If you move closer it definitely removes the veil, and the imaging of more common, large two ways, will not have good imaging at 1m.... Not crossed at 600hz, thats for sure. I keep trying to remind some of you that at the top of the food chain, we seem to take move to the right or left, but not exactly better. By creating constant directivity (while not using a synergy) you widen the X axis sweet spot, yet you've shortened the Sweet Spot on the Z axisyour head is now in a vice, you have no choice but to sit further back, in order to mitigate this Flaw. You might say well these designs weren't intended to be used at 1m but potentially neither were the Tom Danely or Genelec, its just that their imaging is soooo good.... it can be.
Hello Camplo
I can't speak to Earls design I have never had the pleasure of hearing them though from people I know who have they were impressed.
So what you are saying is the image is pushed back by design and will degrade as you get closer. Is that right??
It just so happens I have a pair of speakers similar to the M2 design using that waveguide crossed over to 2216nd a 15" woofer.
Just did your experiment and the imaging was just fine at 1 meter. Obviously the image shifted laterally due to angle changes and proximity but the image quality do not suffer. Normal set-up 8ft spacing 8ft from the pair.
So from my observations your theory doesn't hold up.
Rob
Attachments
Because I wasn't sure if you were supporting Arts comments, you both jumped in at the same time. I was confused to given the comments of yours I quoted. So then I was like ok Gedlee couldn't really be criticizing thd, and then I tried to focus on Frequency Response.
"In loudspeaker design, "imaging" refers to the ability of a stereo speaker system to create a spatially accurate and detailed soundstage"
I am sorry if it comes off that way, what I am trying to do is be vigilant. I don't believe one can really split the signal into 2 sources and have it sound as a point source, at 1m, unless the crossover to the lower acoustical axis is low enough or the physical distance of the two sources are low enough.
How can one have great imaging but not sound like a point source? Impossible. There are more aspects to imaging, than just point source presentation, yet, you cannot be considered the best in imaging without sounding like a point source because there is no Vertical information of stereo, just left right, meaning that the sound should always always, sound as if its coming from the same measure on the vertical axis.... So If I can tell that a vocal is coming from multiple places, how can you consider, that, great imaging, albeit 1m. The better the imaging, the less ways it falls apart. The farther the drivers are spaced on a 2way baffle, the farther way one must sit, for the image to not fall apart, in the absence of a very low crossover.
How can you honestly feel that I am being arrogant on this position?.... when the 2 traditionally crossed 2ways are only supposed to sound like, what the more modern designs actually are? You really want to argue that, the thing, that is supposed to sound like a point source,(JBLm2 and NS15 in this instance) sounds more, like a point source, than the designs that have an actual point? My design is the only one that is an actual point source from 200hz up, but the Models that are crossed at ~800z with about 15" of separation between each driver.... sounds more like a point source? How?
As everything else is equal, becoming more a point source, only improves imaging. Nothing would image better than an actual, flawless point source. The Tom and Genelec support my thoughts, that duplicate symmetrical sources, help create the illusion of a point source, and they also stay within 1/4WL spacing. If you've never heard two crossed drivers playing material within 1/4WL spacing you've never heard what great summing sounds like. The sound is much more singular, which is synonymous to saying the imaging is better, and anything outside of 1/4WL has worse imaging. For those areas we can, duplicate symmetrically around the tweeter and minimize spacing and as a last resort we can specify a minimum listening distance.
So lets scape goat it away and say Tom only created his approach on the premise of;
Alrighty then, The Hyperion, Created for stadium and large venues, and somehow for arrays ...gotcha. Moving on I guess.... I mean if this were to be entertained as a studio monitor that'd be laughable right?
Theres obviously much better ways to do this, like a waveguide crossed to a woofer. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Ok now lets pretend like Genelec didn't just release a 2023 mastering monitor, its now Flagship, 2023, applying the same principles of keeping as much of the spectrum on the same acoustical axis....as possible.... Why didn't they just release a big Waveguided Two way in the normal sense
View attachment 1247730
Yeah there you go Gelenec you already did it on the small scale, just take this idea, and make it bigger. Oh whats that Genelec? You have a better idea?
