Are you implying that correcting the response along one polar axis will flatten them all? I suspect that you can flatten any selected axis, but not them all at once. You only show a flatten one, not what happens to the rest of them.
Room Treatment buffs; How "easy" is it to deal with mirror reflections? The ones that were an issue for me in the upstair room with wood floors/hard ceiling are not an issue (yet) downstairs with the carpet and acoustic tiled ceilings. In the hard wood floor/had ceiling situation, Would a thick rug be effective for the floor? Maybe a pad made from carpet padding foam, something that could be stepped on. I think rockwool is the obvious choice for walls and ceiling. In regards to the Floor, and carpet, or a carpet Foam, I am wondering how effectively can it be done.
Pretty much the same concept I am going for...
A relevant statement, except for the last comment. The 3 dimensional aspect almost supposedly portrayed by wide dispersion is a fallacy and a narrow dispersion has better imaging, so whatever Dimensional information conveyed strictly by the signal is more accurately expressed.
A relevant statement, except for the last comment. The 3 dimensional aspect almost supposedly portrayed by wide dispersion is a fallacy and a narrow dispersion has better imaging, so whatever Dimensional information conveyed strictly by the signal is more accurately expressed.
Effectiveness depends on the absorption coefficent of what you use, most carpets won't do much other than for high frequencies.
Here is a good source for comparisons:
https://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm
I've only experience with jute carpet cushion, which is very good and why still used in vehicles last I checked (awhile now 
)
)
https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/comb-filtering - I literally pulled this from an old post in the thread, and luckily was able to google search the text and find the source... It appears this is more of a snippet of the article that had other points to be made.
Last edited:
One of the things that caused me to question your screenshot is the exclamation points. Occasionally I find, people who deliberately overstate the importance of on-axis frequency response may be trying to avoid looking at other things. Perhaps I'm wrong..
Then regarding the second point. Referring to the AR-3a as having a 'good' far field and then implying the DI is all wrong, seems to invalidate the point. Easily dismissing the relevance of vertical response even though it does contribute to DI, and saying it's all about the on-axis.. seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Then regarding the second point. Referring to the AR-3a as having a 'good' far field and then implying the DI is all wrong, seems to invalidate the point. Easily dismissing the relevance of vertical response even though it does contribute to DI, and saying it's all about the on-axis.. seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Pardon he trimming- So I've been playing a LOT with crossover points in the 600-1k region and compression drivers with 12"s both horn loaded and direct, and it definitely does seem to like keeping it in the cone a little higher up, even though we're talking about easy-mode operating points//levels for the compression drivers (BMS 4595 HE 1.5" coaxes on the mains and JBL 2451 on the mid (with a supertweeter). I have some forgiveness in the overlapping range so tried moving some XOs up a little bit and the SQ did improve despite seemingly similar performance (Just a couple casual waves of a mic). I suspect part of it is just horns operating their worst near cutoff, the most mouth diffraction, pattern flip, etc. I'm wondering what I can do to push the XO up a little bit on my bass cabs, but given they're 12"s in a modest room I may have to live with pushing them a little harder at 150.
Your comments about the AR-3a are over my head. Regarding the bullet points, I think the author was relaying what some designers hold on to... The Next paragraph is the conclusion
This article seemed to be fitting given my design choice of a Rising DI that leads to a dry HF presentation.
This article seemed to be fitting given my design choice of a Rising DI that leads to a dry HF presentation.
This is my comment from a long time ago. It is a concept of purposely placing acoustical blemishes below the Schroeder. Coincidentally, there is the trait of sound waves to grow very large at low frequency pushing out cycle times and lessoning diffraction. There is also the trait of human hearing, losing resolve, moving lower into the spectrum past a certain point.
I think that I've had good results with my system because of the large sizes and deep tunings, deep XO, making my flaws less detectable, whether it be fault of the Ear, Room, Large Wavelengths or all 3. My design is using a single driver on a low F horn which is, according to @weltersys, an old school approach. Old doesn't have to mean bad. I think that at the top of the food chain of loudspeaker design, as we choose different approaches, we start trading one distortion for another. Leaving one design, not better than the other, just different.
