In the other hand, I believe that the reason for the sound of a ribbon may be due to its controlled directivity in the horizontal plane.
Exhibit A:
HF element: Fountek NeoCD3.0 8mm x 60mm ribbon tweeter
Cabinet/baffle: 292mm wide (11.5" W x 55" L)
DUT location: centred on baffle width, 22" from top of cabinet edge
Baffle diffraction management: 3/4" round-over
Reference:
Jim Holtz/Curt Campbell Statements II
This tweeter was used from above 3.5KHz so ignore everything left of that.
But NB. the lower right info panel- controlled directivity.
Yes this is only a point sample; and I for one would like to see more data to add or subtract weight to this observation
Exhibit A:
HF element: Fountek NeoCD3.0 8mm x 60mm ribbon tweeter
Cabinet/baffle: 292mm wide (11.5" W x 55" L)
DUT location: centred on baffle width, 22" from top of cabinet edge
Baffle diffraction management: 3/4" round-over
Reference:
Jim Holtz/Curt Campbell Statements II
This tweeter was used from above 3.5KHz so ignore everything left of that.
But NB. the lower right info panel- controlled directivity.
Yes this is only a point sample; and I for one would like to see more data to add or subtract weight to this observation
Quick thoughts, if DI gets very high on highs, and stays low on lows, the step is great and you must listen at very close proximity to kind of balance spatial aspect of the sound, to get some dryness to mids and lows as well. High DI highs feel very dry and forward, could easily localize inside head, while low DI mids and lows localizes around/front, which makes bit awkward sound. Hyperfocus or something, gotta experience. This feeling is present with lower DI system as well, and I can only imagine it's worse with very narrow vertical directivity tweeter.
In theory, high DI is good thing in small rooms, but, make sure the high DI extends to mids and even into room sized wavelengths in order to have consistent spatial sound over wide bandwidth, and this is what ideal MEH does well and I would bet is a big part of the appeal.
I've found this kind of "spatial consistency" surprisingly important while "experiencing a stereo system" , DI and diffraction in the core, things that make sound change with direction. Sitting or standing, sound could be different, but it doesn't matter if it feels consistent while you spend time at the height I think consistency on the height plane you happen to be at, is more important than if sound is different sitting or standing.
Oldschool monkeycoffins I recently heard, had very uneasy feeling to the sound in a way, frequency balance changed constantly with listening position. There literally wasn't one sound but the sound changed all the time depending on where I was listening, it makes a feeling there is no right sound, it's always just something, changing, which is a detracting effect, takes attention from the music to the ever changing spectrum. At home I have low diffraction and rather constant DI system, and it sounds right almost anywhere in the room, it's more constant and calming in a way, attention stays on the music.
In theory, high DI is good thing in small rooms, but, make sure the high DI extends to mids and even into room sized wavelengths in order to have consistent spatial sound over wide bandwidth, and this is what ideal MEH does well and I would bet is a big part of the appeal.
I've found this kind of "spatial consistency" surprisingly important while "experiencing a stereo system" , DI and diffraction in the core, things that make sound change with direction. Sitting or standing, sound could be different, but it doesn't matter if it feels consistent while you spend time at the height I think consistency on the height plane you happen to be at, is more important than if sound is different sitting or standing.
Oldschool monkeycoffins I recently heard, had very uneasy feeling to the sound in a way, frequency balance changed constantly with listening position. There literally wasn't one sound but the sound changed all the time depending on where I was listening, it makes a feeling there is no right sound, it's always just something, changing, which is a detracting effect, takes attention from the music to the ever changing spectrum. At home I have low diffraction and rather constant DI system, and it sounds right almost anywhere in the room, it's more constant and calming in a way, attention stays on the music.
Last edited:
Not in my experience. I've never seen or heard those giants again after taking just a few measures 😀.
Arrays that work with the room can work well, in my humble opinion. But you've got to be willing to work on it a bit.
If you're looking for a solution that works for a wide enough vertical spread to suit seated and standing listening, your options are going to be somewhat limited. Think of coax, Synergy, large horns and arrays. Maybe full range + woofer, but it's going to be limited in SPL potential.
There are two types of sound you can chase though. The one where you have the room (co-)create the sense of space and the other type where one lets the music dictate what you perceive. Even here in this thread I see a wide range of angles mentioned, they are not aiming for the same thing.
