NEVER play loud drums without hearing protection! All serious drummers I know use them (ok, Dave Grohl doesn't but he is close to deaf and I don't know him personal
), I have a custom made set since I started sound enginering university and it saved my ... ear.20" is great for recording cause you can tune it higer (! - we are used to the Kick in the 55-60Hz area. a 22/24" sounds good in the 40-45Hz area).
I use a 3mm cast aluminium snare ... proper rimshots are close to bring you tears without hearing protection.
Therefore we use 24Bit during recordings ... and monitor speakers need more headroom as listening in a living room to the finished recording.
And these 22" BD membranes - don't move that much. A natural bass drum doesn't sound at all as what we are used to in a recoding. And often is one of the more silent parts of the kit - in small gigs the BD is often the only thing amplified from the kit but it's always the first thing you amplify to get the sound we are used to. (Btw - we normally use the sound INSIDE the bass drum for amplification. Look at live videos, 99% there is a hole in the resonance head and the mic looks inside or even is inside to get the attack of the beater head)
That's cause a single guitar is very easy to record and reproduce compared to a drumset.
And 2nd - nobody wants to hear a real drumset, it doesn't sound as we are used to on recordings.
Btw - it's quite easy to make a recorded guitar sound BETTER as the original one ;-) That's often part of the job, make it "bigger then life".
Hi, I've been into "near field" sound lately, listening close enough so that local room disappears mostly and whats left is mostly whats on the recording. My current task is to try and extend this all the way to practical main listening position, I'm not about half a meter short at 2.2m
I've been writing about it in various threads and it seems this is not what many people want or have with their hifi setups. Since you like to be there and try to get into the illusion I wonder what kind of speaker and listening setup you have?
I noticed distinct transition between two states of stereo sound at home: being too far to speakers, too big of a stereo triangle, and sound is on front of me and bit blurry. When listening distance is close enough and I'm inside the recording almost, certainly much clearer phantom center and sound is more enveloping, and this transition is about one step like what Griesinger writes about which has taken me to speculate its the same / similar thing here in small room loudspeaker systems. It seems to be just direct to reflected sound ratio, something just snaps in place with hearing system and perception changes when close enough, when direct sound is loud enough. Since you seem to be familiar with Griesingers work, what do you think about it? Have you experimented with listening distance yourself? what do you prefer?
Nearfield listening does everything you describe here. You hear the details, get correct stage and good phantom sources. Tonality improves.
You know I has driven this to an extreme with my listening room (non environment room) - and especially HiFi people regularly dislike this experience!
I belive they are so used to these side reflectins which widen the room and the "ambient" experience - they like that! And hearing all the details ... can be exhausting. You don't want that always.
One additional point - most people can't express what they really want to hear. That's a major problem between musicians and sound engineers for ages
!Most people don't know what they are hearing and/or how to express the phenomena they are hearing. Many missconceptions are based on that, e.g. subwofers sound boomy (cause 99% of not measured integrations are bad)
^Yeah, and I think there is a lot of confusion on this as well, for example what graphs on CTA 2034 raport one should prioritize depends on which one listens to including whether one needs horn speaker or not, if beaming is bad or not, dictates size of speakers to room size, SPL requirements, realistic expectations and so on, what toe in one should use, the list goes for ever and if giving advice without knowing which context its for it could be exactly wrong, while correct for the other.
A lot of discussion here on the forum should include what the context is, whether the discussion is about listening the far sound or near sound but it is rarely there. I think I've never stumbled anyone else talking about this. Yeah, there is talk about near field and far field and direct sound and room sound and early reflections and all that, but not thinking what it actually takes to get the nearfield sound or how it sounds like and so on, I don't think there is enough awareness what the difference actually is. Like you say, many probably haven't heard it or don't know the difference if they have.
