I'd bet most people listen to music on their iPod or car stereo the most and that is their reference then they go to the concert. I have a hard time going to live concerts of the music I like b/c the sound is often bad--same goes for the performance. Ouch. Live music has other appeals for me however.
Dan
Dan
I'm glad you didn't take offense. I'd say your documentation may be the best around--at least it's in the same league as the best around and the end user really shouldn't have surprises. The in your room response doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Believe you me, I'm not saying your speakers measure poorly or anything, the measurements just suggest how it should best be used. More vertical polar data would be more useful as far as I'm concerned. The "in room" above the modal region has less usefulness than the anechoic stuff. Below the modal region I'll take in my room. I actually think that possibly extend that up to 500Hz or so.
Thanks,
Dan
I'm sure it's true that more people listen to more music on the ubiqutous earbuds than at $100 a ticket "concerts" . . . but I'm not sure that means that the earbud sound then becomes their "reference" for what the music is supposed to sound like. If it is there is no "standard" by which loudspeakers or any other part of the reproduction chain can be judged, and "turn up the treble, turn up the bass, love them MP3s" is the new "high fidelity", and it's horns all the way, 'cause dude, they're *loud* . . .
Last edited:
Well - have a GOOD set of headphones can serve as a good yardstick by which to compare speakers to - and some earbud phones are highly regarded - YMMV.
The "'cause dude, they're loud" thing has always been around - and I don't think that segment of listeners will ever go away. Some do mature and refine their taste - hey we all start somewhere and it usually isn't at the top. It's our mission in life to overcome the hype that most consumers have been brainwashed with and introduce 'em to the "real world" of "real music". The sad truth is - most of them don't want to bother with it.
Except for spatial distortion, headphones are more accurate method to listen. Even cheap ones. Remember there is no room or reflection to worry about. No horizontal/vertical response, no crossovers. Sometimes I check my speakers by comparing with headphones. For subjective tonal balance at least.
Oh yes . . . and the greatest virtue of headphones is their portability, since our auditory memory is, typically, terrible. They are not without their own problems, though, including the same suseptibility to the upstream chain as any other transducer. But they also have to be "callibrated" to . . . something. I do, occasionally, get to get to flip the phones off my ears and compare the sound in the hall (one place in the hall, anyway) with what's coming down the wire from the pair of NT1000 (which, of course, are capturing the sound in a different place from where I'm listening). Orchestral balances will be different, the direct/reverberant ratio will be (often very) different, but the "overal "tonal balance" tends to be preserved. I can then take the recording home and do the inverse . . . flip the phones on and off while comparing to the "in-room" sound of my loudspeakers, or any other speakers for that matter. And ultimately any other source, since having convinced myself that the headphones "get it right" in comparison to the original I can say that any speaker that doesn't match the headphone's "tonality" are getting it wrong, at least compared to the recording. It's better than doing it by "memory", anyway.
That doesn't work so well, though, for "studio" recording, or amplified electronic performances, because "what's on the wire" is *not* the same as "what's in the room". And even for "live acoustic" recordings the headphones don't transport much of anything about "image" or "spaciousness" or a whole raft of other semi-intangibles . . . that's all still left to some vague subjective sense of "what sounds right" . . .
"Beaming" is relative. It really depends on the loudspeaker's dispersion pattern. As it happens, "full-range" drivers tend to have a horizontal polar distribution that often works well. Add-in your typical dome tweeter and it's usually no longer beaming, OR is only beaming in certain freq.s (usually higher than 5 kHz and perhaps at lower freq.s due to poor integration with the midrange's off-axis response). No equalization filter will improve this situation.
How far does an image extend beyond the speakers with the CD design you are used to? How far on other designs. Where do you sit relative to the loudspeakers (each design)? How close are each to walls in your listening room?
Generally the smaller the speaker (baffle included), the closer you should be to the loudspeaker. Move farther away and everything "shrinks" up. Move closer and you experience an "expansion". In this respect there are several advantages to a small source loudspeaker (..with a low diffraction baffle). Moving loudspeakers closer to you allows for:
1. increased image size due to an apparent intensity vs. sd.
2. increased sound stage due to a decrease in cross-correlation (particularly as a component of "head-shading").
3. a potentially increased sound stage and "external imaging" due to higher higher spl's off-axis (left of left speaker right of right). (again, a lower intensity for cross-correlation, though irrespective of "head-shading").
4. an effective increase in "head-room" (particularly for "point source" loudspeakers).
5. potentially a significant improvement in the reduction of apparent wall reflections (..assuming that when you move the loudspeakers closer to you they are moved further from room walls).
etc..
(..there are of course several *disadvantages* as well.)
BTW, if you have a loudspeaker similar to the Behringer (that Dan has), you can try all this out for yourself on a "like-kind" basis. In other words the Behringer is at least moderately small in size, yet still has a very uniform polar pattern that is very close to being "CD" (..in the range most people associate with a "CD" design).
