 45°-45°-90° (unlike typical audiophile equilateral triangle)

I am sitting in the usual 60° stereo triangle. That the speakers cross in front of me is probably only a trait of the Ciares. In my experiments with the test enclosures and some pillows this proved to be better, also without tilt.
My only CD that works better with 90° (both with conventional speakers and with Carlssons) is this:
Xenakis: Psappha/Okho/Persephassa [US-Import]: Iannis Xenakis: Amazon.de: Musik
For 4x90° surround sound it requires a special decoder. You can get the software here:
AVS RESEARCH Research in psycoacoustic audio area

[markus76]

Originally Posted by graaf

well, in that specific sense I would even say the less focus the more realistic spatial quality

because there is no such sound source in reality, no musical instrument, in case of which energy is focussed in one point

real sound sources are sound spots of determinate sizes, some of them quite big

best,
graaf

That would be correct if "conventional" speaker setups would project pinpoint sized sounds only. That's not the case. So I don't see the merits of a setup that just blows up all images the same amount. I'd like to have a setup that allows a range of different sound sizes which is controlled by the recording. Realism might not be the goal for each and every recording. It's just a small part of sound reproduction.

Best, Markus

[graaf]

Originally Posted by markus76

So I don't see the merits of a setup that just blows up all images the same amount.

and who told You that? fables about this "blowing up the same amount"?

Originally Posted by markus76

Realism might not be the goal for each and every recording. It's just a small part of sound reproduction.

so in these words - as I understand them - You are actually admitting indirectly that what I propose can give more realistic sound reproduction, aren't You?

anyway, what I want is more realistic high fidelity like Hartley understood it in the very beginnings of all this Hi-Fi business and this is exactly what I get with ceiling flooder, no blowing up of any kind

You may also take that pill and leave the matrix of "audio hell" - of all that "circle of confusion", of hopelessly chasing what was the artistic intention of the producer and so on

or You may choose to stay inside
it is up to You

I know that for many "the chase is better than the catch" and I can understand that but I prefer just to enjoy the music as closely resembling what I can hear live as possible or at least pleasant to listen to
I just don't care about the producer's artistic intention as such

that' s all

best,
graaf

ps.
this post is not OT, please do not remove it!!!
I beg You!

[markus76]

Originally Posted by graaf

and who told You that? about this "blowing up the same amount"?

Err, you and my own experience. How could it be any different? If you add reflections to the whole recording how should that affect only certain sounds?

Originally Posted by graaf

so in these words - as I understand them - You are actually admitting that what I propose can give more realistic sound reproduction, aren't You?

You change the spatial attributes of a recording arbitrarily. Yes, this could lead to more realism on certain recordings but that's not accurate reproduction because you alter each and every recording the same way. It's like listening to each and every type of music within only one aditory space. Drums in a church? I know people did it but who liked it?

Originally Posted by graaf

anyway, what I want is more realistic high fidelity like Hartley understood it in the very beginnings of all this Hi-Fi business and this is exactly what I get with ceiling flooder, no blowing up of any kind

My experience is different.

Originally Posted by graaf

You may also take that pill and leave the matrix of "audio hell" - of all that "circle of confusion", of hopelessly chasing what was the artistic intention of the producer and so on

or You may choose to stay inside
it is up to You

I know that for many "the chase is better than the catch" and I can understand that but I prefer just to enjoy the music as closely resembling what I can hear live as possible

Oh, I enjoy very much listening to music with my controlled directivity speakers and the many different auditory scenes they project. Actually you're the one that wants to change his setup

[graaf]

Originally Posted by markus76

Err, you and my own experience. How could it be any different? If you add reflections to the whole recording how should that affect only certain sounds?

what is Your experience with ceiling flooder in the placement I advocate or with Carlssons?

anyway, of course it affects all sounds but it does not lead to blowing up to unrealistic sizes neither to making everything sound the same

Originally Posted by markus76

It's like listening to each and every type of music within only one aditory space. Drums in a church?

You are probably not going to believe me but I assure You that it is not the case, quite the contrary actually
when I listen to eg. Mala Punica I can hear church acoustics and when I listen to eg. Miles Davis with Coltrane I can hear small venue sounding like jazz club, when I listen to Klaus Schulze I can hear His imaginary spaces floating all around (and all walls, ceiling and even the floor disappear) and so on

in fact with ceiling flooder I experience much more diverse auditory spaces from recording to recording than in case of conventional stereo which in comparison sounds always just more or less flat

Originally Posted by markus76

My experience is different.

again - what is Your experience with ceiling flooder in the placement I advocate or with Carlssons?

as El'Ol rightly observed these are not typical omnis
I called it omni or quasi-omni for simplicity because they share some common characteristics

perhaps all misunderstanding is because of this "omni" oversimplification

You certainly cannot make any judgments on flooder or Carlssons based on Your experience with some omnis

Originally Posted by markus76

Oh, I enjoy very much listening to music

great! happy listening!

best,
graaf

[markus76]

Originally Posted by graaf

happy listening!

Thanks!

[el`Ol]

Markus, I think your stuff is controlled directivity as much as our stuff is omni. Ever wondered what happens below 1.5 kHz? Do you think all your reflecting surfaces (you have them, too, yes, really) get the same spectrum as the direct sound?

[markus76]

Do you really believe I'm that naive?

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by el`Ol

Ever wondered what happens below 1.5 kHz?

He doesn't have to wonder, its a mater of record. The point is that as the response does widen, its psychoacoustic effect diminishes.

[el`Ol]

Markus, I just wanted to say when we talk about our listening experiences we don't talk about ideal concepts, so we should better not use their names in an unreflected way. I was not happy from the beginning of this thread on that Graaf used the word "omnidirectional" or "omni", and strictly speaking it is also not correct when you use the term "constant directivity".