Trade-offs in loudspeaker design

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
diyAudio Moderator
Joined 2008
Paid Member
however that would only work well if there was sufficient delay.
Some may disagree, but it is compelling. By using the compact constant directivity approach, the reverberant field is largely made up of diffuse later reflections. This spaciousness is wanted. It doesn't necessarily affect imaging.

It also doesn't necessarily cause listening fatigue, something I tend to see of un-planned for earlier reflections.
 
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.

I totally agree - that's why it is #5. It pays to know if someone is wanting that party / outdoor speaker. Who knows what they will use it for.

This is about someone elses goals. Whether we agree or not - it's a valid parameter to know.

My current 3 ways are only 84dB efficient. I barely get them above 90dB average listening. I think they are excursion limited at 105dB but I don't care.
 
Dave and hifijim have pretty well shot this down.

It’s like trying to compare apples and oranges and ask which tastes better. They are both fruit, they both taste good, and yet they both taste different.

There is no ‘correct answer’ for fruit just as there is no ‘correct answer” for music despite your claim to one.

Again, the correct answer is live performance is superior to two channel stereo. Now, why does that matter?

Because two channel stereo is a compromise resulting from legacy technology. Multi-channel is better than two channel stereo at approximating live performance, therefore, multi-channel will increasingly replace two channel stereo as technology changes the relative value of compromises. Multi-channel is standard operating procedure in Hollywood and we see the music transition underway with Apple's Atmos and Tidal's 360 streaming audio offerings.
 
Member
Joined 2011
Paid Member
I totally agree - that's why it is #5. It pays to know if someone is wanting that party / outdoor speaker. Who knows what they will use it for.

This is about someone elses goals. Whether we agree or not - it's a valid parameter to know.

My current 3 ways are only 84dB efficient. I barely get them above 90dB average listening. I think they are excursion limited at 105dB but I don't care.

There are different ways of looking at it. In some cases, SPL/power is the most limiting factor/tradeoff and in other cases it is the least limiting factor/tradeoff. That's why I figure it is best to make an informed decision about that before anything else.
 
Some may disagree, but it is compelling. By using the compact constant directivity approach, the reverberant field is largely made up of diffuse later reflections. This spaciousness is wanted. It doesn't necessarily affect imaging.

It also doesn't necessarily cause listening fatigue, something I tend to see of un-planned for earlier reflections.

Dipoles are claimed to provide excellent constant directivity, which seems to make the case for using open baffles rather than box speakers.
 
Stereo is fine as long as the channel separation is perfect. With loudspeakers it is not anywhere near it no matter how directive the speakers are or how many of them are used. Maybe some kind of speaker close to your ears but not like headphones plus some subwoofer for LF extension and slam could give you close to perfect experience. Anyone listen wit the headphones and a subwoofer at the same time? That might sound cool (maybe not to the other people in the house but anyway).
 
Yes, however don't confuse OB with dipoles ;) Linkwitz was a classical music fan and said the reflections from the front wall should be diffused, I suppose this has a similar effect to a longer delay?

True. Which is why you can't put OBs up against the front wall. You need to leave enough space for back wave to be diffused and delayed.

But OBs are dipoles and therefore should be good at providing constant directivity, which was the point being made.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.