I guess this is what most people try to balance out for themselves, when they place their speakers and sofa. Must be a preference, more diffuse and far away vs. direct and more in your head. Maybe that also has something to do with music style preferences.
Indeed, and it's also frequency dependent, with some positioning and toe-in I got highs inside head and so on 😀 not nice. Some recordings are more comfortable with diffuse sound, listened further away with local room effects imprinted.
It's just that communication with it is hard, because for example having a system with waveguide /compression driver compared to direct radiating dome tweeter affects this because radiation patterns likely differ and affect how speaker system interacts with the room. But, it all also depends on positioning and listening distance so it all depends on many things. Giving advice on how to get depth is impossible unless both parties know exactly what the other means by depth, and what the system is like and the room is like. Otherwise any discussion is just noise and could be good or bad advice, by random.
However, I think it is quite likely everyone has tuned their systems to their liking like you said. Some might have a practical positioning, only some degree of freedom. Anyway, perhaps the local listening condition is already fine and perhaps knowingly or unkowingly always listen at best possible place suitable for their liking with the particular recording. Trying to get better sound however, like "better depth", requires to know what you think the depth is and to know that others might describe it something else. Manipulating listening setup by yourdelf and learning how to hear /listen different presentations of depth, and then trying to find out what constitutes to that, is helpful. One can then reason how to get more of what you think is better. Or what it takes to arrange suitable sound to practical listening position. In general, just helps to understand how perception changes and what sound better and when, clarity to confusion 🙂
It's just that communication with it is hard, because for example having a system with waveguide /compression driver compared to direct radiating dome tweeter affects this because radiation patterns likely differ and affect how speaker system interacts with the room. But, it all also depends on positioning and listening distance so it all depends on many things. Giving advice on how to get depth is impossible unless both parties know exactly what the other means by depth, and what the system is like and the room is like. Otherwise any discussion is just noise and could be good or bad advice, by random.
However, I think it is quite likely everyone has tuned their systems to their liking like you said. Some might have a practical positioning, only some degree of freedom. Anyway, perhaps the local listening condition is already fine and perhaps knowingly or unkowingly always listen at best possible place suitable for their liking with the particular recording. Trying to get better sound however, like "better depth", requires to know what you think the depth is and to know that others might describe it something else. Manipulating listening setup by yourdelf and learning how to hear /listen different presentations of depth, and then trying to find out what constitutes to that, is helpful. One can then reason how to get more of what you think is better. Or what it takes to arrange suitable sound to practical listening position. In general, just helps to understand how perception changes and what sound better and when, clarity to confusion 🙂
Last edited:
Nope. 😉
You can both improve treble clarity and tracking, but have the soundstage and the images within it "squashed" forward from the rear (like the bellows on an accordion being compressed). This is different than what you get from increasing the directivity (make it more narrow) horizontally which tends to push the entire soundstage forward but doesn't necessarily compress the soundstage from the rear.
As far as I can tell it's mostly a compliance artifact in the treble relating to the interaction between the surround and the diaphragm, both in excursion and damping (which is freq. dependent). It can also be a result of air-compliance "enclosure" alteration, though in the case of CD's this is rare because their compliance is already so stiff as to be relatively immune from this (..though as you go back to earlier designs (Altec) this is not always the case).
By contrast most dome tweeters aren't nearly as "stiff" after having been "worked" at little, and their surrounds don't tend to damp the diaphragm as much. Also some of these designs tend to focus a bit more on the air-load (..like Scan Speak), and can often result in better depth in the treble. (..In fact Scan Speak also tends to create a variable profile for the diaphragm to also alter the way the diaphragm interacts with the surround - which also improves depth.)
Thanks for clarification! I think I can understand and relate to what you describe: it is feature of depth perception within the real depth / 3D depth perception I explained? 😀
Can you hear differences between different compression drivers regarding this?
Can you approximate bandwidth where this appears? top octave, perhaps below?
Have you played with toe-in, does it affect any?
I think related stuff is in psycho acoustics, here is simple trick from sound engineering: dry and trebley sounds are perceived close, reverberant and dull further away. Tweak with early reflections related knobs.
