That was a bit un-called for don't you think? These 'discussions' arise from questioning whys........the bookshelf two way has become the norm of both the commercial and DIY community for some time now. The strategy of its development has for the most part remained unchanged. Are these the perfect systems? Absolutely not. Asking a single 6.5" woofer to play from 45hz to 2.5khz is a serious compromise of midrange performance for bass extension and yet they're one of primary DIY designs available.
Question everything for that matter!
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Nothing against experimenting with XO points outside range this thread
is about but it would not have made a big difference.
Been there and done that. Interesting though, every loudspeaker project
I have ever made, according to people who tested them, sounded similar
no matter what drivers used.
Then you should certainly write this up with all the supporting data and submit it for publication as it is completely contrary to the existing data. I am sure that we would all be quite interested in your substantiating evidence in this regard.
I don't think that SkodaBoy was all that far off of the mark. I agree with what he said. I don't think that it was a criticism of you or this thread.
Yes, question everything, but when the answer is found or shown to be true then believe it. Don't look for answers that just support your position. So many things in audio have been proven over and over again and yet people still believe in magic.
Not completely. I'm sure you know Backman's paper 5867, which data and conclusions equal very nice with practice. Of course everything could be weighted and interpreted to support our beliefs, prejudices or possible commercial objectives.
No problem to confess that our present house favors cardioids (and dipoles with some restrictions in positioning) over monopoles, but as I mentioned before, some of my bass units have been tested in several different environments - not only in a "small room". Never failed.
I won't prove and show anything anymore. This discussion was delayed for five years because I knew your respond. This is just off-topic side information and encouragement for everybody else to try unidirectional bass if it looks interesting.
Wow - that's impressive. I don't know anyone else who has achieved this level of success. Pretty convenient actually. No data I suppose, just subjective?
That is only true with a very pure and light sounding soprano voice. If you look at the spectra for heavier/richer sounding voices, or ones that are more strident, then this changes significantly.
IT wasn't!
Post was meant to follow the one ...oh know listeners again!
It was tongue in cheek reference to the different types of forum members.
I understood it completely and wanted others to see it for what was intended. It is so easy to get things mixed up in this type of media. The driver versus engineer was well understood by me since I worked in automotive for decades.
Please do not translate "never failed" as blind tested 100% sure winning of everything else. Comparing to others was not mentioned before it.
I have quite much measurement data collected within last decade. Mostly cardioid has been successful, but not always alone. For example in our present living room dipole may have flatter response than super-cardioid if speakers are carefully located in their primary positions. Listening gives extra information about implementation and fundamental differences. All dipoles are not able to challenge cardioid despite of flatter response. Monopole pair sucks in every way except dynamics. This is just one example location.
No, I don't do blind tests, statistics or other objective sciense. Why should I, only to tell what I and some other diyers & hifi-nerds have built, measured and heard? I respects your research work, have read and understood clearly your message and priorities/preferences, but your conclusions do not apply here and preferences will not be followed. It's good time to accept that, and give others some free space to try.
Well my comment was as intended, loudmouthed or not. Asking on DIY audio forum if there is anyone here who listens to music is rude to say the least.
Engineers talk about technical stuff because of better reproduction of music and getting the most performance out of loudspeaker system - in this case. That is not prick waving for everyone to see how much words bigger than 6 letters they know but a discussion that makes our (music listeners that can shut up about it) knowlege a bit bigger and adds to forum quality.
If one does not want to read about technical stuff there is no need to post comments like that.
What does the line "i wonder if anybody listens to music anymore" means in the middle of the technical debate ? Point of that line is, as i see it: "all of you are bothering with technical details but i am beyond that, i listen to music".
It is like if you are a member of soccer/football club and guys arround you are debating about strategy for tommorow, you interrupt the conversation with "you're so boring, we are playing soccer, leading healthy life. who wants to bother with strategy".
Comments like that are degrading the technical conversation and participants. You should be able to understand what do i mean.
Last but not least, there is subforum that is all about music and it is part of the same domain so the guys who don't know anything about technical stuff and don't want to learn can go there and talk all about music.
As for me and my loud mouth, i have more than a few loudspeaker projects behind so i don't find myself in commentator role you've put me in.
cheers
Keep on agreeing but that doesn't change the fact that i am right and that comments like that don't belong here.
Last edited:
Agree however science of psychoacoustics has a long way to go I think that's where he is coming from. often the science does not match our perception a correct reproduction of the recorded event.
Science does not match our perception in some cases but in others it does. That doesn't mean that we should stop debating and arguing about sound and technical details because we can not yet fully explain sound through measurements. I don't think that we ever will, for that matter.
In some cases it is not that the measurements don't tell us enough but our interpretation of it is wrong. Some things can't be measured yet but some things about sound quality can be concluded from measurements that are available today prior to listening.
FR response, HD and IMD, CSD plot and impulse response are the simplest ways of determining to a degree how a certain loudspeaker can sound. If one of that few things aren't right i don't bother listening at all. I am not interested in sound of loudspeaker that has 3-4dB peak at 2KHz on and off axis as i know i won't like it. The same is with loudspeaker that has flat on axis but has a large dip at xover point off axis, or with loudspeaker that has abnormally large HD or IMD.
And these are just the basics. The thing Kimmosto is writing is a bit new to me so i am fairly interested and i'm glad that there are guys here that he can debate with. Cardiod loudspeakers is not something that i've encountered yet so i'ts pretty interesting to me - moreover, because there is no software that can with 100% certainty predict the performance of cardioid loudspeaker 🙂
Last edited:
For sure once we're happy with measurements we can have a listen!
then it may come down to preference as to which method is best compromise with the crossover point issue .
