Controlled vs wide dispersion in a normal living room environment.. - Page 6 - 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 September 2012, 07:21 PM   #51
graaf is offline graaf  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
graaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keriwena View Post
And when you learn more about the physiology and psychology of hearing, perhaps you'll better understand why we don't all share the same perception of a single thing. I remember an article by a Japanese luthier ... a vocoder ...
I beg Your pardon - what´s the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keriwena View Post
When I suggest that people hear things differently, and different things please them, it's not just something I read somewhere.
so You did scientific research?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keriwena View Post
that's not at all what I said. You may want to reconsider your understanding of Toole's work. You are quite adamant on several points, but as I recall, Toole tempered his conclusions with many modifiers.
then what did You say? Can You clarify please? What modifiers? We discuss stereo speakers, right?
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2012, 09:48 PM   #52
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Harman International Reference Listening Room
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/0...-listener.html
__________________
It's not what you don't know that causes trouble. It's what you do know that just ain't so..Mark Twain

Last edited by Remlab; 16th September 2012 at 10:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2012, 11:34 PM   #53
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Graaf
Floyd's room(He is obviously not an audiophile.)
Advice From an Audio Insider | Home Theater
Could you imagine what 2 channel, wide dispersion playback would sound like in this room? This is exactly what I'm referring to as " a normal living room." Are you telling me that a narrow dispersion 2 channel speaker would actually sound worse than a wide dispersion 2 channel speaker in this setup? Surely you must be joking..
__________________
It's not what you don't know that causes trouble. It's what you do know that just ain't so..Mark Twain

Last edited by Remlab; 17th September 2012 at 12:02 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2012, 11:54 PM   #54
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in half space
What I actually said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keriwena View Post
I know it may seem I'm being a bit contrary here, but despite all the theory, studies and blind tests, etc., I think to a great degree it's just a matter of personal preference.
It's not my personal preferences I'm addressing, but the listeners.

My point, and I do have several, is this:

Since the advent of multi-track recording (thank you, Les Paul!) and electric/electronic instruments dominating popular music, there is no longer a "reality" to be achieved. While in a gross sense, we don't want speakers that make Beyonce sound like Lois Armstrong, the finer points like the space around the drums and the tone of the guitar can only be imagined. Thus, their "proper" rendition becomes a matter of personal preference.

While agreement on these preferences is possible, it will be influenced by the similarity of the perceptions of the listeners. For some people, flat response is a prerequisite, and any deviation from this is intolerable. Others are more impressed by dynamic range, and will gladly suffer response curve anomalies in the search for a lack of compression. Yet another group prizes freedom from distortion. A system which delivers all of these attributes will be lauded by all, but the reality is that speakers are a compromise, and the choices of compromise will define the perception of the speaker's quality based on preferences of the listeners.

To suggest, as you have done:
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
newbies - don't be misguided!

it is just Remlab's subjective opinion based on some unfortunate bad experience

from extensive research which Floyd Toole summarizes in his book "Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms" (2008) it follows that sidewall treatment is exactly the last thing desirable in a stereo setup

most informed people agree that we need side reflections in room for a stereo recording to sound satisfactorily - realistically
that a person's personal preferences are wrong because they contradict your interpretation of an author's conclusions is...

well, rude, to say the least.


BTW, Floyd's actual statement:
Quote:
In conclusion, it seems that the basic audible effects of early reflections in recordings are well preserved in the reflective sound fields of ordinary rooms. There is no requirement to absorb first reflections to allow recorded reflections to be heard.
does not imply there's something wrong with absorbing first reflections, he merely claims it's not necessary. Seems to me you've made an incredible leap of faith to decree that room reflections are required. And yes, the religious analogy is intentional. You seem to be elevating Dr. Toole to some god-like status. He's merely the first, perhaps, to assemble a body of data, and historically may prove to be as wrong as....

oh, never mind, I'm not going to start a religious war, here. Suffice to say there was another "Dr. T" who oversimplified things and claimed the glory while others, often unnamed, spent decades sorting out his mess.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 12:49 AM   #55
kevinh is offline kevinh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
The Geddes presentation on the acoustics of small rooms at the link speaks to the issues here.

Papers
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 01:51 AM   #56
CLS is offline CLS  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Taiwan
One can always mix different types of speaker into one system. Just take the characters as the building blocks.

Click the image to open in full size.

