Room modes: absortion, bass traps, Eq, speaker position... what really works? - 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 13th February 2013, 08:34 AM   #51
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
No it doesn't. No data means you are guessing and completely at the mercy of your biases.
talking of data, can we see some impulse responses from the multi-sub proponents?
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2013, 08:48 AM   #52
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
talking of data, can we see some impulse responses from the multi-sub proponents?
Obviously the nature of the problem still isn't well understood.
What would a impulse response tell you? It wouldn't tell me much. Here's a good read:
Bass Integration Guide – Part 1
http://www.hifizine.com/2011/09/bass...-guide-part-2/
http://www.hifizine.com/2012/06/bass...-guide-part-3/

Anything that flattens frequency response and reduces modal ringing is helpful, passive/active damping and EQ. They are not mutually exclusive.

Here's some time domain data:
Comparison of different near field and far field subwoofer configurations
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2013, 10:04 AM   #53
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Yeah thanks, but nothing new there. One data is missing on your paper (nice BTW!). The far field response of two dipoles vs the two monopoles, although I agree near field is usually better.

Who said something is exlusive? It's a package I think we all agree on that.

Another important point is missing, the group delay formed by the crossover and enclosure type. Alhough it does comes through a little bit in your own mesurements if you look carefully.
And directivity, of course, if the room is large..
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2013, 10:25 AM   #54
45 is offline 45  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
There is nothing wrong with personal bias and anyway this is a very minor thing in comparison to improper use of acoustics. No measurement can tell what one is going to listen. A microphone is badly "biased" because dosen't work like the brain for which the superposition principle doesn't stand and invariance does not exist to correlate frenquency and time domains. Acoustics, as a branch of physics, cannot deal with musical sounds simply because the musical sound and the physical sound are into different leagues. The latter only exists in an invariant world where laws are always the same; the former doesn't because there is someone associating an emotional state and a meaning to the sound. Physics cannot describe emotions and has never prentended to do so.....
This doesn't mean that acoustics is useless and there is no systematic way of dealing with musical sounds. It just means that acoustics can only give general indications and the final and only language and rules to deal with musical sounds are the same that have always been used for creating and playing music in the associated places. The only reliable instrument for dealing with music is the brain through the ears.
If one keeps the listener into the chain at all stages then it is not possible to use a microphone and frequency responses to deal with a time domain problem. If one excludes the listener until the very last stage then acoustics can be used but it becomes quite an arbitrary procedure, in fact there are quite several opinions regarding measurements, and one is going to be biased by what the microphone tells.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2013, 10:42 AM   #55
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
Yeah thanks, but nothing new there. One data is missing on your paper (nice BTW!). The far field response of two dipoles vs the two monopoles, although I agree near field is usually better.
I didn't include it because it doesn't add anything new. Here's the data for dual dipoles in the far field:

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

By the way, the near field data is profoundly better than far field regardless of source type (dipole/monopole).

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
YWho said something is exlusive? It's a package I think we all agree on that.
I wish that was true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
YAnother important point is missing, the group delay formed by the crossover and enclosure type. Alhough it does comes through a little bit in your own mesurements if you look carefully.
Then you see more than I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
And directivity, of course, if the room is large..
But the room isn't large. We're talking about acoustically small rooms. Directivity is usually moot below 100Hz unless you're in the near field.

Last edited by markus76; 13th February 2013 at 10:44 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2013, 11:04 AM   #56
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
thank you very much, interestingly the response with dipoles is actually better on EVERY situation.

By large I meant more than 5m for the longuest dimension, that's a fairly common situation, even in Europe. So you can get directivity around 60-100hz, which is a perceptually more important zone than 20hz, in my opinion.. Boxless designs do usually offer less GD variations than anything else, at the cost of efficiency, but as you say you can listen closer and get some back.
I myself would not look back, I use dipoles with LF treatment (need some more) and EQ.
  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
Simulating bass response with duct and speaker position ashok Multi-Way 15 17th August 2012 10:37 PM
Calling BudP - enabl vs room modes just a guy Full Range 14 26th August 2009 11:57 AM
Planar bass wave to take care of room modes ?? JinMTVT Subwoofers 12 4th October 2007 05:15 PM
DBA (dual bass arrays) and active bass traps capslock Subwoofers 3 20th August 2006 12:52 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:03 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