The rear wave should stay intact in order to create a psychoacoustically effective strong reflection. Diffusion would minimize its effectiveness.
fair enough ,it could en up just being "ambiance" or "air" but not virtual sources far behind the speakers, maybe.
OT posts removed. Please confine eBay sales to eBay.
From my experience:
Strong reflections, which keep the frequency response and phase pattern of the direct sound, don't blur the image, but move it in space.
Highly uncorrelated reflections (both in phase and frequency) blur the image (ASW), but don't move it.
Rudolf
Let's start again with D/R (that you want to bring up). How is that achieved:
1. Move closer to the speakers and/or
2. Bring RT60 of the room down and/or
3. Use speakers with a higher directivity index
Higher DI means more forward bias means lower sound power.
I was suggesting a speaker with a high DI to begin with and add high DI reflections from a side firing source.
That gives you a comfortable listening distance with freedom to vary the seat as well as the volume of the reflections.
The reflections should not come from an omni source because then you have a second source with a much smaller D/R at a given listening distance in a given room.
I did understand what you had proposed and theoretically a high directivity design with adjustable "effect" radiation would be the optimum. Nevertheless, a 2pi speaker is probably easier to implement. I'm thinking about such a concept not only since yesterday but then again I'm not a speaker designer
Now why do you think I made that suggestion at all ?
- A cardioid is not exactly a 2Pi speaker. Only if I were to build one
- A cardioid is fairly simple in the bass
- A cardioid can be approximated in the highs
It is the midrange that is most difficult. Much more difficult than a high DI speaker.
Now why do you think I made that suggestion at all ?
- A cardioid is not exactly a 2Pi speaker. Only if I were to build one
- A cardioid is fairly simple in the bass
- A cardioid can be approximated in the highs
It is the midrange that is most difficult. Much more difficult than a high DI speaker.
Not sure it is such a challenge, even less so for a speaker designer of your reputation
180° horn for the highs, i.e. large baffle, cardioid low/mid utilizing a backward radiating driver. Only needs to work down to 80Hz for use as a satellite speaker.
Last edited:
And that has to be acoustically small as you can only utilize/create the pattern cleanly up to the baffle step.
Try it and report.
I have such a prototype in the cellar based on two 5" car audio drivers to check how far one could get with that in reality. But with 7" snow in the garden it is not going to happen any time soon. Also, there are other projects in the pipeline and still on the stack.Where are real speaker designers when you need them
C'mon, you have done real work before
Seems to me that it is . . . assuming that the room is suitable and the speakers placed properly. It all sounds like an extraordinary lot of effort to recreate what dipoles do naturally . . .
And, for a single listener anyway, you control D/I simply by "adjusting" the distance between the speakers and the listener. SL comments regularly both on the differences between his "A" and "B" listening positions, and of placing PLUTO closer to the listener than either ORION or LX521 . . . FWIW I found "A" too close for my taste, and did almost all my listening (to LX521) from "B" . . . (using ORTF pattern recordings that I'd heard in the original from multiple perspectives).
Maybe the "blurring of ASW" should be called as spaciousness
It sounds better that way No, it's very much different. Diffusers spread the wave in all 2pi directions (if the diffuser is any good) and thus the reflected wave reaching towards the listener will be much attenuated.
On the other hand IMP has multiple poles which generate decorrelated strong reflections to listener. In addition IMP has direct wave attenuated whereas dipole has strong direct sound as well.
No, see above. I don't know why people think dipoles generate any decorrelation. The back wave is (should be) identical of the front wave.
- Elias
C'mon, you have done real work before
Sure but I don't want to. My real interest is listening not speaker design. Weird, isn't it?
The off-axis sound of many planar dipoles is highly decorrelated. This is responsible for their FAT source representation. If you are aiming for that sound ...
Rudolf
A lot of non-minimum phase stuff, which then gets vectorially re-summed at two points.
Elias, you have me super curious and in an experimenting mood.
Hmm, right back to room reflections I see..
The proverbial "cart before the horse" with loudspeaker design.
Utterly non-productive.
To have any meaningful discussion of room reflections on a design you FIRST must take them "out of the equation". The easiest method is listening outside (weather permitting), in a largely free-field environment with low noise.
Then try the same design in differing interior environments (both position and space).
Another method might include wildly different interior environments (i.e a very large space approximating a free field condition vs. other smaller more common spaces.)
Yet another is a traditional-sized space with heavy sound absorption from about 150 Hz up on most surfaces excepting the floor vs. a similar non-absorptive room.
(..note that I'm describing use conditions in-room with reflections where the loudspeakers are over a meter from any wall. Anytime an average loudspeaker's position is less than that is pretty much pointless - the wall becomes part of the design at that point.)
Without this you don't have a "base-line" to really argue that the determinate factor with a design's presentation has anything substantial to do with reflections. It's all conjecture until then.
The proverbial "cart before the horse" with loudspeaker design.
Utterly non-productive.
To have any meaningful discussion of room reflections on a design you FIRST must take them "out of the equation". The easiest method is listening outside (weather permitting), in a largely free-field environment with low noise.
Then try the same design in differing interior environments (both position and space).
Another method might include wildly different interior environments (i.e a very large space approximating a free field condition vs. other smaller more common spaces.)
Yet another is a traditional-sized space with heavy sound absorption from about 150 Hz up on most surfaces excepting the floor vs. a similar non-absorptive room.
(..note that I'm describing use conditions in-room with reflections where the loudspeakers are over a meter from any wall. Anytime an average loudspeaker's position is less than that is pretty much pointless - the wall becomes part of the design at that point.)
Without this you don't have a "base-line" to really argue that the determinate factor with a design's presentation has anything substantial to do with reflections. It's all conjecture until then.
Gee, I just want to listen to the music I enjoy. As far as I'm concerned it's all a simulacrum.