If using on wall or in wall placement, you will need to adress a bump in the power response in the bass, through Eq ( Electronic o acoustic). These Eqs are very commonly available as presets on active pro monitors. For passive designs off the walls is simply a convenient way of obtaining a "boundary proof" response.
From Toole's book Chapter 12...
Last edited:
I think there is an interesting comment by Toole regarding the null observed on the axial response in the case of on wall placement. It seems that it is not necessarily audible being "masked" by room acoustics, and what we really hear is sound power.
That's also why i commented on another file, that nulls do not exist or should be ignored because they look really ugly but their audibility is at least debatable. Sound power is what we do hear and this can be approximated averaging rooms responses taken at different positions, or may be one only, but applying very soft smoothing and ignoring nulls and ondulations. What most DRC software fail to do, due to designers/users obsession for fake accuracy...😛
That's also why i commented on another file, that nulls do not exist or should be ignored because they look really ugly but their audibility is at least debatable. Sound power is what we do hear and this can be approximated averaging rooms responses taken at different positions, or may be one only, but applying very soft smoothing and ignoring nulls and ondulations. What most DRC software fail to do, due to designers/users obsession for fake accuracy...😛
Last edited:
To clarify thiscomment, I mean that the in-wall speaker actually should be the reference with flat response.
And now I must say that Iagree with GDO, room measurements typically have too much resolution on low end. At least we should look at "physiologically smoothed" response
Last edited:
This is only true (and the graphs above only apply) if baffle step is already addressed in the speaker's passive crossover (which throws away efficiency).
Otherwise, there would be no "bump" due to the front wall.
There might still be some LF lift due to other adjacent boundaries (floor and side walls) but the resulting gradual lift under 100Hz or so is what we are actually used to hearing most of the time, and blind tests have shown that this type of response (and not "flat" bass) is what most listeners tend to prefer (see: Olive et al., 2013)
This isn't surprising, given that most records are mastered using monitors and rooms that together also give rise to a similarly shaped LF lift.
To sum up, the current fad of skinny (narrow baffle) speakers pulled away from the front wall is a misguided solution to a real problem (diffraction) that would be better addressed by using waveguides on tweeters to control directivity and avoid the spill-out of HFs to the box edges in the first place.
M.
But...wide dispersion is usually prefered by listeners, except maybe for guys biased in favor of narrow directivity, usually pro users, who need that rather than really enjoy the way it sounds. The technical/ideological bias (controlled directivity is tricky and stimulates the intellect, not so much hearing...)also helps...😎
Last edited:
I didnt really mean this. If rooms mode are to be addressed the peaks are rather sharp and relatively high Qs are necessary. But... peaks amplitude are extremely dependant on position and can vary a lot even at both extremes of a 3 places sofa.
So that what i think is both aspects of the problem must be adressed through a mixed Eq, because those peaks are also really audible.
Sound of loudspeakers is quite different when listened nearfield and farfield.
Listen one after another at the same level and with the same music content and then judge what can or can not be heard and how it contributes or takes away of the original recording.
It is quite noticable (ime).
Listen one after another at the same level and with the same music content and then judge what can or can not be heard and how it contributes or takes away of the original recording.
It is quite noticable (ime).
How about the idea that those going into the professional world of music production go into it precisely because they *enjoy* the narrow directivity sound, they love disecting the sound and enjoy the ability to focus the brain on abstract parts of it, including the clear differences between channels and the illusions that can create in the brain?
I am not a professional but because of the kind of sound I like and love to hear, I find myself automatically going down that path, from reading about studio techniques to playing around with DAW software to the pleasure of disecting the construction of a track when listening.
And I find I can only persue that enjoyment on headphones because my hifi doesn't cut it unless I'm sat right between the speakers in nearfield, the world is silent outside the window and my partner has gone out - i.e. it's kind of anti-social, self indulgent. The room and speaker design (some Celestion SL700s) don't allow it . When listening to the hifi, I tend to listen to the music instead.
^Feel free to be in that camp! There is no point in arguing who is most right. I personally don't want to listen to surgically-dissecting-sharp stereo image for a long time. I don't like headphone listening either. But most of my friends are different. This is perhaps because I like live music most of all and there soundfield is what it happens to be. Tonal/spectral balance is important to me and to create a rather lively soundfield around the room - and that happens with my dipoles just fine, for 4 years now!
Are there any wavefront simulators out there that allow us to construct complex shapes in CAD and see the effects on diffraction?
Any cultural bias that enhance enjoyment is welcome!😀
I personally don't like any loudspeaker in nearfield, because their flaws are too much exposed, whereas room influence tame all these when listened well beyond the critical distance, making them sound more "natural" and easy on ear.
Narrow sweet spot is also a big flaw, maybe the biggest imo...
Headphones are totally unnatural, but i also enjoy: it's the only thing i find listenable in (very) nearfield
I personally don't like any loudspeaker in nearfield, because their flaws are too much exposed, whereas room influence tame all these when listened well beyond the critical distance, making them sound more "natural" and easy on ear.
Narrow sweet spot is also a big flaw, maybe the biggest imo...
Headphones are totally unnatural, but i also enjoy: it's the only thing i find listenable in (very) nearfield
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Perhaps if you listened to single driver full range (or other point source drivers) you'd find nearfield is to your liking ?
Among other stuff i use Jordan's JX92 in VTL cabs, and precisely i find that fullrangers small nastinesses (breakup modes) are mostly noticeable in nearfield.
JX92 are very nice room flooders, but no good at all as headphones...😀
JX92 are very nice room flooders, but no good at all as headphones...😀
Last edited:
For critical listening i listen most of my music midfield/nearfield. When i listen farfield i don't concentrate on details and recordings, i just listen it as i would on any pair of loudspeakers that aren't broken 🙂
Last edited:
That's ok. We enjoy different things and we share our impressions about it - that's always cool.