Not too weird. It is expensive and far to travel to hear club systems.
People are also there to dance and get laid. lol
Not too bad either.
In a serious manner, we all can experience music at home alone or with a few people.
At live events with large group of positive people dancing together. There is not a technical description to describe the energy
felt with a large group of people all in good spirits coming together.
Something more easily and cheaply done locally at many EDM music events. Within the group and lifestyle. underground events
can become beyond imaginable.
Having transported and operated much larger systems than shown.
You quickly realize the round overs are round overs, then absorption is absorption.
Actual effect in real life is rather minimal. The music and drivers speak for themselves.
In a world full of brilliant producers and DJ's that roll them seamless.
There is a select few id travel to hear. 30 years of EDM id say I skip almost every Ibiza set.
People are also there to dance and get laid. lol
Not too bad either.
In a serious manner, we all can experience music at home alone or with a few people.
At live events with large group of positive people dancing together. There is not a technical description to describe the energy
felt with a large group of people all in good spirits coming together.
Something more easily and cheaply done locally at many EDM music events. Within the group and lifestyle. underground events
can become beyond imaginable.
Having transported and operated much larger systems than shown.
You quickly realize the round overs are round overs, then absorption is absorption.
Actual effect in real life is rather minimal. The music and drivers speak for themselves.
In a world full of brilliant producers and DJ's that roll them seamless.
There is a select few id travel to hear. 30 years of EDM id say I skip almost every Ibiza set.
I live in Chicago which has a huge music culture.
Pre covid I would go to st least one show a week. Sometimes 3. I was seeing bands for $10 that two years later would have big shows with tickets for $200. I've gotten to sit down and talk with members of many now very popular bands.
After everything opened up after covid the scene changed. The people don't know how to act. They are mean, they drink too much, they have lost all proprioception in relation to others, etc. It just really has taken the joy out of.
So I've started to just listen to music at home. Building better and better speakers. I honestly think the music is better out of my homemade speakers than it is in the venues and I don't have to deal with unruly crowds. I'm not even that old either. I'm only 38. I just really have had enough with drunk bros accidentally knocking down my wife at show because they don't know how to act.
Pre covid I would go to st least one show a week. Sometimes 3. I was seeing bands for $10 that two years later would have big shows with tickets for $200. I've gotten to sit down and talk with members of many now very popular bands.
After everything opened up after covid the scene changed. The people don't know how to act. They are mean, they drink too much, they have lost all proprioception in relation to others, etc. It just really has taken the joy out of.
So I've started to just listen to music at home. Building better and better speakers. I honestly think the music is better out of my homemade speakers than it is in the venues and I don't have to deal with unruly crowds. I'm not even that old either. I'm only 38. I just really have had enough with drunk bros accidentally knocking down my wife at show because they don't know how to act.
It can be random and not pleasurable for sure.
But overall yes indeed things have changed a lot.
Way before Covid and also much further back when I hit my mid 30's
Live music and participants also changed then too.
I went back and forth for years between my live music roots to electronic events.
Because the energy was much more positive in the EDM crowd.
Agree having been around live systems since 16
Sound quality would vary. My big approach was trying to improve
Holes in response off axis. And fatigue with high frequency drivers.
Many moved away from horn bins and just used more direct radiator for
subs. Big changes when the higher xmax neos became slightly affordable
But overall yes indeed things have changed a lot.
Way before Covid and also much further back when I hit my mid 30's
Live music and participants also changed then too.
I went back and forth for years between my live music roots to electronic events.
Because the energy was much more positive in the EDM crowd.
Agree having been around live systems since 16
Sound quality would vary. My big approach was trying to improve
Holes in response off axis. And fatigue with high frequency drivers.
Many moved away from horn bins and just used more direct radiator for
subs. Big changes when the higher xmax neos became slightly affordable
@Bmsluite
yes.
as much as I'd like to return to the days of yesteryear, going out to listen to live music in conducive be venues, I fear for the most part those days are gone.
better systems at home... yes.
towards that effort, is there room for the experiment showing the performance of parabolic edge treatments that can be usefully compared to the legacy curves of Olson?
yes.
as much as I'd like to return to the days of yesteryear, going out to listen to live music in conducive be venues, I fear for the most part those days are gone.
better systems at home... yes.
towards that effort, is there room for the experiment showing the performance of parabolic edge treatments that can be usefully compared to the legacy curves of Olson?
