Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: why speakers do not work except up close

Expand Messages
  • regtas43
    In principle and perhaps in practice in smaller rooms, one would probsbly need to do something to fix the bass up. But in Focus Recordings, there are no
    Message 1 of 49 , Nov 1, 2007
      In principle and perhaps in practice in smaller rooms, one would
      probsbly need to do something to fix the bass up. But in Focus
      Recordings, there are no Allison effects (the speakers are in the
      wall close to the floor) and the room modes are low Q because of the
      irregular shape of the room and the damping. (An irregular room
      still has modes: all rooms have modes. But they are usually lower Q
      and more evenly distributed in frequency in irregular rooms). It
      actually has very smooth bass without any EQ of DSP nature or other
      nature, actually.

      In any case, I regard DSP bass EQ as sort of a given if it is needed.
      What RFZ does for you is to solve to a great extent the problem of
      hearing the early reflections in a way that would affect timbre and
      imaging. (One of the messages of the Archimedes /Eureka project is
      that delaying reflections--by diverting them away from you in the
      RFZ context-- raises the threshold for their audiblity in changing
      timbre A LOT. A long delayed and not too too high level reflection
      is just a non-event as far as timbre is concerned--and as far as
      imaging is concerned ,too.

      So what happens in a big RFZ room like Focus is that you hear only
      the direct sound plus overall room sound--which is suitably rolled
      in the highs via sond absorbing panels on the walls.

      It is quite an experience. What is perhaps most intriguing is that
      not only do the dedicated speakers (in the wall) sound fantastic but
      also OTHER speakers sound exceptionally good. The pair of Yamaha
      NS10s they had around--which no one , not even Yamaha thinks are
      some big masterpiece of speaker design, sounded really good, too.
      Not as good as the built in ones, but good.

      What is going on here is that the Gradient experiment(as well as
      Peter Walker's remark) is TRUE.
      As long as the speakers are reasonably flat, they will sound really
      good if you actually get the room out of the system.

      REG

      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ted Rook" <rooknrol@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I saw a diagram, a plan view, of the RFZ concept recently
      somewhere online, I hadn't
      > understood it till then. It seems to me it deals well with
      reflected energy, that being the upper
      > mid and top stuff, but it requires supplementing with other
      methods that deal with the room
      > energy in the lower mid and bottom end, have I got that right?
      >
      > Ted
      >
      >
      >
      > On 1 Nov 2007 at 3:42, regtas43 wrote:
      >
      > > Once again, I do not have any opinion on the speaker as such.
      > > The measurements were from a large distance compared to where
      most
      > > of us here listen.
      > >
      > > Also, I do not want to suggest that things are hopeless as far
      as
      > > balance is concerned. Anything but,actually. In practice, as far
      as
      > > timbre goes, my M40s have good agreement between direct arrival
      and
      > > in-room sound as I have them set up and the same is probably
      true
      > > for many of you with your speakers.
      > >
      > > When the M40s are adjusted a bit to be flat and given some
      acoustic
      > > treatment to get rid of floor effects in particular, they are
      also
      > > flat in in-room response up to the top end roll-off which is
      smooth
      > > and reasonable(and starts quite high up since I sit fairly close
      to
      > > the speakers).
      > >
      > > In terms of timbre, this is a very neutral sounding set-up. BUT
      it
      > > is still true that there is quite a lot of room sound. And
      compared
      > > to what you would hear out of doors, one is not so "in the
      original
      > > venue" as one might hope.
      > >
      > > In short, this seems to me the new world to conquer--and for
      that
      > > matter was the old world to conquer, e.g., Peter Walker said
      more
      > > than than 20 years ago in a TAS interview( and other places)
      that if
      > > you could get the room out of the system it would be a new era
      in
      > > high fidelity.
      > >
      > > Of course, Ole Christensen's and Paul Ladegaard's RFZ room in
      > > Copenhagen (for Focus Recording) essentially does get the room
      out
      > > of the system to a surprising extent. But it cost $275,000 to
      build
      > > and occupies real estate that would cost a fortune in Los
      Angeles!
      > > Not a practical solution for most people!
      > >
      > > REG
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Having now caught up on my S'phile reading and having read
      this
      > > review,
      > > > you should know that the reviewer, Wes Phillips, found this
      speaker
      > > > quite appealing, preferable in some ways to his Wilson
      Watt/Puppy 8
      > > > system for $21,000 less.
      > > >
      > > > Atkinson does say in his measurements that the shelved-down
      > > response
      > > > above 1 kHz in the room averaged response is due to
      directivity of
      > > the
      > > > woofer at the top of its band.
      > > >
      > > > >>> yvl222@ 10/31/07 03:08PM >>>
      > > > Yes, the droop at 1 KHz as well as 150 Hz, the Allison
      suckout.
      > > The
      > > > latter can probably do more damage to the overall sound.
      Could
      > > the
      > > > 1K dip be due to driver interaction at crossover?
      > > >
      > > > Victor
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • regtas43
      PS Actually, I do not think the speakers quasianechoic measurement is all that nice, either. It is top and upper mid oriented, and damped down in the bass
      Message 49 of 49 , Nov 24, 2007
        PS Actually, I do not think the speakers quasianechoic measurement
        is all that nice, either. It is top and upper mid oriented, and
        damped down in the bass comparatively(Atkinson mentions this but
        describes it as if it could be a positive choice, with some words
        like "emphasizing clarity". I would describe this kind of balance as
        emphasizng tinniness.).