I wanted the direct sound to dominate, that meant I had to take some care to make the speaker + room work together. Not a dead or dry room though by any means, but still a clean first ~20 ms after the main pulse. I'm another sucker for linear phase crossovers, or rather minimum phase over the bandwidth of the speaker. But I want it at the listening spot!
2 arrays + 2x subwoofers as measured at listening distance
I don't look at the literature from Toole to determine my room + speaker decisions. I'd rather follow the lectures from Griesinger to make sure I enjoy my listening setup. I see @tmuikku has brought up a few points on that already. A bit too much generalizations in his reply for my taste though. I'd rather see him try a few concepts instead of analyzing/rationalizing them in a thought process. 🙂
Whatever route you take, I'd say one of the most important factors is a smooth power curve. That has the biggest chance to sound right in-room.
Oh, very much from trying out. I'm thinking a lot, since thats more realistic approach to the hobby in my reality at the moment. I've got few hours a day off from daily routine, no space and liquidity to fabricate mo speakers right now, so I'm listening speaker system what I've got and doing coffee break philosophy over the observations.
I do not have access to FIR or linearrays for example. Would be nive to have access to those one day 🙂 today is special, got several hours of quiet time so have been measuring and wondering about data all day.
I do not have access to FIR or linearrays for example. Would be nive to have access to those one day 🙂 today is special, got several hours of quiet time so have been measuring and wondering about data all day.
I would remove the word "even" in that sentence. Full-range drivers (a misnomer, typically) with breakaway wizzer cones all have issues at the "crossover" where the wizzer cone starts to act independent of the surrounding cone. There's nothing to be done with those.
However, full-range MEHs with first order crossover filters that cross at the first notch (i.e., the lower frequency drivers in the off-central-axis ports on the horn aperture) will have no phase or polar lobing issues--by definition.
Other designs that use separate horn apertures for each "way" will have varying degrees of "head in a vise" issues/induced phase misalignments from loudspeaker angular positioning relative to the listener, and even distance to the listener's ears.
That's okay. Others here will read those references that I thoughtfully provided above and come to their own conclusions. Note that the only changes that produced the suddenly audible changes that I reported on--were induced phase growth through the crossovers. I believe that only those that don't want to believe it's phase response will have trouble arguing their alternative points (i.e., Occam's Razor).
Dave Griesinger explains why the phase flattening is audible, and the Greenfield & Hawksford 1990 article is another source indicating phase audibility. Note that the Greenfield/Hawksford experiment did not use loudspeakers having full-range directivity (and therefore had trouble with some of the test subjects picking out the difference). So that experiment did not satisfy the first of the three conditions that I mentioned, above:
Chris
Last edited:
At least it happen! This is the exact feeling i have with my big three way monkey coffins. Really disturbing when working on them. You get used to it eventually and know what to expect to be 'the reference' at sweetspot (with time spent on it) but it's tiring to have to 'recalibrate' yourself constantly. Luckily mine have other quality which makes them great tools but this all started 15 years of studying and experiments to keep their quality and get rid of this bad thing to me...
I do find the vertical directivity of ribbon to be very disturbing. I hate Adam's nearfield monitors. The difference between seated/standing up is so obvious to me. It create the same feeling than with my threeway but in a different flavour and i believe it comes from the more constant horizontal directivity that they exhibit ( my three way TMW offer much more tortured response in their 3d directivity rendering - there is a mismatch on the woofer to mid directivity).
Now On Topic: vertical Early Reflections are the first to be treated by acousticians in control room design. It's because they are the most offending ones ( the shortest in time delay, it's rare to have room where ceiling height is not the shortest dimension of the room). So like GM or Wesayso i would first and foremost consider room and loudspeaker as a whole couple and work on the directivity aspect with that set of parameter.
It doesn't make the final answer allround like what commercial design try to ( would like to?) be but this is our force as diyers: we can adapt our design choices to the conditions they'll be used in. Commercial designers can't have this luxury, except for some very dedicated conditions of use ( studio monitors where you always have access to vertical/horizontal directivity informations- mandatory or the designs will be refused by acousticians as it makes their life easier in designing the room ( EG: ATC)).
I like to have consistent sound seated or standing up. What i experienced in some T.Hidley's control rooms. He did that by locating the loudspeaker 'tweeter' ( in fact horn) at 1,4m height. Why this height: because with the desk location and room's critical frequency taken into account it allow for people of different heights ( 1,5m to 2m) to be on the covering angle of the horn.
