Yes, a larger radiating area will send more energy directly to the listener and at HF this is a real and critical aspect. It's why I use as large a LF driver as possible, higher DI. But at LFs it's irrelevant since the total power being put into the room is the same for equal VV. Since at LFs the sound is steady state the radiation area is irrelevant.
It's easy to measure the direct to reverberant energy above fs, but below it is impossible for many of the same reasons that we don't hear LF directivity. There are just too many reflections within a few periods to sort it out. Kind of linked to the uncertainty principle.
I'm not holding out anything, I'm just not going along with your understanding/definitions of critical ideas.
A flat FR does not mean that the system is linear. You need to understand that.
Hello Camplo
Why do you say the room is passive especially @50 Hz?? What about resonances due to dimensions where the room dimensions dictates the response below say 400 hz or so? Question for you if it takes multiple cycles for your ear to " hear" 50 Hz tone how much longer is that than say 1K in milliseconds at the same distance? There essentially is no directivity @ 50 Hz vs 1K
Rob
Why do you say the room is passive especially @50 Hz?? What about resonances due to dimensions where the room dimensions dictates the response below say 400 hz or so? Question for you if it takes multiple cycles for your ear to " hear" 50 Hz tone how much longer is that than say 1K in milliseconds at the same distance? There essentially is no directivity @ 50 Hz vs 1K
Rob
The energy comes from the speakers, no sound from the speaker no sound from the room. Thats why I called it passive
OK I finally thought of something. Decay......through out the whole spectrum, The more Radiation area you have in a room, the less excess Decay....I am almost certain this is true, but I cannot remember why lol.... If you say it is not true...I can possibly believe you, as long you've considered this, tested this, before, as in its old news to you... I know there is some truth to this, obviously due to directivity...But even in the omnidirectional this should still be true...
Bass from 4- 12" vs 16- 18"s.....Excess decay should be lower from the group of 18's...
"total power being put into the room is the same for equal VV" - If this is true then decay will have to be identical or maybe there is some other component, outside power into the room.
Last edited:
Not at all, but I was calling it what it is, a response to the speakers input...it does not introduce more energy per say, it can only work with the energy it is givenSo you are ignoring how the room effects that response??
Rob
Except that it is not.
Decay is linear and affects all sources in exactly the same way. Given equal VV, everything at LFs will be exactly the same regardless of size, type or whatever the source is. VV determines the power and the absorption determines the decay, nothing about the source details enters into the situation.
The only passive room is no room. If we have a model room with active damping, filling all surfaces except maybe the floor, it might come close. Dirac is pretending to do something like this with their proposed Spatial Room Correction. I emphasize that Dirac is pretending.
I think there a few interesting things to accommodate concerning bass. One is the Schroeder frequency. The next is the room rise at VLF. The third is considering the room as a box outside the Bass box, which is related to room rise + the bass box design - a box within a box.
Building a giant 600# set of floor mounted Jecklin Floats is not the answer. It could still be fun. Like $300/hour full body massages. The system would pay for itself in about 6 months.
I think there a few interesting things to accommodate concerning bass. One is the Schroeder frequency. The next is the room rise at VLF. The third is considering the room as a box outside the Bass box, which is related to room rise + the bass box design - a box within a box.
Building a giant 600# set of floor mounted Jecklin Floats is not the answer. It could still be fun. Like $300/hour full body massages. The system would pay for itself in about 6 months.
Last edited:
The room is a passive radiator/resonator
If you make it a goal to keep all excursion under 1-2mm or low as possible, you will end up with 15" midrange mated with a horn or waveguide. The bass section; 8 - 15"s or 18"s.... Im not certain that gets us to 20hz 115db 1m, under 2mm. 30hz maybe?
If you make it a goal to keep all excursion under 1-2mm or low as possible, you will end up with 15" midrange mated with a horn or waveguide. The bass section; 8 - 15"s or 18"s.... Im not certain that gets us to 20hz 115db 1m, under 2mm. 30hz maybe?
Last edited:
Why not just treat your room professionally?
treating the early reflections in my room was mindblowing in term of sq improvement
An even funnier thing is that zero-Qtc subwoofers are good if they radiate plane wave
Camplo, what you want is something similar to this:
More precisely, the big ones:
In this case we are not talking about a traditional FLH, but something in between an FLH and a (woofer) waveguide.
The manufacturer calls it a 'waveformer'. Those systems are vented, which would be my personal preference.
The XO of both systems is higher (>500 Hz) than what you've in mind.
