Wonder why the introduction of the center tweeter took place? Especially now in the light of gained knowledge as it has been found to suck.
Earlier models propably had side tweeters?
And, is it beneficial to tilt the side firing elements upwards and why later models had them straight?
The evolution of an innovation - stereolith.com
- Elias
Earlier models propably had side tweeters?
And, is it beneficial to tilt the side firing elements upwards and why later models had them straight?
The evolution of an innovation - stereolith.com
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Elias
That was probably the best trade-off for getting the tonality right.
I tried that but it somewhat reduced spaciousness.
I mean contra-lateral first/strong reflections in the localization-dominate ILD range are fundamentally incorrect.
"fundamentally" - regarding our hearing process.
That's not to say that any given stereolith-type application might not result in more wrong than right.
Don't be so severe with the classic stereo systems, some of them really image greatly with the proper setup in the proper room, could it be for one narrow sweet spot only.
It's not only omni radiators, I know at least a mega horn system that creates the complete illusion and in my list of flawed DIY designs, I did by miracle a good one: small, 2 ways TQWT bio shape and in plaster.
It's not only omni radiators, I know at least a mega horn system that creates the complete illusion and in my list of flawed DIY designs, I did by miracle a good one: small, 2 ways TQWT bio shape and in plaster.
I don't have a problem with classic stereo setups.
Sure somethings are incorrect with respect to our hearing, but you can still get rather good sound. To a degree you can achieve a significant reduction in problem reflections simply by moving them away from walls - side walls particularly. 500 Hz, generally the lower limit of ILD emphasis, isn't exactly a long wavelength - even if you double that distance it's less than 5 feet.
Also moving yourself closer to the loudspeakers helps as well (and generally moving them closer together with a less traditional "toe-out").
You say mega horn, I see...
Can You tell us how many and which exactly classic stereo systems that You was fortunate to know and to listen to performed on a par with Your latest panastereolithic system?
How much did they cost? What were the requirements for a proper room for them? Acoustic treatments needed? How costly?
Was it really 180 degrees and so on?
regards,
graaf
Last edited:
Time for some measurements. Stereolith, right midwoofer (plus port) only, 2m mic distance, 0°-360°, 300Hz frequency resolution:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Nice, but it's raising questions!
Are you stepping 30° or 20°? Is 0° the speaker axis? Did you rotate the Stereolith or the mic?
Just 5 dB difference between 0° and 360° at 3 kHz is much less than I would expect for a "midwoofer" under nearfield conditions. Since you have no issues with generating nice graphics
, I really would appreciate some sort of floor plan illustrating where and how you were measuring.Thanks in advance
Rudolf
Left midwoofer only:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Nice, but it's raising questions!
Are you stepping 30° or 20°? Is 0° the speaker axis? Did you rotate the Stereolith or the mic?
Just 5 dB difference between 0° and 360° at 3 kHz is much less than I would expect for a "midwoofer" under nearfield conditions. Since you have no issues with generating nice graphics
Thanks in advance
Rudolf
Hi Rudolf,
I'm rotating a Basotect block with the speaker sitting on top of it from 0°-360° (0° is speaker axis) in 22.5° steps:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Wow, the stereolith drivers are quite good...We can suppose it's the same radiation to the top.
Is it almost omni ??? or ungated measurement ???
@ graaf : that's a difficult question, as normal man only can remember the emotion and the semantic conclusions after listening a system, and not a record of it's performance.
But I've been listening many times some big systems with my own test discs, knowing what to track. Some of these speakers are really deceiving, but some are really great. My best reference for imaging (and maybe more) is not original : the mbl 101 in a >50 m² room, beveridge disposition and half a ton of amplifiers, dac, transport, cables...the listener is not in front of the music, he's inside. And for a supposed maxi SPL of 103 dB, it's more than impressive.
For sure my system is cheaper, but I must be biased to it, so it's risky to make comments either for honesty or for my ego.
Is it almost omni ??? or ungated measurement ???
@ graaf : that's a difficult question, as normal man only can remember the emotion and the semantic conclusions after listening a system, and not a record of it's performance.
But I've been listening many times some big systems with my own test discs, knowing what to track. Some of these speakers are really deceiving, but some are really great. My best reference for imaging (and maybe more) is not original : the mbl 101 in a >50 m² room, beveridge disposition and half a ton of amplifiers, dac, transport, cables...the listener is not in front of the music, he's inside. And for a supposed maxi SPL of 103 dB, it's more than impressive.
For sure my system is cheaper, but I must be biased to it, so it's risky to make comments either for honesty or for my ego.
Thanks Markus,
I superimposed both diagrams graphically. They are identical within +/-1dB in general. I can't follow all lines separately because they are so dense.
When I look up the measured nearfield polars of some 13 cm Visaton drivers, they all are >10 db off at 4 kHz and 90° already. That makes me believe that your measurements are including some reflections already. Could you tell us, what gating time was applied? And what reflections would be included.
Thanks again
Rudolf
I superimposed both diagrams graphically. They are identical within +/-1dB in general. I can't follow all lines separately because they are so dense.
When I look up the measured nearfield polars of some 13 cm Visaton drivers, they all are >10 db off at 4 kHz and 90° already. That makes me believe that your measurements are including some reflections already. Could you tell us, what gating time was applied? And what reflections would be included.
Thanks again
Rudolf
Hi,
Those measurements include front wall and maybe side wall reflections too. They represent the approximation of 'power response'.
How did you disable the tweeter? Without opening the box?
- Elias
The impuls response is gated at 3,21ms which is the reflection free time frame. The speaker terminal looks like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here's both midwoofers:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Both midwoofer, right channel 1.02ms delay:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
I am not asking for anything else but exactly those semantic conclusions after listening
sorry but this is not an aswer to my question, because the system You described is nowhere near classic stereo system
nor Beveridge disposition is a classic stereo triangle neither 101 are classic stereo speakers
that system is much closer to my flooder concept - omni in a sidewall placement
I can believe You that it was that good but it is nowhere near classic stereo, wouldn't You agree?
c'mon! making such comments is audiophile bread and butter
it is 99% of all audiophile forums, this one included
nothing wrong with that, feel totally free to make such comments
bias is a question of expectations and sentiments, don't hide behind this bias argument
I know that You are not biased in that particular way