We take an extreme example, headphones, cans are often using like, well, 50mm drivers,
34300/5 = 6860 Hz, they already beam after 6860 Hz..
34300/5 = 6860 Hz, they already beam after 6860 Hz..
Not really in a multi-way due to the crossovers taking the beaming out of harm's way and definitely not with headphones. It can be a problem with wideband speakers without crossovers, particularly large ones.
With headphones, one is listening to on axis always. So its not an issue as long as the on axis is flat. There are no room reflections either.
Headphones are an extreme example as they always remain on-axis and the left signal is separated from the right. To me this causes an issue as I`ve never been able to experience a wide stage or be able to point at a singer with them (best I`ve tried were the 701s and the HD555 so take my opinion with a grain of salt).
I believe in a domestic environment beaming is more of a feature. In a small room a constantly beaming (directivity) speaker may sound way more focused as reflections which arrive later would be reduced to a good extent. I wonder how a really good 15" fullrange crossed to a tweeter or the BMS coaxials on a large waveguide could do in such situation. Add a piece of 21" woofers and here you go - a conflict - small room is now non-existent 😀
I believe in a domestic environment beaming is more of a feature. In a small room a constantly beaming (directivity) speaker may sound way more focused as reflections which arrive later would be reduced to a good extent. I wonder how a really good 15" fullrange crossed to a tweeter or the BMS coaxials on a large waveguide could do in such situation. Add a piece of 21" woofers and here you go - a conflict - small room is now non-existent 😀
I actually liked my 12" full range on floor pointed slightly up with eq.
I believe the tighter dispersion gave better clarity at lease breaking sound levels due to less highs sent everywhere to bounce off of the walls.
Similar to horns improving the signal to noise ratio or more direct sound versus reflected.
Narrower dispersion speakers can seem to have "deeper soundstage" due to less side wall reflections.
I believe the tighter dispersion gave better clarity at lease breaking sound levels due to less highs sent everywhere to bounce off of the walls.
Similar to horns improving the signal to noise ratio or more direct sound versus reflected.
Narrower dispersion speakers can seem to have "deeper soundstage" due to less side wall reflections.
Just like with speakers, headphones do not present all the perceptual cues correctly and congenially even if they play the recorded signal correctly at your ear. This may come as a surprise to some headphone enthusiasts.
B.
This discussion really belongs in the panel and ESL forum where beaming is a major topic always.
"Beaming" is really in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. For a single-seat music room, there is no such thing as beaming, just freq response.
But to achieve a good FR, you obviously need to take driver beaming into account in the design.
And to achieve good sound quality, you need to take the whole room into account so as to get the direct versus ambiance balance right.
B.
room reflections will indicate its an inferior design and colored speaker. atleast for all speakers iv had at home with this issue.. especially around the crossover regions.
i find it amazing that a LOT of people still walk around thinking fullrange drivers are good because no crossover, and most reviewers in magazines dont even understand wavelenght vs cone size. highly flawed designs get praise, again and again.
Zu audio comes to mind, possibly the worst speakerbrand iv ever heared in my life. but its high-end ofcourse! just "picky" on the electronics heh.
dont get me startet on the abomination of OB designs made on every streetcorner, one big same size baffle, with huge size variety on drivers. like pure audio proejct ex.
well that was todays blastout....
i find it amazing that a LOT of people still walk around thinking fullrange drivers are good because no crossover, and most reviewers in magazines dont even understand wavelenght vs cone size. highly flawed designs get praise, again and again.
Zu audio comes to mind, possibly the worst speakerbrand iv ever heared in my life. but its high-end ofcourse! just "picky" on the electronics heh.
dont get me startet on the abomination of OB designs made on every streetcorner, one big same size baffle, with huge size variety on drivers. like pure audio proejct ex.
well that was todays blastout....
You may be saying that the stereo concept itself is flawed, I'm not sure this should cloud the design of speakers.
Yes in a dead dampen room. But for us all other who spend time in normal living habitats, reflections is something real and tangible. If you have interference between 2 or more sources that is not ideal, there will be "beaming" meaning that the intensity will change as position changes - much as meeting a car in the night looking at it's high beam 🙂 (yepp - intended!)