I guess we could assume its mostly always the "far field" people here talk about, in other words the room sound. In which case on-axis sound is mostly irrelevant. But, on the nearfield the on-axis (listening axis) is most relevant, exactly opposite. Phase linearization, audibility of group delay, edge diffraction... I speculate these kind of things are not audible unless near field, at least not as audible because the sound is already just mush, a lot of information is lost due to room reflections. Discussion if early lateral reflections are benefitical also depends on this, if one likes the far field sound it probably is as it makes the sound bigger, but exactly wrong if one would like to have the near field sound, to hear what is on the recording and not listen to the local room.
Well, just speculating
A lot of discussion here on the forum should include what the context is, whether the discussion is about listening the far sound or near sound but it is rarely there. I think I've never stumbled anyone else talking about this. Yeah, there is talk about near field and far field and direct sound and room sound and early reflections and all that, but not thinking what it actually takes to get the nearfield sound or how it sounds like and so on, I don't think there is enough awareness what the difference actually is. Like you say, many probably haven't heard it or don't know the difference if they have.
I guess we could assume its mostly always the "far field" people here talk about, in other words the room sound. In which case on-axis sound is mostly irrelevant. But, on the nearfield the on-axis (listening axis) is most relevant, exactly opposite. Phase linearization, audibility of group delay, edge diffraction... I speculate these kind of things are not audible unless near field, at least not as audible because the sound is already just mush, a lot of information is lost due to room reflections. Discussion if early lateral reflections are benefitical also depends on this, if one likes the far field sound it probably is as it makes the sound bigger, but exactly wrong if one would like to have the near field sound, to hear what is on the recording and not listen to the local room.
Well, just speculating
Last edited:
I agree. I have been experimenting with finding the "Griesinger transition distance". In my room, with my ears, the transition is not abrubt, it gradually changes over a range of about 30 inches. I am fortunate that my natural listening position / speaker position has always been within the sweet spot.
I am noticing that a speaker with a higher directivity in the 1k-10k region seems to allow a larger listening distance, which makes complete sense.
Recently I reinstalled the TX system for a few days, and listened to it. Now I have installed the Purifi-waveguide system again.
My first subjective evaluations were that the Purifi-waveguide had more precise localizations. The presentation of depth was better, meaning distant sounds appeared further away, and close sounds appeared more near, compared to the TX. The soundstage was as wide as the speakers, but not wider. The TX system had a somewhat less precise localization, less range of depth, and a wider soundstage that extended well past the speakers.
When playing correlated pink noise on the Purifi-waveguide, the phantom mono image was about the size of soccer ball. With the TX, it was about the size of the TV screen. When playing uncorrelated pink noise on the Purifi-waveguide, the diffuse sound was as wide as the speakers and evenly distributed. With the TX, it wrapped aroudn the sides of the room well beyond the width of the speakers. It was almost 180 degrees laterally distributed relative to the listening position.
Then I started adjusting the listening distance. When listening to the TX, if I moved forward by 24 inches, it seemed to be very similar to the Purifi-waveguide. Image localization became more focussed, depth perception increased, and soundstage width narrowed. When listening to the Purifi-waveguide, if I moved back by about 36 inches, it sounded a lot like the TX. More enveloping, wider soundstage, but a more diffuse image with less precise localization and depth.
So to me it is very interesting that I can subjectively replicate the effect of a higher directivity waveguide speaker by using a wider dispersion speaker and a closer listening position.
j.
My first subjective evaluations were that the Purifi-waveguide had more precise localizations. The presentation of depth was better, meaning distant sounds appeared further away, and close sounds appeared more near, compared to the TX. The soundstage was as wide as the speakers, but not wider. The TX system had a somewhat less precise localization, less range of depth, and a wider soundstage that extended well past the speakers.
When playing correlated pink noise on the Purifi-waveguide, the phantom mono image was about the size of soccer ball. With the TX, it was about the size of the TV screen. When playing uncorrelated pink noise on the Purifi-waveguide, the diffuse sound was as wide as the speakers and evenly distributed. With the TX, it wrapped aroudn the sides of the room well beyond the width of the speakers. It was almost 180 degrees laterally distributed relative to the listening position.
