You cannot come to this conclusion without being there, and without measuring the system. This is pure speculation, and assumption in a vacuum.
You had nothing to compare your flooder to. You are sitting there is a vacuum telling yourself I like this "effect".
When you have something to compare it to, then you realize that design is making huge changes to the original presentation.
No, your perspective is your perspective. The real thing happened during the recording session, and in the studio while the mixing and mastering were being done. So thank you for making my point here. That design could be making huge changes in the original presentation and you would know nothing about it. As I have said before, if you like accuracy, a flooder ain't it. If you like euphonic listening, then the flooder is exactly what you are looking for.
As I have said before, you idea of realistic and mine are quite different. With the three flooders I heard(with a great 24/192khz recording) I didn't get realistic, I got reproduction distortions all over the place. I had nothing to do with the quality of the speaker, it had everything to do with the design scattering reflections all over the place.
Then why are you pushing this speaker design so hard?
Before I answer this question, I would like to see the study he conduct that brought him to this conclusion. Unlike you, I don't shoot from the hip without proof.
Last edited:
I found vintage flooder, by Sandeman, from 1929 !
An implementation where a loud speaker and a room work as a system
a corner speaker - I would not qualify it as a FCUFS because unless the driver used is highly directional there is a first order floor reflection present in such a configuration
an example of contemporary "Sandeman":
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here's more modern flooder implementations, from the man with a name, from 1956.
...
If, at morning, you notice the device has moved from position of fig3 to fig4 during the night, you know it's alive
the man with a name
all I can say is that those monsters from outer space are NOT FCUFS
You are also biased as well right?
The problem with using THAT particular quote from Toole's book is that I am not an audio professional when I am casually listening to music. I am just a listener at that point just like you are. I put my professional hat on when I am recording, mixing, and mastering. Unlike you, I can take off my coat when it is hot outside, and put it back on when it cools down.
There is a big difference between imposing something on somebody, and letting them know that in certain areas they are inaccurate.
My mother taught me that it is easy to point out what others do, but it is not so easy to recognize when YOU are doing it as well. This describes you to a tee.
You come to a conclusion without any proof because Your subjective feelings constitute no proof.
And when You say there is a flaw in this design then the burden of proof is on You.
the real thing is NOT what You hear on Your main monitors
it's the sound of real instrument in a real space, it's when my daughter is playing piano in my music room, for example
euphonic? so a conventional system is for those who like cacophonic listening?
"scattering reflections all over the place"? what sort of physics is that? Do You know the law of reflection which applies in acoustics?
unlike me? or did You mean unlike Linkwitz?
A little reality for ya. I am not sure pages and pages of defending floor coupled speakers has turned anyone to this design either.
Why don't you do it yourself?
Who died and left you in charge?
The flaw in the design is it is not accurate or even close to it.
When recording, mixing, and mastering it is.
Then let's dump speakers altogether and hire musicians to come into our living rooms every night.
euphonic? so a conventional system is for those who like cacophonic listening?
I would describe the flooder as both euphonic and cacophonic listening.
Very well. However, the law works in the presence of perfection. Once imperfection creeps in, the law no longer works.
unlike me? or did You mean unlike Linkwitz?
No you
You really should see what you are doing.
Through your eyes? I don't think so...
This thread directly opend my eyes to upfiring speakers, and my upcoming speakers will be upfiring and floor coupled - only because of this thread.
You really don't contribute anymore. To begin with you were annoying, then you really contributed, and now you are just annoying again.
More flooders
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/87913-class-d-amp-photo-gallery-15.html#post3517581
post 738
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/87913-class-d-amp-photo-gallery-15.html#post3517581
post 738
crazy
for my part I am going to give those:
...a try in an OB curved plexiglas FCUFS
for my part I am going to give those:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
...a try in an OB curved plexiglas FCUFS
Hopefully we then see (for the first time) some measurements at the listening position and a picture of the accompanying room situation.
Rudolf
I did provide some measurements of my flooder tests, like two years ago
What I remember the first (ceiling) reflection was stronger than the direct sound at high frequencies.
Sorry that I didn't remember.I did provide some measurements of my flooder tests, like two years ago
Do you have a link or remember a "buzzword" to lead my search to your post?Was that flooder "approved" by graaf for "realistic" rendering and no artificial pin-pointing?
Rudolf
Sorry that I didn't remember.
Was that flooder "approved" by graaf for "realistic" rendering and no artificial pin-pointing?
Rudolf
Looks like I posted them in August 2010, so it was three years ago
Who could not remember that See posts #1484 and #1485 in this thread.
Here are the most relevant pics again.
Speaker in flooder arrangement at the floor firing to ceiling, measured at the listening posisition:
The ceiling reflection at about 6 ms.
And here the same speaker in normal direct firing arrangement at ear height, measured at the listening position:
Floor reflection at about 2.5 ms.
The flooder presentation was surely no-pinpoint. Also there was no sweet spot either, but everywhere in the room the sound was about the same. And overall spaciousness was somehow increased over normal stereo triangle.
But what I did not like about flooder at that time was the lack of small detail in the sound itself I noticed missing. I was comparing the sound to my dipole line arrays at that time, which of course has much higher directivity over the flooder.
- Elias