I have done that with my earlier dipole speakers. Significant altering of modes will only start if you rotate the dipole at least ~45° against the mode axis. You don't want to switch off single modes, but probably want to attenuate one mode and raise another mode at the same time. Inevitably that led me to a 45° toe-in of the LF dipoles - every time. And it did change the direct sound significantly!
At 45° an ideal dipole should be 3 dB attenuated compared to 0°. If you keep the mid/high part of the dipole at 0°, you have a matching problem. JohnK discussed that at Power matching
Again the easiest way to solve it is to rotate the mid/high part of the dipole too - which has some advantages in itself. In the end I never had a convincing reason to rotate the dipole LF part independently from the upper part.
Rudolf
I've also done few tests with dipole rotation in the past, and my experience is somehow similar to yours. While rotation can help, why not, in the few cases I tried it the optimum rotation was, be surprised or not, almost the same as the direction of the main speakers i.e. aimed to the listening area.
So at the end it became feasible to just have a fixed panel.
- Elias
I made it with Octave, how else
- Elias
There are lots of ways to do this. I did it in FORTRAN more than 30 years ago and more recently a much bigger model in MathCAD. Octave is hardly the only choice.
Are the actual impulse responses posted somewhere. I'd like to see what they look like.
Here's the FFT frequency responses of the same impulse responses as before.
This is what you base your opinion upon that dipoles sound better than monopoles? Those responses are both really, really bad. Put a sub directly behind your listening position at shoulder height and get a frame of reference what good low frequency reproduction sounds like.
And some prefer to hear music the way that it was recorded - you know "Hi-Fi"!
That's why I am going to add some book shelves instead of curtains. Too many curtains for a living room, they cover memory foam mattress toppers on walls.
I would not explain differences of sound of monopoles and dipoles in the room by different frequency response. Dipoles rather somehow blend reverberation of rooms with reverberation reproduced by stereo speakers making kind of more realistic soundstage. But more realistic does not mean closer to real soundstage that was recorded.
This is what you base your opinion upon that dipoles sound better than monopoles? Those responses are both really, really bad. Put a sub directly behind your listening position at shoulder height and get a frame of reference what good low frequency reproduction sounds like.
That was just to show that in an irrelevant metrics they can look whatever they do. Steady state unwindowed FFT frequency response does not correspond how we perceive music signals which are constructed of temporal modulations.
- Elias
Are the actual impulse responses posted somewhere. I'd like to see what they look like.
What is there to see. Humans do not perceive impulse responses.
That was just to show that in an irrelevant metrics they can look whatever they do. Steady state unwindowed FFT frequency response does not correspond how we perceive music signals which are constructed of temporal modulations.
- Elias
If the magnitude response would be flatter then there wouldn't be as many time problems either. Magnitude response is not irrelevant, it's intimately connected to the time domain.
Nobody has said that problems in the time domain are inaudible. Up to this point all you're showing is a very bad monopole response and a very bad dipole response - caught between a rock and a hard place.
Last edited:
What is there to see. Humans do not perceive impulse responses.
Err, your wavelet analysis is based on impulse responses, no?
Seems that this thread is dying once again without reaching any conclusions about the best among : sealed vs cardioid vs dipole, for optimum realistic bass reproduction in acoustically large rooms.
I guess we have to wait for John K to carry out his independent comparisons using Elias's software and methods.
I guess we have to wait for John K to carry out his independent comparisons using Elias's software and methods.
I like to hear fanfares through my line arrays in walls, woofers in concrete boxes on the floor, and subwoofer in concrete horn under the floor. They sound very real.
I made them, damped major room resonances, and allowed cheap digital Audyssey to do the rest.
Your system sure sounds impressive ...do you mind posting some pictures to inspire others
How did you solve comb filtering issues with arrays.
If you are waiting for a conclusion that everyone agrees to, that is never going to happen.
I have reached my conclusion. I posted it awhile back. Not what anyone wanted to hear, but hey, I not here for fanfare.
I knew there would be no conclusion based on subjective criteria, but I was hoping a conclusion based on measured objective graphs. But then there is even disagreement on measuring methods
Here's the conclusion. At least in my opinion. Treat modal issues if you want great bass response. Anything else will not get you there.
Either you treat or even better you prevent modal issues to the extent possible....by using directional radiation, aka dipole pattern
As always, prevention is better than cure
How did you solve comb filtering issues with arrays.
Easy: I left theoretical issues to theoreticians.
Real life is very different from simplified models, believe me or not.
As always, prevention is better than cure
Yeah, like in "Back to the future" movie.
Either you treat or even better you prevent modal issues to the extent possible....by using directional radiation, aka dipole pattern
As always, prevention is better than cure
Please, show the data that proves that dipoles generally "prevent modal issues".
There's probably one specific configuration where such a claim is actually true but I've never seen it presented in a conclusive manner. So far I've only seen people posting their beliefs but no conclusive facts.
No. You don't avoid or prevent modal problems with dipoles. You have less output at the lowest frequencies.Either you treat or even better you prevent modal issues to the extent possible....by using directional radiation, aka dipole pattern
As always, prevention is better than cure
Show me an untreated small room with dipoles and short decay with no ringing and resonances. They don't exist.
There are very few benefits in a small room with directional bass IMO. In concert arenas however cardioid subs have been used for many years with success.
No. You don't avoid or prevent modal problems with dipoles. You have less output at the lowest frequencies.
Agreed.
Show me an untreated small room with dipoles and short decay with no ringing and resonances. They don't exist.
I'm pretty confident that I will be able to show something pretty close soon
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- General Interest
- Room Acoustics & Mods
- Measured monopole and dipole room responses