In my not so humble opinion, you should design towards a speaker that comes out on top in double blind listening tests. I think that that are speakers with no resonances and a uniform polar response.
Then decide how loud you want it to go and how low you want it to go. Louder and lower cost more money.
Then decide how loud you want it to go and how low you want it to go. Louder and lower cost more money.
not really, reread it in Toole, spaciousness of soundstage and sound sources in a typical listening room is related to early reflections, low IACC, untrained listeners tend to prefer low IACC, and some listeners prefer high, professionals especially, Toole gives an explanation for that
I remember someone said on the forum some time ago that Toole changed his view on some subject in the later version of his book. Was it on this one, the early reflections?
edit. it must have been this, posts #68, #78, #84 https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...-designs-inherently-flawed-7.html#post6458529
marco_gea post #84:
"Exactly right! People, please do read the 3rd edition, it is definitely NOT just a cosmetic update. There are MANY changes to the book.
And in fairness, it wasn't just misinterpretation. I think Toole's wording was a bit misleading on this particular issue (though I'm sure unintentionally so) in the previous editions of his book.
I may even go as far as guessing that he may have realised that he was a bit... how shall we put it?... plain wrong about early reflections, and then decided to gently walk back some of what he'd said, without overtly admitting that he was actually mistaken.
M."
edit. it must have been this, posts #68, #78, #84 https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...-designs-inherently-flawed-7.html#post6458529
marco_gea post #84:
"Exactly right! People, please do read the 3rd edition, it is definitely NOT just a cosmetic update. There are MANY changes to the book.
And in fairness, it wasn't just misinterpretation. I think Toole's wording was a bit misleading on this particular issue (though I'm sure unintentionally so) in the previous editions of his book.
I may even go as far as guessing that he may have realised that he was a bit... how shall we put it?... plain wrong about early reflections, and then decided to gently walk back some of what he'd said, without overtly admitting that he was actually mistaken.
M."
Last edited:
And then you could read this https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.40.9065&rep=rep1&type=pdf It's complicated, sometimes it helps to simplify and make generalisations.
Did Toole change his position that there is a trade-off between spaciousness and pinpoint imaging?
Going back to the OP, there must be trade offs in commercial speakers as well as DIY, I would hazard a guess that they're in almost all of them.
The manufacturer, distributor and retailer all need to make money: larger speakers mean higher shipping costs, for example. Those costs get passed on to the consumer.
Certain brands have a reputation or image which means that they will always sell, and the maker can charge pretty much anything, up to a point. Perhaps their trade offs include aesthetic considerations over sound quality, or using thinner than optimal cabinet material to save weight. A commercial speaker might use lower quality drivers and crossover parts or have a low level of BSC than many DIY-ers would prefer, so they can be used in a variety of locations.
As for live v. recorded music, they're different, of course; however, as I'm never going to see Jimi Hendrix or Maria Callas in concert, recordings are the only way I can experience the magic.
Geoff
The manufacturer, distributor and retailer all need to make money: larger speakers mean higher shipping costs, for example. Those costs get passed on to the consumer.
Certain brands have a reputation or image which means that they will always sell, and the maker can charge pretty much anything, up to a point. Perhaps their trade offs include aesthetic considerations over sound quality, or using thinner than optimal cabinet material to save weight. A commercial speaker might use lower quality drivers and crossover parts or have a low level of BSC than many DIY-ers would prefer, so they can be used in a variety of locations.
As for live v. recorded music, they're different, of course; however, as I'm never going to see Jimi Hendrix or Maria Callas in concert, recordings are the only way I can experience the magic.
Geoff
Geoff, true but still commercial speakers are by them selves made as best as they can given the realities, just a different set of trade-offs.
It is only when a DIYer tries to figure out a feature for his own project from another loudspeaker for good audio quality thinking that the speaker he is looking at has the feature implemented for audio quality and not for cost for example. This is part of the information transfer problem I've mentioned few times, if not thinking the (basic) trade-offs one could copy a poor design choice for the particular set of tradeoffs. This is easily avoided if the basic tradeoffs were in mind while interpreting the information. Because there is no way to know all of the compromises that are behind some random design one is looking at, the basic set is enough to indicate if the info is good for my application.
edit. for example first picture in this thread Conical horns 600Hz and up is a very much aesthetics over audio set of compromises, nobody should take much from this if designing for sound quality
It is only when a DIYer tries to figure out a feature for his own project from another loudspeaker for good audio quality thinking that the speaker he is looking at has the feature implemented for audio quality and not for cost for example. This is part of the information transfer problem I've mentioned few times, if not thinking the (basic) trade-offs one could copy a poor design choice for the particular set of tradeoffs. This is easily avoided if the basic tradeoffs were in mind while interpreting the information. Because there is no way to know all of the compromises that are behind some random design one is looking at, the basic set is enough to indicate if the info is good for my application.
