Loudspeaker perception

[graaf]

Unfortunately, I think we are sometimes held-back by what is "known".

yes indeed!

best regards!
graaf

 

[ScottG]

Thanks for pointing to that one, ScottG


One of the benefits of dipoles when toed in is that you naturally attenuate the very first reflection (delayed phantom sources) in between of the two speakers.

Your welcome!

Ah, but is attenuating the first reflection necessarily a benefit? I personally think it is to a small degree at higher freq.s (time an amplitude from the "norm"), but as I've recently mentioned, I think that uniformity of reflections is far more important.

At mid-to-lower mid freq.s however, yes - I think a dipole (or any significant reduction in amplitude where correlation with a boundary would occur - particularly "front" and lateral positions), is usually beneficial.

Basic rule: pick a freq., get its wavelength, then try to keep at least that distance from a boundary if possible.

 

[mige0]

Your welcome!

Ah, but is attenuating the first reflection necessarily a benefit? I personally think it is to a small degree at higher freq.s (time an amplitude from the "norm"), but as I've recently mentioned, I think that uniformity of reflections is far more important.

At mid-to-lower mid freq.s however, yes - I think a dipole (or any significant reduction in amplitude where correlation with a boundary would occur - particularly "front" and lateral positions), is usually beneficial.

Basic rule: pick a freq., get its wavelength, then try to keep at least that distance from a boundary if possible.

Sure – *if possible*.

Unfortunately the house we are living in / the only room left for "dedicated" listening doesn't exactly allow for that rule of thumb.
Nevertheless I'm pretty happy with what I can get.

Way improved presentation than in the very beginning - soundstage easily stretching to 180 degree with all that fancy recording tricks.

Yes, I still think that attenuating the phantom sources between the speakers is beneficial in that our brain doesn't have additional work load with distinguishing between two sources coming almost from the same direction.

Though still more out of the belly, I admit - when looking at all the data provided in that thread.

Would have to put some absorptive material there to find out for myself – no big deal - but also not that urgent in my list.

Michael

Sorry for getting OT

 

[ScottG]

Sure – *if possible*.

Yeah, its a BIG *if*.

I have most of the limitations everyone else has as well. It's unfortunately always a compromise (..and usually even for those with substantial means).

 

[ScottG]

Yes, I still think that attenuating the phantom sources between the speakers is beneficial in that our brain doesn't have additional work load with distinguishing between two sources coming almost from the same direction.

Though still more out of the belly, I admit - when looking at all the data provided in that thread.

Would have to put some absorptive material there to find out for myself – no big deal - but also not that urgent in my list.

Michael

I've tried absorption (and just plain wall separation) *between* the loudspeakers before.

Again, here I prefer an enhanced apparent separation between channels that a more directional speaker at lower mid. freq.s can provide.

I did NOT prefer this with regard to higher freq.s. *generally*. (..gave an impression of over-separated "ping-pong" stereo.) What I believe I *would* have liked is if the opposite loudspeaker didn't create a point of reflection, or at least a significant point of reflection - something that full-size planar dipoles are usually capable of (to varying degrees of success).

BTW, I also have found that full-size planar dipoles have similar problems with *just* left and right of center "image" location. Not quite as "ping-pong'y", but still something that doesn't quite work for me. Also the center "image" tends to "stretch/widen" in these designs when compared to "images" significantly further to the left or right of center. And I've noticed that others have felt similarly during audition.

 

[Elias]

Hello,

I'm still waiting some input for any psychoacoustic reasons that would give benefit using monopoles over dipoles in the freq ranges of 20-200Hz and 200Hz-1kHz.

Any ideas anyone?

- Elias

Here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1633080#post1633080

 

[gedlee]

I think it should be phrased differently:

I'm still waiting some input for any psychoacoustic reasons that would give benefit using dipoles over monopoles in the freq range below 500 Hz.

 

[Elias]

Hello,

I think it should be phrased differently:

I'm still waiting some input for any psychoacoustic reasons that would give benefit using dipoles over monopoles in the freq range below 500 Hz.

You cannot find any psychoacoustic reason that would favor monopole over directional source at the indicated freq range?

It is just as I expected. There is no.

- Elias

 

[gedlee]

My point EXACTLY - there is nothing to favor either one in that frequency range!! Now you get it!!

 

[markus76]

So now let's move on to decide with which concept you get more bang for the buck

 

[Elias]

Hello,

My point EXACTLY - there is nothing to favor either one in that frequency range!! Now you get it!!

No need to shout.

I have provided several things in this thread that favour directivity sources over monopoles at low freqs, other forum users have provided even some more. Anyone can read them from this thread.

Maybe you don't want to accept them as they may not fit to your agenda.

