Could we use this for a simpel baffle that sends more energy to the lateral wall and less energy to ceiling, floor and contralateral wall?
why not omni? what sort of omni? true spherical or horizontally "omni"?
something roughly similar to LEV can come from it but neither ASW nor the same kind of spaciousness that reflections from wider angles in front can produce (lowering the IACC)
what makes You think so? Do You seriously think that Toole is unfamiliar with LEDE arrangement? 😕
An omni speaker like MBL will never yield an accurate image unless the room is almost anechoic. It creates a myriad of early and late arriving specular reflections. A speaker like that is for outdoor IMO.
I'm not interested in spaciousness that comes as a cost on areas like localization, tonality, intelligibility and clarity. I want a precise and accurate image as well. Others might want something else.
I haven't seen Toole describe that he did. Part of the researches were done in an anechoic chamber. The other in rooms I'm not certain how were treated. Harman Int. favors however absorption on both front wall and back wall, which is something very different then LEDE with either surgical absorption or redirection (splaying walls/ceiling) which makes the room much mor lively. Harman Int. reference room is a very dead sounding room for two channels and probably works better for multichannels.
We should also rememember that the studies were not very conlusive whether sidewall reflections were preferred or not. It was dependent on the music material.
I'm not interested in spaciousness that comes as a cost on areas like localization, tonality, intelligibility and clarity. I want a precise and accurate image as well. Others might want something else.
I haven't seen Toole describe that he did. Part of the researches were done in an anechoic chamber. The other in rooms I'm not certain how were treated. Harman Int. favors however absorption on both front wall and back wall, which is something very different then LEDE with either surgical absorption or redirection (splaying walls/ceiling) which makes the room much mor lively. Harman Int. reference room is a very dead sounding room for two channels and probably works better for multichannels.
We should also rememember that the studies were not very conlusive whether sidewall reflections were preferred or not. It was dependent on the music material.
others? what others? David Moulton? Soren Bech? Floyd Toole?
for my part I am interested in both - spaciousness and the rest - and I can have it and (surprisingly?) what I do in order to get it doesn't contradict recommendations that follow from studies done or referred to by Toole, Bech and others
please do not suggest that I like lousy, distorted sound ok? This is rude, especially on a forum like this.
ps. I am not fond of a spherical omni concept like MBL though
Last edited:
That would somehow defeat the purpose of an omni 🙂
I agree. I've never heard a speaker that could do all of that while adding a pleasant amount of spaciousness on top of it. Saturnus reported that different D/R ratios were preferred for different types of signals. Sorry, but I don't have the luxury to swap speakers just because I changed the recording.
So what is needed is an adjustable configuration that can cover a wide range of use cases.
The more illustrious proponents of "added room interaction" are also known for their preference for a particular style of music: classical music. Added spaciousness will help that genre but it's only a fraction of all possible genres and use cases in sound reproduction.
I see no issues with the midrange since they already are limited in the same way in the Synergy horn (offset from center), but I need to think a little about blending the HF seamlessly with the floor (i.e. feeding it to the apex of the horn). Drivers without much surround would be best. If worst comes to worst, you could use a big piece of wood (door) on the ground so that you have some overlap at the back for driver mounting.
This wkend I might measure one of my 3" drivers slot mounted on the bottom corner of a rectangle, propped against the wall/floor, to see if it matches the prediction from a larger horn away from boundaries.
This wkend I might measure one of my 3" drivers slot mounted on the bottom corner of a rectangle, propped against the wall/floor, to see if it matches the prediction from a larger horn away from boundaries.
It's just as much related to the room as to the speakers. Like mentioned earlier, lateral arriving diffusion from behind can together with a reflection free zone in the front give you both. Not many have the luxury of treating the room this way though.
Then you've never heard "real" spaciousness. Those reflections from the back are way too low in level to add any spaciousness. They probably add some envelopment but no spaciousness.
P.S. My setup is as you've described.
actually no special room treating is required really to achieve this end, all one needs are corner speakers and appriopriate choice of the stereo triangle geometry
This is a wierd statement and does not refer to anything specific.
My goal is not neccessarily to add more room interaction (what ever that means) than a normal speaker would have, but to present the sound to the listener in a different manner than in a conventional stereo triangle by using the side walls as 'direct sound'.
My method is by no means limited to classical music. I think deep house and lounge, for example, sounds much better with SSS than with stereo triangle.
High frequency interaural cross talk is a bitch.
- Elias
neither is my goal with a flooder to have earlier and stronger early reflections than in case of conventional speakers, rather I am after a specific better pattern of those early reflections
of course it is not
Linkwitz, Bech and Toole. Toole probably not so much when someone takes the time to really read his book and recommendations regarding speaker directivity and room treatments.
Is this specific enough?
Everybody has his preference 🙂 Did you also try a real mono-omni? You might like it as well.
And again, just because it works for you with your limited selection of genres, it doesn't mean such an approach works for everybody and all types of recordings.
Last edited:
It definetly adds the feeling of spaciousness or a bigger sounding room. That's part of how diffusion works. The level would normally be in the area from -7 to -15 dB to the the direct signal, dependent on the placement and type of diffusors.
I don't see any reason to discuss how this type of spaciousness compares to a spaciousness that colores the recorded signal. I'm personally not interested in that. My point is that one can have something of both worlds. I don't think Toole ever conducted his researches this way.
You may be not interested but please don't write about "a spaciousness that colores the recorded signal" - this is just offensive
I don't like "colored sound", in fact I am quite obsessive with neutrality, things like "ruler flat" response
And my point is that you can't have both. Sorry if that is against your beliefs.
Do a simple experiment: place two speakers at ±60° next to your stereo speakers and run a delayed version of L and R through them. THAT is spaciousness.
Here's another example of how "spaciousness" sounds: What is "Spaciousness"?
Where can we learn about music tastes of Bech and Toole ?
Regarding Toole and preference for early reflections in his listener tests, how would it possibly be that the test participants would only like classical music. If all the other genres would suffer from early reflections 😉 Do we really know what recordings were used in his tests ?
I know I don't like mono. On the other hand you might like since you already have mono bass 😀
How can you tell, especially since you did not try it, with the filter treatment 😉
By reading more.
Yes, read Olive.
I don't like mono either and I don't have mono bass. It's not the frequencies <80Hz that determine the direction of a bass instrument but higher frequency cues.
Of course, if I would have used your filter (by the way I did filter the signal in my tests with no success) then I would've instantly turned into a convert. No thanks. The same was promised with the Beolab 5 and it didn't happen. It was promised with the Stereolith (by the way, I ordered the Stereolith to listen to it and the guy who sung its praise had actually never heard it!) and it didn't happen. It was promised with a "flodder" (by the way, same guy that praised the Stereolith) and it didn't happen. It was promised with a diffusor and it didn't happen. There is no magic speaker, no does-it-all-solution, there's also no conspiracy of the industry and there's also no value in bashing conventional concepts. The truth is in the reflection pattern. Rant over.
Last edited:
correct!
it is actually quite funny how Markus is so right being so very wrong at the same time 😛
- Status
- Not open for further replies.