Brett,
Yes dynamic. I find too there is some 'weight' with compression drivers which i feel is missing with dome tweeter ( China and ride usually sound thin and lacking on dome for me. They often tend to make very high too 'forward' for me. Is it from distortion with compression drivers, the highs which doesn't go as high? I don't know).
Allen, please don't stop! I like my understanding to be challenged. It's always stimulating for me and offer other way to see things.
Yes dynamic. I find too there is some 'weight' with compression drivers which i feel is missing with dome tweeter ( China and ride usually sound thin and lacking on dome for me. They often tend to make very high too 'forward' for me. Is it from distortion with compression drivers, the highs which doesn't go as high? I don't know).
Allen, please don't stop! I like my understanding to be challenged. It's always stimulating for me and offer other way to see things.
Hi!
I'm an odd person, I don't know anyone like me. I will buy a room for the sound and not a sound for the room. In a scale of priorities, the sound is more important than my room, it will have to adapt to receive it.
I am not rich, quite the contrary, but as I will start the construction of a new address (to vacate my current address that is rented) I will have the possibility to choose the necessary dimensions between 30² and 50².
I'm quite inclined to try the DCX2496
There is hardly a problem when you have only one fixed listening position. Since our ears aren’t that sensitive for vertical angle of incidence, you can put sources anywhere on a vertical axis. Only sounds with about >7000Hz components can be localized in the vertical plane. So putting a tweeter at ear height makes sense.
But there are other issues. Drivers sharing a frequency range but situated far apart will show narrower lobes in which you can optimize level. The phase shift along a vertical axis at the listening position changes faster. Moving your head results in more timbre change compared to closely spaced drivers, due to the heftier interference patterns.
Another consideration is that phase relations in the range 200-2000Hz should be conserved, as our ears seem to be able to detect them. If using widely spaced drivers active anywhere in that frequency band, phase relation changes faster with changing distance (off-listening axis of course) from the speaker. So to me keeping drivers relatively close pays off (be it not too close, as several here have pointed out).
The interaction with the room might be another point of concern. Think of the different pathways of floor and ceiling bounce first reflections, that will be higher with wide spacing and comparable listening distances. There are phase and level issues at play. And when drivers share a range, interference again, too.
All in all it’s not black and white. But generally it seems to me that spacing drivers closely offers more versatile systems and lesser acoustical challenges.
Well, welcome to the club! I think you couldn't find a better place than this forum because a lot of people with same disease are hidden here ( hint: guess why i bought our own home... 😀 ).
Don't think your odd, there is some people here at a much advanced level than you (we!) are. 😉
2496. Hmmm. Let me suggest another way: a computer and a pro soundcard.
It may cost a little bit more but you won't get stuck with a 'locked' firmware/software and ( way) better adc/dac and analogue circuit.
This even doesn't take into account the raw cpu power which can open other horizon ('room' correction, Fir,...).
And if you can accept some limitations it can even cost less than a second hand 2496: i run a secondary system on an old pc (a 2x2,4ghz intel cpu ( pre CORE)) with a circa 2002 soundcard ( Aardvark 24/96 or Q10 - i have multiple units). Total cost was under 150euros and is much better than a 2496 ( i compared them as i used it before switching to better loudspeaker management system/ an old one now but still on par with what is availlable at the moment).
Same here. The Beyma TPL150 is in the CD category too.
CDs at more normal levels are often lower HD.
Also being form the penal colonies, I think he understood my humour. Sorry if it didn't translate elsewhere.
On another forum in particular, I often butt heads with the 'phool class and challenge their beliefs and ask for evidence to back it up.
Generally agree.
They work and are fine, but, they're designed for very high I/O levels and people complain they are noisy if used at more common domestic levels. Set them up correctly and they are excellent. I have 6 around here some with modified analog I/O boards.
This is my current approach, but my PC also doubles as my music recording DAW, so the I/O interfaces were not cheap. An ASUS Xonar 8ch is about $50 and you only need a Celeron to do a xover. No, a Celeron is way more than you need to do a xover.
About the compression driver's sound. I think the horn loading and narrow dispersion are the reasons for their typical sound. Lots of direct sound and minimal late wall reflections softening it. Same effect is typical of synergy horns and even of waveguide-tweeters to some degree.
