Maybe the biggest hurdle of the tweeter is not what the element is but what is the used concept. There is only one element up-front firing, better would be two side firing.
- Elias
- Elias
Right Elias, but then why are them using only one tweeter after the first models integrally side firing ?
Is it for saving little money? Is it for the sake of a new theory ?
Is it for saving little money? Is it for the sake of a new theory ?
Here they say the original tweeter is audax, and they replaced it with Eton planar.
They complain about the narrow image though.. 🙄
Stéréolith up grade vu par Richard .D
- Elias
They complain about the narrow image though.. 🙄
Stéréolith up grade vu par Richard .D
- Elias
I thought we were discussing the current model?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here's the right midwoofer in 1m distance from 0-90° (4.65ms gate):
Impulse response 90°:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Impulse response 90°:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
as we have been already told by Markus that original Stereolith sucks soundwise anyway I am impatiently awaiting rather much more interesting measurements of more successful Stereosphere plus design details of course, all this in the true spirit of diyaudio forum 🙂
Last edited:
I suppose that green is 0° and red is 90°. For much part of the spectrum red is only 3-4 dB above green 🙁. Considering that red has to travel to the next side wall and back, it is useless WRT imaging anywhere near the 0° axis. I am pretty shure that this kind of "imaging" is not what I would be looking for. But everyone to his own taste, of course.
Rudolf
I several times make the claim that the direct sound is an error and must be eliminated ! Easiest to be done by an absorptive blocker. It enables the imaging. With strong direct sound it's just a sound from the box.
- Elias
- Elias
Can you please elaborate on why "it is useless WRT imaging anywhere near the 0° axis"?
Side wall reflections would come back to the listener too late and too weak compared to the direct response (green line) IMHO. I expect them to be well above the detection threshold, but too far below the second image threshold to move them significantly to the side (Toole fig. 6.16). They wouldn't even make it as "preferred lateral reflections" (Toole fig.7.3).
Feel free to correct me with any Toole reference if I am wrong. You are the one who is sleeping with the book under your pillow. 😉 😀
And of course you are the one who has actually listened.
Rudolf
I think the situation is more complex (and the data is taken from 1m mic distance which is pretty meaningless) and most of the perceptual aspects aren't well understood. Just look at the sheer amount of speculation going on in this thread.
In a side firing setup there's more than one strong reflection but many. They add up - see Toole fig. 6.17 🙂
What is "right" in terms of level and delay is signal dependent. Most psychoacoustic studies looked at single reflections only.
A stereo bipole will always represent a huge compromise but if a large sweet spot and spaciousness is highest priority, the concept is perhaps the best solution.
Last edited:
I agree, but as these attributes (large sweet spot & spaciousness) are major preference factors for the biggest part of the consumers in the world then maybe 90% of all the loudspeaker sold would be utilising this principle, but currently they are not but instead normal stereo speakers so something does not match..
- Elias
Sometimes the man "in the know" will not readily share his wisdom. But he will tell you, where you are in error. By telling you what is NOT the truth, he will finally share his experience nevertheless. 😉 😀
Elias,
sometimes you make me doubt if we both are living on the same planet. 😱
Yesterday I was in a group of eight "audiophiles", who got an introduction to "FIR" filters and their application in a cheap two way system. I was really shocked how much imaging detail is "buried" unheard in a .wav-file, and how it can be resurrected in the stereo triangle by applying radical linearisation to the frequency and phase response.
None of us would even have considered to exchange this crispness, transparency and wealth of detail for the fog of sound, which results from suppressing the direct sound in any two channel application.
Am I really the one who is missing what 90 % of mankind want?
Rudolf
Sorry Very Left Field.....
What about a cbt array Stereolith? In reverse....
Use the wall as the ground plain. I.e half circle / cylinder mounted on the wall with the drivers split L / R at the centre. Shade the drivers from the wall. i.e 0db, -3db , -6db etc as per Don Keeles CBT shading scheme.
I have included a terrible pic to try to explain this.... top view against a wall... hope it helps. This arrangement should provide constant power at all frequencies both left and right. Then it would be a matter of determining what to do with the direct sound or would this been needed?
Optic
What about a cbt array Stereolith? In reverse....
Use the wall as the ground plain. I.e half circle / cylinder mounted on the wall with the drivers split L / R at the centre. Shade the drivers from the wall. i.e 0db, -3db , -6db etc as per Don Keeles CBT shading scheme.
I have included a terrible pic to try to explain this.... top view against a wall... hope it helps. This arrangement should provide constant power at all frequencies both left and right. Then it would be a matter of determining what to do with the direct sound or would this been needed?
Optic
Attachments
No Rudolf, you are not alone. I am actually using a "side firing" setup, but I told already that some well conceived front firing systems can have good imaging with more details. As you said, a part of the success is in the filter design.
But, OTOH, some side firing systems fitted with a lot of CD drivers and symmetric reflecting surfaces can have accurate details with very good imaging.
There is no absolute hierarchy when the appropriate technology is used to compensate the defaults of each formula.
exactly! every system needs careful setup to get optimal results
we all know it is not easy to setup a stereo triangle properly to get best results and that quite often extensive adaptation of listening room is required
the same applies to bipolar stereo, it is no surprise, should it be?
the advantage of properly setup bipolar over properly setup triangular stereo is in the spaciousness and in palpable, robust quality of phantom images including huge wide spot
You can get imaging as precise as in the case of triangular stereo and more, things that conventional triangular stereo cannot give You
and MBL 101 in Beveridge arrangement IS NOT conventional triangular stereo 😀
regards,
graaf