what was the width of the room and what was the width of the stereo base in case of the Ohm/Walshes?
Last edited:
No, I think not, because with high directivity tweeter horn, which prevents almost any early reflections, the localisation of the tweeters is more pronounced. On the other hand if I aim a dome tweeter towards ceiling and listen at 2m distance I cannot localise the tweeter.
So it seems: higher directivity leads to localisation of the speaker (bad), and lower directivity hides the speaker (good).
- elias
what was the width of the room and what was the width of the stereo base in case of the Ohm/Walshes?
what are we talking about? I thought it was specifically about early reflections and not about mere length of a room
Who's assumption was that?
The speakers were at least 10 feet off any wall, as far as I remember. Can't say I've heard an omni do a great job in a space smaller than that. OK, but never great.
Radugazon, do you have some measurements of your speakers? Are you sure you did not invert the polarity of one of the tweeters (happened once to me, did not ruin the image completely but enough to get my measuement gear). Can you repeat the experiment with some other speakers, maybe some widebanders or simple computer speakers. Play with distance.
I ask this because all of your subjects have the same experience. The image should be in the center, some broadening can happen (can be expected in a lively room), but if not something is very wrong with the speakers and/or setup.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was frequency dependent or source dependent (music, voice, pink noise). I don't think I would jump to the conclusion that constant directivity needs to be excluded based on this.
The whole notion of time intensity trading is a bit approximate anyhow. I would suggest that speakers well toed in and with some appropriate directivity will do a better job at time intensity trading than doing nothing. If you can spread the sweet spot, then "declare victory and go home" rather than expecting a perfect compensation. It is absolutely true that if you want to listen to speakers some distance off of on axis and you want the response to be predictably flat, then constant directivity is a requirment.
DBX did a speaker that was supposed to be a better theoretical fit to the time intensity needs some years ago. It didn't go very far.
David S.
But I'm not here for "business" but to build something for myself, a DIY you see. Am I in the right forum ?
I thought this was a DIY forum ?Are you here for "business" ?
- Elias
There was no cross-over in the speaker I used to test the pink noise samples.
The results were, as explained earlier, I allways hear high freq hiss from the speakers, or if aimed away from the listener then from the location of the first reflection. In this sense the result was extremely poor for stereo
- Elias
High directivity at which frequency range ?
For me, high directivity tweeter do not (phantom) image at all, since all I hear is the two tweeters at the exact speaker locations. This is not imaging.
By making the tweeter very wide directivity, maybe even close to omni, it will not introduce contradicting cues but will faint away in the backround to allow lower frequencies to enable the imaging.
And because of this, the speaker at lower frequency ranges than treble must have high directivity to allow less room influence.
As a conclusion:
Ideal directivity pattern for stereo speaker is: high directivity at bass and midrange, and low directivity at the treble.
It should be obvious, is it not?
- Elias
My goodness!! Those have to be the longest people in the whole world!
10 feet off any wall also in this room?
I wrote some pages back that we needed some assumptions if we are going to have a discussion on this topic and one of them was "small rooms", because nothing else makes sense to me in this forum. In a large room, like a ballroom, things are completely different and we will only go round and round if we don't make our "assumptions" clear.
My goodness!! Those have to be the longest people in the whole world!
nah, not that long, it's just an illusion
Last edited:
You seem to use the word ballroom as a kind of a magic spell
come down to earth please - how wide was this particular ballroom? what was the width of the stereo base/speakers distance from the side walls?
It's sweet people care to suggest something must be (very) wrong with the system. You are not the first one
During the past decades I've been using a number of systems and the problem allways remaind, the localisation of the tweeters.
I'm very surprised no one accepts that individuals have different perception
- Elias
Anyone, except you perhaps, would be perfectly able to estimate the width of this room to be 6 to 7 meters. I guess the length would at least be 10 to 12 meter. A room of 60 to 84 m2 is not a small room in my dictionary, perhaps yours?
It's sweet people care to suggest something must be (very) wrong with the system. You are not the first one
During the past decades I've been using a number of systems and the problem allways remaind, the localisation of the tweeters.
I'm very surprised no one accepts that individuals have different perception
- Elias
system includes the room?
I can accept one person having such a perception at a certain speaker, but not 4
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.