I could assume sounds that ought to localize rear end of the depth perception are the dull sounds, but some effect gives them extra brightness and bring them forward? harmonic distortion for example 🙂
it would be interesting test, add some distortion and see if it changes the effect, brings rear of depth closer or any other effects. I remember Nelson Pass having an article/post about amplifier with knob(s) to tweak distortion. I think it mentions something that people perceived change in depth, perhapsnit was with some particular distortion like opposite polarity 3rd order distortion or something like that 🙂
Can you hear differences between different compression drivers regarding this?
Can you approximate bandwidth where this appears? top octave, perhaps below?
Have you played with toe-in, does it affect any?
I think related stuff is in psycho acoustics, here is simple trick from sound engineering: dry and trebley sounds are perceived close, reverberant and dull further away. Tweak with early reflections related knobs.
I could assume sounds that ought to localize rear end of the depth perception are the dull sounds, but some effect gives them extra brightness and bring them forward? harmonic distortion for example 🙂
it would be interesting test, add some distortion and see if it changes the effect, brings rear of depth closer or any other effects. I remember Nelson Pass having an article/post about amplifier with knob(s) to tweak distortion. I think it mentions something that people perceived change in depth, perhapsnit was with some particular distortion like opposite polarity 3rd order distortion or something like that 🙂
Last edited:
Yeah Pass writes that 2nd harmonic affects perception of depth:
"
The two phases of second harmonic do sound different, in fact the most consistent
observation people have reported is that positive-phase has a little more projection to it, that
it's a little more in-your-face and immediate. Negative phase tends to add more depth.
"
https://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_f6_baf.pdf
Not sure how far fetched this is, if it is same effect or not, but I suspect it could be same property in hearing system that is responsible for both, difference of depth between amplifiers or types of tweeters, which seems to be related to harmonic distortion, perhaps something else like compression?🙂 I have no clue, need to remember listen this, try another amplifier at some point.
Have you experimented with amplifiers or with the distortion directly? Perhaps some negative phase 2nd order harmonic can cancel some distortion of the driver or something.
"
The two phases of second harmonic do sound different, in fact the most consistent
observation people have reported is that positive-phase has a little more projection to it, that
it's a little more in-your-face and immediate. Negative phase tends to add more depth.
"
https://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_f6_baf.pdf
Not sure how far fetched this is, if it is same effect or not, but I suspect it could be same property in hearing system that is responsible for both, difference of depth between amplifiers or types of tweeters, which seems to be related to harmonic distortion, perhaps something else like compression?🙂 I have no clue, need to remember listen this, try another amplifier at some point.
Have you experimented with amplifiers or with the distortion directly? Perhaps some negative phase 2nd order harmonic can cancel some distortion of the driver or something.
Last edited:
I'm not sure, but it seems as if you are relating your experiences to a waveguide treble system in-room and the alteration in listener distance from the loudspeakers. If possible, take the system outside to listen to the difference quasi-free field result. However the best veracity check IMO is making your own binaural and simple-mic.ed stereo recordings and hearing the difference with headphones (in binaural) vs in stereo on your stereo system.
Note: (with directive designs notably within 1-8 kHz) imaging can become a bit harder to localize due to the pressure of the near side wall reflections being further off-axis relative to the listener and being more "discrete" relative to the loudspeaker's direct sound. Contrast this with a loudspeaker design that is omni where the reflections are often a bit more uniform around the speaker and as a result are easier to disregard (the relative angle of the reflections and the direct sound "match up" better with their angle relative to the listener). Part of the solution is to aim the loudspeakers so that the reflections happen well behind the listener and OR (better) simply absorb the near side-wall reflections that significantly extend past the direct sound's angle relative to the listener.
This is not unlike altering the distance between the speakers and/or the listener moving closer to the speakers or further away: the overall angle changes relative to the listener in both cases and changes the result. More "discrete" reflections (where the spl is greater in a more narrow angle of the near side-wall) closer to the listener generate a result that is both more difficult to ignore relative to direct sound, but also a result that changes the angle of pressure relative to the listener going from perhaps direct sound's approximate 45 degrees to something more like 55-60 degrees. Doing this changes the monophonic emphasis where you derive a lot of depth of field and makes the sound more "left channel & right channel" to the listener, and while this should ordinarily increase width, it doesn't seem to do so because it's not direct sound (unless it's VERY near and LOUD relative to the direct sound as when the loudspeaker is a foot or less away from the side wall).
