Is this based on your experience or on what you have read? I have found that eliminating early reflections is only good in my subjective opinion.
A speaker that messes up imaging sounds very different to poorly mastered source material.
A speaker that messes up imaging sounds very different to poorly mastered source material.
It's not about what I've read, it's about what subject matter experts have written. The idea is to understand their research conclusions and then decide if you want to apply that to your design or not.
It's not a good idea to disregard research based on personal experience. We don't apply the same level of rigor that researchers do. It's much better to understand where you might diverge and then look for explanations.
So, can you explain why your preference for eliminating early reflections diverges from the research?
It's not a good idea to disregard research based on personal experience. We don't apply the same level of rigor that researchers do. It's much better to understand where you might diverge and then look for explanations.
So, can you explain why your preference for eliminating early reflections diverges from the research?
Eh? What strangeness is this? Why would small group studio recordings be the only ones you'd want good image on? What about concert hall recordings? Clubs, live venues, movie soundtracks and so on. This doesn't make any sense to me.
@ Bradley, I'm seeing what I suspect might be discrepancies in your interpretations. Hence my interest in whether you had heard the difference (FWIW).
Toole's recognition of commercially available speakers listened to by general test subjects clearly has some merit, but for a DIYer who builds a low diffraction, carefully directional speaker it is more controversial (I wonder if there is something in that). Geddes has always been careful regarding early reflections, and prefers spaciousness to come from later reflections.
Toole's recognition of commercially available speakers listened to by general test subjects clearly has some merit, but for a DIYer who builds a low diffraction, carefully directional speaker it is more controversial (I wonder if there is something in that). Geddes has always been careful regarding early reflections, and prefers spaciousness to come from later reflections.
If you notice discrepancies in my understanding just point them out. I'm happy to correct my mistakes.
With regard to Toole, your statement, "eliminating early reflections is only good," conflicts with the research he summarized and explained in his book. So much so that there's no way to reconcile your preference with his section on early reflections starting at chapter 7.1.
If my experience diverged that strongly from the research I'd like to know why. I'm not saying your personal experience is wrong, just that it might be valuable to understand your preference. One possible reason you might feel that way is that you trained yourself to feel that way: at some point in the past someone (or a group of audiophiles) told you early reflections were bad, then you proceeded to follow that advice until you believed it.
I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm trying to provide explanation. And it would be great to find out if that was the explanation because it would give you the chance to challenge and reassess your current position.
With regard to Toole, your statement, "eliminating early reflections is only good," conflicts with the research he summarized and explained in his book. So much so that there's no way to reconcile your preference with his section on early reflections starting at chapter 7.1.
If my experience diverged that strongly from the research I'd like to know why. I'm not saying your personal experience is wrong, just that it might be valuable to understand your preference. One possible reason you might feel that way is that you trained yourself to feel that way: at some point in the past someone (or a group of audiophiles) told you early reflections were bad, then you proceeded to follow that advice until you believed it.
I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm trying to provide explanation. And it would be great to find out if that was the explanation because it would give you the chance to challenge and reassess your current position.
IMHO an infinite baffle is the best for both drivers
no baffle step or ripples
Recording Studios have the speakers recessed
even in a car
A bookshelf speaker flat with the books...
A wide baffle will make only little difference to infinite for the tweeter if mounted slightly assymetrical, but a lot of ripples for the woofer, which are difficult to dampen.
If you put the xover freq near middle of the baffle step you can compensate it without additional components.
Now this happens also with the tweeter so a very narrow baffle 1st peak gets attenuated by x-over and rounded edges attenuate the subsequent ripples.
So actually all concepts can lead to pleasent results if applied intelligently
no baffle step or ripples
Recording Studios have the speakers recessed
even in a car
A bookshelf speaker flat with the books...
A wide baffle will make only little difference to infinite for the tweeter if mounted slightly assymetrical, but a lot of ripples for the woofer, which are difficult to dampen.