But you are right, beaming is FR really, or rather, dispersion evenness. My point is that due to the FR of reflections, even in the one seat, beaming has an impact as even a speaker with perfect on-axis FR but with an poor off-axis one, will in a real situation not be flat. And the cause is beaming.
//
I guess you recognize that I left a few paragraphs providing context out of my post! So here's a sentence or two.
There's no issue about beaming (at least separately from FR) unless room cues are materially present (which of course, they almost always are).
B.
Of course it does as the prerequisites for what is supposed to be achieved with a speaker is not present. Yes, it's flawed.
/
Quite true if "realism" or "trump l'oeil" is the goal. But if your goal is to try to have Beethoven's score produced in your easy-chair, then it does it better than reading the score and possibly better than going to a modern large concert hall.
The referent for realistic reproduction is self-evident (at least in theory and only regarding acoustic music). But the referent for playing Beethoven's score so it is meaningful to listeners in the way the composer intended is a big question (and not to even mention sacred music played on a secular HiFi).
B.
Last edited:
I have been trying to wrap my head around a similar issue: why are limited directivity (typically horn loaded) speakers so popular? They are certainly "beaming" sound over a limited angular range, and that angular range changes dramatically with frequency unless very large horns or other means are used to control this problem. Move off axis, and they sound horribly colored. On-axis, they can be flat as flat can be. In a "nominal room" I think these kinds of speakers sound terrible unless you set them up very carefully and sit in the "sweet spot". Sure, the "impact" from horn systems is impressive, but overall they lack in imaging and realism just like headphones.
Recently I had the opportunity to listen to a pair of "award winning" speakers that were a high-efficiency MMT design and used a CD+ horn tweeter up top (a tractrix horn I think). As soon as the demo started I had the feeling that something was really not right with the sound. Loud and clean? Sure. But it really did not sound right at all. I left after a couple of minutes.
I think this kind of DIY loudspeaker is often quite flawed. Too much emphasis is placed on on-axis response and too little attention is given to directivity smoothness and power response. Maybe that's why they sound bad (to me). I can only guess, but perhaps the high directivity of the horn or the bloated midbass was to blame. In any case, it was hard to see how any of it was "award winning"...
The only environment where I think this kind of loudspeaker can sound OK is in a very overdamped room. There is little to sense except the direct sound, giving the listener that 1-dimensional "headphone sound" but with emphasis. Maybe this is a sound that many people like?
Recently I had the opportunity to listen to a pair of "award winning" speakers that were a high-efficiency MMT design and used a CD+ horn tweeter up top (a tractrix horn I think). As soon as the demo started I had the feeling that something was really not right with the sound. Loud and clean? Sure. But it really did not sound right at all. I left after a couple of minutes.
I think this kind of DIY loudspeaker is often quite flawed. Too much emphasis is placed on on-axis response and too little attention is given to directivity smoothness and power response. Maybe that's why they sound bad (to me). I can only guess, but perhaps the high directivity of the horn or the bloated midbass was to blame. In any case, it was hard to see how any of it was "award winning"...
The only environment where I think this kind of loudspeaker can sound OK is in a very overdamped room. There is little to sense except the direct sound, giving the listener that 1-dimensional "headphone sound" but with emphasis. Maybe this is a sound that many people like?
This is actually not correct. Lateral reflections (and front wall) reflections make the soundstage appear deeper. David Griesinger has done much work on this.
My subjective and anecdotal experience is in line with this: Horn speakers always give me a feeling that the soundstage is in front of the speakers, while traditional cone and dome speakers with wider dispersion frequently give me the sense of the soundstage being behind the speakers. Dipoles and electrostats, on the other hand, often give me the subjective experience of witnessing soundstage depth. I suspect that has to do with the front wall reflection.
Also, I think that visual cues are important for experiencing soundstage depth, i.e. if there is air behind the speakers. But I haven't seen any research which looks into this exact question.
Interesting thought, difficult to test though I would imagine, it's not like you could do it blind 😉 Something to ponder...........
Low early reflections here. In mono my image is a small window between the speakers (on an arc with the listening position). In stereo, soundstage depth can vary 10 feet in front of and behind the speakers with some recordings, although most don't do that and maybe there is a point in that, without the room the recording is in control.
Soundstage can reach to 18 feet wide with some recordings and my speakers are only 12 feet apart.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.