Nice work………now you’re in the realm of proof…..to find out if you can actually hear the difference in an ABX test……or distinguish between elements that create or reduce diffraction in the on axis response? Too many variables to consider with not enough reward to justify the efforts?
These are difficult to near impossible to quantify once you even begin to consider the variables in the real use source material. Do some or many recordings benefit from edge diffraction?….or does a combination of expectation bias and nostalgia make the objective results meaningless?
There is, I do have a little speaker that we can try things with. I mean to post its mounting specs so anyone can come up with an enclosure shape design for me to 3D print and test.
Keep in mind that below a certain frequency the shape doesn't really matter, and in some cases this might meant that the wanted effect depends a little on the frequencies that are affected.
There's a case where I could use Danley synergy horns as an example (although the idea goes way back). These have a secondary flare which is designed to give targeted diffraction in a way that reduces the beamwidth at lower frequencies moreso than a roundover. Although more distinct diffraction gets produced, it is considered productive in that it primarily affects lower frequencies where it is less audible (higher frequencies can also be affected but to a lesser degree because the mouth is large enough there that they are better guided to begin with).
There's a case where I could use Danley synergy horns as an example (although the idea goes way back). These have a secondary flare which is designed to give targeted diffraction in a way that reduces the beamwidth at lower frequencies moreso than a roundover. Although more distinct diffraction gets produced, it is considered productive in that it primarily affects lower frequencies where it is less audible (higher frequencies can also be affected but to a lesser degree because the mouth is large enough there that they are better guided to begin with).
At the time this was published (2 years ago) this was alleged to be the Flagship Synergy horn from DSL.
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/danley_sh50/
Regardless of the diffraction or directivity- which seems controlled it seems to me that the on axis, PIR response appears somewhat ragged, with the response +/- 5dB. over the usable range (50Hz to 20KHz)
The impedance plot suggests a few discontinuities- I wonder what could be done to reduce/improve the amplitude response linearity. Horn/WG shape improvement or resonance control or midrange 'hole' optimization?
@vineethkumar01
?
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/danley_sh50/
Regardless of the diffraction or directivity- which seems controlled it seems to me that the on axis, PIR response appears somewhat ragged, with the response +/- 5dB. over the usable range (50Hz to 20KHz)
The impedance plot suggests a few discontinuities- I wonder what could be done to reduce/improve the amplitude response linearity. Horn/WG shape improvement or resonance control or midrange 'hole' optimization?
@vineethkumar01
?
I did the parabolic one and it's about at best a 2 db difference off axis in diffraction. I made a pretty intense baffle, basically best case scenario, and the result off or on axis didn't change much.
I have concluded that small inprovements like these are minimal at best. To get a large improvement the entire shape of the enclosure would need to change. If you search through the rest of the thread you'll see the data
I've been monitoring this thread since the beginning and I haven't seen any data that was obviously "comparative" to Olson's.
I'm sure that's my fault. Was the parabola similar to the thumbnail profile?
Perhaps you could just point to the post number?
Regardless of the magnitude, many builders seem to see benefit in even small (1/2"- 3/4") roundovers so the question is, would a thumbnail improve -- however little -- on that benefit?
Thanks.
I'm sure that's my fault. Was the parabola similar to the thumbnail profile?
Perhaps you could just point to the post number?
Regardless of the magnitude, many builders seem to see benefit in even small (1/2"- 3/4") roundovers so the question is, would a thumbnail improve -- however little -- on that benefit?
Thanks.
Thanh, if I were in that position I'd consider continuation of the waveguide starting at the secondary flare deflection point.
Check post #155. It has the results from the on/off axis between a perfectly sharp 90 degree edge and and that very fancy diffraction baffle I designed and made.
If nothing else, it does look amazing.
This baffle is what was tested. It is very similar to the router bit you showed just 5x more aggressive as the curve starts right at the driver's edge and goes all the way to side in an increasing arc.
Attachments
This might be a bit late, but it's still relevant to this discussion. Hopefully not linked before...
