OK thanks for that, Cowan. Your description is discernible. The system sounding bright part, I was not expecting but the room sounding dark makes sense....it sounds like your brain is contrasting the difference between the rooms energy and direct energy and pushing the perception of each in opposite directions....
Perception is a funny thing isn't it. Ours are like our eyes in the sense that they will, over time, adjust, and a new norm can be formed. Listen to an overly bassy system for about a month and then insert the perfectly flat voiced system and it will sound thin and fragile. Listen to a sub par bass system for enough time for its performance to be anticipated and a flat one will sound overtly full in comparison. So a lot of our perception is concluded on what we are used to in the first place.
Speaker voicing does not have to be super flat and linear for one to mix or master on, and great results can still be had, so they say. I for one believe that very close to neutral and very linear response is best for these tasks but I also understand that with time a person can learn a "colored" system and make eq choices that end up in intended results abroad, simply because after a while of working on the system you learn how the speakers translate..
So now we have this issue with wide and narrow polar and how it affects our perception. I've heard the lack of room energy will cause these bands to appear thin and I will over compensate.....Cowan just explained that in his experience, the system sounded contrarily bright, and he could tell the room sounded like something was missing, dark reffering to a lack of HF reflection I assume....I think Joseph might of told me the first comment.....
So no different than Mitchas vs Kevins testimony I have 2 valid opinions that are complete opposite😱.....yet...I am supposed to believe who ever posts last lol
Last edited:
Reflection free zone? never heard of it but from what I googled I think I understand it.
Reffering back to Cowans post, it sure would help to know if the system was actually voiced flat or with a tilted eq boost of 6db on the HF side.
Last edited:
Spock is my favorite character off of star trek, but you are probably reffering to Dr Spock as in the writer of "The common sense book of baby and child care" lol! The barbque....hmm... I think you are saying thats how the speakers will sound..like they are playing outside sort of...
Last edited:
Yes Reflection Free Zone. Ok if you had heard one i could have shared an impression about narrow directivity system i've heard.
When you come into a control room designed around that principle there is an audible effect the closer you go to the sweetspot where the room seems to disapear or at least 'sound' different of what you see.
With narrow directivity i felt same thing but rather to be on a scale of 1m approx it was on the order of 10cm (4").
That said as a tool you could accept this and live with it.
Could you prototype something downscaled and cheap to see how it works for you?
When you come into a control room designed around that principle there is an audible effect the closer you go to the sweetspot where the room seems to disapear or at least 'sound' different of what you see.
With narrow directivity i felt same thing but rather to be on a scale of 1m approx it was on the order of 10cm (4").
That said as a tool you could accept this and live with it.
Could you prototype something downscaled and cheap to see how it works for you?
Sir Allen
kind of like all season tires...shitty performance....all season? Lol ok seriously, full range drivers tend to beam in the HF....um the highs are often a little dull, or maybe lacking because a lot of them barely make it all the way up the HF band. I haven't audition'd any hifi full rangers, most full range I see are the common bluetooth or something convenient that may not apply to this analogy.
Sir Krivi
I think 4" vs 1 meter was probably the difference in sweet spot size? That makes me think of the mtm system with the AMT tweeter. It wasn't 2 inches.... but we'll say in the order of several inches...yes...the hf was gone and it sounded muffled. Thats exactly what I expect from the beaming horns....I've had this notion from the first time I said, I don't care about beaming.
kind of like all season tires...shitty performance....all season? Lol ok seriously, full range drivers tend to beam in the HF....um the highs are often a little dull, or maybe lacking because a lot of them barely make it all the way up the HF band. I haven't audition'd any hifi full rangers, most full range I see are the common bluetooth or something convenient that may not apply to this analogy.
Sir Krivi
I think 4" vs 1 meter was probably the difference in sweet spot size? That makes me think of the mtm system with the AMT tweeter. It wasn't 2 inches.... but we'll say in the order of several inches...yes...the hf was gone and it sounded muffled. Thats exactly what I expect from the beaming horns....I've had this notion from the first time I said, I don't care about beaming.
- exactly, I've been saying this for the longest time now lol. Just like I said, I want to build a separate set of horns for home theater and one for studio, the beaming horns for studio and one with a wide polar for theater. Krivi you describe it as, not nearly as, detrimental, as some of the others. You even compared it to how it sounds within a room designed around professionally critical acoustical performance, in the sweet spot....are you trying to sell me or discourage me lol! Cause right now you are selling me lol.
Last edited:
Sort of, again. Several independent factors at play. The highs are there (and it's assumed that EQ and position have been resolved). Even then it should give a different result to a dome.
Not sure its necessary for anyone to sell you something. You may be talking to people whos expectations are based on experience and not on words. Furthermore, some ideas it may be unwise to sell, if they are situation dependent or personal preference, just for example even though they may be a great thing. You may have missed some opportunities because you didn't buy the pitch?
Last edited:
Well, in the end, I appreciate the criticism, its what I am here for right? Krivium, who has experience in the studio, so understands my objectives with the monitors, and has experience with narrow polar systems, he didn't seem to think that there was going to be some kind of negative importation on the critical listening side of the coin other wise he would of brought to light right? Maybe its a matter of critical listening vs casual listening?
Spending a few moments reading the off axis response and correlating how many dB down at what frequency gives a clue as to what happens when one moves their head inches off axis at a distance. Then you purchase the horn...