edit. for example first picture in this thread Conical horns 600Hz and up is a very much aesthetics over audio set of compromises, nobody should take much from this if designing for sound quality
Last edited:
Griesinger's argument is founded on his arbitrarily chosen assumption that only LEV is the "real spaciousness", while in common understanding there are two components in spaciousness - ASW and LEV
So... "ASW is not real spaciousness", "there can be no LEV generated by reflections in home listening rooms because they are too small"
...we need sound processing and additional channels to get any spaciousness in a home listening room
Yep, makes sense to me What does spaciousness mean? Doesn't Toole think multichannel is the only way to go?
Anyway, from large spaces to small spaces: http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Philosophy.pdf
What does spaciousness mean? Doesn't Toole think multichannel is the only way to go?Anyway, from large spaces to small spaces: http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Philosophy.pdf
Yep, makes sense to me
Well, from this it looks like he thinks that "adjustable side curtains" are the way to go
It seems also that he and dr Geddes don't buy Mr Griesinger's assumption at all as gedlee himself writes ia.: " Very Early Reflections (VER) are a compromise. While they add spaciousness, envelopment and enhance ASW, they will degrade imaging on more dry studio type recordings (...). Floyd is virtually 100% large venue recordings and hence his earlier beliefs that enhanced spaciousness was a major benefit."
...so, it's a trade-off
Last edited by a moderator:
So he's got another definition of spaciousness. Perhaps you can have it all as wesayso thinks? Are modern narrow baffle designs inherently flawed?https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...-designs-inherently-flawed-7.html#post6458529
Last edited by a moderator:
a standard one, while Griesinger's is nonstandard
perhaps
but again - the solution goes beyond "loudspeaker design"
I don't see how this music preference relates to adding the ambience of your room. You'd hear the venue better without it, unless you just like ambience?
It is not possible, as soon as you make your choice, you have just made a trade-off.
Here might be an example: La Sphere by Cabasse:
A 4 way coax to try to get drivers coincident (would still require time delay in the XO to achieve, and multi-amped) but one has to worry about 1 driver in front of the other, a nice shape for external diffraction, no idea what it looks like inside. XO would need to disappear, and drivers would need to have the same sonic signature.
Immediate trade-offs are cost (including at least 4 amplifiers), esthetics (some will think them ugly). And there wil be may more, and likely has some dynamics issues.
Here a more convential system, with essentially coincident drivers, it (perhaps) gives up absolute fidelity in the top octave, and dispersion might be down up high (but you might be surprised at how good it is). It is a very seemless speaker. It is relativily inexpensive and the boxes are approachable by a diyer.
It is larger than some would like (but about half as deep as a set of IMF TLS80), the driver cost, while not modest, is not sky-high ($1.2-2KHz depending on whether you can get EnABLed drivers. plus XO (active or passive [desined to use a PLLXO so 2 small Rs, 4 small Cs, so insignificant cost]), and while it will play loud, not as much as some would like. Bass goes way down & is solid, but won’t move enuff air to satisfy some. The woofers (a pair of push-push SDX10)in the pic are not hooked up but if added below 50 Hz can provide the air for train crrashes and things exploding. More cost, size, complexity.
Our best effort in over 40 years of hifi, diy, and learning.
dave
SPL and power requirements are very often drastically over-estimated, such that they play a bigger role in the trade-off decision than they should.
As consumers, we were tricked during the 80s and 90s (actually it is still happening) to believe that any amplifier or speaker under 100 wpc is useless, and that we need our systems to consistently hit over 100dB.
The reality is far different from this. Listening consistently at levels even in the mid-90dB range is loud enough that conversations become difficult without yelling, and extended exposure causes hearing loss. With even "middling" efficiency speakers, this sound level is possible with only a handful (or two) of watts per channel. At more "normal"* SPL, a watt or two is often plenty.
If one considers how they are actually going to be using their system on a day-to-basis and then makes an effort to fully understand how much power they need for the desired SPL levels, what they will find is that power/SPL is not nearly the limiting factor that they might have first assumed. In other words, if one takes the time to get this "limiting factor" right, it just might open up a hell of a lot more possibilities/options among the other factors (such as size, WAF, cost, complexity, etc.).
* Very subjective, of course. My definition is based on experience of various systems in my living room (which is a pretty average-sized space) with a lot of different listeners, in a lot of different situations - from easy listening during dinner parties to solitary listening sessions with it plenty loud enough to fully enjoy, but not cause hearing loss. I guess I would consider a range of about 68-88dB SPL "normal".
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.