Audibility of speaker baffle edge diffraction (PDF) -- a paper by Dave Pinfold linked last March by Scott Hison on his facebook site DIYRM A review of work and comments by notable researchers & designers, along with hands-on experimentation & measurements by the author.
From the conclusion:
Audibility of speaker baffle edge diffraction (PDF) -- a paper by Dave Pinfold linked last March by Scott Hison on his facebook site DIYRM A review of work and comments by notable researchers & designers, along with hands-on experimentation & measurements by the author.
From the conclusion:
Last edited:
I think level distortion is linear distortion…
While diffraction might not be that of a problem, a not-so gradual behavior of the level vs. power plot (directivity) is. And shapes that behave good on diffraction aspects can also behave good on the directivity part.
While diffraction might not be that of a problem, a not-so gradual behavior of the level vs. power plot (directivity) is. And shapes that behave good on diffraction aspects can also behave good on the directivity part.
Some of these factors would normally be interrelated. How were these tests done? Were they performed on one type of speaker?
What importance does the "listening window" parameter have from a design perspective? Is there anything written to suggest why this was said?
True. And if one’s not acquainted with the referred sources, it’s a handy summary too.
In fact, it underlines the logic of faceted baffles rather than rounded corners. Which serious designers know for ages, well at least for decennia. Even the famous Olson pictures could have given us a hint here, while his research completely skipped the audibility of diffraction sources and the comb effect on various listening axes. But from Danley’s MEH with diffraction sides via the B&W801 to the Seas DXT, we see this knowledge was and is used.
Last edited:
Hi everyone,
while I'm not in position to say how audible diffraction is for any person or in any situation, I thought to post about something that I consider important and it's missing from the paper.
Few quotes from it:
"It is possible that this small additional
delay could cause some smearing of the acoustic image, but speakers with fairly wide directivity will do
that anyway because of the much larger delay caused by the reflections. It is therefore unlikely that the
delayed signal itself would significantly impact on imaging."
"Note: Erin Hardison has found that loudspeakers with a wider dispersion tend to have a wider
soundstage at the expense of imaging accuracy. It is a subjective choice over whether we prefer more of
one or the other, but many people find a wide soundstage a pleasing, immersive effect and can forgo
super-accurate imaging."
"Figure 3 has even lower Q and amplitude of
around Q=7, 0.9dB, which is also just below the audibility of threshold. Although it is possible that it
could just about be audible, you would have to be on axis in the near field. In the far field, the Listening
Window is a more useful way of understanding what we would hear, and as we have already seen,
diffraction artefacts appear to disappear in the Listening Window and Early Reflections curves."
"Floyd observes that ripples in the frequency response caused by enclosure diffraction “are much
attenuated by the moderate spatial averaging incorporated in the listening window curve, and have all
but vanished in the increasing spatial averaging of the lower curves.” So the assumption here is that if
Power Response is smooth, any baffle edge diffraction will be inaudible in a typical room in terms of
timbre."
"As can be seen in the following pages, regardless of the amount of baffle diffraction seen in the
measurements, any evidence of it has vanished in the lower curves of the CEA-2034 data. Entirely
consistent with Floyd Toole’s observations. When listening in the far field, this is what we hear in terms
of timbre, rather than the on-axis response. Added to this, we are also bombarded by multiple
reflections of the sound as it reflects off the surfaces of our rooms. These reflections cause much greater
distortion to the sound than baffle diffraction ever could, and moving our heads just a few inches can
make a huge difference to what we hear."
Then into conclusions:
"I am now even less concerned about the detrimental effects of baffle edge diffraction than I used to be,
and will not routinely take extreme steps with various baffle edge treatments to ameliorate it. There are
far more important aspects to get right; first and foremost is a smooth Listening Window, Early
Reflections and Power Response. Non-linear level distortion, especially very broad humps, dips and
shelves are far more audible than diffraction effects or moderate levels of Harmonic Distortion and IMD.
This is also born out in Lee & Geddes research, though most people know that a +2dB shelf above 2kHz
is probably audible, it being akin to an extreme treble tone control."
