Measured monopole and dipole room responses - Page 43 - 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 15th October 2012, 04:42 PM   #421
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Perceptually this is a day and night difference.
Yeah, if you can't change the walls, keep things far off the walls
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 04:50 PM   #422
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
If you take your sound system serious then you need to take the room serious as well.
Exactly. But when you can't change the room then you need to find a different solution.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 04:56 PM   #423
diyAudio Member
 
mondogenerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: City Of Villans
Blog Entries: 1
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.
__________________
Every new piece of knowledge pushes something else out of my brain - Homer.....................Simpson

Last edited by mondogenerator; 15th October 2012 at 05:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 04:59 PM   #424
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
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?
Indeed. But people here try to attribute the difference to the room response only, and to the reproduction of lowest frequencies only.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 05:15 PM   #425
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
Just for the sake of comparison:
Attachment 306659

What was the direction of the dipole and cardioid axis?
Was there any attempt to rotate dipole or cardioid?
Did it make a significant difference (to the better/worse)?

Rudolf
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.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 05:24 PM   #426
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Exactly. But when you can't change the room then you need to find a different solution.
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 by gedlee; 15th October 2012 at 05:27 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 07:02 PM   #427
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 07:08 PM   #428
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
That's what I am doing. I have four dipole subwoofer towers (line-arrays), and DSP of course. And a a lot of bass-traps.....
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 07:28 PM   #429
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2012, 08:12 PM   #430
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
... 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.
Yes, yes, yes!!! The only factor at odds with this is the possibility of room pressurization.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  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
Omnipole, monopole, dipole and...nopole?? terry j Multi-Way 25 1st July 2007 03:28 AM
Getting Dipole bass out of a monopole subwoofer Hara Subwoofers 18 14th July 2006 12:55 AM
Dipole vs monopole, balls or not ... ? Jussi Multi-Way 11 4th May 2006 03:38 PM
DBX vs BSS vs 24/96 for Dipole/Monopole combo..... gavinson Multi-Way 0 29th November 2005 12:07 AM
Dipole speaker with monopole rear firing midbass? GuyPanico Multi-Way 4 12th November 2005 02:49 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 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