It might be objected the main listening point is not on axis but this is solved by tilting the loudspeakers ( more the whole wall in fact) toward the engineer seat location.
I use this approach. It's start with a sketch as presented by tubelectron and from there surimpose the expected directivity of loudspeaker. It help to define the surface which would hypotethicaly need treatment on ceiling to create an RFZ and help to find the height where to locate the tweeter for an even coverage for eople of different heights.
From there you can define what to expect from the coverage your drivers gives... i tend to prefer 90°x 90°. I'm sure 100°x100° ( like Rob or Mark)or 80°x80° would be ok too but with my coax in my room i like rendering i've got at 90° coverage both in horizontal and vertical.
It seems i'm at the average of many in this thread...
I'm lucky to have a cathedral ceiling which redirect vertical Early Reflections outside main listening point ( above it to be accurate) and it makes a MAJOR difference with all different rooms i had in the last 24 years. Tbh it give to (my preference) 75% of what i liked in the best ( to my taste) control room i've heard WITHOUT room treatments...
We can possibly see the extreme case of narrow directivity in overly treated rooms. It sounds artificial/dead. So it is preferable to have some wide dispersion in all directions? Even though application may not be just to have hi fidelity sound in all seating or standing positions?
Now we may have to do some balancing act in a small room with strong first reflections. Ideally a decently large room with wide dispersion should sound great?
I think it's worth reading on our psycho acoustics in a enclosed space. Any books you can suggest?
Now we may have to do some balancing act in a small room with strong first reflections. Ideally a decently large room with wide dispersion should sound great?
I think it's worth reading on our psycho acoustics in a enclosed space. Any books you can suggest?
Krevilplays, you talk about narrow directivity in overly treated room sounding sounding artificial / dead: is it something you experienced or deducted?
Overly treated? By absorbing material? Or diffusing material? Or reflective material (untreated... 😉 )? Overall results will all be different but they will all satisfy the overly treated case/ condition.
In my view there is too much shortcut in the way you depict things in your last message: taken to extreme it would mean laser beam directivity into a shoebox size room or omni into a stadium sized room...
Both won't work obviously! 😉
It's more a balancing act in my view: if you use wider directivity pattern you'll certainly have to use acoustic treatment to manage early reflection behaviour even in (relatively) big (domestic) room.
Using narrower directivity will lessen the requirement but at the expense of a smaller listening position and it could lead to 'head in a vise' situation.
You definitely have to integrate loudspeaker directivity behaviour AND room to understand what is needed to a kind of rendering you are looking for as there is no 'right or ultimate': the genre you listen, your preference which are linked to how and what you listen to ( a musician doesn't listen to the same thing as a technician or the average joe), if you are trained or not,... all play a role. And as such wildly varying results can be seen as valid. Which often lead to misunderstanding.
The issue with amateur is that often people don't get there is different kind of rendering and don't know which one they want. Not to blame anyone but it require to have listened to a lot of different configuration and being able to differenciate for each of them what come from the loudspeakers and from the room ( or combination of both) to make wise choice of design for both room and loudspeakers.
Krevilplays, send me a pm with your email adress please.
Overly treated? By absorbing material? Or diffusing material? Or reflective material (untreated... 😉 )? Overall results will all be different but they will all satisfy the overly treated case/ condition.
In my view there is too much shortcut in the way you depict things in your last message: taken to extreme it would mean laser beam directivity into a shoebox size room or omni into a stadium sized room...
Both won't work obviously! 😉
It's more a balancing act in my view: if you use wider directivity pattern you'll certainly have to use acoustic treatment to manage early reflection behaviour even in (relatively) big (domestic) room.
Using narrower directivity will lessen the requirement but at the expense of a smaller listening position and it could lead to 'head in a vise' situation.
You definitely have to integrate loudspeaker directivity behaviour AND room to understand what is needed to a kind of rendering you are looking for as there is no 'right or ultimate': the genre you listen, your preference which are linked to how and what you listen to ( a musician doesn't listen to the same thing as a technician or the average joe), if you are trained or not,... all play a role. And as such wildly varying results can be seen as valid. Which often lead to misunderstanding.