If you have the ability to design a room for listening to music you could try and use the golden ratio for the room dimensions to reduce standing waves I.e. all dimensions are multiples of 1.62. So If the ceiling height is 2.5m then if you can build the room 4.05m x 6.56m then that would be the ideal.
Hi,
Ideal about what?
When it comes to rectangular rooms acoustic have developed some criteria like Bonelo's criterion to define 'best'. Golden ratio isn't really meaningfull in that context.
This is another effort to characterise this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/rdreport_1993_08
This is for rectangular room. Is it the best shape for a dedicated listening room? I don't think so.
Best is to not have // walls. It complicate build and cannot be practical day to day in a domestic room. But one can plan a cathedral ceiling ( sloped ceiling) and it'll be a huge step forward 'good' imho.
Ideal about what?
When it comes to rectangular rooms acoustic have developed some criteria like Bonelo's criterion to define 'best'. Golden ratio isn't really meaningfull in that context.
This is another effort to characterise this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/rdreport_1993_08
This is for rectangular room. Is it the best shape for a dedicated listening room? I don't think so.
Best is to not have // walls. It complicate build and cannot be practical day to day in a domestic room. But one can plan a cathedral ceiling ( sloped ceiling) and it'll be a huge step forward 'good' imho.
Last edited:
So the golden ratio is also the best formula for minimal standing waves? 👍 Does it connect the 2D plane to the third?
Last edited:
Fully agree Allen, but did i talked about room mode?
Ugg10 introduced this as a relevant parameter ( which i agree it is... but it's only half the behavior of a room, what happens above schroeder frequency is as important and the other half).
What happen in the low end is only one parameter to take into account about acoustic. And there is ways to 'cheat' this anyway ( you use Earl Geddes's multisub approach Allen isn't it?).
The issue when you start with a given ratio (being it golden, Fibonacci, whatever) is you reject a lot of other totally valid answer for room dimension and or volume.
This is the whole point of the BBC paper as Robert Walker introduce another way to rank rooms ( which doesn't reject as many answers as others).
With 54,46m3 for a 2,5m height room it's about 1/2 what i've seen used as minimum volume in small control room. It's a small room in acoustic term.
If you have the choice between volume and a given ratio, i know which one i would choose and why.
And about non parallel walls, from same author (and what i had in mind ):
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
Of course i don't suggest anyone to implement this into his/her living room (really?! No i'm joking, if you can, do it ! Rfz are great) but still the principle could be applied (to the ceiling at minima) even with a simple slope.
Ugg10 introduced this as a relevant parameter ( which i agree it is... but it's only half the behavior of a room, what happens above schroeder frequency is as important and the other half).
What happen in the low end is only one parameter to take into account about acoustic. And there is ways to 'cheat' this anyway ( you use Earl Geddes's multisub approach Allen isn't it?).
The issue when you start with a given ratio (being it golden, Fibonacci, whatever) is you reject a lot of other totally valid answer for room dimension and or volume.
This is the whole point of the BBC paper as Robert Walker introduce another way to rank rooms ( which doesn't reject as many answers as others).
With 54,46m3 for a 2,5m height room it's about 1/2 what i've seen used as minimum volume in small control room. It's a small room in acoustic term.
If you have the choice between volume and a given ratio, i know which one i would choose and why.
And about non parallel walls, from same author (and what i had in mind ):
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
Of course i don't suggest anyone to implement this into his/her living room (really?! No i'm joking, if you can, do it ! Rfz are great) but still the principle could be applied (to the ceiling at minima) even with a simple slope.
Last edited:
Brett,
I have read a lot from you about coax, tried things you ( and other members) suggested, agreed with your conclusion. I'm sure MEH are a step forward but this is out of my reach. I'm poor with woodwork, my skills doesn't progress as much as i would like to plan a built like this and with a business to run by myself, two small kids and an house to renovate...well.
For now my best bet is a larger coax ( bms 12c382 are tempting me) than the ones i've got at the moment a couple of other drivers to help them in low end, all that in sealed box: i like the 90* coverage in my room, switch to compression driver and being able to have control over directivity around 1,2khz should fullfill my needs for some years.
I shared the same feeling about dsp when i 'activated' my mains. Some things (issues) started to be more apparent than when passive. That said the loudspeakers i liked the most to date were passive and didn't lack resolution of micro details ( which is what i gained on mine going active).
Anyway what you described with your Khorn is why i said i don't think time alignement would matter this much with TL1.
