Sadly, no. It would only influence the frequency where the side lobe shows up. And only somewhat. If I simulate it with VituixCAD where I put the ceiling above the end point of the array, I get a more severe reflection at ~5-6.5 Khz:
(ceiling just above the array)
With more spacing above the array I get less of a sum of the lobe effect due to the distances that vary (more spread out at 4-5 Khz):
(ceiling where it is currently, about half a meter higher)
So it's not worth it to me. The side lobes simply are a result of driver center to center spacing, nothing to do with this array being a true floor to ceiling array or not. About 70% of ceiling height gives enough advantages to call it a tall floor to ceiling array.
Symmetry isn't always ideal
.
Thanks, I use Autodesk Inventor. One of the perks of being a registered user due to work (Educational use).
For the hobbyist Fusion 360 can do quite similar things.
Just a heads up, haven't listened to it yet:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwv2x-Ibw71kOWOhQZBcX8ocbtGHv78YS
Just released last Friday.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwv2x-Ibw71kOWOhQZBcX8ocbtGHv78YS
Just released last Friday.
Updated the Home Theater settings to reflect my latest tweaks in Stereo setup.
Balancing the in-room tonality as perceived, which does include the effects those lobes have on tonal balance but also the other in-room reflections.
For a while I had used just a snif of reverb on my within my mid of the mid/side chain, and also some anti-cross talk applied there.
While it did work as I ment it to, it was too position dependent for the anti cross talk and after removing that part, the tone colors of the added reverb, however small, became more obvious too. Even though both did have advantages too, when used together! So shortly after abandoning the anti-crosstalk I removed the touch of reverb from my mid channel of the mid-side processing chain and moved it to my ambience speakers instead. That way it still fills up the holes from the cross talk as perceived, but it is way less obvious or distracting tonally.
What I'm trying to mimic here is in-room reflections (that i stole from the room in the first place with my absorption panels and the shading of the arrays), but have them potentially more ideal than what my room had to offer. (the key reason why I went with ambience channels in the first place)
So both stereo as well as home theater now share the same basic setup again. We tried it immediately with a movie yesterday. We watched Almost Famous, followed by The Song Remains The Same.
Balancing the in-room tonality as perceived, which does include the effects those lobes have on tonal balance but also the other in-room reflections.
For a while I had used just a snif of reverb on my within my mid of the mid/side chain, and also some anti-cross talk applied there.
While it did work as I ment it to, it was too position dependent for the anti cross talk and after removing that part, the tone colors of the added reverb, however small, became more obvious too. Even though both did have advantages too, when used together! So shortly after abandoning the anti-crosstalk I removed the touch of reverb from my mid channel of the mid-side processing chain and moved it to my ambience speakers instead. That way it still fills up the holes from the cross talk as perceived, but it is way less obvious or distracting tonally.
What I'm trying to mimic here is in-room reflections (that i stole from the room in the first place with my absorption panels and the shading of the arrays), but have them potentially more ideal than what my room had to offer. (the key reason why I went with ambience channels in the first place)
So both stereo as well as home theater now share the same basic setup again. We tried it immediately with a movie yesterday. We watched Almost Famous, followed by The Song Remains The Same.
Updated and added many pages/posts to the processing tab on my website.
Trying slowly but surely to document my entire journey. Possibly as a sort of 'readers digest' version of this 400+ page thread (lol).
Trying slowly but surely to document my entire journey. Possibly as a sort of 'readers digest' version of this 400+ page thread (lol).
Hello. I have been following the saga of the two towers.Sadly, no. It would only influence the frequency where the side lobe shows up. And only somewhat. If I simulate it with VituixCAD where I put the ceiling above the end point of the array, I get a more severe reflection at ~5-6.5 Khz:
View attachment 1272161
(ceiling just above the array)
With more spacing above the array I get less of a sum of the lobe effect due to the distances that vary (more spread out at 4-5 Khz):
View attachment 1272162
(ceiling where it is currently, about half a meter higher)
So it's not worth it to me. The side lobes simply are a result of driver center to center spacing, nothing to do with this array being a true floor to ceiling array or not. About 70% of ceiling height gives enough advantages to call it a tall floor to ceiling array.
Symmetry isn't always ideal
Doubt. What if instead of using the towers on the floor, with space between them and the ceiling, you installed them in the middle of the wall, so that the distance from the first driver to the ceiling was the same as the last driver to the floor?
I'm sorry if you've already simulated this before and I haven't read it.
I haven't tried that specifically. But from previous experiences I did learn that symmetry isn't always our best friend. While it may appear to be ideal, any side effect it may have would double up. For instance a reflection, having the same distances between floor and array as well as ceiling and array would mean that any reflection becomes twice as strong. So it's best to have it vary somewhat. It's like the diffraction of a tweeter on a baffle. Place it in the center of the baffle and you have equal spacing to the diffractive elements. That's why we often see a tweeter or even mid placed somewhat to one side.
