Sorry, Brinkman, but I'm not spinning in circles at all. In fact, I feel very good that there are several possible options I can pursue to get me closer to what I want.
You're the one that keeps bring up things that are of no interest whatsoever to me, like room treatments. I've already made it quite clear that those are not in the cards, so I don't understand why you keep talking about them. Seems like pretty much a waste of time at this point.
If you're not going around in circles at least answer the contributions of those who want to help ........
OK. I have answered some of them. And I appreciate those that are useful.If you're not going around in circles at least answer the contributions of those who want to help ........
Which ones do you think haven't been addressed? Be specific.
ClassicalFan, anyone capable of using the search function can find your own posts where you are adamant that you are so absolutely thrilled with your piccolo loudspeakers and that nothing is possibly wrong with them literally up and until this thread where you seriously have a problem with them.
So take a seat.
I did recommend an MTM loudspeaker by the same designer of your own current pair which until four weeks ago were your flawless reference speakers. They had similar sized drivers, but two of them, so double the Sd.
Until a fews days ago Sd was no longer an issue and now porting your speakers is the solution? Can you point on the thread how you arrived at that conclusion and how your process of coming to that conclusion is at all educational to anyone reading this forum?
can’t recall discussing room treatments, I mean, outside your rejection of them.
So take a seat.
I did recommend an MTM loudspeaker by the same designer of your own current pair which until four weeks ago were your flawless reference speakers. They had similar sized drivers, but two of them, so double the Sd.
Until a fews days ago Sd was no longer an issue and now porting your speakers is the solution? Can you point on the thread how you arrived at that conclusion and how your process of coming to that conclusion is at all educational to anyone reading this forum?
can’t recall discussing room treatments, I mean, outside your rejection of them.
Last edited:
I think I made it quite clear in the initial post that my main interest is in expanding the sound stage. I questioned whether the speakers or the amplifiers were more important and after multiple and useful responses concluded that for me, at least, speakers are the answer. An amplifier upgrade can come later, if needed.
As part of that discussion, I also talked about how happy I am with the Piccolo speakers, particularly with the mid and high range. And I don't retract any of that. I think they sound great in those areas and could not be more pleased.
But as the discussion went on and I listened somewhat more carefully to my current speakers it became apparent to me that Piccolos lack more in the low end then I realized. And that as long as I am considering how to expand the sound stage itself perhaps the low end that is missing with the Piccolos should be addressed as well. So, I have opened up my list of possibilities somewhat wider than continuing to use the Piccolos. I am exploring now many different options. Some including still using the Piccolos as a mid and high solution and some do not. I am open to entirely new speakers and am willing to spend a reasonable amount of money on them if necessary.
You seem to be particularly troubled that I have not heeded your initial advice to add the Kairos woofer module as my solution. It still is on the list, but I am looking at other options as well. I just don't why that troubles you so much. It seems to me that the whole purpose of this forum is to identify for people the various solutions to their needs and desires. If you are offended because I don't immediately take your advice, I don't know how I help you.
P.S. You were very definitely pushing room treatments in several posts, ever after I said I had no interest in them.
I'll expand on this that path length difference through ceiling or wall behind the speakers can easily be double and more of the floor creating dip(s) lower in frequency than the floor bounce. Most of the time, unless speaker is close to sidewall, the floor reflection is the first one that arrives after direct sound, shortest path length difference, highest onset frequency of resulting comb filter.
Cancel/null happens when reflected sound has 1/2 wavelength longer path length than direct sound. If listening and speaker height is ~90cm and listening distance is ~3 meters, the floor bounce is only ~50cm longer than direct sound which would create comb filter whose first dip is around ~340Hz. On the other hand, path length difference with ceiling reflections is almost three times longer with ~2.5m ceiling height, creating dip around ~120Hz. In contrast, wall behind speaker makes ~50cm path length difference already when the speaker(driver) is ~25cm off the wall because it is a round trip towards the listening spot! There are also bounces from opposite sidewall and back wall, both of these would also have longer path length than floor bounce unless ear is at the back wall, which is a round trip again.
So yeah, distances between source, listener and boundaries matter and as demonstrated the floor bounce is at least one of the shortest if not the shortest reflection path making it more mid range problem, or at least all the other first reflection bounces ought to be more into bass region than the floor bounce. Perhaps floor bounce appears more severe if walls and ceiling leak /attenuate more than the concrete slab. If listening distance is < ~1.5m floor bounce gets below 200Hz.
Calculate path length differences at your listening situation and see, I'd claim floor bounce not bass problem but mid problem. Cheers 🙂
Last edited:
Sounds to me that you have phase 1 of the upgrade already defined, which is good. I would suggest that, if that does not satisfy, phase 2 should be to:
1. Re-house the Piccolo's drivers in a case approximately 28.5in high, 13in wide and 8in deep.
2. Internally divided into four units, (each equivalent to a Piccolo lying on its side).
3. Mount a mid/bass driver in each subdivision, and connect them in series/parallel to the crossover..
4. Mount the tweeter wherever seems best, and connect it to the crossover.
Only if that fails to impress, start considering the enormous range of alternative approaches...
The dip was at 150hz. "pseudo-ground plane" - the panels are 3" rockboard 40. Could a stack of these create a ground plane.
