This part in Floyd Toole's Third edition of Sound Reproduction couldn't say it any clearer
11.5 Flat, Direct Sound Is an Enduring Favorite
Starting with my earliest listening tests in the late 1960s, through a prolific research period in the 1980s (see Figure 5.2), up to the present (see Chapter 12), it has been a monotonous truth that in double-blind listening tests, the highest rated loudspeakers had the flattest, smoothest on-axis and listening-window frequency responses. Listeners liked neutral, uncolored, direct sound. Beyond that, loudspeakers that exhibited similarly good behavior off-axis achieved even higher scores—reflected sounds would then have similar timbral signatures. These findings have remained valid in many different rooms over the years. These were small rooms: stereo listening rooms, home theaters and recording control rooms. As has been discussed earlier, listeners have a significant ability to separate the sound of the source from the sound of the room (Figure 5.16). The two sets of information appear to be perceptually streamed, with the result that loudspeakers retain their relative sound quality ratings in different rooms (Section 7.6.2).
11.5 Flat, Direct Sound Is an Enduring Favorite
Starting with my earliest listening tests in the late 1960s, through a prolific research period in the 1980s (see Figure 5.2), up to the present (see Chapter 12), it has been a monotonous truth that in double-blind listening tests, the highest rated loudspeakers had the flattest, smoothest on-axis and listening-window frequency responses. Listeners liked neutral, uncolored, direct sound. Beyond that, loudspeakers that exhibited similarly good behavior off-axis achieved even higher scores—reflected sounds would then have similar timbral signatures. These findings have remained valid in many different rooms over the years. These were small rooms: stereo listening rooms, home theaters and recording control rooms. As has been discussed earlier, listeners have a significant ability to separate the sound of the source from the sound of the room (Figure 5.16). The two sets of information appear to be perceptually streamed, with the result that loudspeakers retain their relative sound quality ratings in different rooms (Section 7.6.2).
Does Samsung want to be a big time player in the high end? Samsung acquired Harman for 8 billion.
Samsung was ranked 14th largest company in the world in 2018. 225 billion in sales. 41 billion in profit. 293 billion in assets.
How good will Lexicon SL-1 be? It retails for $40,000.
Lexicon SL-1 | Lexicon SL-1 steerable wireless loudspeaker system
Samsung was ranked 14th largest company in the world in 2018. 225 billion in sales. 41 billion in profit. 293 billion in assets.
How good will Lexicon SL-1 be? It retails for $40,000.
Lexicon SL-1 | Lexicon SL-1 steerable wireless loudspeaker system
Hello,
Is there any reliable data that corellate this assumption with the room modes destructions ?
This is the part of the book that is referred to in that quote
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms - Floyd E. Toole - Google Books
One of the references is research from Bregman
Auditory Scene Analysis | The MIT Press
Terms such as perceptual streaming and auditory scene analysis will turn up much of it
In terms of Toole's own research, blind listening tests indicates that the same speakers are preferred in the same order when listened to in different rooms, this doesn't in itself prove the point but it shows that good speakers are preferred no matter where they are listened to.
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms - Floyd E. Toole - Google Books
One of the references is research from Bregman
Auditory Scene Analysis | The MIT Press
Terms such as perceptual streaming and auditory scene analysis will turn up much of it
In terms of Toole's own research, blind listening tests indicates that the same speakers are preferred in the same order when listened to in different rooms, this doesn't in itself prove the point but it shows that good speakers are preferred no matter where they are listened to.
Exactly the point, it seems that all expensive devices are designed to be listened in an anechoic chamber, they must sound fabulous in the desert.
seems as though what you quoted is saying the opposite of what you are saying.
why are they designed to be listened to in an anechoic chamber? the research points to good speakers sounding good everywhere. if they were designed to be listened to in such a space, they would be flat on axis and nowhere else. probably something naive like an expo horn
Technically i don't know what is a "naive" expo horn and i don't really care about what technology is used to achive a requied directivity but perhaps you are thinking that an array of direct radiators can perform better than a point source horn and i don't say that it is impossible.
But i'm confident that "flat on axis" mean noting, except if you are talking about the direct radiated energy, and that a low volume BR load with a high Fcb is inacurate in the lows.
Toole is saying that devices that measure flat sound best in rooms like yours and mine. The only way to measure them flat is in an anechoic chamber.
