You call me "nit-picking" others call me "Geddes supporter" – looks like one doesn't make many friends when asking for objectivity in the audio world 🙂
This looks like an audible peak to me. What do others say?
Best, Markus
This looks like an audible peak to me. What do others say?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
Objectivity?
Seems some can and some cant
Objectivity can be very insensitive and rough, even if intentions are only good and fair
Peak?
Looks more like a small dip in the rolloff
Remove what you consider a peak, and the rollof would look peaked instead
Besides, a few db I wouldnt consider peaked
Anyway, personally I would never accept to have a speaker toed in
Markus
Thats so true. I try and be honest, present real data, and people turn it arround and use it against you by unfairly comparing it to incomparable data.
I understand what you are trying to say. And yes, if there was a fix to the 500 Hz problem that didn't cost anything I'd do it. To me the problem is the resonance at 150-200 Hz that makes this look like a broad peak, when what it actually is, is a rising response due to edge resonances. The response rises at a different rate than the LP filter can match and so you either get this slow rise or a bigger hole at the crossover. The DE10 is simply impossible to push lower to cover this hole, so you are trapped trying to pick the best of several bad choices. If this system sells well, then I may switch 8" drivers to a Neo one, but its a lot more expensive and I either need large volume of sales or I would have to raise the price. I have had to consistantly raise my prices, so I don't want to keep doing that.
B&C is basically phasing out thier older ceramic designs, like the 10ps26 in your Nathans. Its not available anymore to new customers, although they will still sell it to current customers. I am going to have to swtich the driver in the Nathan in the not too distant future and I will try and find the best choice at that time. But it will have to be something that B&C has in the catalog since its getting harder and harder to get the drivers that I am currently using.
Thats so true. I try and be honest, present real data, and people turn it arround and use it against you by unfairly comparing it to incomparable data.
I understand what you are trying to say. And yes, if there was a fix to the 500 Hz problem that didn't cost anything I'd do it. To me the problem is the resonance at 150-200 Hz that makes this look like a broad peak, when what it actually is, is a rising response due to edge resonances. The response rises at a different rate than the LP filter can match and so you either get this slow rise or a bigger hole at the crossover. The DE10 is simply impossible to push lower to cover this hole, so you are trapped trying to pick the best of several bad choices. If this system sells well, then I may switch 8" drivers to a Neo one, but its a lot more expensive and I either need large volume of sales or I would have to raise the price. I have had to consistantly raise my prices, so I don't want to keep doing that.
B&C is basically phasing out thier older ceramic designs, like the 10ps26 in your Nathans. Its not available anymore to new customers, although they will still sell it to current customers. I am going to have to swtich the driver in the Nathan in the not too distant future and I will try and find the best choice at that time. But it will have to be something that B&C has in the catalog since its getting harder and harder to get the drivers that I am currently using.
tinitus said:
Why? It can be very helpful to redirect most of the radiated power to the left or right side of the room.
markus76 said:
I dont know, but looks too strange to my eyes, but thats just me I guess
Anyway, listening on axis you still have less reflections than the normal way of listening, off axis "toed out"
Listening on axis, or close to, as I prefer it, you get two equal off axis response, inside and outside
You may say that the on axis response becomes one side of your off axis
Listening toed in on a speaker due to elevated/rising on axis response, you get two different off axis responses
I dont know if it means anything at all, but thats how it is objectively
The room's dimensions and the speakers directivity (and the toe-in) dictates the reflection pattern. Listening on-axis doesn't necessarily create "two equal off axis response". Most (piston) speakers are flat on their 0° axis. You can't toe them in anyway. Earl's speakers are different. Being able to delay reflections and control their direction by toeing-in the speakers can be most helpful.
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
Tinitus
Markus is correct, you can't toe in speakers that are not CD, it doesn't work, so if you tried this with piston loudspeakers, then of course you won't like it. But with CD sources this has major advantages for room interaction and wider "sweet spots".
Is how the speakers "look" when toed-in important? It only looks odd because it is so uncommon. And its only uncommon because true CD speakers are rare.
Markus is correct, you can't toe in speakers that are not CD, it doesn't work, so if you tried this with piston loudspeakers, then of course you won't like it. But with CD sources this has major advantages for room interaction and wider "sweet spots".
Is how the speakers "look" when toed-in important? It only looks odd because it is so uncommon. And its only uncommon because true CD speakers are rare.
In addition nearly any "normal" speaker has to be toed-in 30° for the direct sound to be flat.
My Nathans are toed-in only 7.5°-15° (so I end up listening on the speakers 15°-22.5° axis) - this is much less toe-in compared to a "normal" piston speaker.
Toe-in the Nathans 45°-52.5° (which again equals the speakers 15°-22.5° axis) and you have redirected reflections to the other side of the room. Comes in very handy.