^ he forgets to explicitly mention here that this is from the home listening perspective, where early reflections dominate perception and ruin the "clarity", and make the artificial wide imaging. That's nice sound for many, but really the great sound in my opinion isn't this one, but this:
"There are other applications such as studio monitors designed for near field use and in well-treated rooms for
which more attention to diffraction is almost certainly worthwhile."
I want to raise awareness that difference between home sound and studio nearfield type sound could be achieved with any given system and room. This aspect is fully adjustable just by moving the listener closer or further from speakers. Bold claim yeah, there is no replacement for great acoustics, but it's not the only difference between the two. Most important difference is whether your brain pays attention to the sound or not, auditory system ability to lock in, and when it does the detail is there and image could be as big as you want, depending how you have positioned the system. For some reason this aspect is always somehow present on papers but as a side note, like on this one. Why not study aspects of playback chain for both brain paying attention and when it's not? Why differentiate "studio near field" and "home audio"?
The "near field" sound is very involving, the HiFi sound to me, and it goes deep within and is very emotional in a way. On the other hand the sound thats available farther away is relaxing, I can do work and concentrate or fall as sleep, because my brain is not having the attention to it. On closer distance where the brain pays involuntary attention it's impossible to concentrate on anything else than be amazed on the music, I'm fully drawn into the music so much so the whole perception of the music is very different. Powerful thing here is that both of these are available at will, just by upgrading "the main listening spot" to two spots!
Well, colorfully written but this is generally how it feels like. And why it happens? Read Griesinger studies about limit of localization distance. Good or bad diffraction could mean how far away one could listen and still have brain paying attention. Brain doesn't pay attention the more there is "noise" compared to direct sound.
As per quotes beginning of this post, if somebody enjoys the "far field" sound and never wants very involving sound that's available with "near field" then diffraction isn't that obvious. For those who like to listen with involving enveloping sound "near field" it suddenly could be. Somebody like me might adjust listening position and have both available at any given time diffraction becomes important, because sound would change if listening angle changes! Directivity and positioning in general becomes very important so I can arrange system for both and have nice sound at any listening distance (always equidistant to speakers of course).
what I think is most audible aspect of edge diffraction is that sound changes as one moves in a room, especially if it is high frequency diffraction. On a smooth directivity and low diffraction system sound doesn't change almost at all, or very slowly instead. This difference between "nervous" and "calming" feeling that accumulates during a day, when the speakers are always on, which I've found very important for me personally. This effect would not represent itself in a diffraction audibility test made with headphones (sound not changing with movement) nor in very controlled AB listening test if intent is to sit still and not change anything else but the edge. It's spatial effect, so most apparent when listener moves around. And, of course this is not black/white situation, some systems are better some worse, some are more sensitive than others, room makes the sound change etc. it's just something where diffraction is most audible in my opinion.
So, the stuff on the paper is to the point as in the studies, but I find it incomplete unless movement of the listener is added to the equation. What you think? do you sit still or move around?🙂
while I'm not in position to say how audible diffraction is for any person or in any situation, I thought to post about something that I consider important and it's missing from the paper.
Few quotes from it:
"It is possible that this small additional
delay could cause some smearing of the acoustic image, but speakers with fairly wide directivity will do
that anyway because of the much larger delay caused by the reflections. It is therefore unlikely that the
delayed signal itself would significantly impact on imaging."
"Note: Erin Hardison has found that loudspeakers with a wider dispersion tend to have a wider
soundstage at the expense of imaging accuracy. It is a subjective choice over whether we prefer more of
one or the other, but many people find a wide soundstage a pleasing, immersive effect and can forgo
super-accurate imaging."
"Figure 3 has even lower Q and amplitude of
around Q=7, 0.9dB, which is also just below the audibility of threshold. Although it is possible that it
could just about be audible, you would have to be on axis in the near field. In the far field, the Listening
Window is a more useful way of understanding what we would hear, and as we have already seen,
diffraction artefacts appear to disappear in the Listening Window and Early Reflections curves."
"Floyd observes that ripples in the frequency response caused by enclosure diffraction “are much
attenuated by the moderate spatial averaging incorporated in the listening window curve, and have all
but vanished in the increasing spatial averaging of the lower curves.” So the assumption here is that if
Power Response is smooth, any baffle edge diffraction will be inaudible in a typical room in terms of
timbre."