Overall a 3-ch linear matrix:

Central channel: DML panel above 80(or 100)Hz, nearly omni itself but very close to the wall, thus half space eventually. Dipole bass, also near wall, so the rear lobe becomes sort of side firing.

Side channels: Dipole mid-array for (200~3kHz), flooder tweeter (omni above 3kHz), dipole bass.

The room is very reflective. Acoustical treatment is almost non-existent.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 03:20 AM   #57
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLS View Post
One can always mix different types of speaker into one system. Just take the characters as the building blocks.

Click the image to open in full size.

The room is very reflective. Acoustical treatment is almost non-existent.
I agree. It looks extremely reflective, heh. Very nice though! Solid birch panels?

As for dispersion angles, especially of tweeters, I absolutely hate it when they are so narrow (like laser beam narrow) as to create a one single stereo sweet spot that if you're not sitting in it, you're not hearing anything good. However, the opposite is also true for me. Too wide blurs it to the point of relative nonexistence. So "pick your dispersion angle poison" and live with who gets to sit where and hear the best quality!

I had an excellent listening room long ago with two two-way (mid/woofer & tweeter) speakers 18 feet apart, hung in each upper corner of the back wall (ie sound wall) firing at an angle inward and downward towards my couch on the opposite wall which was 14 feet away (measured not from each speaker but the room's back wall to my couch wall measured). Ceiling height was about 8 feet I think. Each speaker was around 1.0 cuft, weighed a ton (home made in the 70's), and front ported. Tweeters were horn type, mids were around 6.5" with whizzer cones (haha). I fed them around 200Hz upwards. Then two large woofers (didn't have money for nice subwoofers back then) on my wall with the couch, 18 feet apart but firing directly at me from each corner along the back wall. They got the lower signals from a second amplifier that I piggybacked in a half-*** manner (but it worked!).

To this day, I believe it was the very best setup I've ever experienced. Yes, there is some nostalgia there, like hearing Pink Floyd's DSOTM for the first time (and then 100's of more times after that), but those mid/woofer & tweeter speakers STILL sound wonderful (they just cannot handle as much power anymore). Kraftwerk (Autobahn) with the highs flying between the left and right of the room sounded awesome with the woofers going as low as they could go. Lots of fun back then.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 03:40 AM   #58
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionAudio View Post
As for dispersion angles, especially of tweeters, I absolutely hate it when they are so narrow (like laser beam narrow) as to create a one single stereo sweet spot that if you're not sitting in it, you're not hearing anything good. However, the opposite is also true for me. Too wide blurs it to the point of relative nonexistence. So "pick your dispersion angle poison" and live with who gets to sit where and hear the best quality!
If you can get a constant 90 degree pattern, and then cross-fire, you don't have to pick your poison at least from an imaging perspective.

The only drawback is the other stuff discussed in this thread.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 03:57 AM   #59
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockLeeEV View Post
If you can get a constant 90 degree pattern, and then cross-fire, you don't have to pick your poison at least from an imaging perspective.

The only drawback is the other stuff discussed in this thread.
Agreed.

I am learning as I go along here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 05:06 AM   #60
CLS is offline CLS  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Taiwan
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrecisionAudio View Post
... Very nice though! Solid birch panels?
...
Thanks for the kind words. They are just ready-made cheap pine boards. The ready-made sizes also saved me a lot of cutting (I finally realized a while ago that in this hobby I'm inevitable in the status of 'in the journey', so I think I'd better be lightly packed.)

------

About the setup of large toe-in (cross-fire), it solves some of the problems but can not side step the issue of incorrect pinna cue in HF. There're quite some related psychoacoustics discussions here somewhere, and I'm not an expert, so no further comments.

Nevertheless I'm very happy with this 3-ch setup with wide-spreading HF and central channel, and side channels with narrow dispersion (except HF).
  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
Ultra-wide dispersion drivers? nonsuchpro Multi-Way 30 27th August 2012 11:41 PM
Best horn for 1" throat HF driver with wide dispersion and flat responce? cka3o4nuk Multi-Way 4 13th May 2012 02:30 AM
Wide dispersion speakers using full (wide) range drivers ozziozzi Full Range 1 28th December 2008 06:13 AM
An idea for a wide dispersion ESL jerko Planars & Exotics 25 29th November 2007 02:16 PM
Sub placement to counter wide dispersion? kyrie48 Subwoofers 3 20th September 2007 04:33 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:36 PM.


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