Green-ME464, a diffraction horn, showing why such a thing is a not a piece for sound quality
Purple-Syn10, a synergy type design, showing that the reflections created in a multi entry horn only serve to lessen transient clarity
Blue-E-Tractrix, Arrivals are very tight in comparison, showing what I believe to the be a clear advantage of a traditional horn over multi entry and diffraction approaches
Those are all the outdoor measurements I could find atm, I have at least one more on my main computer which is having an overhaul atm.
In the conclusion the author is speaking generally, you have to go back and read the rest of the article where it talks about some the audible issues.
The impact of multiple redundant arrivals, on perception, is a complex thing. Flaws can be hidden by the room or by listening position, or other design choices like Directivity, X0's and redundant drivers, and what spectrum the "flaw" has been caused, for example.
The Article also speaks on issues of a loudspeaker seen in the nearfield, a loudspeaker that has been designed to perform well in the far field (Ar3) and suggesting that they are still a problem, in the far field? So the Author definitely is concerned about off axis performance, in my opinion, no matter the listening distance or on or off axis listening.
I see comments like below, in many places and it really irks my nerves... What is a "sense of space"??? Who said we don't sense space regardless the reflective character of the room, unless you are saying that a sense of space is actually a sense of nearby boundaries. I say we always sense space.... so there is no increased sense of space unless speaking of directivity, where less directivity would increase a sense of space, specifically the space you are in... nothing more. Obviously a higher DI would lower the sense of space, in a sense.... What bothers me is that sense of space seems to suggest that something sounds like its in a bigger space, but bigger spaces have less boundary energy....so that can't be true. So sense of space is being used, short for, sense of the space you are really in.... which is not the same as the sense of space the stereo signal is telling you that you are in.
Sense of actual space vs Sense of Source portrayed Space.... To me "sense of space" by itself is ambiguous like "cutoff" is...
The impact of multiple redundant arrivals, on perception, is a complex thing. Flaws can be hidden by the room or by listening position, or other design choices like Directivity, X0's and redundant drivers, and what spectrum the "flaw" has been caused, for example.
The Article also speaks on issues of a loudspeaker seen in the nearfield, a loudspeaker that has been designed to perform well in the far field (Ar3) and suggesting that they are still a problem, in the far field? So the Author definitely is concerned about off axis performance, in my opinion, no matter the listening distance or on or off axis listening.
I see comments like below, in many places and it really irks my nerves... What is a "sense of space"??? Who said we don't sense space regardless the reflective character of the room, unless you are saying that a sense of space is actually a sense of nearby boundaries. I say we always sense space.... so there is no increased sense of space unless speaking of directivity, where less directivity would increase a sense of space, specifically the space you are in... nothing more. Obviously a higher DI would lower the sense of space, in a sense.... What bothers me is that sense of space seems to suggest that something sounds like its in a bigger space, but bigger spaces have less boundary energy....so that can't be true. So sense of space is being used, short for, sense of the space you are really in.... which is not the same as the sense of space the stereo signal is telling you that you are in.
Sense of actual space vs Sense of Source portrayed Space.... To me "sense of space" by itself is ambiguous like "cutoff" is...
I see where you're coming from. I guess you need to use what you already know, and discriminate a little when you read things. I mean who really knows where another's experiences come from, or their level of written communication skills?
2 - way speakers that uses a woofer into a subwoofer and receive mid-bass frequencies are louder. But the possibility of distortion may be higher when the subwoofer hits mid-bass. They actually make speakers now days to perform like a mid-bass two way speaker specifically. So when you hear the sounds or songs it actually sounds distorted. Using a 2nd order crossover or mid-bass crossover may work and make it sound better. But I'm not sure by how better. Still the 2 - way speaker covers some range in frequency but with distortion.
To me it seems that this refers to what acousticians call spaciousness. It is a well defined objective term that is fairly well understood. Its level depends on the timing, amount and direction of the early reflections which are strongly influenced by the loudspeakers system design, i.e. DI and room layout.