Then I started adjusting the listening distance. When listening to the TX, if I moved forward by 24 inches, it seemed to be very similar to the Purifi-waveguide. Image localization became more focussed, depth perception increased, and soundstage width narrowed. When listening to the Purifi-waveguide, if I moved back by about 36 inches, it sounded a lot like the TX. More enveloping, wider soundstage, but a more diffuse image with less precise localization and depth.
So to me it is very interesting that I can subjectively replicate the effect of a higher directivity waveguide speaker by using a wider dispersion speaker and a closer listening position.
j.
Yes! this is very good listening experiment for everyone I think. Gives so much perspective on how audible phenomenon relate to writteb texts, and measurement/simulatio. graphs. Especially if we assume that when on the far field its only one neural stream happenin on hearing system, and when in the nearfield it would be two, foreground and background stream.
This gives good basis to further listening experiments and path to develop a stereo setup further to our liking.
Like, can you affect the background sound, the envelopment? What if crossover was optimized for listening axis sacrificing PIR or DI stuff, or vice versa? PIR stuff should be readily audible on the far field, while perhaps envelopment quality also got affected on the nearfield, and so on.
This gives good basis to further listening experiments and path to develop a stereo setup further to our liking.
Like, can you affect the background sound, the envelopment? What if crossover was optimized for listening axis sacrificing PIR or DI stuff, or vice versa? PIR stuff should be readily audible on the far field, while perhaps envelopment quality also got affected on the nearfield, and so on.
Last edited:
Few written thoughts since I'm thinking and this seems to be most suitable place to output
How to get more envelopment, louder late reflections, while still being at the near field in terms of the stereo image discussed above? Assuming we want the close sound, clarity.
Just move close enough to have enough direct sound while having now relatively more of the late reflections, hopefully from all around the room to make feeling of envelopment. Without above tricks early reflections would be stronger than late just because they get shortest path length and thus more amplitude arriving to ear. Strongest ones are mostly from front, from direction of the speakers, so less envelopment feeling, there is relatively less sound from all around.
Okay, what if this is still not enough? or, what if listening distance has to be quite long due to practical living room positioning?
- speaker directivity should reduce amplitude of earliest reflections in order to reduce their level. Listening distance is probably as long as possible to get main listening position to the practical distance, in other words room sound aka reflections is as loud as possible to ear but still enjoying the clarity of close proximity.
Simply, when listening spot is near the transition of close/far sound then the reflections, the room sound, is as loud as it can be to maintaining the clarity. Reducing amplitude of earliest reflections should grant envelopment, because the room sound ought to be less in amplitude from frontal direction, which means room sound would be more from all around.
Well, what if its not enough? The close sound target distance is achieved due to high enough DI and toe-in, but room sound is too much from the front? One could fix this by adding more sources, with delay at least, perhaps some other processing to artificially add late reflections. Perhaps position them to maximally enhance the envelopment, or whatever the hearing system seems to like, IACC and stuff like that.
Well, all this is relatively well known stuff isn't it but, arriving to the subject from angle having perceived peculiar phenomenon and being able to think about and reason on the perception and conmecting it to written knowledge it seems more clear now how it all works out, at least to me, possibly
Nice, feels like my DIY audio system journey is progressing, getting some clarity I hope its helpful for all of you too, hence writing it out, to encourage everyone to try and listen the transition.
ps. I think open baffle system would probably sound best to my liking, to all close sound likers, to get clarity and comfortable spaciousness or what ever to call it. OB listened close near the transition distance, toed in to minimize early reflections. Unfortunately its not practical to position speakers like so, so some alternative options need to be explored further. No matter the speaker system I think best listening place is close enough but near the trasition distance, perhaps where bass is nice as well, those pesky modes. Good speakers, treated early reflections, perhaps furniture to make diffusion, try position for max delays.
How to get more envelopment, louder late reflections, while still being at the near field in terms of the stereo image discussed above? Assuming we want the close sound, clarity.