Whether we prefer the sound of a low crossover 2 way a la Geddes or small wide band mid plus super tweeter.
Even linkwitz after years with a large mid has been force to add small upper mid as his ears were'nt quite happy enough!
then it may come down to preference as to which method is best compromise with the crossover point issue .
Whether we prefer the sound of a low crossover 2 way a la Geddes or small wide band mid plus super tweeter.
Even linkwitz after years with a large mid has been force to add small upper mid as his ears were'nt quite happy enough!
I was not assuming that you know or don't know anything. I don't know you so how could i ? It was simply response to SkodaBoy's interfering into my post adressed to you as i explained my view of posts about music listening in the middle of technical debate in general.
The first part of your post i kinda liked 🙂
The first part of your post i kinda liked 🙂
Actually that is not correct. What is correct is that often the science does not match someone's personal perception which is an entirely different thing. If you had said that "often the science does not match MY perception ..." - that could very well be correct. But for the listening population as a whole people like Toole (and I) have shown that the science is very accurate.
I've scoured the net for info on cardoid for a while now with most of the information coming from the Pro or Live sound industry where the tech is practical and works well......but no leaky boxes there. Just true cardoid with seperate drivers and enclosures....kinda overkill for home use IMHO.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still explore the resistive enclosure cardoid systems possibilities. Even commercial home developer Amphion has produced a leaky box commercial cardoid speaker system. It is the only one I've actually heard. Sadly, in that retail environment, there was nothing to truly compare it to other than other speakers of the same line that were simple 2way stand mounted boxes.
I'm not sure I completely understand Earl's position here either. Just because we don't have supporting data of the effectiveness of a resistive cardoid systems improved directivity doesn't mean the book is closed. No doubt, his approach to directivity to the lowest frequencies with practicality is a good one and from the onset of the release of his data and the Summa, his avoidance of a passive network in the critical range has been what's drawn me to waveguide systems.
........but in the case of this thread and the question I rose was looking towards the higher end of the freq spectra and from an even more practical standpoint if possible.......a significantly narrower speaker might be better received by some rooms. I'd also add a system less complex, say than the Orion, NaoNote, or LX. Coaxial or coincidence system seem to offer the hope but in their current state IMO bring their own, significant tradeoffs. I've been fortunate to spend some significant time with the Genelec approach here in a mastering studio in New York which was simply amazing in the near and midfield......but sadly for me, the tradeoff is expense and complexity. The Kef passive approach and driver for me just isn't ready for prime time. At higher volume, the results of power compression become more and more pronounced and don't have the effortless sound of larger waveguide systems...........but there's a somewhere in between I'm sure........and this thread was created in the hopes of exploring those options.
Thanks for reading.......and thinking! I've very much enjoyed the inciteful replies.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still explore the resistive enclosure cardoid systems possibilities. Even commercial home developer Amphion has produced a leaky box commercial cardoid speaker system. It is the only one I've actually heard. Sadly, in that retail environment, there was nothing to truly compare it to other than other speakers of the same line that were simple 2way stand mounted boxes.
I'm not sure I completely understand Earl's position here either. Just because we don't have supporting data of the effectiveness of a resistive cardoid systems improved directivity doesn't mean the book is closed. No doubt, his approach to directivity to the lowest frequencies with practicality is a good one and from the onset of the release of his data and the Summa, his avoidance of a passive network in the critical range has been what's drawn me to waveguide systems.
........but in the case of this thread and the question I rose was looking towards the higher end of the freq spectra and from an even more practical standpoint if possible.......a significantly narrower speaker might be better received by some rooms. I'd also add a system less complex, say than the Orion, NaoNote, or LX. Coaxial or coincidence system seem to offer the hope but in their current state IMO bring their own, significant tradeoffs. I've been fortunate to spend some significant time with the Genelec approach here in a mastering studio in New York which was simply amazing in the near and midfield......but sadly for me, the tradeoff is expense and complexity. The Kef passive approach and driver for me just isn't ready for prime time. At higher volume, the results of power compression become more and more pronounced and don't have the effortless sound of larger waveguide systems...........but there's a somewhere in between I'm sure........and this thread was created in the hopes of exploring those options.
Thanks for reading.......and thinking! I've very much enjoyed the inciteful replies.
I don't think that it is hard to understand. I believe that the "type" of box used in the modal region simply does not matter when one uses multiple subs properly setup. I get annoyed when others claim "superiority" with nothing at all to back them up except "it sounds good to me". That's not data, that's just a highly biased opinion.
Above the modal region the cardioid is just not that significantly different from a normal box to matter.
So I don't deny that one can make the concept work, I am just asking for some real data that it makes any difference. I have not seen any as yet. Just some rather elaborate hand waving claims of superiority.
Understood.............but that's why you/we/ them question the topic in the first place. I completely agree with multiple subs,......have since I tried it and can't go back...now. But I'm also convinced there's a more simplistic solution out there......we just have to think on it.
Thankfully, there's people like you willing to do the hard work and thinking on these topics........and there will be more just like you and me doing the same. Whether they ask themselves the questions or we raise them here doesn't matter.
Thankfully, there's people like you willing to do the hard work and thinking on these topics........and there will be more just like you and me doing the same. Whether they ask themselves the questions or we raise them here doesn't matter.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.