The Advantages of Floor Coupled Up-Firing Speakers - Page 94 - 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 23rd March 2010, 06:36 PM   #931
MaVo is offline MaVo  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Think of your surroundings as a pie. Traditional stereo cover a 60 degree slice of this pie, while the remaining 300 degree are room reflections. I dont know what Key wants to say with it, but thats what i think he meant.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 06:45 PM   #932
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
If that is Key's view then he is under a misconception of what stereo is.

Talking about Wittek, here's what he concludes: "In general, the physical properties of the reproduced space do not necessarily have to be realistic or existent in any real situation." (Perceptual differences between wavefield synthesis and stereophony by Helmut Wittek, p. 4)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 07:43 PM   #933
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
With conventional stereo you get 60 degrees of controlled coverage and 300 degrees of errors.
I can live very well with my "errors". Recently when a friend listened to my system she said this is "more than stereo".
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 08:29 PM   #934
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
...
So probably Olive is right when he says room correction is only possible up to 500 Hz and above it's only speaker correction (traditional EQing, just finer).
When looking at the curves from Olive's presentation that
show "spectral balance" judgements of the listeners i come
to a simple conclusion:

What mainly has been "balanced" or "equalized" above 500Hz
- where the room behaves statistical and not modal anymore -
is the narrowing coverage of the midrange driver,
especially around 1Khz up to the crossover frequency
of the tweeter.

When comparing the best RC (RC1) with RC4 (no correction) this
is rather obvious.

When crossing two transducers with very different coverage at
the crossover frequency, there will always be a compromise between
flatness of on-axis response (in a large and dry room) and the total
radiated power which is essential in more 'wet' and small rooms.

The optimum crossover alignment is then strongly dependent
from listening room, listening position (distance!) and the
loudspeaker's position.

Such a problem could more easily be corrected in the speakers
crossover itself, by providing different characteristics for different
listening positions and rooms, if the designer is aware of the problem
and willing to reduce it (outside of the room where the speaker has
been aligned).

It points me to the assumption, that a speaker having constant
coverage or at least coverage "only smoothly varying with frequency"
does not need "room correction", especially if the coverage is restricted
to a narrow angle.

So in the end there is no "room correction", but there is modal balancing
for the modal frequency range of the room or "room/speaker system" .
__________________
Oliver, RFZ believer (?)
www.dipol-audio.de

Last edited by LineArray; 23rd March 2010 at 08:43 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 09:21 PM   #935
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
The problem is perceptual coverage. With conventional stereo you get 60 degrees of controlled coverage and 300 degrees of errors.
yeah, more or less, with conventional front firing multi-way speakers

not so with the flooder (ie. single driver or coaxial CFS) - no such "errors"

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 09:28 PM   #936
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
The time writing spectulative posts without gaining any knowledge is much better invested reading stuff like Witteks thesis or Toole's http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...ions/13686.pdf. If you really want to learn something, it doesn't get any easier than this.
on the contrary - it does - trying something Yourself is easier

BTW Toole arguments in this article indirectly support the flooder concept:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...ml#post2124502

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 09:35 PM   #937
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
on the contrary - it does - trying something Yourself is easier
I don't see anybody here trying anything in a meaningful way.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 09:51 PM   #938
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
From my experience with the HX201 CFS I would say the opposite.

Sounds like a contradiction to me. An indirect sound with not-flat FR can colour the perceived result, but not correct it?
I would say the opposite as well

we never ever hear the frequency content of the direct sound as such

it is completely irrelevant as such

in terms of frequency content we hear a sum of direct sound and all reflections
therefore indirect sound can in a sense correct not-flat [direct] FR

and therefore actually it is easier to get a good frequency response with a CFS

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
BTW,
is it a problem for you to use an additional pair of bass speakers? Heavy boosting is a torture for fullrange drivers.
not boosting as such but high volumes
anyway - in the near-corner placement of the flooder just 6 dB boost @50 Hz and below would make me happy
that is not heavy boosting, or is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
I can live very well with my "errors". Recently when a friend listened to my system she said this is "more than stereo".
lucky You!

BTW no Key's "errors" in case of the flooder

Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
Too many pages. Graaf?
I don't know
only two ocurrences of the word "transient" in the whole text

and music and speech = transients

I like this one more:
"Spatial Hearing with Simultaneous Sound Sources: A Psychophysical Investigation"
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst...24302whole.pdf

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

Last edited by graaf; 23rd March 2010 at 10:03 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 10:01 PM   #939
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I don't see anybody here trying anything in a meaningful way.
I am not sure what You mean by a meaningful way but I have a CFS here in my home and so has el'Ol and we have tried some options and some placements in room
I have also tried SLS (stereolith-like-setup) and I built three different versions of that stereolith thing

And You cannot read about it in Wittek, Toole or anywhere else

The only technical article I know that mentions SLS is Manger diskus patent description. I don't know any technical articles that mention CFS.

but I just have built it and it works

best,
graaf
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2010, 10:10 PM   #940
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
I don't know
only two ocurrences of the word "transient" in the whole text

and music and speech = transients

I like this one more:
"Spatial Hearing with Simultaneous Sound Sources: A Psychophysical Investigation"
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst...24302whole.pdf
Now it's about what text you like more?? Virginia Ann Best speaks about natural sound sources. We are talking about phantom sound sources in multichannel sound reproduction.
  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 09:10 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