Sure it’s possible, but it creates other problems - notably apparent depth is typically reduced.
For most of the recordings I’ve listen to the optimal placing for a stereo loudspeaker pair is somewhere between 6.5 feet and 8 feet apart for providing really good depth of field (unless you are closer than 4 feet from the loudspeakers).
Last edited:
The equilateral triangle doesn't work anymore?
I've been reading your thought train... pretty sure you are describing what would technically be more accurate as symptoms and detriments.... for example the widening of the soundstage due to low DI and boundaries may be pleasurable to your ear but 1 step removed from reality
I've been reading your thought train... pretty sure you are describing what would technically be more accurate as symptoms and detriments.... for example the widening of the soundstage due to low DI and boundaries may be pleasurable to your ear but 1 step removed from reality
Last edited:
A rising DI will cause coloured reverberant sound (lack of HF compared to the direct sound), but if you sit very close to the speakers (or have a dead room), it just doesn't matter much...
An interesting thing that could be observed from the many DI graphs presented here, is that at 20 degrees off-axis the DI is almost always pretty flat - that's almost universally where a direct sound matches in timbre the overall radiated sound. So if one should choose a listening axis even for a rising-DI speakers, 20 deg seems always the best choice.
Last edited:
Speaking strictly on Axis
We have clarified that if one sits close enough, they will be in the direct field. So room response is null. This isnt true for the whole spectrum as the direct field for treble may be 2inches. Directivity can help push the direct field forward. I don't even know if what I am asking is possible. It depends on how much directivity is needed.
-that’s still good, it’s just that many people try to position loudspeakers to far apart.
It’s a “juggling act” to get a more realistic soundstage, and even that is largely dependent on the recording. I specifically listen for width and depth that is fairly independent of the room’s walls. Imaging beyond the bounds of the loudspeakers should happen easily with recordings that are done that way. ..and note that this is with respect to higher freq.s - you can still achieve good depth at lower freq.s independently from the higher freq. result but that lower freq.s often have more to do with stage dimension but not image placement within the stage.
When done correctly a low DI pair of loudspeaker (at higher freq.s) can provide a more realistic result (the “visual” aspect). Still, it’s preferable to have your loudspeakers several feet away (or more) from their near wall, and at lower freq.s preferable to have the speakers moved about as far away from the front wall (the wall behind the speakers) as practical. In addition to that I prefer more higher freq. absorption almost all the way up to the *frontal plane/baffle of the loudspeakers with no higher freq. absorption on walls directly to the side or rear of the loudspeakers. It’s almost an inverse of the front dead-end rear live-end approach that is often preferred for HT. ..and I generally prefer HT with that approach. Of course with HT you don’t move your loudspeakers much away from the front wall.
*it can be beneficial though to have a narrow free-standing absorber that’s about the same height of the loudspeakers just to the outside of the loudspeakers and a little behind the baffle’s plane.
Last edited:
I don't think so either. 2" direct field would be almost impossible - an anechoic chamber perhaps.
I'd say the opposite, but we may be looking for different things - expectations.
Someone needs to teach AI to say "I don't know" 
It just made up a formula and told me it could calculate DI from frequency vs source size...
exactly
It just made up a formula and told me it could calculate DI from frequency vs source size...I've lost up from down since AI just lied to me. I don't know how to calculate it yet. SPL, and Directivity, affect the distance, the direct field extends, on axis, away from the source, so I need to incorporate an neutral FR in the picture. And then there's the possibility that nothing I just said is true.
exactly
..and they are best with high DI loudspeakers broad-band, and at lower freq.s it’s all about the “null” in relation to the listener. This means that a dipole below the modal region is preferably even though it has a rear lobe.
Ex.
https://6moons.com/audioreview_articles/silent-pound-challenger/
My expectation:
Realism with the soundstage and images within the soundstage. Where apparent changes in both aspects track by track are easily identifiable and loudspeaker’s position and room boundaries have little impact on the spatial result of each track (as-in: you don’t really audibly identify the loudspeakers or the walls/floors/ceilings).
Last edited:
I showed that this was not true in a publication that I did for AES many many years ago. Statistically (STD about the mean) a dipole is not any different than monopoles, they just prefer to be in different places. Optimally placed they both have the same STD of the SPL, but the monopoles is much higher as the frequency falls.
I don’t.
In the ‘90’s though I did experiment quite a bit with *binaural recordings (with comparisons to various stereo recordings). Plus general experience l‘ve picked up over my life.
*commercial and my own recordings on miniDisc.
What direct field you mean? I'm not too familiar with exact terms but are you talking about speaker direct field or critical distance in the room, which is how far away from speaker direct sound is louder than room sound?
On the latter, critical distance would extend further out into room with rising DI. DI is difference of direct sound to total sound power and means power into room is reduced with higher DI. In my opinion you should listen far field of your speaker, but closer than audible critical distance in the room, for some important bandwidth.
Following poorly edited though process to get here
If you want to hear the recording you must listen closer than audible critical distance. If you have listening axis frequency response flat you should now hear the recording as it is.
With rising DI speaker (and normal room) I think it could be possible to listen at a distance where high frequency critical distance extends past you but for lows don't reach you. Perceptually this would sound like the high frequencies (high DI) would sound clearer and more in your face than lower frequencies which would sound wee bit roomy and distant in comparison.
I think that this would be the only problem of rising DI. I'm quite sure you don't want to listen on the far field because it would sound dark as there is less highs in the room due to rising DI. Beyond critical distance you hear the room sound mostly by definition.
If it sounds fine at distance you happen to listen at its golden, but if it sounds weird then you could listen much closer to equalize the clarity aspect for some important bandwidth. Now, when you listen close enough, the highs beam way past you for no good reason.
Basically the more your DI rises the bigger this gray zone where you might have audible effect. If DI (and room) was flat then critical distance would be same for all frequensies.
I do not know if this of any problem, but the smoother (and higher) DI the easier it is to get into the direct field and be sure you listen the recording, not skewed by frequency dependent room sound. Also, if you happen to listen far field it would also sound balanced, unlike rising DI.
I'm not sure if amount of DI matters as long as you listen close enough. Its also matter of room acoustics. Only slope/shape of the DI would matter, flat sounding better than rising DI as it would mean sound on both sides of critical distance would sound balanced.
Last edited:
It didn't take much to elicit this response from it..Someone needs to teach AI to say "I don't know"