In other words, it's all about the angle of pressure & phase/time as it interacts with the head/torso of the listener.
?
It's a broad-band effect, but because of the difficulty in resolving sound direction with large wavelengths in-room it's usually above the modal region.
Note: larger wavelengths rely on the pressure gradient and phase rotation more. SPL is generally conditioned at around 500 Hz at the very lowest with phase differences making up the rest, but really it's mostly pressure differences with respect to the gradient where phase/delay is often problematic. 4 kHz is typically referenced as the start of most significant pressure difference related to head-shading, but that's a physical effect and respective of spl differences only.
Assuming you don't have a higher pressure (than direct sound) mode in between you and the loudspeakers, then you should "target" somewhere between 100-200 Hz as a function of wavelength (around 6-11 feet) to avoid a reflection that conflicts with the minute stereo separation you have at these freq.s. This mostly concerns the front and rear wall of the listening room in respect of the loudspeaker's proximity and with respect to the listener's head: realistically this means the "front" wall (or the wall behind the loudspeakers as the listener faces the loudspeaker). Higher peaked modes between the speakers (laterally) are still a problem (even if "behind" the loudspeakers) and just the junction between wall and floor and wall and ceiling between the loudspeakers is also a problem. Still, maintaining that sort of distance from the "front" wall with "omni" (at these lower freq.s) speakers typically results in better depth. Lower freq. cardioids have it a bit easier though modes are still a problem.
Yes with directive designs (and even with more traditional dome tweeter designs the loudspeaker's diffraction still plays a substantive role). Usually though the toe-in or out must be fairly extreme with substantive pressure loss off-axis one way or the other AND/OR if you disrupt the pressure gradient. To the latter case: when you toe-in or out a waveguide design so much that you can't actually see the driver then the imaging becomes much more diffuse but often also larger and "unbound" from the loudspeakers. It's part of the reason why some of those "Venetian blind"-like "slits" (diffraction/diffusors) where placed in front of CD's on some CD loudspeakers (..they don't work nearly as well as the extreme toe-out waveguide with good regular/more uniform wall reflections though).
Higher freq.s sound are inherently more directional (to the listener) because of head shading so they typically sound a bit *closer, there is less monophonic emphasis and therefore less depth. Highly directional beam-formed designs can do this to about 100 Hz: these are so directional that if you aim one loudspeaker at just one ear then it sounds as if someone is whispering/shouting right into your ear - and it's freaky (the "depth" perspective is an inch).
*more so if they are "percussive"/dynamic, and a lot of treble content is (like speech).
Again, percussive/dynamic often perceptually moves *forward (very briefly), I wouldn't ascribe this to Harmonic Distortion unless it was gross and narrow band that is periodic (as with speech or lyrics periodically "moving into" the freq. range where there is a spike in Harmonic Distortion from the loudspeaker).
*speakers with a bit more "punch" relative to others often have a bit less depth of field (when playing in that freq. range) irrespective of non-linear distortion. New Record Day (Youtube) had a couple of very similar speakers (Perlisten S & R versions) that were binaural mic.ed and the more expensive clearer loudspeaker S has less depth during those "punchy" moments (with tracks that have them) than the R version.
I do know that broad *strong harmonic distortion does result in a perceptually louder sound, but I'd have a hard time saying that (excepting my previous paragraph above) it actually reduced depth because it's often fairly even in spl - so it's more like the loudspeaker as a whole is slightly louder sounding. MAYBE at extreme low freq.s where many loudspeakers are nearing "doubling" with non-linear effects.
*like the harmonic distortion from a typical radial saw makes it seem much louder than it really is (ie. 98db sounds like 115db).
In any event this is pretty far from the thread's purpose. 😉
Last edited:
Hi ScottG, thanks for lenghty response!
I was primarily interested on this:
Based on this assumption I was interested if there is difference between compression drivers, like if some compression drivers work like direct radiating tweeters in this regard. And then I speculated what might cause it, how hearing system might perceive such thing.
"compression" of depth at high frequencies seems to be an aspect I haven't noticed or thought about so was interested on what it is. I'm aware they localize closer to me, than lows.
