@mabat Considering how well this performs, I'd say you enjoy an increase in DI. If there were a normalized plot we could easily see how comparable this is to the waveguided scenario...oh wait, theres the response above 10khz missing..... You don't need a 15" waveguide to fix above 10khz do you?
well in that case create a "throat" or tiny waveguide on a baffle like this and call it good.
well in that case create a "throat" or tiny waveguide on a baffle like this and call it good.
Last edited:
The magic word is reasonably, yes. Glad that you recognise that. I too find them beamy, but reasonably 🙂
Frankly, I completely dismiss the phrase "well regarded". To me it simply sounds like a fraud (which it often is).
You would have to try really hard to come up with something more beamy...
Last edited:
The proof is in the pudding. I would like to hear more binaural recordings of listening rooms and systems so one can have another practical perspective instead of only theorizing how devices sound.
Of course, I've even shown just that with the Bliesma tweeters. So what's the relevance? I don't see any connection, or how does it justify beaming sound sources.
I was trying to point out that you do in fact, enjoy a level of increased DI over something with a lower DI but still acceptable polar.
I don't see a point. I do enjoy highish DI, but it must be reasonably flat, not just any beaming crap. And I have nothing against lowish DI, again if it's reasonably flat. Both will sound pleasant if done right. What doesn't sound pleasant is any beaming horn (to me).
I see what you are saying and at some point I started talking strictly waveguides with flat DI and comparing higher vs lower DI. I then argued that Higher DI produces more accuracy, in room. Then you told me to go live in my Anechoic cave and be happy....
In your conception, the less reflections, the better clarity/accuracy. I just don't agree with that (at all) - it's not that simple, as the extreme example with the anechoic chamber was meant to show.
Respectfully, how is it even an argument? Accuracy is simply, how much deviation from the signal, is there. The more deviation the less accuracy. How is that debatable?
So you would say, in terms of anechoic system signal, yes.... but in the room.... No....
I say compare electrical signal to resulting room system signal.... you say no...
I say compare electrical signal to resulting room system signal.... you say no...
Subjective Clarity vs Objective Clarity... I think this sounds clear vs this is actually clear....
The fact is, the less decay there is, the more details of the original signal, you can hear.
Room Decay, is no less, a noise floor, masking the signal from the loudspeaker to your ear.
The fact is, the less decay there is, the more details of the original signal, you can hear.
Room Decay, is no less, a noise floor, masking the signal from the loudspeaker to your ear.
Last edited:
You keep repeating still the same thing - that the anechoic chamber would be the best, virtually without decay. No, it wouldn't - it sounds unnatural to have no reflections. We are used to hear reflections, all the time. We know how to deal with them. We are tuned to process reflections.
If you tune the reflections, you can achieve a more natural presentation in a room. No reflections is very strange indeed.
Exactly, and you 'tune' them by controlled directivity waveguide in the first place. It's much more difficult any other way.
People seem to use all kinds of controlled directivity waveguides for their specific application, from wide to narrow. So it is a way of tuning allright. When you start with a more beaming device, that is no contant directivity device but exhibit other qualities that you highly value like in a Le'Cleach horn, then there are other ways of tuning the room for a satisfactory listening experience -but those may be more difficult indeed. But it can be done, there are more ways to Rome 🙂