2x TD18H 16 Ohms in parallel should be enough to achieve your objectives.
C-C distance, lobing, cancellation etc. are hardly an issue below 400 Hz.
Personally, I'd go for a variant based on JWC's Tractrix mid bass horns to suit your big mid/high monsters and are also easier to build.
For those interested, I'll post my findings with the smaller version (2x10") later.
This system was by far the best system of the show according to me (and many others). Not perfect, but the only system that sounded really lifelike.
More precisely, the big ones:
In this case we are not talking about a traditional FLH, but something in between an FLH and a (woofer) waveguide.
The manufacturer calls it a 'waveformer'. Those systems are vented, which would be my personal preference.
The XO of both systems is higher (>500 Hz) than what you've in mind.
2x TD18H 16 Ohms in parallel should be enough to achieve your objectives.
C-C distance, lobing, cancellation etc. are hardly an issue below 400 Hz.
Personally, I'd go for a variant based on JWC's Tractrix mid bass horns to suit your big mid/high monsters and are also easier to build.
For those interested, I'll post my findings with the smaller version (2x10") later.
This system was by far the best system of the show according to me (and many others). Not perfect, but the only system that sounded really lifelike.
Last edited:
Another option is a variant of the Inlow Sound 40 Hz horn with bass reflex.
2x 15" in separate vented horn cabs of sufficient length should reach <40 Hz.
I'd lower the compression ratio to improve midrange extension (even for camplo a sensitivity of >110 dB (x2) is overkill).
Like this, specified for 30 Hz with TAD TL-1601 and crossed @ 500 Hz:
2x 15" in separate vented horn cabs of sufficient length should reach <40 Hz.
I'd lower the compression ratio to improve midrange extension (even for camplo a sensitivity of >110 dB (x2) is overkill).
Like this, specified for 30 Hz with TAD TL-1601 and crossed @ 500 Hz:
Last edited:
Coincidentally, I came across Joseph Crowe's visit to the German dealer/distributor Klangloft and Munich High-End.
And what catches my eye?
Joseph makes no mention of the Blumenhofers, but - to my surprise, he's positive about the Steinway Model A:
Steinway Room (Model A Speaker System, including amp & processor):
“Excellent soundstage depth. Medium soundstage width. Very good low level detail retrieval. Detailed highs like a ribbon (actually AMT). Bass is great. Sealed and against back wall.
70k Euro system MSRP. Uses what looks like 5” SB woofer and AMT. “
Perhaps the conditions were better in Munich, but my impression of this system was completely the opposite. Dominating, woolly, chunky, undefined lows with a rather unnatural sounding mid/high section. Piano sounded like a cheap keyboard.
Joseph was also impressed by the TotalDAC D100 speakers, from the brand so 'popular' on the ASR forum thanks to the measured performance of its DAC. 😎
Total DAC Speaker:
“Sounds better than Cessaro despite having a B&C ME20 “style” of horn. Uses a 12” mid-woofer and 12” lower woofer. Extreme clarity across entire frequency bandwidth. Compression driver sounds as good as any I’ve heard.”
This is a 2.5-way system where the upper 12" woofer is crossed at 3500 Hz to a Beyma TD-8060 + (presumably) a CD1Fe. The speakers are sold for €14,000.
In-room response:
And what catches my eye?
Joseph makes no mention of the Blumenhofers, but - to my surprise, he's positive about the Steinway Model A:
Steinway Room (Model A Speaker System, including amp & processor):
“Excellent soundstage depth. Medium soundstage width. Very good low level detail retrieval. Detailed highs like a ribbon (actually AMT). Bass is great. Sealed and against back wall.
70k Euro system MSRP. Uses what looks like 5” SB woofer and AMT. “
Perhaps the conditions were better in Munich, but my impression of this system was completely the opposite. Dominating, woolly, chunky, undefined lows with a rather unnatural sounding mid/high section. Piano sounded like a cheap keyboard.
Joseph was also impressed by the TotalDAC D100 speakers, from the brand so 'popular' on the ASR forum thanks to the measured performance of its DAC. 😎
Total DAC Speaker:
“Sounds better than Cessaro despite having a B&C ME20 “style” of horn. Uses a 12” mid-woofer and 12” lower woofer. Extreme clarity across entire frequency bandwidth. Compression driver sounds as good as any I’ve heard.”
This is a 2.5-way system where the upper 12" woofer is crossed at 3500 Hz to a Beyma TD-8060 + (presumably) a CD1Fe. The speakers are sold for €14,000.
In-room response:
Last edited:
