yes, so it seems, I wonder though would Dr Geddes agree
the easiest practical is rather a flooder, no need for sophisticated "double cone" deflectors, no need to be afraid - no sound coming from the floor really
by eliminated You mean? isn't pushing the delay time above 10 ms (or more if possible) enough? this plus normal room acoustics (not bathroom and not anechoic chamber)
yes indeed, careless setup can ruin pretty much everything, it can even ruin the sound of CD waveguided speakers
good luck!
This is propably the whole point, to optimise the system for a specific task.
It is a naive assumption that one system fits all, all living rooms, all music genres, recording venue ambience, recording styles etc..
Instead, I think there are optimum system for a specific case. And that the optimum can vary significantly from case to case.
- Elias
It is a naive assumption that one system fits all, all living rooms, all music genres, recording venue ambience, recording styles etc..
Instead, I think there are optimum system for a specific case. And that the optimum can vary significantly from case to case.
- Elias
Of course I agree that lateral reflections add spaciousness. The point is that if they are too early they ruin imaging. You apparantly do not know or don't listen to what I profess.
I think it equally naive to think that tailoring your system to a specific genre and/or your specific taste is going to yield a listenable system in the long run. Unless you have a very limited selection or taste in music. Because inevitably tailoring to one taste/genre will degrade others - it has to if it is "optimum" for that taste/genre. And its not "Hi-Fi" either. The only answer that stands the test of time is optimum in the sense of tansparent delivery of the source to the listener. Any other approach leads to constant "tweaking" which, I believe, then becomes the real interest -not the music.
Ah, I see.
Well, let's say you wanted to cross your wide-range at 600 Hz to a midbass; not unreasonable, right? 344/500 = 68 cm is the wavelength at this frequency. Supposing that 1/4 wavelength (very strict) between centers is the maximum allowable spacing, that gives us 17 cm. If your wide-range was a 3" driver, say about 2" from the center of that to the edge, and 5" from center to edge of baffle for a 6.5" in a separate enclosure, you are right at 7" (17 cm).
Anyway, purely academic I suppose.
Really? What I've heard so far from the spaciousness fans is that it "works" with all recordings. But they also told me that putting a speaker on the floor facing the ceiling would not produce sounds coming from the floor but guess what, sound came from the floor and some other unnatural locations. I even varied angles, same result.
Clearly you are doing something wrong. But what, that I don't know.
But then again:
markus76 said:
Maybe Rudolf has better answer:
Also DBMandrake has the wisdom:
DBMandrake said:
Last edited:
rather apparently You don't read what Markus writes:
Do You really agree with Him?
people tell You that You shouldn't hear sound coming from the floor and virtually nobody who tested it report such thing, sceptical Rudolf included - yet You alone hear it - perhaps it's time to consult Your doctor?
but which plot are You talking about?
You have commented the horizontal response plot:
and Markus referred to the vertical plot:
in case of the vertical it was very hard to notice anything because it was very unclear
but what's the use of such reflector as Markus has proposed? flooder doesn't need it and if one wants to make an omni at ear height with such reflector then it brings back the problem of floor reflection
so the question is - who needs it? who else except Markus? of course Markus needs it because He believes in a sound of a flooder coming from the floorwhich is obviously not the case as reported by growing number of diyaudio users who tested it
Both - for their overall uniformity (..particularly with respect to higher freq.s (which is unusual given the large single full-range driver)).
What's tough to understand about the two vertical plots?
The "use" or purpose of the reflector is uniform coverage at various angles. The result is greater linearity, substantially so over the same driver without such a reflector.
Who said floor reflections are a problem (or are a problem that can't be compensated for)?
Who would "need" it? Someone who values greater linearity (once it's compensated/eq'd).
Last edited:
Umm..
..WHY might early lateral reflections add to spaciousness?
..WHAT is "to early" in a lateral reflection?
..HOW is imaging "ruined" by a lateral reflection?
As for naivete - the result is always going to be an art (even if the means to get to that point are a science). A directive system at higher freq.s like you produce has it's own favorable AND detrimental results. It's every bit as much "tailoring" the sound as a variety of other designs.
I admire your demagogic skills
- how you try to make me your witness. I surely wrote that I had to turn the treble volume to the max in order to raise the highs from the floor. That resulted in some screaching sound level for those elevated highs.
I meant the original one and not to understand - to read
How can You compensate for floor reflection as a localisation cue of the loudspeaker as a real sound source separate from virtual sound source?
So what are you doing right? Is there any specific design that should definitely enable me to perceive "it"? I really would like to.
I thought it was pretty easy to read.. but of course, that's me.
I don't think, nor have experienced, floor reflections as a localization cue of the loudspeaker. Now bounded diffraction at mid freq.s can sometimes do this - but even then (in my experience) this is rare. The obvious solution there is just to lift the loudspeaker off the floor. (..though you'll also loose some midbass support and compression doing so.)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.