Overall I'm interested on how stuff is perceived by everyone and what they think it is due, mainly to get more knowledge about context the perception was made so that I could make my own connection between perceived sound of mine and the text, or idea about something, what people mean when they say something, how things relate to perceived sound.
By changing listening distance I can change the apparent effect of room dramatically, one effect is perception of depth. If I'm too far from speakers, the depth collapses to 2D. Distance can be far or closer to me depending on how big the stereo triangle (setup) is and so on. When I'm close enough speakers something snaps in brain / perception and turns more 3D like perception.
To me, these are two distinct "descriptions of depth", or "perceptions of depth", and I was interested which one you were talking about on earlier post. And I understood from your reply that it wasn't exactly either but subset of the 3D stuff where depth is compressed from "rear", depth reduced. Qualities of both can be manipulated by changing positioning, but distance to speakers seem to be the thing that makes the change between the two, for some reason. It might be my speakers, or my room, or what ever, I don't know 😀 I'm trying to find out what I'm hearing and what is it.
Point was to get more knowledge to make my own conclusions and progress with my hobby, but also to showcase this stuff is very difficult to communicate without sharing exactly same experience and then discussing about it live. I mean these few posts between us underline it 😀 multiple posts without reaching common understanding even though there is willingness to reach understanding 😀 Imagine someone stumbles on some forum posts, even though the post was very well written it could be exactly something else than the reader has perceived himself, thus very confusing, very likely leads to wrong conclusion unless the reader knows exactly context of the writer, and what his context is.
We both, all of us, have our own setups in our own rooms and for example perception of depth depends on many many things I've found out. Unless it is exactly understood how to perceive something, and quite accurately describe context how some perception was reached, then it's almost impossible to make connection how your perception relates to mine, I cannot associate my perception and understanding of depth to yours simply because I have two definitions for depth, or two distinct perceptions of depth which all changes with how the system is set up 😀
I was primarily interested on this:
which I understood you saying there is mechanism in the treble transducer itself, that affects perception of depth, reducing farthest reach.
Based on this assumption I was interested if there is difference between compression drivers, like if some compression drivers work like direct radiating tweeters in this regard. And then I speculated what might cause it, how hearing system might perceive such thing.
"compression" of depth at high frequencies seems to be an aspect I haven't noticed or thought about so was interested on what it is. I'm aware they localize closer to me, than lows.
Overall I'm interested on how stuff is perceived by everyone and what they think it is due, mainly to get more knowledge about context the perception was made so that I could make my own connection between perceived sound of mine and the text, or idea about something, what people mean when they say something, how things relate to perceived sound.
Yes I'm using different methods to zone in how my speakers interact with my room, how I perceive the stuff, what I like and how can I can get more of what I like. Main thing is just to try make connection between perceived sound to data, data from measurements and simulations, how various written concepts sound like. Like depth of sound stage. To really understand something it is necessary to make strong relation to perceived phenomenon and be confident about it, that its exactly what was described.
By changing listening distance I can change the apparent effect of room dramatically, one effect is perception of depth. If I'm too far from speakers, the depth collapses to 2D. Distance can be far or closer to me depending on how big the stereo triangle (setup) is and so on. When I'm close enough speakers something snaps in brain / perception and turns more 3D like perception.
To me, these are two distinct "descriptions of depth", or "perceptions of depth", and I was interested which one you were talking about on earlier post. And I understood from your reply that it wasn't exactly either but subset of the 3D stuff where depth is compressed from "rear", depth reduced. Qualities of both can be manipulated by changing positioning, but distance to speakers seem to be the thing that makes the change between the two, for some reason. It might be my speakers, or my room, or what ever, I don't know 😀 I'm trying to find out what I'm hearing and what is it.
Point was to get more knowledge to make my own conclusions and progress with my hobby, but also to showcase this stuff is very difficult to communicate without sharing exactly same experience and then discussing about it live. I mean these few posts between us underline it 😀 multiple posts without reaching common understanding even though there is willingness to reach understanding 😀 Imagine someone stumbles on some forum posts, even though the post was very well written it could be exactly something else than the reader has perceived himself, thus very confusing, very likely leads to wrong conclusion unless the reader knows exactly context of the writer, and what his context is.
We both, all of us, have our own setups in our own rooms and for example perception of depth depends on many many things I've found out. Unless it is exactly understood how to perceive something, and quite accurately describe context how some perception was reached, then it's almost impossible to make connection how your perception relates to mine, I cannot associate my perception and understanding of depth to yours simply because I have two definitions for depth, or two distinct perceptions of depth which all changes with how the system is set up 😀
Yeah this stuff is manipulated with positioning. However, although I haven't tried all possible combinations in room, it's just either the 2D or 3D presentation no matter what I've had, perhaps there is subtle differences. I mean, I can change base width between speakers to set them to what ever angle I want to manipulate how the stereo feels, if there is hole in the middle and how wide it is and so on. Also rotate / move the whole setup so that relationship to walls changes which affects time and direction of early reflections some, it's small room after all. Both can be utilized to tweak early reflections. Toe-in can change frequency response of the early reflections. I've played quite much with it but of course need to play with it more!🙂
Could you expand on the stereo separation a bit, do you mean distance between speakers is very important how it relates to size of head or something? I mean, if you always keep equilateral listening triangle and were listening in anechoic (outside) there would be some size of the triangle when there is better stereo separation, what ever that means?
Last edited:
For drivers, whether it's a compression driver or tweeter or a woofer or subwoofer, the driver has some amount of mechanical resistance that's composed of the driver's mechanical parameters and the inclusion of air (and various sources of air resistance including modulated effects like resonances).
These mechanical losses contribute to a compressed or fore-shortened depth perspective with respect to the driver.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/damping-material-adds-non-linearity-friction.161245/
-compression drivers seem to be a lot more uniform in this regard: again - just foreshortening depth (by some amount) where everything else stays the same.
These mechanical losses contribute to a compressed or fore-shortened depth perspective with respect to the driver.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/damping-material-adds-non-linearity-friction.161245/
-compression drivers seem to be a lot more uniform in this regard: again - just foreshortening depth (by some amount) where everything else stays the same.
Last edited:
If you always keep an equilateral triangle listening outside (quasi-free-field) then accepting the added or subtracted length of the ground reflection the result is effectively the same because the angle to the listener is the same: with very little difference except proximity to the source (and the ground reflection). ..and if the ground is earth (not paved) then the effect of the ground reflection is often quite a bit less.
In a room of course it's not the same because of the added pressure from side wall contributions relative to angle and because to maintain an equilateral triangle in-room as you expand the loudspeaker separation necessitates moving the loudspeakers closer to their respective side-walls.
New Member here.
I am planning on using a B & C DCM 50 CD with a Yuichi Horn ( A290). Apparently the way the phase plug is designed there's no exit angle ( 0 degrees) on the DCM 50.
The Yuichi is designed for optimal performance with compression drivers that have an 8 to 10 degree exit angle.
What issues may arise with this pairing?
I am planning on using a B & C DCM 50 CD with a Yuichi Horn ( A290). Apparently the way the phase plug is designed there's no exit angle ( 0 degrees) on the DCM 50.
The Yuichi is designed for optimal performance with compression drivers that have an 8 to 10 degree exit angle.
What issues may arise with this pairing?
Just saw this deal on facebook.
Axi2050 sells at $499.00!!!
I think that's a huge price drop for this driver
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...i2050-2-neodymium-coaxial-compression-driver/
Axi2050 sells at $499.00!!!
I think that's a huge price drop for this driver
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...i2050-2-neodymium-coaxial-compression-driver/
Does anyone have any thoughts on this pairing:?
SEOS 24 HORN with Celestian AXI 2050 CD
Any feedback would greatly be appreciated.
If another horn of reasonable size would be a better match please advise.
Thanks....
SEOS 24 HORN with Celestian AXI 2050 CD
Any feedback would greatly be appreciated.
If another horn of reasonable size would be a better match please advise.
Thanks....
Last edited:
there is a guy who have the SEOS 30 with them in France
https://forums.melaudia.net/showthread.php?tid=11647
https://forums.melaudia.net/showthread.php?tid=11647
I have the AXIs on SEOS 30 and am quite happy with them, havent tryed them lower than 500hz (6db crossover) yet. Rest of the loudspeaker system is VOT boxes with GPA 515Cs and a mono sub with JBL2242h 18in.