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 24th March 2010, 06:02 PM   #981
Key is offline Key  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post

I don't understand why you are working on some "system" (all former attempts have failed) when there IS already a "system" available that overcomes the limitations of stereo: multichannel.
You hear that Earl? Guess we should have gave up making speakers with the invention of the first 2 way according to markus.

I have striven to make the system objectively right and free of euphonics. If there was a commercial product that did exactly what I wanted I would have just used it - that was the original plan. But there isn't one that just worked and worked well, so I had to make it myself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 06:11 PM   #982
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I don't object to multi-channel, but its certainly not the mainstream today. Will it ever be? Its very hard to tell. For most audio playback situations (common to the guy in the street) multi-channel doesn't add much if anything (cars, headphones, etc.) so as a media source I think that the hill may be too steep to climb. So as of right now 2 channel is still the defacto standard and is going to be for quite awhile yet. I have multi-channel in my listening room now, but I only use it for movies. 99% of my pure listening is 2 channel, but there is some really great multi-channel live performances out there, and some overly mixed crap as well. Only time will tell.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 06:13 PM   #983
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
You hear that Earl? Guess we should have gave up making speakers with the invention of the first 2 way according to markus.
That statement does not make any sense at all because it does not refer to anything I said.
Even worse, you didn't respond to anything I asked ("stereo" vs. "stereophonic", "Hafler's dynaquad", your "system").

Quote:
Originally Posted by Key View Post
I have striven to make the system objectively right and free of euphonics. If there was a commercial product that did exactly what I wanted I would have just used it - that was the original plan. But there isn't one that just worked and worked well, so I had to make it myself.
Well, what did you try? Did you try surround?
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 06:31 PM   #984
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
For most audio playback situations (common to the guy in the street) multi-channel doesn't add much if anything
But to the guys here, multichannel adds exactly what they are obviously missing in 2-channel stereo reproduction: spaciousness.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 06:41 PM   #985
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
But to the guys here, multichannel adds exactly what they are obviously missing in 2-channel stereo reproduction: spaciousness.
That is correct. If the playback room itself does not add enough spaciousness without compromising imaging - a very common situation, but not in my rooms - then multi-channel is the best solution, even if it is simulated. Its far better that the crazy schemes being proposed here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 09:39 PM   #986
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
That's because the direct sound is lacking higher frequency because the directivity of big broadband drivers strongly increasing with frequency. You would need to EQ it to be flat on listening axis. I once did this for a B200:
The HX201 and the B200 have a 10 dB rise towards the treble. The reflection "eats" these 10 dB and together with the direct sound the result is fairly flat.
BTW, when I talk about reflection I mean it in a physical sense. I don't think it's a reflection in a psychoacoustic sense. The fact that such a speaker can not be sharply localized speaks for a fusion phenomenon.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 09:50 PM   #987
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
The direct sound is perceived in location, pitch and timbre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
The sound within the fusion interval, not the direct sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
And how big is that? 50 to 100 ms?? Certainly NOT.
The direct sound is perceived in (...) pitch and timbre. under anechoic conditions ONLY - O N L Y

never ever in normal circumstances

not fusion interval but integration time is the right term:
Quote:
The ear has three integration times in terms of musical sound. After about 5 milliseconds (ms), we are able to perceive more than just a click. This is related to the human inner ear capacity of building up the critical bandwidth for frequency discrimination. The second important time is about 50ms. Here, we begin to hear distinct frequencies, not very accurately, but our ear gives us the chance to perceive a pitch. Then after about 250ms, the whole sound is perceived very well. The pitch can be heard clearly and we have the possibility to discriminate fine structures within the sound.
Rolf Bader, Institute of Musicology, University of Hamburg

after about 50ms we begin to perceive a pitch
after about 250ms the pitch can be heard clearly

Quote:
Rolf Bader is a professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Hamburg with a specialization in musical acoustics and signal processing.
ASA 149th Meeting Lay Language Papers Microthythmic characteristics of musical instrument initial transients

thank You
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz

Last edited by graaf; 24th March 2010 at 09:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 10:01 PM   #988
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by el`Ol View Post
The HX201 and the B200 have a 10 dB rise towards the treble. The reflection "eats" these 10 dB and together with the direct sound the result is fairly flat.
BTW, when I talk about reflection I mean it in a physical sense. I don't think it's a reflection in a psychoacoustic sense. The fact that such a speaker can not be sharply localized speaks for a fusion phenomenon.
I meant it in a physical sense too. What you have basically created with a "ceiling flodder" is a 4 speaker setup: direct sound from two speakers plus two strong single reflections. The sound is localized somewhere between the speaker location and the strong single reflection. The bigger the delay between arrival of direct and reflected sound, the bigger the apparant source width.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 10:14 PM   #989
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
The ... You
Gestalt recognition is different from perception of sound source direction (localization). You're mixing up facts. Please do yourself a favor and read a good book that explains the basics like Howard/Angus "Acoustics and Psychoacoustics".
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 10:25 PM   #990
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I meant it in a physical sense too. What you have basically created with a "ceiling flodder" is a 4 speaker setup: direct sound from two speakers plus two strong single reflections. The sound is localized somewhere between the speaker location and the strong single reflection. The bigger the delay between arrival of direct and reflected sound, the bigger the apparant source width.

source width?

You perhaps mean apparent source height? Or are You just mixing up facts?

Please, show us the data concerning impact of a vertical reflection on sound localisation

(the above request is purely rethorical)
__________________
"high phooey and hystereo" - Yascha Heifetz
  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
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
Using a diffuser cone for up-firing speakers tspringer99 Multi-Way 15 24th January 2006 03:56 AM
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 04:35 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