Exactly. But when you can't change the room then you need to find a different solution.
i tend to agree with earl on most points. I very hard reflective room is bad news, mono or dipole, its a matter of degrees of awfulness WRT midrange. In my old concrete home monopoles had rollercoaster bass which was apparent when i stood in an adjoining room or in certain places in the room.
Like all of my OB experiments, very quick and rough trials, the dipole sounded very indistinct in the mids. Bass wasnt considered, i was naive.
However it solidified my belief that dipoles are better used in treated rooms, just as the monopoles. The same 5 minute experiment in my current home is less clear, using my ears only.
My unscientific conclusion is this. A concrete floor generally tightens bass, due to a lesser or different excitation of its structure, compared to a sprung floor. Carpeting helps in this case. The worst listening room ive had was a victorian brick walled room with a sprung floor. Resonant floor AND high levels of modal excitation. All very anecdotal and non scientific, but 'real' enough to realise that some treatment is almost always a prerequisite for decent sound.
Like all of my OB experiments, very quick and rough trials, the dipole sounded very indistinct in the mids. Bass wasnt considered, i was naive.
However it solidified my belief that dipoles are better used in treated rooms, just as the monopoles. The same 5 minute experiment in my current home is less clear, using my ears only.
My unscientific conclusion is this. A concrete floor generally tightens bass, due to a lesser or different excitation of its structure, compared to a sprung floor. Carpeting helps in this case. The worst listening room ive had was a victorian brick walled room with a sprung floor. Resonant floor AND high levels of modal excitation. All very anecdotal and non scientific, but 'real' enough to realise that some treatment is almost always a prerequisite for decent sound.
Last edited:
Indeed. But people here try to attribute the difference to the room response only, and to the reproduction of lowest frequencies only.
The dipole and cardioid axes were at about 10 degrees from the room front to back direction. This is how I set up my NaO II Ra's which are positioned for best sound over all.
I have tried different positions and rotated the sources in the past (when I designed the CRAW). It makes the most difference with the dipole. There is no doubt in my mind that, in my room, dipoles are the most sensitive to position and cardioids the least. That's not to say that the response doesn't go to hell in a hand basket at some positions for all sources. But no matter how you set them up, there can be very drastic changes by moving my listening chair forward or back a few feet. Frankly I find the seating position to be the most critical component. I think what I need is a power seat so i can shift the listening position with a button, like a power car seat.
I agree.
I also agree that the approach that you are using makes sense. But I really think that in the end we will find that any multisub situation with independent DSP control on each sub channel, when properly setup, will result in just about the same "as-good-as-it-gets" in almost any situation. I really believe that years from now we will all being doing this and that the specific implimentations and "brand" names for the EQ type or the sub type will simply go away. We will simply ask "How many subs do you have?" and maybe "Whose DSP are you using?" Everything else will just be superfluous.
Its not like I haven't looked at this problem before, I have, and in some detail. I just see it all converging on what I have found to be the best solution. Minor deviations thats all.
Where was the paradyme shift? DSP - without cheap DSP the "optimal" methods are just not feasible.
Last edited:
Yeah, if you can't change the walls, keep things far off the walls
that's exactly what I am doing, being at this stage the only solution for me. treatment is on its way though!
Earl, no need to be condescending, and no need for Bose either. As a treated room does not show significant differences, it seems obvious that a "rough" room would make these differences stand out more, that was it. As said, the lesson here, at least for me, is that the treatment seems more important than the radiation type. I still believe that dipoles keep that edge on "naturalness", call me audiophile if you want, that's just how I see it..
Maybe Stig Erik could try an interesting combo.. Earl's multi sub/dsp method but on dipoles? At least for fun?
That misses the point. A treated room does not show differences between source types because the type does not matter all that much. There would be huge differences from room to room however, with less differences for treated rooms than non-treated ones. The point remains that any discussion that leaves out the room is not worth having because the variance is more room dependent than source dependent.
"Bose" was clearly a joke implying that if you are not going to optimize the room then why bother to optimize the speakers.
Yes, yes, yes!!! The only factor at odds with this is the possibility of room pressurization.
wow.. 70cm walls! torture room?
more subjectively, aren't dipoles meant to give an edge on "natural" LF reproduction? less energy storage + less group delay compared to ported subs, and even closed boxes?
Dipoles sound more "natural" over the entire bandwidth...most would agree to this. It is just that in the lower bass region, from what John and Dr. Geddes are supporting from their graphs and explanations, is that monopoles are as good and also more efficient.
Also true that even SL who strongly believes in the naturalness of dipole sound, reverts to sealed monopoles for lower than 40Hz, for the efficiency benefit.
I would be inclined to think that if the mid-high frequencies have dipole radiation, then it is just more logical and natural to have the midbass also have the same radiation pattern to preserve coherency.
Yep, it was bedtime!
Actually SL did design a monopole sub to augment the Orions, but.. he never uses them because of poor coupling to the dipoles!! There is also extremely low interest in them on his forum. Oh well..
To my ears, dipole bass is difficult to integrate with monopole subwoofers. I've tried it many times, and every time the monopole sounded "different" than the dipoles. Hard to describe, but its a different type of sound.
Dipole subwoofers are as efficient as wood-fired steam engines... that's why we don't see them too often I guess.
Dipole subwoofers are as efficient as wood-fired steam engines... that's why we don't see them too often I guess.
I could agree with that as a subjective statement. But does it explain anything? What is the basic physical principle that makes them sound more "natural"?
I tend to see the better direct/reverberant ratio, which can be achieved with a well made dipole, as the main (and simple) "culprit" - because this allows for less and weaker reflections. But you can control the reflection ratio as well on the walls as in the source.
Below 34 Hz (equals 10 m wavelength) even 18" H frames are becoming too small. Down low we probably have to think of dipole subwoofers as separate point sources with inverse polarity placed with some meters distance between them. This is where Earls subwoofer proposal would meet with your approach imho.
Rudolf
My initial thought when starting this thread was to explore bass reproduction with monopoles and dipoles in a small room with rigid walls and without any absorption other than normal living room furnitures. This is living reality for many.
Let's keep it that way. Discussion requiring heavy room treatments do not really belong in this thread.
- Elias
Let's keep it that way. Discussion requiring heavy room treatments do not really belong in this thread.
- Elias
So is stud wall constructions for others. It's understandably that you want best possible reproduction in your room but so do others. And the acoustic properties of their rooms might differ considerably from yours. It's probably more meaningful to first define those properties before deciding any implementation details.
Could you post the impulse responses from your room?
But wasn't exactly that one point Earl was mentioning that there is virtually no directivity in small rooms at LFs ?
Unless I misunderstand what you are saying.
Personally, I though it had at least some effect but maybe not.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.