- some acoustic treatment / directivity to lower amplitude of the earliest reflections
- assuming close listening distance was fine then speaker should have DI to radiate lot of power into the room, which should increase level of any (late) reflections.
Just move close enough to have enough direct sound while having now relatively more of the late reflections, hopefully from all around the room to make feeling of envelopment. Without above tricks early reflections would be stronger than late just because they get shortest path length and thus more amplitude arriving to ear. Strongest ones are mostly from front, from direction of the speakers, so less envelopment feeling, there is relatively less sound from all around.
Okay, what if this is still not enough? or, what if listening distance has to be quite long due to practical living room positioning?
- speaker directivity should reduce amplitude of earliest reflections in order to reduce their level. Listening distance is probably as long as possible to get main listening position to the practical distance, in other words room sound aka reflections is as loud as possible to ear but still enjoying the clarity of close proximity.
Simply, when listening spot is near the transition of close/far sound then the reflections, the room sound, is as loud as it can be to maintaining the clarity. Reducing amplitude of earliest reflections should grant envelopment, because the room sound ought to be less in amplitude from frontal direction, which means room sound would be more from all around.
Well, what if its not enough? The close sound target distance is achieved due to high enough DI and toe-in, but room sound is too much from the front? One could fix this by adding more sources, with delay at least, perhaps some other processing to artificially add late reflections. Perhaps position them to maximally enhance the envelopment, or whatever the hearing system seems to like, IACC and stuff like that.
Well, all this is relatively well known stuff isn't it
but, arriving to the subject from angle having perceived peculiar phenomenon and being able to think about and reason on the perception and conmecting it to written knowledge it seems more clear now how it all works out, at least to me, possibly Nice, feels like my DIY audio system journey is progressing, getting some clarity
I hope its helpful for all of you too, hence writing it out, to encourage everyone to try and listen the transition. ps. I think open baffle system would probably sound best to my liking, to all close sound likers, to get clarity and comfortable spaciousness or what ever to call it. OB listened close near the transition distance, toed in to minimize early reflections. Unfortunately its not practical to position speakers like so, so some alternative options need to be explored further. No matter the speaker system I think best listening place is close enough but near the trasition distance, perhaps where bass is nice as well, those pesky modes. Good speakers, treated early reflections, perhaps furniture to make diffusion, try position for max delays.
Last edited:
Oh jeah, I think it closes the whole loop: having heard the transition I now know which one I like, and whats it is mostly about so how room likely plays out, and what the speakers should be and where might be a dead end but sounds like a plan so better take and try it before trying to bail and get used to the far sound
hmm, would different placement do it: move speakers from a wall to a corner, each speaker on adjacent walls. This should reduce and delay early reflections from front I think,as walls are now angled in relation to listening triangle. Basses would be on to different room modes and so on. TV back to the corner where it belongs
might be a dead end but sounds like a plan so better take and try it before trying to bail and get used to the far sound hmm, would different placement do it: move speakers from a wall to a corner, each speaker on adjacent walls. This should reduce and delay early reflections from front I think,as walls are now angled in relation to listening triangle. Basses would be on to different room modes and so on. TV back to the corner where it belongs
Last edited:
Can we please make a sticky post of this?
That's EXACTLY what the theory tells us.
There's also a LOT of truth here!
I'm always into perfecting edge diffraction and avoid errors of a speaker - and there are developers who don't care at all. And when you look at ready made speakers ... most don't care. But I'm (also) listening in nearfield and very low reflection rooms.
MOST people never heard or experienced edge reflection. (sound is "weird" and a little phasy at 0° but get's stable at 10-15° already. Not a BIG effect, but there)
Also I switched from D'Apollito to one midrange driver cause it gives a more point source compared to a vertical "dimension" of 2 midranges. This probably totally changes in 3m distance in a living room - but I still prefer it this way ;-)
Few written thoughts since I'm thinking and this seems to be most suitable place to output
How to get more envelopment, louder late reflections, while still being at the near field in terms of the stereo image discussed above? Assuming we want the close sound, clarity.