The issue with amateur is that often people don't get there is different kind of rendering and don't know which one they want. Not to blame anyone but it require to have listened to a lot of different configuration and being able to differenciate for each of them what come from the loudspeakers and from the room ( or combination of both) to make wise choice of design for both room and loudspeakers.
Krevilplays, send me a pm with your email adress please.
Last edited:
If you read carefully I did not say narrow directivity due to dispersion from speakers itself. But a similar side effect caused by overly treated room because of lack of indirect sound.
And overly treated was an experience my own not a deduction and confirmed by feedback from other experts in the field..
Of course as humans we can share the experiences from others like here. And apply your own minds to same and confirm the behaviour. Although nothing beats experience doing it yourself. That does a not mean I don't access experiencing in large spaces not my own.
Btw I have these two books just received this week begging to read. I won't mind few more suggestions.
Attachments
Last edited:
Ok, i'm not trying to expose you or anything like that just try to understand what you said. And i read carefully but directivity is loudspeaker related term implicitly...
I would not qualify what you experienced by 'narrow directivity' if it was the result of too much absorbing material, it's different phenomenon at play and can't be interchanged in my view. Even results felts ( the rendering) are not the same to me.
I like RFZ so i'm looking for the 'detrimental effect' to you. But i repeat there is many ways to skin a cat: there will be difference between an RFZ created by redirecting ER or by absorbing them, hence why i asked to be more accurate. Even 'too much' diffusion can be detrimental ( if not applied carefully, which often happen with acoustic treatments).
What you experienced could be result from poor balance of freq being absorbed rather than the lack of ER... the unatural comment you made. Dead is what is looked for.
I would not qualify what you experienced by 'narrow directivity' if it was the result of too much absorbing material, it's different phenomenon at play and can't be interchanged in my view. Even results felts ( the rendering) are not the same to me.
I like RFZ so i'm looking for the 'detrimental effect' to you. But i repeat there is many ways to skin a cat: there will be difference between an RFZ created by redirecting ER or by absorbing them, hence why i asked to be more accurate. Even 'too much' diffusion can be detrimental ( if not applied carefully, which often happen with acoustic treatments).
What you experienced could be result from poor balance of freq being absorbed rather than the lack of ER... the unatural comment you made. Dead is what is looked for.
Last edited:
I think what a unity/synergy does well, needs to be separated from proper phase response. It's the tighter c2c, it's more point-source like nature, and constant directivity... are more what make a MEH a MEH imo.
Those properties make it easier to achieve good phase response and ripple free acoustic summations over a wider area.
And there are distinctly different crossover & processing methods, that can get smooth phase and summations out of a MEH. (or screw it up lol )
So no automatic linkage, MEH to phase.
I think proper phase response helps any type speaker.
I built a bunch of different types of speakers, before moving all-in to unity/syns about 4 years ago. Every type box I built was pretty easy to tune to excellence, by including flat phase as a goal. By excellence, I mean to ear and to measurement.
I think If nothing else, achieving smooth phase response and minimizing xover phase rotations,
simultaneously make for smoother frequency magnitude response and directivity.....which everyone agrees on as valuable.
I'm personally convinced, like others have commented, that linear phase increases clarity and imaging...(and i would add transient response to that list.)
My recommendation for finding out for yourself, is do the best job of tuning your build you can with whatever method is your current preference...IIR DSP, analog active...heck even passive.
Then do the best job you can with rePhase of any other FIR generator, correcting drivers on a driver by driver basis, and use linear phase xovers.
(use multi-channel active though, if comparing passive.. don't try to simply overlay the FIR correction on the previous work, be it passive or an IIR active )
And take the dang speaker outdoors.... A/B the two versions.... see what you think.
I do all that before I get to what pattern H/V horn do I like best ....good thing this hobby is fun...cause it can be a lot of work too haha
Last edited:
First of all let me make this clear I overly treated the room to see the detrimental effect of the same, as I could do the same easily. Now my room is balanced overall but not perfect.
Diffusion they say is not good for very small rooms. And I have read conflicting reports about where to place them too. There is also asymmetrical placement of diffusion and absorption theory on left and right. I hope I find some time to build and experiment in the future and will report back.
Diffusion they say is not good for very small rooms. And I have read conflicting reports about where to place them too. There is also asymmetrical placement of diffusion and absorption theory on left and right. I hope I find some time to build and experiment in the future and will report back.