There's a lot of frequency change in the measurements and I cant say that I can interpret it completely as other boundary reflections might be altered by the floor panels but the panels would alter the reflection(say from back wall) rather than at the point of incident(the wall). Maybe floor panels are absorbing a little second reflection after wall reflection.
IME, the worst reflections that reduce coherency are between 400 - 2khz, and it appears panels have reduced destructive room gain in that region.
Note - 4-6 panels had reduced the notch to a large degree and 6-9 not a lot of change. so not far off from your claim that 12" is enough.
The room will be treated at the boundaries and a large thick carpet on subfloor. This will greatly improve soundstage coherency.
Attachments
See post #43 for my initial advice, no mention of a woofer module. This is the second time you’ve claimed I’m pushing room treatments which is an ludicrous statement, not only because it’s untrue but because I don’t use any myself.
It’s one thing to ask for help and then ignore it, it’s quite another to deliberately misconstrue advice given in good faith.
Ignored me too, even though removing the zobels will result in a better stage than any of this. Might blow the amp though, of course, so that's probably why. I don't get upset by it. I figure it'll have to be done eventually, and if not it's not me who suffers. ☕
Yeah, you're right. It was someone else that was pushing the room treatments. I apologize for the mix up.
You have delved into the technical aspect that I thought would have been useful, exposing a minimal and simple base for the OP to immerse himself in the subject.
But, he has not bothered to read and try to reason my post 447.
It happened to all of us at the beginning of our adventure in search of the Holy Grail, so let us understand that there are things that are beyond your reach. That's why I tried to be clear with him, but if he doesn't read my post and then claims "specific points", unfortunately there is nothing else I can do on my side. 👎
I'm trying to keep things simple and don't have an interest in delving into things nearly to the depth that some of you do. Nor do I have a desire to "immerse" myself in the subject.
Maybe that won't work, but maybe it will. I don't know for sure, but right now that's my approach. Keep it simple.
Maybe that won't work, but maybe it will. I don't know for sure, but right now that's my approach. Keep it simple.
Short answer - sort of, yes.
Damping material, of a given flow resistivity (which generally correlates with the density, for any given material) is effective for a certain range of frequencies vs its thickness. If the density is too high, only lower frequencies can actually pass through and be attenuated, as higher frequencies will bounce off (whether at the surface or somewhere below the surface, I'm not entirely sure). In other words, you have a maximum effective depth of absorption that is based on the frequency of interest and on the density of the damping.
With Rockboard 40 at 64 kg/m3, its flow resistivity should be somewhere between 15000-20000 Pa*s/m².
Absorption with 4" thickness, no rear gap - trace the red line (19000 Pa*s/m2) to 200 Hz and find coefficient = approx 0.57:
Absorption with 8" thickness, no rear gap - trace the orange line (18000 Pa*s/m2) to 200 Hz and find coefficient = approx 0.65:
Doubling the thickness from 4" to 8" has only improved the absorption coefficient at 200 Hz by 14% [(0.65-0.57)/0.57]. You can see that you are already in the regime of extremely-diminished returns. You can also see that with 8" of damping, the damping material with the highest flow resistivity only starts to outperform the material with the 2nd-highest flow resistivity below the frequency of about 70 Hz! Furthermore, at 200 Hz the material which absorbs most effectively (again, with 8" thickness) is the one with 7000 Pa*s/m2 FR. Less than half of what you're using right now. If you want to use even more thickness, the flow resistivity has to drop even further.
The page is quite informative as to what flow resistivities would be optimal for what depth you want to use effectively.
Last edited:
I think that I have made it pretty clear in several previous post that I have tried moving around the speakers to a variety of locations and have heard no difference in the sound stage or other aspects of sound as a result. In my room and in my listening chair very little, if anything, changes as a function of speaker locations. Now you may not want to believe it, but that is my experience. And since I have already discussed that result, I feel no obligation to respond to new posts that keep pushing the same point. So, your comments on my lack of response to things that I have already dismissed as not important to me are uncalled for.
@classicalfan
I feel that the above query deserves a response. "Keeping it simple" does not give us much of a clue...
I do not see that there is anything out of place, on the contrary, responding to posts in a forum, even with a simple "thank you" speaks of the quality of people we are. And I don't remember reading that you've experimented with the sweet spot, nor have you answered if it's a dedicated room (obviously it isn't, and you have to share that environment for other purposes), I now understand why you can't hear some of the sound stage. Have a good result in your search, bye.
No, you don't understand.
I have posted numerous times that I have experimented with moving the speakers around to try to increase the size of the sound stage. And it's not that there isn't any sound stage at all. There is a very definite and enjoyable one. I would just like it to bigger, wider, and deeper. However, it doesn't seem to change very much, if any, regardless of where the speakers are placed. How many times do I have to keep repeat saying that before you understand it?
Also, for your information I do have a dedicated listening room just for my listening purposes. I've never indicated that it is shared for any other purpose. That's just your assumption.
So, when people repeatedly post suggestions that I should add room treatments, adjust my listening position, and move the speakers around, it's apparent that they either have not read my previous posts or have read them and choose to ignore them. In either case I feel no responsibility to spend my time responding to posts that ignore my previous comments on the subject.
Bye.