They literally could remove the 4 small midwoofers woofers, have a roll over, its now the waveguide, cross it over at 800hz, call it day. The driver in the Waveguide crosses at 500hz, even better, just delete the 4 midwoofers and move the crossover up on the 15". Whats the big deal about the lower frequency acoustical axis transition trend? I already explained it to you "There are more aspects to imaging, than just point source presentation, yet, you cannot be considered the best in imaging without sounding like a point source" and the way to sounding like one is to be one as best you can.
Genelec and Tom must of been reading my thread, but honestly, they must understand the same thing that I understand. I mean Genelec is a hop and a skip away from being another iteration of a two-way section resembling a NS15 and they were like yeeeaaaahh but Nope.
Alrighty then, The Hyperion, Created for stadium and large venues, and somehow for arrays ...gotcha. Moving on I guess.... I mean if this were to be entertained as a studio monitor that'd be laughable right?
Theres obviously much better ways to do this, like a waveguide crossed to a woofer. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Ok now lets pretend like Genelec didn't just release a 2023 mastering monitor, its now Flagship, 2023, applying the same principles of keeping as much of the spectrum on the same acoustical axis....as possible.... Why didn't they just release a big Waveguided Two way in the normal sense
Yeah there you go Gelenec you already did it on the small scale, just take this idea, and make it bigger. Oh whats that Genelec? You have a better idea?
They literally could remove the 4 small midwoofers woofers, have a roll over, its now the waveguide, cross it over at 800hz, call it day. The driver in the Waveguide crosses at 500hz, even better, just delete the 4 midwoofers and move the crossover up on the 15". Whats the big deal about the lower frequency acoustical axis transition trend? I already explained it to you "There are more aspects to imaging, than just point source presentation, yet, you cannot be considered the best in imaging without sounding like a point source" and the way to sounding like one is to be one as best you can.
Genelec and Tom must of been reading my thread, but honestly, they must understand the same thing that I understand. I mean Genelec is a hop and a skip away from being another iteration of a two-way section resembling a NS15 and they were like yeeeaaaahh but Nope.
Strictly in the 2 way category, I think this is the destination. I can't imagine anything else being better, unless i was forced to downsize
Beyond that, I want to experiment with the ESS AMT, a synergy horn + tapped horn combo etc, and a surround sound build with the latest satori coaxials.
They all have different goals and operating principals, but are also not 2 way designs
I look at this picture, I think to myself.... if a tone were swept from 70hz to 7000hz.... and I could not hear the change in positioning on the baffle, when sitting that close, what is wrong with my ears lol. You left out a lot of details... what exactly did you do and what were you listening for??? How good of a listener do you consider yourself? Do you just like listening to music and stuff or have you been involved in Mixing, Mastering, and Sound Design for years? Not everyone's listening is equal is my point.
Well imagine that.... I was just talking about how MTM is one the ways to help create the point source image. According to @Robh3606 his two way sounds like a point source already, even at 1m with over 18" of driver separation crossed somewhere around 800hz I presume..... which pretty much makes an MTM for him a waste of time and energy....
Can you explain how MTM is an improvement over a TM for you?
Initially I thought going from TM to MTM with this build was very lacklustre, and for the huge increase in speaker size, the sound was disappointing with less weight to the low end.
However, I think it cut back on a lot of room interactions, especially floor-ceiling ones, and the subjective listening impressions from others is that it sounds like "wearing huge headphones." The bass can be dialled in with EQ.
In terms of point source sound, it is harder to pinpoint the lower frequencies, but there are fewer inconsistencies that detract from them being seen as "point source".. the large CD horns help the overall sensation a lot more than the woofers I would say
The sound is also very even throughout the room, which is deeper than it is wide. Considering they sit in the corners, I don't know how else I can improve them.
