Exactly... there isn't a right or wrong here. Just a preference. Sometimes it's related to the possibilities in the listening room. I bet not all wives would allow to have arrays like mine in their room. My girl didn't allow me to have a horn setup or to drag the speakers out into room, free from the wall. We all have our own compromises to deal with.
The thing we can do, better than a store bought solution, is to customise our speaker for our particular listening space. Optimize the two of them to work together. With whatever preference one might have.
I'd be interested to see what a FIR filter could do for that ~2 meters measurement. That one shows a nice clear ridge. Even better would be a couple of measurements along (the front of) the couch and average them to keep time behaviour, but averaging out the room conditions. Then apply the correction, only to that first wave front (using frequency dependant windowing).
I think there's merit to using a windowed FR, in case some by-products are getting in from a larger window. It would be interesting to compare the wFR along a few points to see if the room influences it and compare it to the previous larger window pink noise test. I'll do some tests and post the results.
My speaker's step response is also similar to Danlavy due to linear phase crossover. I tried crosstalk buffer (as you know 🙂 ), and it surely removed the comb filter effect, but it did only improve the sense of the sound stage ever slightly.
I'm planning to add extra rear firing tweeters and BLH to expand the sound stage. This would be against a hi-fi concept, because the measured performance of my current setup is as good as it gets. Let's see.
What type of program material do you mostly listen to?
There was another thread (Linkwitz vs others) using a small number of users and a speaker designs but they also included different program material. Floyd Toole also did a similar test using program material [classical, pop, rock, jazz, etc) and preferences. There was a correlation to the speaker preference and program material.
There was another thread (Linkwitz vs others) using a small number of users and a speaker designs but they also included different program material. Floyd Toole also did a similar test using program material [classical, pop, rock, jazz, etc) and preferences. There was a correlation to the speaker preference and program material.
I'm not sure if you are asking the question to Wesayso or me, but I'm also interested in what type of the music Waysayso is listening.
I play mostly everything, chamber, opera, wide variety of contemporary music (Arvo Part to very experimental), Jazz (mostly 50's and 60s), hiphop, pop, electronic, alternative rock, classic rock, Brazilian... I usually do not listen to "Audiophile recordings" unless they are musically very interesting.
In my acoustically controlled room, most of the modern studio recording (after 70's) sounds really good, much better than in the uncontrolled living room. Of course it is, because they're recorded and mixed in the similar environment as mine.
The materials recorded in a hall or stage with small numbers of microphones are the different story, I find they do not sound good in a controlled room. That's why I'm planning to add extra anti-hi-fi speakers for this purpose.
The old recording before 60's is another story. Mono should be played back from mono speakers for sure. Also they do sounds better with vintage speakers. I'm collecting 50's and 60's speakers now for this purpose.
The materials recorded in a hall or stage with small numbers of microphones are the different story, I find they do not sound good in a controlled room. That's why I'm planning to add extra anti-hi-fi speakers for this purpose.
The old recording before 60's is another story. Mono should be played back from mono speakers for sure. Also they do sounds better with vintage speakers. I'm collecting 50's and 60's speakers now for this purpose.
If you're talking about the phase shuffler, that didn't do the best of all the different things I tried.
Care to show an APL plot at your listening position? I'm always curious to see that result.
Sorry, the original question was for you. I should have quoted.
I have noticed, that the faster the "pace" of the music the less preferred the reflections are. So Linkwitz's expensive dipoles heavily favour classical, but seem to loose against an inferior box speaker for rock. Electrostatics known for precision and directivity and expense are not favoured for jazz and loose against a regular box speaker,
I listen to everything except opera and thrash metal. I tend to agree with those observations above. It may be a reason why these preference "upsets" occur.
Last edited:
I only use REW. I uploaded mine to Lansing Heritage last year right after I changed my speakers to the current ones. The measurement is a bit better now, because I changed the software, the waveguide andthe side walls and floor reflection control. Let me find the current one. I'm also curious how they are improved since last year. 🙂
JBL DMS-1 Experience and Measurement
I agree. Usually faster song is recorded drier anyway.
Opera is fun! I didn't like them much before, but I really enjoy them now. 😉
Just try the free APL TDA demo. It will provide a nice visual representation of the timing. A screen grab would work to upload.
So in your controlled acoustics room, how much of the rear tweeter will be heard?
My sandbox Omni is an extreme example of using the room to add reflections. Its why there is no room treatment.
I tested rear firing tweeter only briefly. I don't remember what the level was, but I felt the method itself would be interesting, so I'm planning to add them permanently. I mean they will be switchable depends on the music.
I'm a Mac person. I tried them with Wine, but no success for some reasons. Let me try it again.
APL TDA has numerous problems with security and privileges under Windows7-64 Pro. Trend Micro AV immediately removes it as a "virus" unless its added to the whitelist because its not properly signed. It also needs to run with "adminstrator" privileges.
On a PC, right click on the program and select "run as administrator" otherwise it won't execute. There should be an equivalent "administrator mode" in Mac Wine.
Last edited:
Don,
I have both sets of Linkwitz 'expensive' dipoles a single tweeter Orion and an LX521 (LX521 is actually cheaper in terms of driver cost).
I don't find the 'pace' of music to matter but the recording acoustic does. They work very well for any acoustic music, jazz, or anything with 'space' between the notes. Linkwitz preference is classical so they are likely designed with that in mind. I have some orchestral recordings on test discs and they work well. Some tracks are amazing and highlight the quality of the speaker.
In their current position rock, metal, dance music etc. are a real mixed bag. For example Anthrax sounds wrong, Pantera sounds amazing. Bon Jovi rubbish, Foo Fighters OK. They have sufficient low bass output so it isn't that.
They are more placement sensitive than I first thought. The first room I had the Orions in everything sounded good to me, the room was much bigger and had lots of side wall distance and plenty of space behind the listening position. An ordinary speaker may not have done so well in this space as the front wall was close and the dipole nulls work well to avoid reflections from the TV etc when toed in.
In a smaller room with closer sidewall distance and much less space behind I don't like them as much, which is why I decided to build a full range line array and a synergy horn to see if they work better in this environment. Neither are finished so I still don't know.
I did find that the full range dipole LX521 having a rear tweeter needs some space more so than the Orion with a front tweeter only. Both worked better on Rock music when I placed some foam absorbent sheet on the front wall at the closest point to damp where the dipole null starts to fade. The sound was quite obviously different on a kick drum which went from sounding like it was in a huge room to a more normal presentation. You can see in the (terrible) pictures I toed the speakers in more over time.
Basically I find that the added ambience from extra reflections needs to be carefully managed if your room is not ideal for a dipole. Linkwitz placement recommendations are pretty much spot on, go away from them and you might not like what you get so much.
Attachments
The "spaces" between the notes is what I mean when I say "pace" of the music. If the recording is a fast continuous wall of music there are no spaces.
Couldn't agree more. Recording quality is all over the map. Even for orchestral pieces which everything should have been recorded (mic'd) at the same time its often iffy.
That would be an interesting comparison, as you would have a good basis for comparing the different configurations. Hopefully you'll post results. Have you measured the speaker-room interaction with something like APL TDA or a REW waterfall?
I've been trying a vertical firing tweeter to add ceiling reflection. I already bounce sound off every wall. The path is long enough to push the first reflections out >12ms.
You still have the dipoles, and operate them as dipoles. So do you prefer the added reflections over a more controlled directivity box type speaker ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.