If you put the xover freq near middle of the baffle step you can compensate it without additional components.
Now this happens also with the tweeter so a very narrow baffle 1st peak gets attenuated by x-over and rounded edges attenuate the subsequent ripples.
So actually all concepts can lead to pleasent results if applied intelligently
Last edited:
Good research has taken me far. This point of Toole's is an exception. I'm not the only one. Take a look at this post - Acoustic Horn Design – The Easy Way (Ath4)
Brad, some years I've spent the entire year of my audio time working on the problem of a single reflective surface.. then another.
I implied in my last post that I have a suspicion that the potential damage done by diffractions and reflections can be smoothed over a little by adding more to create a nice little mix. Something that I would definitely go the other way with...
...The reason is that they are trying to make existing speakers sound better. I am trying to make a superior speaker, and if necessary I'll make it unlike anything that is for sale.. if my research tells me that is the right thing to do.
Brad, some years I've spent the entire year of my audio time working on the problem of a single reflective surface.. then another.
I implied in my last post that I have a suspicion that the potential damage done by diffractions and reflections can be smoothed over a little by adding more to create a nice little mix. Something that I would definitely go the other way with...
...The reason is that they are trying to make existing speakers sound better. I am trying to make a superior speaker, and if necessary I'll make it unlike anything that is for sale.. if my research tells me that is the right thing to do.
Ask, we're here to help.
I think Bradley knows that thread pretty well. And we have to deal with stochastic aspects in our audio world. Let alone perception.
Poppycock.
Just because 99% of people prefer chocolate ice cream, doesn't mean I should too when my favourite is strawberry.
There has been allusion to Toole's work on the Harbeth site recently, in the context of how wide a speaker's dispersion should be, and the desire for, or not, wall reflections. To me this is closely related to the baffle width consideration.
Interestingly, ATC's top domestic model has a very wide baffle, and most of their professional models follow a standard box shape.
With regard to the earlier consideration of coupled bass units, so to cancel mechanical vibration, I think KEF established that in the 80s with the 104 with coupled cavity bass, there being IIRC, a rod between two bass drivers. Coupling is now widely used, and with many designs with side firing woofers.
WRT imaging, surely only purist Blumlein recordings have a real image, many rock/pop ones being purely studio artifice and panned, and even many classical recordings use an array of mics to produce a tonally balanced sound and to capture detail.
Interestingly, ATC's top domestic model has a very wide baffle, and most of their professional models follow a standard box shape.
With regard to the earlier consideration of coupled bass units, so to cancel mechanical vibration, I think KEF established that in the 80s with the 104 with coupled cavity bass, there being IIRC, a rod between two bass drivers. Coupling is now widely used, and with many designs with side firing woofers.
WRT imaging, surely only purist Blumlein recordings have a real image, many rock/pop ones being purely studio artifice and panned, and even many classical recordings use an array of mics to produce a tonally balanced sound and to capture detail.
OK it's off topic but: why would only Blumlein miking give a real image? Apart from the question whether it actually does so, why would other techniques not deliver 'real' image results? Some of the best recordings I am aware certainly didn't use Blumlein.
My conception is that Blumlein''s method is the only way, (other than intensity info), that phase info and hence positioning info is preserved - picked up over the years, but I'm open to correction.
XY does that job too. The question is what you want to pick up. Like phase differences the same as your own ears would pick up (ORTF/Jecklin). Or just phase differences that give a bigger spatial experience like AB. If you skip the loudspeaker-room-ear interface and refrain to headphones, Jecklin and artificial head recordings appear very accurate.
Doesn't matter. When you've been lucky enough to have speakers and a listening space that can really develop an image, you know that some of the darnedest things have a great soundscape. Almost all recordings done in a large space do, and some complete studio fabrications of pop-music do, too. Even good mono recordings have depth. Of course there are plenty that don't, but they can still be musically enjoyable in all their flatness.
But maybe I'm just more interested in (or intrigued by) this than most people.