Measured monopole and dipole room responses - Page 47 - 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 16th October 2012, 07:57 PM   #461
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I am not sure that I can explain. Its interesting data and results, but I am not sure that I do know what is going on.

I certainly would not consider times on the order of 20 us as relavent, or do you mean 2 ms?

My point is simply home much the room changes any and all characteristics of the source at LFs. Free field characteristics of a LF source just do not have much relavance to its use in a real room.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th October 2012, 08:33 PM   #462
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundaatma View Post
In post #444, the second graph from the bottom titled "Raw Impulse responses Monopole top, Dipole bottom" was actually a bit confusing to me. For the monopole the region from the impulse upto .02ms looks crowded, but for the dipole this is clean. However after .02ms there is pronounced ringing in the dipole response; much more than the monopole response.

Does this mean that the dipole is cleaner before .02ms compared to the monopole. However after .02ms the monopole is cleaner....is this the reflected soundfield because of room reverberation.....but if the room is the same, so should be the reverberation time. In any case after .02ms why is there more overhang in the room for the dipole than the monopole.
Please explain. Thanks.Actually this is only comparative graph which is distinctly different b/w the monopole and dipole.

We don't know anything about Barleywater's system so hard to draw conclusions.

It looks like though that the time axis is in seconds. Then the dipole resonance at 130 Hz would match the time scale ringing.

I think the 130 Hz peak can simply be a H-frame cavity resonance.


- Elias
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th October 2012, 09:10 PM   #463
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
I don't understand how the corrected impulses in post 444 appear to be perfectly symmetrical. The system would have to be linear phase as well as flat response for that to happen. even assuming the unequalized woofer is minimum phase, amplitude correction would still leave it as a minimum phase band pass device which should show a casual impulse with some post peak oscillation. It doesn't make sense to me.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th October 2012, 09:18 PM   #464
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
To me it looks like the impulse responses were inversed to approach Dirac delta function. Some nonidealities remain like the ringing due to bandwidth limitations including AD conterter antialias filtering.
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th October 2012, 09:39 PM   #465
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: philadelphia
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
I am not sure that I can explain. Its interesting data and results, but I am not sure that I do know what is going on.

I certainly would not consider times on the order of 20 us as relavent, or do you mean 2 ms?

My point is simply home much the room changes any and all characteristics of the source at LFs. Free field characteristics of a LF source just do not have much relavance to its use in a real room.
Just reading from the graph, the reading in the x-axis is ".02" and the unit labelled as "hms". I am not sure if this means .02 seconds or 2 milliseconds OR .02 milliseconds
The room responses after equalization is eerily similar with NO difference
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th October 2012, 10:54 PM   #466
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundaatma View Post
Even with the same diameter drivers, equalised to same LF extension, listened at moderate SPL, to even nearfield (2-3 Meters) there is that slight overhang in sealed units that makes it sound like a "speaker" which is not apparent in a dipole(H or Uframe) making it sound that last bit different ... or "natural'. No scientific logic/evidence "yet" discovered....Wonder if it is the lower group delay in the dipole which is small yet audible
Reverberation does not need to be "scientifically re-discovered". When you hear it from around, coming from different directions, it is reverberation that gives you an information about the space in which the music sounds. But when you hear it from some point source it is "speaker" sounding, while room reverberation still exists, and sounds like "Speaker In The Room". You hear 2 different volumes, one (room) from around as reverberation, another from speaker like "speaker sound". But if to blend them together in space around head and ears it sounds more natural. It is exactly what dipoles do, and why they sound more natural.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2012, 12:01 AM   #467
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
I don't understand how the corrected impulses in post 444 appear to be perfectly symmetrical. The system would have to be linear phase as well as flat response for that to happen. even assuming the unequalized woofer is minimum phase, amplitude correction would still leave it as a minimum phase band pass device which should show a casual impulse with some post peak oscillation. It doesn't make sense to me.
Just as bad is what appears to be some DC content in the corrected impulses. That's not possible for an acoustic pressure response, especially for a dipole. Something isn't right.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2012, 12:34 AM   #468
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: philadelphia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
But if to blend them together in space around head and ears it sounds more natural. It is exactly what dipoles do, and why they sound more natural.
This is what this thread is all about...What EXACTLY (and how ) do dipoles do to make them sound more natural ( at least to some...who go to great extents at higher costs to expand their dipole systems and never come back to monopoles again).
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2012, 02:24 AM   #469
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundaatma View Post
This is what this thread is all about...What EXACTLY (and how ) do dipoles do to make them sound more natural ( at least to some...who go to great extents at higher costs to expand their dipole systems and never come back to monopoles again).
Let me just say here that the majority of my customers last speakers were dipoles, so your claim is simply not true, its just your perception.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th October 2012, 03:11 AM   #470
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundaatma View Post
This is what this thread is all about...What EXACTLY (and how ) do dipoles do to make them sound more natural ( at least to some...who go to great extents at higher costs to expand their dipole systems and never come back to monopoles again).
It is one half of the truth: dipoles in untreated rooms sound as if more natural. That does not mean that they more naturally reproduce records, so room treatments are applied. But if to treat the room this advantage goes away, and distortions caused by higher excursion start dominating.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  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 02:02 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