Last edited:
^ very few rooms are perfects even multimillions dollar control rooms... and it even question what 'perfect' means.
Balanced results is a kind of perfection in my view.
'They say' ? Who, in which context? At which frequency range?
That's why i keep on asking to be accurate: it DEPENDS. What you try to achieve, at which freq...
You'll only see conflicting things because there is many ways to achieve more or less the same thing/outcome. But there will be tiny differences which might lead to a lot of differences in the final rendering...
Consider an analogy ( no i'll not talk about cars...): with an equaliser you can reach same result ( an eq profile) by boosting or cutting some freq range. Overall profile outcome will be the same except the one using boost will distort more easily and be more obvious for our brain ( you lost headroom by boosting and our brain is less concerned by missing freq than by accentuated one)... it's the same in acoustic!
Diffusion is not adviced in small rooms because diffusors needs to be located at 3x the lower wavelength freq at which they are effective ( to be outside their 'idyosyncratic' pattern, location where you can identify their 'signature' reflecting pattern). But if you have choice between absorbing or diffusion at a freq which allow such a distance you'll have to try both and you could have surprises in outcome... it's the same with reflectors, they can be of use if paired with diffusion or absorbing... as they won't 'take energy' away in unatural manner ( as absorbing material can do because their grossly frequency dependant materials for most of them). And why you can see 'clouds' rather than absorbing material or diffusors on control room's ceiling: three different approach, same goal, different renderings. Some works better than other in different room...
Asymmetrical is bad if you like stereo, mainly between L/R. That's why you never see rooms which are not mirrored on longitudinal axis when people have to work on audio.
But i agree try by yourself, it's the best way to understand all this.
There is nothing better than experience things by ourself we agree.
Balanced results is a kind of perfection in my view.
'They say' ? Who, in which context? At which frequency range?
That's why i keep on asking to be accurate: it DEPENDS. What you try to achieve, at which freq...
You'll only see conflicting things because there is many ways to achieve more or less the same thing/outcome. But there will be tiny differences which might lead to a lot of differences in the final rendering...
Consider an analogy ( no i'll not talk about cars...): with an equaliser you can reach same result ( an eq profile) by boosting or cutting some freq range. Overall profile outcome will be the same except the one using boost will distort more easily and be more obvious for our brain ( you lost headroom by boosting and our brain is less concerned by missing freq than by accentuated one)... it's the same in acoustic!
Diffusion is not adviced in small rooms because diffusors needs to be located at 3x the lower wavelength freq at which they are effective ( to be outside their 'idyosyncratic' pattern, location where you can identify their 'signature' reflecting pattern). But if you have choice between absorbing or diffusion at a freq which allow such a distance you'll have to try both and you could have surprises in outcome... it's the same with reflectors, they can be of use if paired with diffusion or absorbing... as they won't 'take energy' away in unatural manner ( as absorbing material can do because their grossly frequency dependant materials for most of them). And why you can see 'clouds' rather than absorbing material or diffusors on control room's ceiling: three different approach, same goal, different renderings. Some works better than other in different room...
Asymmetrical is bad if you like stereo, mainly between L/R. That's why you never see rooms which are not mirrored on longitudinal axis when people have to work on audio.
But i agree try by yourself, it's the best way to understand all this.
There is nothing better than experience things by ourself we agree.
Last edited:
@krevilplays The site from Griesinger himself is down atm (so glad I've downloaded all of his papers from his website already), but here are some starter papers: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Griesinger-2
Much of his work is about concert halls, but there's plenty more on perception in room, bass in small rooms etc. His Youtube channel also is worth checking out: https://www.youtube.com/@davidgriesinger3180/videos
If you're in a small room, only treat the first reflection points but don't treat every surface. Keep the room lively enough. If you don't have much space behind the listening seat, it's harder to get the sound right. What I did was a damping panel behind the listening seat, cushions between the couch and that panel and make up for what I stole with a couple of ambient speakers firing sideways.
See this clip from Griesinger about the proximity effect:
(he also mentions human capabilities about the audibility of phase at higher frequencies in this clip and mentions what it will do for perception)
Learn to read your room/speakers. They work together to create your perception. Move closer to the speakers and find the transition Griesinger speaks of in the above video and find it in your room with your speakers. We can enjoy audio on both sides of this transition, but often people talk about their experiences without mentioning which side they are on/prefer. Within my room with my speakers, I prefer to get that (close) auditory proximity effect, having more direct sound vs room sound (very low level of early reflections). But I do like a later response from the room. That's is why I had to 'fake' that part with ambience speakers being so close to the back wall. There's simply no room for a diffuser behind me. The influence of the room is way bigger than most people realize.
