Non-directional speakers are mostly non-CD, they have bottlenecks in the off-axis-response at the crossover points. And the precedence effect, which says the direct sound determines the localization, but what comes after it is not masked, but accumulates information about the source, makes lots of possibilities at least worth considering. Nobody is denying that what the flooder does is extremely un-natural. Having a highly directive source and getting the treble almost exclusively in reflected form is something that doesn't happen in nature. Nevertheless, the result sounds more natural than directing this source (we are talking about non-CD sources) directly to the listener. And instead of trying to explain this, this thread is highjacked by some pro, semi-pro, ex-pro and wannabe-pro people who want to tell the rest of us that what happens in a control room should happen in everyone's home.
It's all about want or will. If one wants to do something, what's stopping him? Regardless of anything, at the end everyone will do exactly what pleases him most. At the DIY - do it Yourself - forum why someone would do something for himself he don't like or don't want to do.
Why there even should be an agreement about what are we doing??
- Elias
Which are your proposals for a listening room to place
high directivity loudspeakers in there ?
How does it differ from a "standard" listening room ?
I would not go so far to say spaces dictate the performance or the music but in history music and spaces were always intimately connected. Look at church music: the strong reverberation and long delays do not allow for fast, percussive music. So choral music is very slow. A good read is Barry Blesser's "Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?" - for those who like to listen
Best, Markus
My rooms are extremely reverberant with almost as little HF absorption as possible - there is always some in any real room. The area behind the speakers is heavily absorptive, but nowhere else. The ceiling has a difuser and the floor has a patch of absorbtion right at the first reflection point, but otherwise the floor is wood. Two walls are stone (irregular so as to difuse). Then using 90 degree CD sources and pointing them such that the first side wall reflection is avoided, yields a situation where the direct sound has a maximum possible reflection free time before the onset of reverberation, and then the reverberation is quite pronounced and almost exclusively from the sides and rear, which is well known to improve spaciousness. This situation yields excellent imaging and very good spacial aspects - these two things usually being mutually exclusive.
Wide directivity speakers and non-CD speakers in a room like this do not sound very good and as such no one else makes rooms like this. Its quite uncommon.
Since a usual fullrange unit is optimized for (more or less) constant
on axis sound pressure, total power radiated into the listening room
falls with frequency.
If one can manage the sparse HF power to be directed into regions
of the room (ceiling) where there is usually less absorbtion
(graaf's room e.g. with naked ceiling and heavy carpet on the floor),
the power spectrum may be liftet for higher frequencies.
That way it seems possible to correct the in room power spectrum
of a usual fullrange unit at least partially.
Furthermore it may be posssible to achieve a wider region, were the
frequency response is similar.
The idea is nor bad and maybe some DIY'ers in here like to experiment
with such fullrange concepts.
As graaf said, it is a method to take advantage from weaknesses
(beaming at high frequencies).
So far so good. For me it may be a method to compensate the
weaknesses of a common fullranger driver partially.
When asking for the desired behaviour of a loudspeaker to make
up a "room and speaker" system, one should be free to specify
any characteristics of the speaker (and the room) and then think
about how it could be realised (specification->implementation).
To say "only single fullrange units allowed" is a rather strong restriction,
which may be also boring for some contributors who have worked
with different and also elaborated concepts of speakers having
something like CD, be it
"Highly Directional CD" or
"Medium Directional CD" or
"Non Directional CD".
btw. what about "Medium Directional CD" ?
Why are only extremes interesting in discussions ?
If we are honest, would not we ask "for which room?" when
deciding for one of the concepts mentioned ?
Yes and the hall or stadium is not part of the "original" like in symphonic music. Modern sound reinforcement basically tries to translate the stereo recording to a larger space. That's why I don't visit concerts any more, the sound just sucks and you're coming home with a ringing in your ears.
That's funny Markus. The last concert I attended, I wore ear plugs and recorded it to play it back at a suitable volume when I got home. This was a couple years ago. I don't attend either for that very reason. My hearing is too important to me. The people next to me had ear plugs as well. Seems silly to have to wear ear plugs to a music concert.
Dan
Dan
One has to remember that the invention of those concert halls is a result of the commercialisation of symphonic music with the begin of the 19th century. The subscription concerts of the Wiener Klassik (with Haendel in London as a sort of predecessor) and the intention of the new wealthy bourgeoisie to rival with the gentry in artistic terms produced the need for larger auditoriums than before. It was only then when music really started to be a "farfield" event. For a span of 300 years before that artistic music had been played much closer to the (fewer) listeners. If you think of the stadium concerts of today, one has to think that over time music has constantly been removed from the crowds.
Same for "envelopment". Music in churches had always been meant to resemble the nature of god: ubiquitous, overwhelming and enveloping. That´s why the organ has its place in the church. But courtly music was never intended to be dominant in an "enveloping" manner. Even "late" pre-classical composers like Haendel, Bach and Purcell, when having the good luck of disposing of a larger number of musicians, would not cluster them in a large single "symphonic" orchestra, but preferred to distribute them into "double" or "triple" concerts.
Only when large crowds had to be drawn to the concert halls to finance them, bombast took over from sophistication and the volume had to be pumped up for those who confused better music with more SPL.
Same for "envelopment". Music in churches had always been meant to resemble the nature of god: ubiquitous, overwhelming and enveloping. That´s why the organ has its place in the church. But courtly music was never intended to be dominant in an "enveloping" manner. Even "late" pre-classical composers like Haendel, Bach and Purcell, when having the good luck of disposing of a larger number of musicians, would not cluster them in a large single "symphonic" orchestra, but preferred to distribute them into "double" or "triple" concerts.
Only when large crowds had to be drawn to the concert halls to finance them, bombast took over from sophistication and the volume had to be pumped up for those who confused better music with more SPL.
