The tweeter will have to be chosen very carefully to avoid a relative absence of the top octave. (..most tweeters are still directional at higher freq.s.)
The CTC spacing and time delay on the mid-woofer transition to tweeter will also be problematic with this design.
Basically the problem extends from 1.5 kHz up as shown, the arc bending a'la CBT36 BELOW this freq. should be OK.
For the 1.5 kHz and up, consider a small concentric mid & tweeter with radial waveguides (a'la Morrison):
Morrison Audio fine audio speakers and electronics.
-though with a much smaller mid (rather than Morrison's mid-bass design).
Note that this design is still largely an "up firing" design despite the use of a waveguide.
-good work-out music.
..and in relation to the dubstep genre (a little video I like):
Dubstep Dispute on Vimeo
My personal favorite with synthetic music (which also has real sources) is Yello.
Ex.
Touch Yello - Takla Makan - YouTube
If we were to remove the "venue" effects, and instead replace it with our own rooms - just how accurate would that be?
-good work-out music.
..and in relation to the dubstep genre (a little video I like):
Dubstep Dispute on Vimeo
My personal favorite with synthetic music (which also has real sources) is Yello.
Touch Yello - Takla Makan - YouTube
If we were to remove the "venue" effects, and instead replace it with our own rooms - just how accurate would that be?
OMG...I love Yello! <3
Edit: Imo..not very accurate...but is that more or less accurate than placing speakers in a manner that accentuates our room effects?
*shrug*
The design have no tweeter. Woofer and full range will be crossed somewhere around 400 hz. The Mark Audio full range have very good high freq dispersion. I will consider a super tweeter if necessary. I will also experiment with tilt angle for optimal omni vs high freq compromise.
Note: at higher freq.s no traditional full-range driver has good high freq. dispersion. The best I've seen is the little "4 inch" mid from Scan Speak:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-FR-offaxis-0-15-30-45-60.gif
-and even then it's not really a "full range" driver.
In any event, if you aren't getting the kind of treble response you want - consider a radial waveguide for the full-range driver (..with the size in relation to the treble dispersion.)
"can't be used to judge the performance of a system" as far as high fidelity is concerned
this is my point because high fidelity can be judged only with regard to a certain reference
in case of electronic or any amplified music produced in the studio we don't have any such reference
we simply DO NOT and CANNOT KNOW how it is supposed to sound
no reference
I am not saying that such music cannot be used to judge the performance of the system as far as its overall quality is concerned. But that's a different matter.
well, for the best quality a separate bass management system is needed anyway
now - a typical 8 inches coincident driver will have xmax limited max SPL in the range of 105-110 dB at 100 Hz when coupled to a boundary or two
then below 100 Hz (or perhaps even higher at around 160 Hz) the bass management - be it M(ultiple)S(mall)S(ubs) or anything else - should join in
so - where is the problem?
false alternative, there is no such alternative
floor coupling is a floor coupling
a design aimed at elimination of the first floor reflection is a design aimed at elimination of the first floor reflection
upfiring without deflectors is upfiring without deflectors
that's all, what do You not know?
I believe that a single coincident driver should be theoretically the best. But very different configurations have been tested with good results - for example tinitus' three bare drivers lying around on the floor:
it is kind of difficult to describe a 'speaker' having all its drivers scattered over the floor
even bumping around, occationally
but dammit, it works
If you want so - it is relative, yes. But any relativisation stays subjective, if you can (and do) only compare to your own personal horizon of experience (or better illusion, because the sensitive experience of music is mostly that).no not really
If you can't deliver more real world data of what you have got at home, it is all pretension (not meant in a negative way). How about that polar response of your Ci200Q? How does it look like?
Rudolf
You're not holding out an 8" driver with a 1" dome tweeter and a claimed crossover of 2.5kHz as a constant/consistent directivity device through the midrange, are you?
Now, KEF does have an 8" concentric driver that has fairly consistent directivity. They use it in their Q900 speaker. Here are Stereophile's horizontal off-axis measurements for that one:
But the ceiling speaker variant ain't it. Compared to the ceiling speaker, the Q900 driver has a significantly larger tweeter (1.5") with a higher-compression phase plug, and a meaningfully lower mid/tweet crossover. So based on geometry and physics, one should expect "midrange mushroom cloud" polars more like the typical "high end" speaker: narrowing through the mids, exploding at the bottom of the tweeter's passband.
(Too bad. I wish the ceiling speakers used basically the same device. That would make getting raw drivers easier.
)On paper, without accounting for power compression, that's about right. The downside is that they probably would need to be highpassed right around there, so they can't contribute much if at all to smoothing out response in the modal region. Large excursions and concentric drivers do not mix well.
Last edited:
Just putting that or any driver of a high DI speaker in some "box" in FCUF maneer results in vastly different radiation!
We need real prototypes and well documented measurements, but the concept has some good properites - like any next-to-wall or in-corner or soffit mounted speakers.
The real challenges for real-life implementation are 1) how to match amplitude response and power radiation across audio band 2) how to retain phase/time coherence across band, 3) how room and placement changes affect the two previous.
I think FCUF is not a practical solution for most people, jus like a corner horn neither. But one can achieve a really good sound if everything is set properly in a dedicated listening studio.
We need real prototypes and well documented measurements, but the concept has some good properites - like any next-to-wall or in-corner or soffit mounted speakers.
The real challenges for real-life implementation are 1) how to match amplitude response and power radiation across audio band 2) how to retain phase/time coherence across band, 3) how room and placement changes affect the two previous.
I think FCUF is not a practical solution for most people, jus like a corner horn neither. But one can achieve a really good sound if everything is set properly in a dedicated listening studio.
I'm willing to try this, but I would very much like to avoid a situation like last time, where your reaction to the testing method is directly proportional to the listening impression.
Isn't it the other way round: inversely proportional?
If you state that you have tried FCUFS and it worked exactly as predicted, graaf would ask no further and add you to the list of his brave testimonials.
If you state that you have tried FCUFS and it did not work as predicted, graaf would dig deeper, until he has found a reason why it couldn't work for you.
He really cares wholeheartedly.
Isn't it the other way round: inversely proportional?
If you state that you have tried FCUFS and it worked exactly as predicted, graaf would ask no further and add you to the list of his brave testimonials.
If you state that you have tried FCUFS and it did not work as predicted, graaf would dig deeper, until he has found a reason why it couldn't work for you.
He really cares wholeheartedly.
Well, the reason I said it like that was..(it's been a long time, so my memory isn't so sharp) but the last time I talked about trying it, I stated that I was simply going to try placing my speakers on their backs at the sides of the room.
Everyone's reaction was "yeah, cool, tell us what you think!"
So I did...
I thought it sounded terrible, it was very easy to tell that the sound was coming from the floor and the image was stretched way goofy across the center.
So now, a few pages ago, when I mentioned that I had done the test, the reaction wasn't "Hey, cool, so it didn't work out..." the reaction was "Well, that was a crap test anyway..."
*shrug*
I just want to make damn sure that if I try any of these things again for fun, that they meet with the protagonists' approval..so I have something I can quote in the event that the methodology of the experiment is called into question once again.
Don't waste your time. I asked for this years (!) ago. He never provided that information and probably never will. Even if you follow his "recommendations" (e.g. Stereolith) but don't agree with his opinion, he'll tell you that you're biased anyway.