- some acoustic treatment / directivity to lower amplitude of the earliest reflections
- assuming close listening distance was fine then speaker should have DI to radiate lot of power into the room, which should increase level of any (late) reflections.
Just move close enough to have enough direct sound while having now relatively more of the late reflections, hopefully from all around the room to make feeling of envelopment. Without above tricks early reflections would be stronger than late just because they get shortest path length and thus more amplitude arriving to ear. Strongest ones are mostly from front, from direction of the speakers, so less envelopment feeling, there is relatively less sound from all around.
Okay, what if this is still not enough? or, what if listening distance has to be quite long due to practical living room positioning?
- speaker directivity should reduce amplitude of earliest reflections in order to reduce their level. Listening distance is probably as long as possible to get main listening position to the practical distance, in other words room sound aka reflections is as loud as possible to ear but still enjoying the clarity of close proximity.
Simply, when listening spot is near the transition of close/far sound then the reflections, the room sound, is as loud as it can be to maintaining the clarity. Reducing amplitude of earliest reflections should grant envelopment, because the room sound ought to be less in amplitude from frontal direction, which means room sound would be more from all around.
Well, what if its not enough? The close sound target distance is achieved due to high enough DI and toe-in, but room sound is too much from the front? One could fix this by adding more sources, with delay at least, perhaps some other processing to artificially add late reflections. Perhaps position them to maximally enhance the envelopment, or whatever the hearing system seems to like, IACC and stuff like that.
Well, all this is relatively well known stuff isn't it
Nice, feels like my DIY audio system journey is progressing, getting some clarity
It's not easy to put all the theory together and fully understand the influences and dependencies. Then add practical experience and sometimes produce listening environments to special hear some effects and identify them (like the difference with/without WG here). And only THEN you get the whole picture. And a "feel" additional to the theory what will work and how.
It took me a study and 10 years experience
(and to be honest - lot's of my university peers which are less involved in being active in this area don't have the "gut instinct" and deep understanding of these topics. Theory alone is not enough, you need to test and experience stuff)
Back to topic - do you know this link: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-control-room-design
What you describe is a common design goal in studio design.
I went the "dead" route cause I have a very small room for a control room (=normal room with normal height)
To get late reflections you can absorb all early stuff and let the far away room reflective.
But nowadays designs tend more to reflection free zone designs or similar ideas.
The problem with these - you need big rooms with good room height to put all the stuff in and to get AT LEAST your first 10ms reflection free. These are 3,4m additional path for the reflection ... that's a lot an doften not doable in smaller rooms.
Hi, yeah I'm somewhat familiar with (home)studio stuff, read lot of John Sayers forum for example, years ago though. I do some hobby recording / mixing / live sound stuff occasionally, been doing for few decades but its a hobby and never had opportunity to have a dedicated place to actually do any proper acoustic treatment let alone room design. Perhaps my fond of the close sound comes from here, having listened near field monitors never thinking too deeply about the perception and how the room and home hifi relates.
Getting experience with listening is mandatory to be able to make very good speaker system, because hearing system and room is very much involved. All the useful words in studies, books and forums, good practices and theories in general are almost meaningless unless having ability to connect all of it to reality, to perceived sound.
I'm not sure if its possible to notice this kind of stuff and learn unless there is curiosity towards the perception. I mean, I can listen to music from tiny mobile phone speaker and it comes across, rocking with clock radio, anything that vibrates, why bother? Yeah it sounds crappy but just use better speakers to get the obvious crap sound fixed, better THD, more watts, right? Listening some stereo stuff like imaging and concentrating on envelopment is way beyond that. Figuring out size of phantom center and being able to manipulate it, well gotta be quite interested on it to be able to pull it off technically and mentally. Not sure if there is opportunity to do this kind of stuff and listening tinkering unless building and tuning DIY speakers, which by necessity drives toward playing with EQ and filters and delays and measurements and then hopefully adjustments by ear and then trying to figure out what gives Nice fun learning and I think gives a lot back to music hobby in general.