There is considerable scientific research from Dr. Toole and Olive that shows repeatable subjective listener preference for a loudspeaker with smooth on and off axis response. i.e. constant directivity. I am in agreement with this research and mirrors my own experience.
Regardless of how narrow directvitiy the horn is, the room is going to have an impact as one hears a combination of direct sound, early reflections and later reflections. My home listening room is a RFZ with early reflections -15 dB down from the direct sound over the first 40ms of sound travel in the the room. But the room still contributes to the overall sound even with my 90 x 50 CD waveguide XO'd a 630 Hz.
A horn with frequency dependent directivity is going to contribute different levels of room sound and will sound "colored" This is in addition to moving ones head off axis by inches and hearing a different tonal response due to the frequency dependant polar response. One cannot eq directvity to fix it. Here is an example polar response comparison to illustrate:
Good luck and I will be interested to hear your feedback regardless of what you choose.
There is considerable scientific research from Dr. Toole and Olive that shows repeatable subjective listener preference for a loudspeaker with smooth on and off axis response. i.e. constant directivity. I am in agreement with this research and mirrors my own experience.
Regardless of how narrow directvitiy the horn is, the room is going to have an impact as one hears a combination of direct sound, early reflections and later reflections. My home listening room is a RFZ with early reflections -15 dB down from the direct sound over the first 40ms of sound travel in the the room. But the room still contributes to the overall sound even with my 90 x 50 CD waveguide XO'd a 630 Hz.
A horn with frequency dependent directivity is going to contribute different levels of room sound and will sound "colored" This is in addition to moving ones head off axis by inches and hearing a different tonal response due to the frequency dependant polar response. One cannot eq directvity to fix it. Here is an example polar response comparison to illustrate:
Good luck and I will be interested to hear your feedback regardless of what you choose.
Attachments
Well i've already commented that i dislike the 'head in a vise' ( in horizontal plan. I find it less problematic in vertical plan) situation which come with narrow directivity earlier in the thread.
If it was my project i would not want to go that route because i find it distracting and to bring stress (i need to watch about my body not to move) and fatigue ( constantly reevaluate the message for possible change relative to your position).
All this coupled to the stress of session works is not confortable to me.
Kind of ergonomical issue.
About sound quality i found that yes it can brings benefits if you are looking to keep the room out of equation but it won't change the fact that the room will need to be 'tailored' to loudspeakers ( iow you'll need acoustic treatments) and it won't be easier than with a different solution which could be more 'ergonomical'...
From a distant point of view here is what i think you might face: the design choice you made will probably sound different to whatever i have heard and i'm sure to have most important frequency covered from schroeder freq to highest freq on a kind of point source will be different to most rendering. It'll have compromise and one of it will be beaming. You may have to discover which kind of (acoustic) treatment and where to position them by yourself and it could be not conventional approach (you may need to diffuse more than typical room).
As long as you accept it... and keep a second plan just in case this don't suit you.
My experience is interesting but as not much value than anyone else. I know what i like and dislike and through the 10years i spent read things here i learned i have 'plain vanilla' preference and i am average Bob regarding what are these preference: smooth power transfer and no lobe, and i like point source behavior and i need to be relaxed and focused to be into music...
Last edited:
Mitcha I can't thank you enough for your contributions. Of course I will report back.
If I could ask one question of your statement..."colored" could you elaborate on "colored" before the court? We are all well verse enough to discern between too much 250hz or not enough 13khz...and what neutral sorta sounds like lol.
Last edited:
Smooth power transfer - can you elaborate on this?
I already attempt to center myself in the sweet spot for my current system, should be a smooth transition lol. 1" dome tweeters beam too right? I am sort of lost on context like do you guys think I am working on the the super beam horn or do you feel the same way about a common jmlc 350 as well?
The goal of these horns are to judge spl/freq....horns are supposed to be amazing at this, lets get as much bandwidth in the horn, suffer for the greater good.
Last edited:
Power transfer: the same kind of plots than the second polar map on latest Mitchba's post (something from the constant directivity camp).
More or less what Earl Geddes avocate for in the different papers i've read. To be honest i think a bit of beaming in the highest frquency range seems to not bother me this much and so i think Dave Smith's comment in the article i linked previously sums it up to me.
In Earl Geddes works there is polar maps example of typical 2 or three ways with the 'waistbending' effect clearly apparent. The narrow directivity system i've heard had that kind of issue.
It was obvious to me as i face same problem with my own 3 ways (despite being cone drivers and so 'wide dispersion') and it give a weird response to the room ( reverb even if it doesn't really exist in the room).
About my warning about beaming is that it'll happen at lower freq than more conventional approach well into the critical range. I don't know what it'll sound like.
There might be some balance issues ( with the room) as you'll radiate on small area high energy. How will the room react/ what'll be the outcome?
But maybe it doesn't make sense i don't know. I haven't lived with the system i've heard so my feelings/impressions could be wrong.
You've probably missed the specific objectives camplo set out previously. His room is also different from the average home listening environment.
"Only simultaneous coexistence of different systems make a healthy society."
It was flat balanced by measurement on axis. The different balance coming back from the sparsely treated though very large room was obvious and unpleasant.
OK power transfer, I see now. Even with beaming in the highs you still want a smooth power transfer into the lows. "Smooth"....a tilted line is still move btw. The off and on axis response of the long horns are smootherrrrr than the constant directivity horns...if we ignore the ever fading HF lol!!!