I use my main pc as DAW and main 2track too. 16 Digital I/O to dsp which can serve as AD/DA 'only' or loudspeaker management system. Very flexible. I'm not limited to what is inside the box ( i can't have access to FIR, i'm locked to complementary xovers. Which haven't bothered me until some month ago).
Allen,
I thought about your comment. I was probably not accurate enough: wavefront merging are probably more about time alignement i concede, but it is still linked to directivity behavior, destructive and constuctive interference of drivers ( at least within overlap region at xover), lobing.
Markbakk explanation makes sense to me and is close to what i wanted to say.
Could you give your view about what is at the core of the phenomenom i discribed and how you explain it?
I have read a lot from you about coax, tried things you ( and other members) suggested, agreed with your conclusion. I'm sure MEH are a step forward but this is out of my reach. I'm poor with woodwork, my skills doesn't progress as much as i would like to plan a built like this and with a business to run by myself, two small kids and an house to renovate...well.
For now my best bet is a larger coax ( bms 12c382 are tempting me) than the ones i've got at the moment a couple of other drivers to help them in low end, all that in sealed box: i like the 90* coverage in my room, switch to compression driver and being able to have control over directivity around 1,2khz should fullfill my needs for some years.
I shared the same feeling about dsp when i 'activated' my mains. Some things (issues) started to be more apparent than when passive. That said the loudspeakers i liked the most to date were passive and didn't lack resolution of micro details ( which is what i gained on mine going active).
Anyway what you described with your Khorn is why i said i don't think time alignement would matter this much with TL1.
I use my main pc as DAW and main 2track too. 16 Digital I/O to dsp which can serve as AD/DA 'only' or loudspeaker management system. Very flexible. I'm not limited to what is inside the box ( i can't have access to FIR, i'm locked to complementary xovers. Which haven't bothered me until some month ago).
Allen,
I thought about your comment. I was probably not accurate enough: wavefront merging are probably more about time alignement i concede, but it is still linked to directivity behavior, destructive and constuctive interference of drivers ( at least within overlap region at xover), lobing.
Markbakk explanation makes sense to me and is close to what i wanted to say.
Could you give your view about what is at the core of the phenomenom i discribed and how you explain it?
Do you mean the one about the soundfields merging? Let me just say that it might take a few posts to communicate some of the details. I suspect this isn't straightforward.
I'd start by asking whether you have experienced being able to walk up to one speaker, standing, and still be immersed in the stereo image.. without being able to detect the speaker itself in any way. Even though you look directly at it, it is apparently silent.
I'd start by asking whether you have experienced being able to walk up to one speaker, standing, and still be immersed in the stereo image.. without being able to detect the speaker itself in any way. Even though you look directly at it, it is apparently silent.
Yes soundmerging.
Yes i already experienced this with the reference loudspeaker i talked about in precedent post. ( up to a limit, it was horn loaded MTM (12") and once off the vertical covering angle of horn/waveguide, the missing parts made the loudspeaker location obvious).
I don't mind if it takes some post to get your explanation, it's more a matter of off topic and threadjacking... if we don't loose Silvio with digression.
Yes i already experienced this with the reference loudspeaker i talked about in precedent post. ( up to a limit, it was horn loaded MTM (12") and once off the vertical covering angle of horn/waveguide, the missing parts made the loudspeaker location obvious).
I don't mind if it takes some post to get your explanation, it's more a matter of off topic and threadjacking... if we don't loose Silvio with digression.
Last edited:
Wonderful! I created a topic to deal with this subject, I don't know the subject but I will learn and apply it.
I don't think you have all answers Allen, but like i said previously, a fresh view on things is always good to me.
I'm still trying to connect the dots between different things i either observed either conceived within my mind...
I'm with you with consistent room power.
I'm still trying to connect the dots between different things i either observed either conceived within my mind...
I'm with you with consistent room power.
I'd like to see a diagram which shows how and allows an explanation of why.
[Random thoughts in case I forget..
1. It hasn't been established what this issue actually is so how do we know it isn't adjustable?
2. Sitting closer will make the room less relevant. (Normally you won't hear me bringing that up unless the amount is below the threshhold or the context is appropriate)]
[Random thoughts in case I forget..
1. It hasn't been established what this issue actually is so how do we know it isn't adjustable?
2. Sitting closer will make the room less relevant. (Normally you won't hear me bringing that up unless the amount is below the threshhold or the context is appropriate)]