Best, Markus
My Nathans are toed-in only 7.5°-15° (so I end up listening on the speakers 15°-22.5° axis) - this is much less toe-in compared to a "normal" piston speaker.
Toe-in the Nathans 45°-52.5° (which again equals the speakers 15°-22.5° axis) and you have redirected reflections to the other side of the room. Comes in very handy.
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
OK, now I'm confused
- why is that? Or do you mean that the crossing point has to be at the sweet spot? But in that case the angles would be variable based on listening and speaker distances.To define terms, "toe-in", to me, means that the speaker axes cross ahead of the listener and "toe-out" means that they cross behind the listener. "On-axis" means just that, even though the speakers are pointing inwards. With this definition, no matter what the setup distances we always know what we are talking about.
No toe-in - looks good:
Traditional 30° piston speaker toe-in:
Summa toe-in:
Best, Markus
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Traditional 30° piston speaker toe-in:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Summa toe-in:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Best, Markus
Understood. This traditional setup dimensions are not really all that typical, but I agree if we are assuming anything this is the place to start.
I am most definately further back than the speakers are wide.
I am most definately further back than the speakers are wide.
What you suggest as "normal toe" in is actually exactly "on axis", and nothing else
Toe in doesnt mean angling speakers as such, as you are suggesting
Toe in means that on axis point is crossing in front of you, like you show with Summas
Thats what toe in means, and nothing else
The term "toe in" comes from that your toes are in front of you
Toe in doesnt mean angling speakers as such, as you are suggesting
Toe in means that on axis point is crossing in front of you, like you show with Summas
Thats what toe in means, and nothing else
The term "toe in" comes from that your toes are in front of you
Tinitus, I don't think that you're right here but English is not my mother tongue so someone else has to play the judge. In the end it doesn't matter how you define "toe-in" as long as everybody knows your point of reference. That's why I posted the pics.
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
Markus
Very well handled! Unusual 😉
You are correct that Tinitus English is not precisely correct. The deffinition is indeed open to interpretation, but not really accurately described by what Tinitus has said since part of what he has said is basically what I said and the other part isn't really correct.
Very well handled! Unusual 😉
You are correct that Tinitus English is not precisely correct. The deffinition is indeed open to interpretation, but not really accurately described by what Tinitus has said since part of what he has said is basically what I said and the other part isn't really correct.
markus76 said:
gedlee said:
No
No
Reference is on axis listening
Off axis is any angle where speakers on axis crosspoint meets behind listener
Toe-in is any off axis speaker angling where speakers on axis cross point meets in front of listener
It has been like that always, as long as I can remember
Its nice to see you united again, teaching me english 😀
I've never tried setting up my speakers on an equalateral triangle, but having them 15 feet apart and 15 feet from me would be very strange I think. I may need to try sitting closer just to experience this "standard" setup. I've always setup my speakers so that I sit back from them 1.5 times the distance they are apart or more. My traditional setup had been 2 times the distance, but since getting a projector screen, that was no longer possible.
All (music) mixing and mastering is done using an equilateral triangle, so setting up your speakers like this is the right thing to do.
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
While I believe that your statement is generally correct in that I do think the majority of mastering and mixing is initially done via the equilateral triangle method, I know it's not always true, and I don't know that the best sound is had via this either. While I have not exhaustively toured every major music studio in the world, I've been to some of the major ones who do both movies and music, as well as some of the more esoteric "audiophile" ones. What I have found is that many of the studios set up with separate mastering studio's have far field monitors setup in what would appear to be more of a 1.5 distance to listener type arrangement. This was especially true of the ones utilizing the very large Dunlavey Monitors in the Sony studio's and such.
As for theater mastering, while pretty much all of the mastering is done using that circle with equidistant, roughly as mentioned, every studio I visited had a screening room. I experienced first hand what I was told is how all movies are given the final approval, a screening in a small theater room is done, in which the typical speaker distances are more akin to a home screening room or small theater, and notes are taken, which are used to make final adjustments to the sound stage and video. While this may not be representative of most or even many video mastering studio's, it was true of at least two fairly major ones. In those setups I have no doubt that the distance between the left and right speakers was less than the distance to the "sweet spot" for listeners.
My point being I don't know that it's unequivocally true that the best sound for movies and music is had using the equilateral triangle, as I'm not convinced that mixing is done with that as the best sound position. Especially for movies, which my setup is more optimized for.
pjpoes, we're lacking standards here, so discussing what is right and what is wrong might never lead to an universal truth.
I know Lionsgate is remixing everything on a equidistant system (see http://www.micasamm.com/newsite/articles/widescreenreview0408.pdf).
Best, Markus
I know Lionsgate is remixing everything on a equidistant system (see http://www.micasamm.com/newsite/articles/widescreenreview0408.pdf).
Best, Markus
- Status
- Not open for further replies.