Last edited:
Deward, I'd actually say that it(the iPod, car and even their home stereo/boombox) is the standard that the concert sound is judged--and it typically fails by a mile. You can assume these are not classical music listeners--I'm talking about music that often regretfully makes money. What it's supposed to sound like is not a consideration. What it does sound like is. Typically the concert is not about the sound for most people. No one would go if it was. It is about the music, the band, the show and the atmosphere of the show. Lady Gaga has to be seen to be enjoyed. Ha ha Try not to quote me out of context if you reply.
Dan
Dan
Hello,
Thanks to Gainphile for the impulse data. Normalised wavelet responses this time
For better comparison!
Here was wavelet plots for the dipole: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/178806-s16-constant-directivity-dipoles-2.html#post2418709
Again dipole responses normalised for left and right speakers:
Now for the CD speakers, left and right!
I still think the top end above 2-3kHz room reflections are lacking. Comparing to the polar plots (see below quote for CD speaker and above link for dipole), polar plot does not predict lacking signal! Room must eat it! Due to normalisation of the plots frequency response effects do not play a role here.
Let's see room response for a 150ms period, for dipole and for CD:
Top end reflections rappidly disappear.
Secondly we see dipole works best in the lower midrange compared to box speaker, can see faster decay below about 500Hz.
For 300ms window, dipole and CD:
Again frequency dependent decay of the room reflections.
Seems to be no matter how constant is the directivity the room will dominate the time-frequency pattern !
Instead of constant directivity, maybe the speaker directivity should be invert of room response decay? That turns out widening dispersion with frequency. Not many does that however! Obviously it's not easy, it goes all against the convenient physics of radiation principle. Anyhow the idea is interesting, don't you think so?
edit: And all of these are measured at the listening position, which was about 2.8 m according to Gainphile.
- Elias
Thanks to Gainphile for the impulse data. Normalised wavelet responses this time
For better comparison! Here was wavelet plots for the dipole: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/178806-s16-constant-directivity-dipoles-2.html#post2418709
Again dipole responses normalised for left and right speakers:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Now for the CD speakers, left and right!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I still think the top end above 2-3kHz room reflections are lacking. Comparing to the polar plots (see below quote for CD speaker and above link for dipole), polar plot does not predict lacking signal! Room must eat it!
Due to normalisation of the plots frequency response effects do not play a role here.Let's see room response for a 150ms period, for dipole and for CD:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Top end reflections rappidly disappear.
Secondly we see dipole works best in the lower midrange compared to box speaker, can see faster decay below about 500Hz.
For 300ms window, dipole and CD:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Again frequency dependent decay of the room reflections.
Seems to be no matter how constant is the directivity the room will dominate the time-frequency pattern !
Instead of constant directivity, maybe the speaker directivity should be invert of room response decay? That turns out widening dispersion with frequency. Not many does that however! Obviously it's not easy, it goes all against the convenient physics of radiation principle. Anyhow the idea is interesting, don't you think so?
edit: And all of these are measured at the listening position, which was about 2.8 m according to Gainphile.
- Elias
I have since incorporated the waveguides to my dipoles with somewhat success.
...
I pulled out my fingers and built these.
Last edited:
Normalised wavelet responses this time
Muuuch better
Agree with your conclusions - despite the tweeter range, room seem to dominate.
The horn of the CD seems to be better than the WG of the dipole (faster decay) - possibly less refections from the front wall is mixing in here too (good to see in the short period plots).
Michael
Very interesting graphical analysis... Thanks Elias.
It's very interesting as my room is a normal livingroom (not dedicated audio room) and I thought it was quite live. No room treatments at all, and in both cases the speakers are located in front of big glass windows!!
If the room really dominates few khz upwards, what is the implication here? That polar pattern does not matter in those ranges as you mentioned ? ...
Do you have other examples of such speakers-room interaction?
It's very interesting as my room is a normal livingroom (not dedicated audio room) and I thought it was quite live. No room treatments at all, and in both cases the speakers are located in front of big glass windows!!
If the room really dominates few khz upwards, what is the implication here? That polar pattern does not matter in those ranges as you mentioned ? ...
Do you have other examples of such speakers-room interaction?
Hi,
I would say the room dominates from 20Hz to 20kHz We should not neglet the polar pattern, but it should be matched to the room ! That means if we make polar patterns to approach some engineering conveniencies, like CD, without considering the whole picture we will not reach the optimum.
Here is an example of my room There was two loudspeakers, one small bookshelf two way box with 6.5" + dome, and another with dipole line array + dome with 'diffractor'.
These are measured at listening position at 2.5 m. My room also normal living room, without special acoustics elements, just normal furnituring.
Here the box:
Abowe 3kHz there are few wide band reflections, but room eats them fast.
Below 1kHz it's a total mess (I define this as a box in a room sound).
Here the line array:
The wide dispersion tweeter generates many reflections up to about 10kHz.
Due to the very high directivity of the dipole line array the temporal consistency of the wave front is maintained over the whole audio band all the down to bass region.
Here up to 150ms the box:
The treble reflections die too fast, and the lower midrange below 500Hz is bouncing forever !