At the listening spot, your brain simply (well, it's not that simple, but we learn to do this in day to day life) deducts the room and make you feel you're listening to the piece of music. But record it at that spot and play it back on headphones. That will make you realize what wonders the brain does while listening in your room to your speakers. All I am trying to accomplish is making that task for the brain a lot simpler by helping it a bit. My end goal? Getting carried away by the music, make it a believable experience. Forget about the speakers, forget about the electronics, just enjoy the soundscape.
Much of his work is about concert halls, but there's plenty more on perception in room, bass in small rooms etc. His Youtube channel also is worth checking out: https://www.youtube.com/@davidgriesinger3180/videos
If you're in a small room, only treat the first reflection points but don't treat every surface. Keep the room lively enough. If you don't have much space behind the listening seat, it's harder to get the sound right. What I did was a damping panel behind the listening seat, cushions between the couch and that panel and make up for what I stole with a couple of ambient speakers firing sideways.
See this clip from Griesinger about the proximity effect:
Learn to read your room/speakers. They work together to create your perception. Move closer to the speakers and find the transition Griesinger speaks of in the above video and find it in your room with your speakers. We can enjoy audio on both sides of this transition, but often people talk about their experiences without mentioning which side they are on/prefer. Within my room with my speakers, I prefer to get that (close) auditory proximity effect, having more direct sound vs room sound (very low level of early reflections). But I do like a later response from the room. That's is why I had to 'fake' that part with ambience speakers being so close to the back wall. There's simply no room for a diffuser behind me. The influence of the room is way bigger than most people realize.
At the listening spot, your brain simply (well, it's not that simple, but we learn to do this in day to day life) deducts the room and make you feel you're listening to the piece of music. But record it at that spot and play it back on headphones. That will make you realize what wonders the brain does while listening in your room to your speakers. All I am trying to accomplish is making that task for the brain a lot simpler by helping it a bit. My end goal? Getting carried away by the music, make it a believable experience. Forget about the speakers, forget about the electronics, just enjoy the soundscape.
Last edited:
Hello Mayhem
I don't think I understand what you are saying here. Are you talking in front of the speakers, behind or both??? I could see in front being as issue but not behind the baffle planes.
Rob 🙂
Hello, yes my first reflections points are treated. Already the experience is great! Just last few months I beefed up the panel from 2x2 4inch to 4x2feet 6inch on first reflection points and that greatly improved response in the lower mids. As you can see in this video I have very strong first reflection points on left and right. I have some 8feet behind my seating to the back wall which itself is very mildly treated. I wish I had little more space to the left and right. But I think I did a great job overall overall(not bragging🙂) given the limitations. The experience is starting to get magical 3d like without auro3d 🙂. Just seeing what more I can do. This got me more curious and wanted to deep dive into room treatment and psycho acoustics. Thanks for those pointers.
Last edited:
It's the thinking (or rather overthinking) part that worries me. We should all be so lucky to have a whole range of experiences. But sometimes we even have to be careful what we wish for. Not that many will enjoy a dead room. But a room/speaker combination that works can really bring out the music. And it isn't as predictable as it may seem on the surface.
If I had had a larger room (preferably even a spare room) I'd probably opt for Synergies or some big horns, not arrays. Arrays suit my current needs (after quite a bit of work to make them sing) but I wouldn't say they will work well in all spaces. They need a bit of help, but so do most other speaker types to get them to work within your particular room with your specific listening preferences. That is the key to DIY, cater to your room and your wishes. It may help to know up front what type of experience you'd like to have. It doesn't help to try and deduct all info from one or two sets of speakers. Experiment with your speakers is worthwhile, but so is listening to other setups that you may find nearby.
On the same horizontal axis as the speakers is what I meant……like large flat screen tv’s or other furniture items
Hello Mayhem
OK but I never have been able to grasp this whole flat screen issue. What's the difference between a flat wall and a flat screen?? I have a flatscreen an equipment cabinet and a center channel between a stereo pair in my HT. Does not effect the imaging and with the directivity of the mains I have a hard time understanding why it would.
Rob 🙂