You are right, yes, and I never said that "only single fullrange"
I expressed my position regarding this couple of times in the thread, eg.:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-2.html#post1486120
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-105.html#post2132553
Elias' and tinitus' tests seem to show that indeed I was wrong
I have explained my reasons for my simplistic approach to the question but feel perfectly free to propose more sophisticated solutions
of course, my proposition is most typical listening room for the benefit of most music lovers, even Beveridge placement seems not to be essential (in the light of other user's tests)
but feel free to propose solutions for any specific imaginable listening room
best regards,
graaf
...and that we are stupid and know nothing about sound
or more mannerly - your approach is not based on valid assumptions and data
sometimes I have an impression that the whole "multi-way" got highjacked in a way, and "full-range" as well, albeit to a lesser degree
it seems that people with expertise simply have no interest in trying to explain anything that they don't sell/wanna sell and/or they didn't invent, and especialy something that perhaps can be relatively almost for free - quite simple and affordable
anything like that is bad for business
best regards,
graaf
Last edited:
well, but this is what we ALL KNOW
I also know that flooder is not based on any specific data and that I do not know much about valid assumptions
but I know what I can hear and what other people who also tried it are telling me that they can hear.
Therefore I say - we like precise sound, focused imaging etc. no less than other audio fanatics
believe me or not - I like the flooder exactly because it gives me better defined soundstage and imaging than conventional setups
it is like tinitus has said in this thread, that His flooding experimental setup is "apparently different than the rest....very focused and precise"
I don't know what is going on - therefore I post questions on an internet forum in which (to my knowledge) participate people with unquestionable expertise, like Dr Earl Geddes, for example
I ask - how can it be? What can be the operating principle of this?
and all I get in respone is the mantra:
"it is not based on valid assumptions and data" "it is not based on valid assumptions and data" "it is not based on valid assumptions and data" and so on
how am I to understand that response? "apparently You don't know what You hear", "obviously You like bad inaccurate sound"?
for a guy who is in this hobby searching for better sound for about half of his life (I am speaking of myself) it is simply an insult, it is like
end of discussion, end of free internet forum
please note that I never questioned what You propose, on the contrary - many times, also in this thread, I have admitted that it is valid two-channel solution to room-loudspeaker interface problem
I only dare to say that perhaps it is not the only possible under the sun
please excuse me for that
best regards,
graaf
Last edited:
Mr. Geddes,
thank you for the description.
What happens in your impression without the absorption
behind the speakers ?
Could that "behind speaker absorbtion" be substituted by equalization ?
Is there a preferred distance of the speakers to a rear wall or a corner ?
Rudolf,
Great cultural flash in the middle of boredom
- Elias
Great cultural flash in the middle of boredom
- Elias
One has to remember that the invention of those concert halls is a result of the commercialisation of symphonic music with the begin of the 19th century. The subscription concerts of the Wiener Klassik (with Haendel in London as a sort of predecessor) and the intention of the new wealthy bourgeoisie to rival with the gentry in artistic terms produced the need for larger auditoriums than before. It was only then when music really started to be a "farfield" event. For a span of 300 years before that artistic music had been played much closer to the (fewer) listeners. If you think of the stadium concerts of today, one has to think that over time music has constantly been removed from the crowds.
Same for "envelopment". Music in churches had always been meant to resemble the nature of god: ubiquitous, overwhelming and enveloping. That´s why the organ has its place in the church. But courtly music was never intended to be dominant in an "enveloping" manner. Even "late" pre-classical composers like Haendel, Bach and Purcell, when having the good luck of disposing of a larger number of musicians, would not cluster them in a large single "symphonic" orchestra, but preferred to distribute them into "double" or "triple" concerts.
Only when large crowds had to be drawn to the concert halls to finance them, bombast took over from sophistication and the volume had to be pumped up for those who confused better music with more SPL.
Rudolf,
Great cultural flash in the middle of boredom
- Elias
yes, indeed
great post from Rudolf!I personally lament parallel evolution of musical instruments in the direction of cleaner and LOUDER
best,
graaf
Hello,
Let's not forget that I didn't like the sound of the speaker on the floor. But I never say it is correct or not correct to do, because I do not like to judge people doing something with great enthusiasm. However there are preachers that tell you there can be only one universal truth. Hmm.. they did try that back in the USSR, but what was the end result
The reason I didn't like the two way box on the floor facing upwards was mainly the fact that it is a monopole box in the room. And I find it very unsatisfactory to hear monopole box in a room at low frequencies. It is very unnatural sounding to me. Secondly, the spectral balance was not correct since I didn't measure it with hardware but tuned slightly by ear, but this is minor issue compared to the monopole issue.
Have you tried placing your 'flooder' on a stand, to put it at the ear hight, like Pluto? Then it would be less avantgarde, and maybe the people with less-controversial-accepting mind wouldn't have to grasp their inhalators so fast
- Elias
Let's not forget that I didn't like the sound of the speaker on the floor. But I never say it is correct or not correct to do, because I do not like to judge people doing something with great enthusiasm. However there are preachers that tell you there can be only one universal truth. Hmm.. they did try that back in the USSR, but what was the end result
The reason I didn't like the two way box on the floor facing upwards was mainly the fact that it is a monopole box in the room. And I find it very unsatisfactory to hear monopole box in a room at low frequencies. It is very unnatural sounding to me. Secondly, the spectral balance was not correct since I didn't measure it with hardware but tuned slightly by ear, but this is minor issue compared to the monopole issue.
Have you tried placing your 'flooder' on a stand, to put it at the ear hight, like Pluto? Then it would be less avantgarde, and maybe the people with less-controversial-accepting mind wouldn't have to grasp their inhalators so fast
- Elias