        This is not really the point of my remarks earlier, which had to do
        with the odd in-room behavior in the particular room used. But this
        is not my kind of speaker anyway. I am really mystified by why
        people want small speakers on stands in the first place. The floor
        space is the same as a larger speaker on a shorter stand(or a floor
        stander when it comes to that).If anything it is defacto more than a
        floor stander because you have to watch out for not knocking the
        stand mounted small speaker over. It is an unstable item. And it
        offers chances to the designer to have a larger cabinet. So what is
        the point unless you like the fake sense of space attached to early
        diffraction...

        REG

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff stake"
        <jeffstakehifi@...> wrote:
        >
        > I am a bit puzzled, REG. Why reproach the speaker for the failure
        of
        > the reviewer to properly position the speakers [or the listener]?
        > jeff stake
        >
        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > I hope everyone will have a look at this,
        > > I think it illustrates many of the fundamental issues of
        evaluation
        > > of speakers and indeed performance criteria for speakers in
        actual
        > > rooms.
        > >
        > > I am not trying to give anyone a hard time, but I am finding it
        a bit
        > > hard to see this shelf -down as measured performance "above
        reproach".
        > >
        > > REG
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Uli Brueggemann"
        > > <uli.brueggemann@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Hi Robert,
        > > >
        > > > the article is now online.
        > > > See http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1107dyn/
        > > >
        > > > Uli
        > > >
        > > > On Oct 30, 2007 11:36 PM, regtas43 <regonaudio@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Removed for this reason(by me).
        > > > >
        > > > > I know it seems like only a little thing,just a couple of
        pages,
        > > but
        > > > > information is after all what Stereophile and TAS and all
        other
        > > > > magazines sell and we need to respect their rights to their
        own
        > > > > material.
        > > > >
        > > > > Describing what is said in general terms is legitimate, but
        > > > > literal replication is not, I am afraid, and I know that
        > > magazines
        > > > > are (naturally) touchy about this.
        > > > >
        > > > > Sorry for te abrupt removal. The issue is on sale if people
        want
        > > to
        > > > > have a look.
        > > > >
        > > > > REG
        > > > >
        > > > > PS Incidentally, I have explicit permission from TAS to
        reproduce
        > > > > the articles from TAS that are on my website, and I got this
        > > > > permission before posting any of them there(in case you were
        > > > > wondering).
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.