Now, I think, its possible for me to evaluate the stuff with the auditory experience of the transition. For example the ~10ms reflection free zone you mention. If I managed to delay and attenuate earliest reflections to approach the 10ms zone I could now listen if the transition distance changed, or what happened to the envelopment while listening in the close proximity. Basically knowing (expecting) the transition distance and how sound works close and far I can use it as tool to evaluate what actually happens when early reflections are manipulated, attenuated, delayed, there is now opportunity to notice the difference and do reasoning.
If I wasn't aware of the transition and always listening on the far field unknowingly, then doing adjustments to the early reflections while always staying in the far field and never hearing meaningful difference and I would be missing the whole point. It could have been that the close sound got better and better but I never know because I was ignorant and listening too far away Or, if the transition accidentally moved far enough that it was now behind listening spot I would be overwhelmed with the improvement. After spending 10k on acoustics without knowing that pretty much similar sound would have been there for free just by reducing listening distance. Its very important to know the transition, to evaluate against, to have few different perspectives to listen at. Its probably not as simple as that, but at least it seems a nice stable basis for evaluating things.
Getting experience with listening is mandatory to be able to make very good speaker system, because hearing system and room is very much involved. All the useful words in studies, books and forums, good practices and theories in general are almost meaningless unless having ability to connect all of it to reality, to perceived sound.
I'm not sure if its possible to notice this kind of stuff and learn unless there is curiosity towards the perception. I mean, I can listen to music from tiny mobile phone speaker and it comes across, rocking with clock radio, anything that vibrates, why bother?
Yeah it sounds crappy but just use better speakers to get the obvious crap sound fixed, better THD, more watts, right? Listening some stereo stuff like imaging and concentrating on envelopment is way beyond that. Figuring out size of phantom center and being able to manipulate it, well gotta be quite interested on it to be able to pull it off technically and mentally. Not sure if there is opportunity to do this kind of stuff and listening tinkering unless building and tuning DIY speakers, which by necessity drives toward playing with EQ and filters and delays and measurements and then hopefully adjustments by ear and then trying to figure out what gives Nice fun learning and I think gives a lot back to music hobby in general.Now, I think, its possible for me to evaluate the stuff with the auditory experience of the transition. For example the ~10ms reflection free zone you mention. If I managed to delay and attenuate earliest reflections to approach the 10ms zone I could now listen if the transition distance changed, or what happened to the envelopment while listening in the close proximity. Basically knowing (expecting) the transition distance and how sound works close and far I can use it as tool to evaluate what actually happens when early reflections are manipulated, attenuated, delayed, there is now opportunity to notice the difference and do reasoning.
If I wasn't aware of the transition and always listening on the far field unknowingly, then doing adjustments to the early reflections while always staying in the far field and never hearing meaningful difference and I would be missing the whole point. It could have been that the close sound got better and better but I never know because I was ignorant and listening too far away
Or, if the transition accidentally moved far enough that it was now behind listening spot I would be overwhelmed with the improvement. After spending 10k on acoustics without knowing that pretty much similar sound would have been there for free just by reducing listening distance. Its very important to know the transition, to evaluate against, to have few different perspectives to listen at. Its probably not as simple as that, but at least it seems a nice stable basis for evaluating things.
Last edited:
Not so sure about edge diffraction, in simulations on axis it increases with distance, and sort of stabilizes from 2-3m onwards.
But true that unless you did tests with different diffraction measures you would not know how it sounds and impact the soundstage.
Nevertheless if you can improve it, do it!
That's more or less always true in acoustics
While simulations have gone a long way and are getting really good with numerical methodes - when you see how strongly you have to reduce the basic formulars to be able to do any simulation at all ... it's pretty cool that we get any realistic results at all ;-)
These 10ms sound way easier as they are! In 2m distance to the source you would need a ceiling 2,5m higher as ear level to avoid an early ceiling reflection!