Your contributions are incredible! You imagine, test and demonstrate. I would love to know what criteria you used to define the shading cutoff frequencies. I think it's very important to understand the graphs you shared here and on https://www.vandermill-audio.nl/adding-passive-filters/Acho que nunca postei o esquema real da matriz TC9 sombreada por frequência que acabei de usar:
View attachment 1157109
Ninguém falou sobre isso
A quick view of what it does. I assume the use of an unshaded array in a 2.5 meter high living room. Further more I assume a listening height of about 1 meter (seated ear height).
First a 2.5 meter high living room. Array on floor:
Next, moving the array to the center of the room:
Don't mind the irregular frequency response, instead look at the red line in the left middle graph plus the bottom vertical Directivity graph.
If your room isn't higher, it could work just fine. In fact, the resulting Directivity Index looks slightly better (minute differences).
One other advantage is that standing listening position will now almost be equal to seated position.
If the room is any higher than the 2.5 meter ceiling I mentioned, use a longer array! Or move the listening position up, that should work too.
A shaded array would make less sense in this situation because the array center is above seated listening height and below standing listening height. I favored seated height and made my shading model ideal at that (1 meter height) listening spot.
I highly recommend getting VituixCAD yourself and modeling your living room! A starter package of an array with the TC9 can be found in nc535's thread.
First a 2.5 meter high living room. Array on floor:
Next, moving the array to the center of the room:
Don't mind the irregular frequency response, instead look at the red line in the left middle graph plus the bottom vertical Directivity graph.
If your room isn't higher, it could work just fine. In fact, the resulting Directivity Index looks slightly better (minute differences).
One other advantage is that standing listening position will now almost be equal to seated position.
If the room is any higher than the 2.5 meter ceiling I mentioned, use a longer array! Or move the listening position up, that should work too
.A shaded array would make less sense in this situation because the array center is above seated listening height and below standing listening height. I favored seated height and made my shading model ideal at that (1 meter height) listening spot.
I highly recommend getting VituixCAD yourself and modeling your living room! A starter package of an array with the TC9 can be found in nc535's thread.
If you view the VituixCAD six-pack of graphs, I looked at the bottom left graph to optimize the vertical directivity and the red line in the middle (representing the directivity curve). I experimented with values until that directivity became more bundled. Pure low-pass didn't work that well so I used something resembling shelf filters, often combined with misused notch filters. Basically anything that worked!
It took me a long time and several versions before I had something useful. I counted to version 19, but several of the in-between versions had a, b, c and d variants
.Be aware that I re-wired my array to have a group of 5 drivers that were centered around the 1 meter listening height. I accepted the fact that standing position would have a slightly less optimized result.
Slowly tweaking the website and adding new pages and articles.
Thanks for the occasional replies letting me know that someone actually reads it.
This thread has become so huge that it's almost impossible to find anything (except when you know what you're looking for).
So my end goal is to have an extract of that which presents the most interesting parts. But it needs a complete introduction story as well.
So lots of work and it's going to take some time.
Stuff like this was on this thread, but pretty hard to find. I must have copied that info to several threads because it seemed relevant.
Having it all in one place should help with that. Off to listen to some tracks, bye!
Thanks for the occasional replies letting me know that someone actually reads it
.This thread has become so huge that it's almost impossible to find anything (except when you know what you're looking for).
So my end goal is to have an extract of that which presents the most interesting parts. But it needs a complete introduction story as well.
So lots of work and it's going to take some time.
Stuff like this was on this thread, but pretty hard to find. I must have copied that info to several threads because it seemed relevant.
Having it all in one place should help with that
. Off to listen to some tracks, bye!The site is looking great. Everything there is relevant. It is becoming a source of reference both for those who are learning about line sources now and for those who have been following you for some time.
Regarding the “soft curves”, for example, it was very clear that it was worth the effort.
I suggest always mentioning the site in your posts here.
Regarding the “soft curves”, for example, it was very clear that it was worth the effort.
I suggest always mentioning the site in your posts here.
Last edited:
Created a facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Vandermill.Audio/ though the important stuff will probably be on the site.
Next to that, the Pinterest page: https://nl.pinterest.com/VandermillAudio/the-two-towers/ (as I noticed my pictures were there regardless of my own actions.
So to get it all in one place I made that collection of pictures.
Next to that, the Pinterest page: https://nl.pinterest.com/VandermillAudio/the-two-towers/ (as I noticed my pictures were there regardless of my own actions.
So to get it all in one place I made that collection of pictures.