"As can be seen in the following pages, regardless of the amount of baffle diffraction seen in the
measurements, any evidence of it has vanished in the lower curves of the CEA-2034 data. Entirely
consistent with Floyd Toole’s observations. When listening in the far field, this is what we hear in terms
of timbre, rather than the on-axis response. Added to this, we are also bombarded by multiple
reflections of the sound as it reflects off the surfaces of our rooms. These reflections cause much greater
distortion to the sound than baffle diffraction ever could, and moving our heads just a few inches can
make a huge difference to what we hear."
Then into conclusions:
"I am now even less concerned about the detrimental effects of baffle edge diffraction than I used to be,
and will not routinely take extreme steps with various baffle edge treatments to ameliorate it. There are
far more important aspects to get right; first and foremost is a smooth Listening Window, Early
Reflections and Power Response. Non-linear level distortion, especially very broad humps, dips and
shelves are far more audible than diffraction effects or moderate levels of Harmonic Distortion and IMD.
This is also born out in Lee & Geddes research, though most people know that a +2dB shelf above 2kHz
is probably audible, it being akin to an extreme treble tone control."
^ he forgets to explicitly mention here that this is from the home listening perspective, where early reflections dominate perception and ruin the "clarity", and make the artificial wide imaging. That's nice sound for many, but really the great sound in my opinion isn't this one, but this:
"There are other applications such as studio monitors designed for near field use and in well-treated rooms for
which more attention to diffraction is almost certainly worthwhile."
I want to raise awareness that difference between home sound and studio nearfield type sound could be achieved with any given system and room. This aspect is fully adjustable just by moving the listener closer or further from speakers. Bold claim yeah, there is no replacement for great acoustics, but it's not the only difference between the two. Most important difference is whether your brain pays attention to the sound or not, auditory system ability to lock in, and when it does the detail is there and image could be as big as you want, depending how you have positioned the system. For some reason this aspect is always somehow present on papers but as a side note, like on this one. Why not study aspects of playback chain for both brain paying attention and when it's not? Why differentiate "studio near field" and "home audio"?
The "near field" sound is very involving, the HiFi sound to me, and it goes deep within and is very emotional in a way. On the other hand the sound thats available farther away is relaxing, I can do work and concentrate or fall as sleep, because my brain is not having the attention to it. On closer distance where the brain pays involuntary attention it's impossible to concentrate on anything else than be amazed on the music, I'm fully drawn into the music so much so the whole perception of the music is very different. Powerful thing here is that both of these are available at will, just by upgrading "the main listening spot" to two spots!
Well, colorfully written but this is generally how it feels like. And why it happens? Read Griesinger studies about limit of localization distance. Good or bad diffraction could mean how far away one could listen and still have brain paying attention. Brain doesn't pay attention the more there is "noise" compared to direct sound.
As per quotes beginning of this post, if somebody enjoys the "far field" sound and never wants very involving sound that's available with "near field" then diffraction isn't that obvious. For those who like to listen with involving enveloping sound "near field" it suddenly could be. Somebody like me might adjust listening position and have both available at any given time diffraction becomes important, because sound would change if listening angle changes! Directivity and positioning in general becomes very important so I can arrange system for both and have nice sound at any listening distance (always equidistant to speakers of course).
what I think is most audible aspect of edge diffraction is that sound changes as one moves in a room, especially if it is high frequency diffraction. On a smooth directivity and low diffraction system sound doesn't change almost at all, or very slowly instead. This difference between "nervous" and "calming" feeling that accumulates during a day, when the speakers are always on, which I've found very important for me personally. This effect would not represent itself in a diffraction audibility test made with headphones (sound not changing with movement) nor in very controlled AB listening test if intent is to sit still and not change anything else but the edge. It's spatial effect, so most apparent when listener moves around. And, of course this is not black/white situation, some systems are better some worse, some are more sensitive than others, room makes the sound change etc. it's just something where diffraction is most audible in my opinion.
So, the stuff on the paper is to the point as in the studies, but I find it incomplete unless movement of the listener is added to the equation. What you think? do you sit still or move around?🙂
Last edited: