Conflicting Design Claims - Is there really a right answer

jag

Member
2002-08-22 4:16 pm
TX
Here is a quote from Mirage (omnipolar design, wide dispersion is good):

In a live musical environment, approximately 30% of what we hear is direct sound, 70% of what we hear is reflected sound. The human brain uses direct sound for identification and to calculate location, but uses reflected sound to determine musicality and spaciousness, as well as direction. A speaker with wide dispersion characteristics reproduces sound with far greater realism and faithfulness to the original instrument and environment.

And here is a quote from Avantgarde (horn design, wide dispersion is bad):

Approximately 85% of the sound reaches the ear directly. There’s no need for room treatments to absorb or diffuse side-wall and ceiling reflections, because there aren’t many!


Mirage as well as several other Canadian companies refer to NRC research (again claiming that wide dispersion is good).

Is there really a right answer?
 

MRehorst

Member
2002-05-17 8:48 pm
I have wide, flat panel and "curved" electrostatic speakers that I built myself, and a pair of ESL 63s.

The "curved" panels and the ESL63s attempt to disperse the high frequencies more than flat panels.

Flat panels are extremely directional requiring that they be aimed at your ears, but they allow very easy control of room reflections at higher frequencies.

I prefer the sound of the flat panels. They seem to produce a very good illusion of localization of sound sources and seem more accurate at reproducing sharp transients.

That said, highly directional speakers are not optimal if more than one person wants to listen to the music.
 
They can both sound good, if you put each one in the appropriate room. They both take part of the truth (if there is any) and make it the whole without talking about the downsides.

Two different approachs with 2 sets of compromises. The 30%/70% thing is misleading thou. Sure in live music 70% is indirect, but it is bouncing off the space in the live concert venue, not your room.

I have bi-poles (essentially what the Mirages are) and i like what they do in my room (designed with hifi in mind). i always preface any discussion of bipoles with the caveat "if your room can support them".

dave
 
In my limited knowledge and opinion, planet10 is right, it all depends on the situation. When you're in a club listening to a live band, you hear a lot of reflections and depending on where you're physically located, you might also be hearing sounds coming directly from the musicians in addition to the P.A. Now, when I go down to the local outdoor venues to listen to a concert, where are the reflections? There's a lot more absorbtions than reflections, so Mirage's claim falls apart. (Grass doesn't reflect very well)

Personally, I don't have enough of a budget to be a real audiophile, so I just play one on T.V. and read all about it. (And live vicariously through you guys!!)

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, unless someone tells me otherwise.
 

jag

Member
2002-08-22 4:16 pm
TX
Well, Mirage claims that room placement is easy since there is no sweet spot (every spot is a sweet spot) and Avantgarde claims that room placement is easy because there are no reflections (room does not matter). But if you read reviews you find that room placement is very difficult with both designs. And Dave's comments echo that:

planet10:

"if your room can support them".

On the other hand several conventional designs are much easier to place in the room.

planet10:

They can both sound good, if you put each one in the appropriate room.

So, what is it about the room that favors one over the other?

PS: I have nothing for or against the 2 brands I keep mentioning. I have taken them as examples because they represent 2 extremes.
 
Schaef said:
Personally, I don't have enough of a budget to be a real audiophile, so I just play one on T.V. and read all about it. (And live vicariously through you guys!!)

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, unless someone tells me otherwise.

Become a Frugal-phile(tm). It is actually quite amazing what you can do without almost any budget. If you are interested start up a new thread and we can discuss it.

dave
 

jag

Member
2002-08-22 4:16 pm
TX
Dave:

my bipoles are 6 ft out from the back wall 4-5 ft from the side walls and the tops are 10-12 ft from the ceiling.

Are your bipoles the BD-Pipes you keep referring to. I have been thinking about attempting those, but if the space requirement is as mentioned above then I guess they are ruled out.

Also, I find this very interesting:

Become a Frugal-phile(tm). It is actually quite amazing what you can do without almost any budget. If you are interested start up a new thread and we can discuss it.

I am starting a new thread under 'Everything else'.
 
jag said:
Are your bipoles the BD-Pipes you keep referring to. I have been thinking about attempting those, but if the space requirement is as mentioned above then I guess they are ruled out.

Yes BD-Pipes are my bipoles. By adding a filter to the back speaker at or just above the baffle-step frequency you can turn them into a monopole with (my term) brute force baffle-step compensation and the doubling of the driver area at low frequencies (ie a 1.5 way speaker).

dave
 

jag

Member
2002-08-22 4:16 pm
TX
Yes BD-Pipes are my bipoles. By adding a filter to the back speaker at or just above the baffle-step frequency you can turn them into a monopole with (my term) brute force baffle-step compensation and the doubling of the driver area at low frequencies (ie a 1.5 way speaker).

Most of this is way over me :xeye: though I am sure after spending some more time on these forums I will eventually be able to make sense of this :cool:
 
from what little i know...

1. a direct monitor like a good 6" 2way with a small baffle or even a good 5/6" MTM seem to image better atleast laterally but over a smaller listening area (I dont know why but MTM have an even "tighter" image over a smaller area than a MT.

2. bipoles and bose tend to spread a less "tight" image but over a larger listening area.

I have liked both on various occasions. However today most hifi speakers tend to do double duty with HT. a speaker designed for HT use would prefer a larger spread. Hence the resurgence of bipoles.

and, Dave, speaker of budgetophile...my drivers cost me $40 per channel....it is still a kings ranson for me in India (every Rs. we ern = 2 cents American or 2.25 cents Canadian).

regards
Navin