Wasn't sure where to post this so if this needs to be moved i apologize in advance:
My speakers are a hybrid OB (sealed bass) OB mid tweeter. My room is rectangular 12x17ft I made the room reflective (or live) from the plane of the baffle back. In the seating area i made it a combination of diffuse and absorbtive. Does this sound correct? I think making the area behind the speaker absorbtive goes against the idea of an OB speaker. Suggestions appreciated.
My speakers are a hybrid OB (sealed bass) OB mid tweeter. My room is rectangular 12x17ft I made the room reflective (or live) from the plane of the baffle back. In the seating area i made it a combination of diffuse and absorbtive. Does this sound correct? I think making the area behind the speaker absorbtive goes against the idea of an OB speaker. Suggestions appreciated.
OK not sure if I was clear. From the baffle forward (into the listening area) It is a mix of absorbtive and diffuse. Details i did not provide are absorbtive panels at first reflection point (using mirror method) and diffuse on cieling and floor has carpet. Wall behind listener could be considered diffuse (book case 
The reason I was not thinking absorbing sound behind speakers is because it would deaden the rear wave which is what we are after, no?
The reason I was not thinking absorbing sound behind speakers is because it would deaden the rear wave which is what we are after, no?
distances
I should post a room layout
The speakers are at least 3 ft from front wall and about just under 2 ft from side walls. I have GIK wall diffusors I can use. I also make 1 1/2 inch thich absorbtive panels.
I should post a room layout
The speakers are at least 3 ft from front wall and about just under 2 ft from side walls. I have GIK wall diffusors I can use. I also make 1 1/2 inch thich absorbtive panels.
Directivity is one thing. An other is that the dipole is a velocity source instead of a pressure source; properly placed it will excite the room modes less. And lastly, you avoid the speaker box (cavity) with all it's inherent problems.
The price you pay for this is very low efficiency, that's maybe why dipole bass is not common in commercial speakers I guess.
Constant Directivity across a very wide frequency band can be achieved, and no box to cause colorations.
The former is achieveable with other methods too. As far as I know the latter has never been shown to be a significant factor.
Better LF directivity. There is no other way to get LF directivity with only one speaker. If this is important or not is the issue.
A velocity source, yes, but less room mode excitation than a monopole, that is a common misconception, but it is incorrect. Put either at the their particular "best" locations and the room mode excitation will be about the same. This "best" location is different for the two types however.
markus76, box colorations were always a factor for me
when I heard good open baffle speakers (audio artistry beethoven), I heard no box, since then I never went back, no matter how well that box is made, there is still some resonant character to the sound for me, call it boxy sound if you will, I always hear it
Quite correct on your second point and I have done these tests. box coloration is a fallacy unless the box is junk.
And dipoles are not, in general, constant directivity across a wide bandwidth unless the drivers are very small. Otherwise the directivity will narrow with frequency just as it does in a close box. You do get some bandwidth of constant directivity - at a fairly low DI - but it is not "very wide". These are the old "Dipoles are better" fallacies.
Dipoles have a small directivity advantage at LFs but a BIG efficiency disadvantage at these same frequencies.
I am sure that is true as long as you can "see" it as well.
It can't be measured, I've tried, and I don't hear it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.