My room is an abomination in term of sound propagation, the FR measurment is darn impossible with all wide directivity loudspeakers that i've tested. With the ultra narrow diectivity loudspeakers the FR is flat without any EQ except a gain in the LF when you go closer to the walls, normal life humans sounds (chair on the floor, hand snapping, voices) rings a lot and the sound coming from the speakers don't.
My room is not an exception, a lot of people on this planet can hear the echo of their own voice in their bedrooms, 75% of the humanity lives in a flat.
It's interesting you mention that. I have the same thing. I get those weird sounds if I snap my fingers, clap, or make loud enough sound, including my voice. And yet I don't hear it with my loudspeakers. Why is that? It makes me think the room doesn't play such a big role that some say, so long as the direct path from speaker to listener is free of diffraction.
There was an epoch that i've bought some professional studio monitors with the confidence that these ones will resolve all my problems because professionnals are professionnals.
And finally the FR measurements of these studio monitors were full of large bumps and noches that had totally destroyed the rendering, who can you trust ?
no-one.
I've tested various of the finest brands and i d'ont want to inject a negative bias on the web, even a few. After tesing various loads of BR enclosures (2.5' to 8' mibasses) all the worst measurements results were obtained by closing the vents, so iv'e tested closed monitors (very expensive and heavy ones) and at the next step in improvement i've built on-wall flat DIY monitors, in wall should work great in a small room but i c'ant drill my walls.
Ok. I see your point. Fair point not injecting bad reviews on the net.
I suppose you have tryied onwall ( not inwall, some box pushed against the wall- it's not clear as you used onwall and there is many way to describe it, soffit, inwall,...) ? Did it gave bad results? If they was on wall could you use some stand instead of drilling walls?
I suppose you have tryied onwall ( not inwall, some box pushed against the wall- it's not clear as you used onwall and there is many way to describe it, soffit, inwall,...) ? Did it gave bad results? If they was on wall could you use some stand instead of drilling walls?
Last edited:
On-wall was a tad better but the loading volume is severely restricted and the midbass rear wave is hitting directly a concrete wall.
Duke and I were talking about the new JBL waveguides on another thread, but I thought I'd bring the discussion over here as it's better suited since this is a thread about JBL waveguides.
One thing that I mentioned in that thread, is how the newer JBL waveguides allow you to "have your cake and eat it too."
Here's what I mean by this:
In a conventional waveguide, the beamwidth of the waveguide is largely determined by the angle of the walls. For instance, a 90 x 90 waveguide will have a beamwidth of about 90x90 degrees. Simple.
In the newer JBL waveguides, they've "pinched" the throat on the horizontal and the vertical axis.
By pinching the throat, it widens the beam. The same idea as a diffraction slot, but instead of being shaped like a vertical slit, the slot is shaped like an "X"
I've attached some data that demonstrates this.
The first measurement is from a Revel F208. The Revel tweeter is in a conventional waveguide, about 0.5-1.0" deep.
The second measurement is for the new JBL GDI speaker. That speaker has a throat that appears to be around 2-3" deep, if you include the throat of the compression driver that's attached to it.
Here's the interesting thing: note that their in-room response is very very similar. In other words, the HDI waveguide is doing what it's designed to do: it provides wide beamwidth AND it loads the tweeter down to about 1125Hz. The Revel waveguide, by comparison, provides a fraction of the loading, because it's so shallow.
JBL HDI 1600
Revel M16
One thing that I mentioned in that thread, is how the newer JBL waveguides allow you to "have your cake and eat it too."
Here's what I mean by this:
In a conventional waveguide, the beamwidth of the waveguide is largely determined by the angle of the walls. For instance, a 90 x 90 waveguide will have a beamwidth of about 90x90 degrees. Simple.
In the newer JBL waveguides, they've "pinched" the throat on the horizontal and the vertical axis.
By pinching the throat, it widens the beam. The same idea as a diffraction slot, but instead of being shaped like a vertical slit, the slot is shaped like an "X"
I've attached some data that demonstrates this.
The first measurement is from a Revel F208. The Revel tweeter is in a conventional waveguide, about 0.5-1.0" deep.
The second measurement is for the new JBL GDI speaker. That speaker has a throat that appears to be around 2-3" deep, if you include the throat of the compression driver that's attached to it.
Here's the interesting thing: note that their in-room response is very very similar. In other words, the HDI waveguide is doing what it's designed to do: it provides wide beamwidth AND it loads the tweeter down to about 1125Hz. The Revel waveguide, by comparison, provides a fraction of the loading, because it's so shallow.
JBL HDI 1600
Revel M16
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.