Here dipole line array 150ms:
The midrange is pretty clean, and treble is in balance.
Now this loudspeaker is no way a CD ! Dipole line array + dome with diffractor. A heretic approach ! 
However it nicely compensates for the room and sounds good to me.
- Elias
I would say the room dominates from 20Hz to 20kHz
We should not neglet the polar pattern, but it should be matched to the room ! That means if we make polar patterns to approach some engineering conveniencies, like CD, without considering the whole picture we will not reach the optimum.Here is an example of my room
There was two loudspeakers, one small bookshelf two way box with 6.5" + dome, and another with dipole line array + dome with 'diffractor'.These are measured at listening position at 2.5 m. My room also normal living room, without special acoustics elements, just normal furnituring.
Here the box:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Abowe 3kHz there are few wide band reflections, but room eats them fast.
Below 1kHz it's a total mess (I define this as a box in a room sound).
Here the line array:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The wide dispersion tweeter generates many reflections up to about 10kHz.
Due to the very high directivity of the dipole line array the temporal consistency of the wave front is maintained over the whole audio band all the down to bass region.
Here up to 150ms the box:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The treble reflections die too fast, and the lower midrange below 500Hz is bouncing forever !
Here dipole line array 150ms:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The midrange is pretty clean, and treble is in balance.
Now this loudspeaker is no way a CD !
Dipole line array + dome with diffractor. A heretic approach ! However it nicely compensates for the room and sounds good to me.- Elias
Hi,
I also noticed the same difference between the horns But that discussion should belong to the horn honk thread
- Elias
I also noticed the same difference between the horns
But that discussion should belong to the horn honk thread - Elias
diffracter? Toe in?
Is dome diffracter another name for a wave guide? Do you have a picture. Isn't the tweeter on the box measuring much better 3KHz and up?
The dipole woofers are very clean. Are they positioned staight ahead or toed in?
Is dome diffracter another name for a wave guide? Do you have a picture. Isn't the tweeter on the box measuring much better 3KHz and up?
The dipole woofers are very clean. Are they positioned staight ahead or toed in?
Hi,
A wave guide is an enclosed structure to transfer the wavefield energy from one place to another within the structure.
I don't have a wave guide here. It's normal dome tweeter with additional diffracting element. I use a sharp edge in the immediate vicinity of the dome.
There is no extra dipole woofer. There is only the dipole line array which is aimed to the listening position, since it plays up to about 2kHz.
- Elias
A wave guide is an enclosed structure to transfer the wavefield energy from one place to another within the structure.
I don't have a wave guide here. It's normal dome tweeter with additional diffracting element. I use a sharp edge in the immediate vicinity of the dome.
There is no extra dipole woofer. There is only the dipole line array which is aimed to the listening position, since it plays up to about 2kHz.
- Elias
RIP and Thank You Zilch.
audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=350053
"More data, less wank" will live on ...
and Thank You Zilch.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=350053
"More data, less wank" will live on ...
Last edited:
CONCLUSIONS
Time for me to update the judgement of Dipole vs. CD speakers. I have observed RESOLUTION and COST as another criteria. Refer to earlier posts about these subjective observations.
S15 - Econowave DSP vs S16 - Constant Directivity Dipoles
COST
Winner: CD Speakers
RESOLUTION (midrange)
Winner: Dipoles
This could simply be the quality of woofer used. The 12" simply can't match the 8" metal cone driver
SWEET SPOT
Winner: CD Speakers
BASS
Winner: CD Speaker
I changed my mind. Dipoles simply can't pressurize under 40hz in my room. Otherwise dipoles win.
MID-HIGH/Tonality
Winner: CD Speakers
IMAGING
Winner: Dipoles
SPL/VOLUME
Winner: CD Speakers
DYNAMICS
Winner: Dipoles
We have a winner: ........
In summary, the CD Speakers delivers EXCITEMENTS while the Dipoles deliver REFINEMENT. Subject to my own limitations of course.
Which one do I listen to? Well, it's the dipoles. But it's a 5-minute job to swap
Time for me to update the judgement of Dipole vs. CD speakers. I have observed RESOLUTION and COST as another criteria. Refer to earlier posts about these subjective observations.
S15 - Econowave DSP vs S16 - Constant Directivity Dipoles
COST
Winner: CD Speakers
RESOLUTION (midrange)
Winner: Dipoles
This could simply be the quality of woofer used. The 12" simply can't match the 8" metal cone driver
SWEET SPOT
Winner: CD Speakers
BASS
Winner: CD Speaker
I changed my mind. Dipoles simply can't pressurize under 40hz in my room. Otherwise dipoles win.
MID-HIGH/Tonality
Winner: CD Speakers
IMAGING
Winner: Dipoles
SPL/VOLUME
Winner: CD Speakers
DYNAMICS
Winner: Dipoles
We have a winner: ........
In summary, the CD Speakers delivers EXCITEMENTS while the Dipoles deliver REFINEMENT. Subject to my own limitations of course.
Which one do I listen to? Well, it's the dipoles. But it's a 5-minute job to swap
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.