This is what you wrote about dipoles earlier:

I find them impractical and problematic to work with. I find the need for active crossovers and multiple amps a very bad use of limited funds in a sound system setup. If cost were no object I would sell lots more speakers than I do. The fact is that cost IS ALWAYS a major factor. The OB pushes up the costs far more than I believe it would push up the performance.

It is quite clear what is your position. It is not to seek the ultimate, as this forum can be at it's best, but to promote something that has commercial value to you.

- Elias

 

[gedlee]

And you don't have an agenda and look at all the data in an unbiased fashion? I think not.

The bulk of what has been shown here does not encourage me to change my position, and Floyd's recent book gives me more confidence in it than before. Its not "an agenda" its simply the most reasonable and practical position to take. If you aren't interested in being reasonable or practical then thats fine, thats your perogative, go for it.

 

[markus76]

Elias, maybe I'm forgetful but what were the advantages of dipoles over monopoles at low frequencies? Lower distortion? Higher output? Lower power requirements? Lower cost? Easier implementation? Extended frequency range?

Best, Markus

 

[Elias]

Hello,

Elias, maybe I'm forgetful but what were the advantages of dipoles over monopoles at low frequencies? Lower distortion? Higher output? Lower power requirements? Lower cost? Easier implementation? Extended frequency range?

You are way over off topic here. This is a thread about loudspeaker psychoacoustic perception, phantom imaging etc.

Go and read it again starting from the beginning, you will see.

- Elias

 

[Elias]

Hello,

And you don't have an agenda and look at all the data in an unbiased fashion? I think not.

Is that a question or a claim? If that's a question, then the answer is my 'agenda' is to find out the ultimate truth about this loudspeaker perception 'thing', or phantom perception that is. If that's a claim maybe you will show me the posts I have unbiased fashion. Otherwise your words are just hanging in the air without no meaning.

Its not "an agenda" its simply the most reasonable and practical position to take. If you aren't interested in being reasonable or practical then thats fine, thats your perogative, go for it.

If you are talking about dipoles and other directivity sources,
there is nothing unreasonable or unpractical in using them in home livingrooms to gain perceptual psychoacoustic improvements.

My dictionary does not contain word 'perogative' so I cannot comment on that.

- Elias

 

[markus76]

You are way over off topic here.

Now that's funny Elias - you brought up the question, not me.

You could have just answered my questions - a simple "No" to each one would have been enough

But maybe you can answer what "perceptual psychoacoustic improvements" a bass dipol has compared to a monopol?

 

[Elias]

Now that's funny Elias - you brought up the question, not me.

You didn't answer the question I proposed.

I will ask again. Can you name some of the psuchoacoustic benefits that monopoles have over dipoles at low freqs (<1kHz)?

- Elias

 

[ScottG]

And you don't have an agenda and look at all the data in an unbiased fashion? I think not.

The bulk of what has been shown here does not encourage me to change my position, and Floyd's recent book gives me more confidence in it than before. Its not "an agenda" its simply the most reasonable and practical position to take. If you aren't interested in being reasonable or practical then thats fine, thats your perogative, go for it.

Actually I don't think that any of the proponents of a dipole would state that they have an agenda for the use of a dipole - other than it sounds better to them (..with varying reasons, subjective and objective).

Here is the major difference:

Those that use dipoles would almost invariably PREFER TO *NOT* USE DIPOLES. For many of the practical reasons that you dislike the design.

However they "wind-up" using dipoles simply because it sounds better to them.

That is quite *different* than promoting a *very* specific design that meets *one* person's definition of "practical".

and finally..

Just because someone doesn't agree with you does NOT mean that they are being UN-reasonable or impractical. To provide a point of emphasis to this:

I'd bet that very few in this forum (alone) consider the size and shape of your speakers, (any of them), either reasonable or practical (..let alone the reaction their significant others might have). Most are looking for slim frontal profile bookshelf or floor standing speakers (of modest height) that have a barely noticeable "foot print". This goes "exponentially" for multiple "subwoofers" placed around a single room (..i.e. most don't even want to see *one*, though sometimes they will tolerate it if looks like a quality side table in the position of a side table - for use as a side table).

 

[Elias]

Markus,

"lower power requirements? lower cost? easier implementation?.."

This thread is not moving forward by sarcasm and it does not help the subject, but I have to wonder what psychoacoustic reasons are those you are proposing?

I know you just spend your money on Earl's speakers and you don't want to think they may not be the optimal and you have to believe in them, but it does not have to show out so apparently. When it does, it limits your thinking to seek the ultimate.

- Elias

 

[markus76]

Originally posted by Elias I will ask again. Can you name some of the psuchoacoustic benefits that monopoles have over dipoles at low freqs (<1kHz)?

Why does the frequency rise from question to question? You started with 500 Hz, now we are at 1 kHz. That's a completely different question. From a psychoacoustic perspective the goal is to have a uniform polar pattern with no breaks in directifity. I don't know any dipol that provides that. Do you?