Side walls also 2,5m away - but in a 5m wide room you normally sit more far as 2m, so ...
That's also one of the big problems in small recording rooms - you would perfectly need a ceiling about 2m higher as the overhead microphones! Look at these great live rooms, they are built exactly like that. But in a normal building ... I often go the "damping" methode. If you can't have great reverb get at least no problematic reflections and no "boxy" sound of the room (good absorption in the 80-250Hz area).
So in short - you will still have to invest your 10k in room acoustics when you really want your stuff sorted out.
But as little side benefit - your listening room will now feel and sound great!
Speaker setup on a corner is really nice, allows speakers to be with good separation, still keeping them close enough to ear. The transition is clear as ever and its so much fun sit right at it, lean back for some nice roomy sound, distance, and lean forward when want to zoom into something. Very interactive, which is niceOh jeah, I think it closes the whole loop: having heard the transition I now know which one I like, and whats it is mostly about so how room likely plays out, and what the speakers should be and where
hmm, would different placement do it: move speakers from a wall to a corner, each speaker on adjacent walls. This should reduce and delay early reflections from front I think,as walls are now angled in relation to listening triangle. Basses would be on to different room modes and so on. TV back to the corner where it belongs
Still the transition is front of sofa so not perfect, but sound is fine on the sofa as well like before.The corner position is nice, left speaker is middle of the left wall, right is on the long wall at same distance from corner. Left wall is roughly 5m long, and the other extends up to 8m or so, open kitchen behind listening spot. This makes all first lateral reflections >~9ms. There is small sofa on the corner so some acoustic treatment there. Speakers are for on-wall placement and work nicely to be practical, its family livingroom after all. The room is still practical, bass needs some adjustment, but overall the stereo image feels better than when both speakers on the front wall and thus I consider this the better setup for now
ps. Geddes pointed on another thread recently the transition relates to critical distance, distance where direct sound and room sound are equal in level. This seems to be quite short distance in domestic rooms and depend on system directivity and room properties. The audible transition how ever, I suspect happens at some other relation with D/R than 1. Found some old forum thread considered this, have to find out more. Taking some SPL measurements would be fun experiment, perhaps measure every foot ungated, and see the distance where lines start to bundle up, or something. Perhaps there is some standard measurement/analysis to find out critical distance, from impulse response?
Rough sketch of the setup. Left speaker middle of the left wall, right speaker would be on the top wall on the attachment, just above listening spot and forgot to draw an arrow for it
Square with the room corner.
pps. another fun thing which I haven't noticed before; Stereo image height seems to be adjustable by listening height. What I think happens since there is quite long c-c on the speaker and short listening distance that there is enough phase change with crossover or something.
Last edited:
Yeah sound seems to be cleared up with the new positioning because it's possible to listen delay settings. I had to adjust bass delay since it seemed be too down in height and treble since it seemed to be too high. Delay associated with crossovers seem to adjust height. This is nuts Everyone, mind your early reflections
From which one could hypothesize group delay could also be a spatial effect?
Everyone, mind your early reflections From which one could hypothesize group delay could also be a spatial effect?
Hi, I've been listening to the new corner setup and I've also got it sliding but I think its less than your 30", certainly not longer.
I was thinking about the subject and wrote some thoughts on another thread. Critical distance depends on frequency and DI pretty much directly indicates how far critical distance is at each frequency. There is probably some bandwidth what is mostly responsible for the perception and thus I can speculate that the flatter the DI is on this bandwidth the shorter the transition is.
Would it make sense? perhaps its audible, various spectum clarity slides in because of rising DI on " the bandwidth" Gotta listen tomorrow
Thanks for the detail feedback on the 2 different systems. However, I would like to know which will be your preferred system, TX vs Purifi?
Currently I have a 2 way speaker using the TX drivers from SB Acoustics, I find it sounds the best compares to other builds I have. The only thing I wish can be better (personal taste) is if there can be more "meat" in the vocal. Do you think the Purifi has that "meatier" vocal as compared to the MW16TX woofer.