I have played around a lot with multi speaker interactions, from stereo subwoofer adventures, to large panels with 36 6" fullrange drivers per side, and I think I have intuitively learnt a few things.
https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/236227-ceiling-panel-speaker-array-build/
However, I think it cut back on a lot of room interactions, especially floor-ceiling ones, and the subjective listening impressions from others is that it sounds like "wearing huge headphones." The bass can be dialled in with EQ.
In terms of point source sound, it is harder to pinpoint the lower frequencies, but there are fewer inconsistencies that detract from them being seen as "point source".. the large CD horns help the overall sensation a lot more than the woofers I would say
The sound is also very even throughout the room, which is deeper than it is wide. Considering they sit in the corners, I don't know how else I can improve them.
I have played around a lot with multi speaker interactions, from stereo subwoofer adventures, to large panels with 36 6" fullrange drivers per side, and I think I have intuitively learnt a few things.
https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/236227-ceiling-panel-speaker-array-build/
Last edited:
It seems fine.. it's also a forever evolving setup, so it is there because i haven't gotten around to changing the shelving setup or the stereo rack
Yes, the large MTM will act as an array with mirror image phantom sources located above the ceiling and below the floor. This will narrow the vertical lobe from the woofers, reducing the effects of floor and ceiling between the speakers and your listening position. See Jim Griffin's white paper on arrays.
My take on this, FWIW:
1) I too appreciate the benefits of listening in the "near field", but a 1m listening distance is unusually close, especially when using larger speakers. The recommended stereo set-up is an equilateral triangle. Positioning the two speakers 1m apart from one another would leave almost no in-between gap. Doable, but a bit extreme.
2) In my own system (also a two way, but with one direct-radiating woofer and one large horn for the mid-highs), the vertical c-t-c spacing is 43cm, and I cross at Fx=500Hz. So that's approx. 0.6 wavelengths at Fx. My listening position is 2.5m away (still relatively near, considering the size of the speakers, but not as extreme as yours). I can assure you that, from my listening spot, the imaging is pin-point, and the sound does not appear to wander in the vertical dimension as it sweeps up in frequency.
3) Bottom line: it's all a continuum anyway. I.e., you seek coherence and "good imaging" at 1m listening distance. That's an artbitrary (albeit legitimate) goal of yours; a line in the sand. Why not 0.7m? Or 1.5m? Or (like in my case) 2.5m? The maximum centre-to-centre spacing would then change accordingly.
Cheers,
Marco
What I meant was that you complained a little about the bass performance (less weight in lower registers), and you should place the turntable in a low SPL pressure zone before you finally judge your setup.
Last edited:
Hello Camplo
Listening to a sweep for position changes on a speaker baffle?? Why? Sounds like audionervosa. You don't image vertically in stereo. Atmos yes.
The set-up is optimized for an 8 ft listening distance. By not changing toe-in and center to center distance this is worst case experiment.
Keeping things simple. Find a clean recording with a stable central image and move closer. Is the image stable?? Does it change timbre/balance.
Yes/No
Done.
I listen to music.
Rob :}
This whole thread is a surreal slow moving train wreck. No matter how much good advice is given or how much outside work is done to keep the rails from disintegrating, the wreck is still coming. Sigh.
I am thankful for the great contributions made to this thread. You who have done so helped me make my own 2-Way monitor system - now finished and working out crossover kinks.
I am thankful for the great contributions made to this thread. You who have done so helped me make my own 2-Way monitor system - now finished and working out crossover kinks.
Last edited:
Absolutely! That's why I have been an attentive voyeur.
Of course all the great advice keeps me coming back too; including yours docali. Thank you.
Well, I think it's kind of obvious that @camplo, I'll say, often has very different opinions or understandings from the usual view, but a large part of the community tries tirelessly to dissuade him from it. However, even the last person should have understood that this is pretty hopeless.
Not that this is misunderstood, but I generally think it's good when someone stands by his own beliefs.
Not that this is misunderstood, but I generally think it's good when someone stands by his own beliefs.
Last edited: