Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[theaudiohobby]

As I stated earlier, perhaps these are semantic differences from across the pond. You call it a bonnet - we call it a hood

....

Sure. There is output to the rear! In my room, the most linear measured bass response was achieved at eight feet out into the room. Specific placement tuned the bass response. The rear wave is controlled via bass traps.

Excellent, we got there in the end, makes one wonder why you disputed Sir T's essential point about greater room interaction due to rear-radiation in the first place.

I'll let you argue that point with Siggy since he disagrees. The following text is found here.

"The rear tweeter does not contribute to the direct sound coming from the front of the speaker over a very wide angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis. This is due to the relatively wide baffle that I use for ORION. It is also an indication that there is little diffraction effect from this wide baffle and hence the good imaging. Thus under anechoic conditions, or outdoors, one would never hear the rear tweeter from any normal listening position. In a room, therefore, anything that is heard of the tweeter, is heard via reflections off walls and objects. "

Read more closely the text is in perfect agreement with what I said previously, Siggy talks about the front of the speaker. In the previous configuration i.e. without the rear tweeter, the backwave comes from the back of the tweeter (and speaker) not the front.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Excellent, we got there in the end, makes one wonder why you disputed Sir T's essential point about greater room interaction due to rear-radiation in the first place.

It's called just for the sake of it, or just because I can.

[E-Stat]

It does not matter the degree of dispersion, the point is it is all foward of the front baffle.

What then did you mean by a "matter of degrees"? What is the variable.

If you add room treatments then why the need for the rearward output in the first place?

Several factors. Dipolar bass tends to provide smoother in-room response. Since I prefer the resolution and coherency of a single virtually massless driver, I choose what is available. I also prefer line sources to point sources.

So are you saying that planar drivers behave differently when radiating forwardly only?

With respect to side wall interaction due to lateral dispersion, no.

Nope, steering is no where to be found in mix langauge, sorry.

The concept should be clear to those who understand the meaning of the word. The sound of the arrow was steered from right front to left rear. I really couldn't care less how the effect was achieved. Home theater uses that precise placement to good effect.

There are no parallel terms to describe the panning of an effect, and you can't make one up at your convinence either.

I speak of the English language, not limited to mixing jargon.

I offered link after link that showed the universal use of the word. If you are dimissing it, that is not entirely out of character for you.

If it were universal, then everyone would use the term. Some do. Many, however, like THX, NAD, Onkyo, Sony, Pioneer, McIntosh, Krell (and likely a host of others) do not. This is a great example of where there can be more than one term for the same concept. I find that the word "rear" more closely associated with "back" than to "surrounds". In the infinite wisdom of some, apparently that is not the case. You may reasonably choose to use different terminology than the companies who use another term.


rw

[E-Stat]

....
Excellent, we got there in the end, makes one wonder why you disputed Sir T's essential point about greater room interaction due to rear-radiation in the first place.

Such assumes that rear interaction is greater than lateral interaction. I do not agree with that concept with all speaker designs when the point under discussion is precise image location, not bass response.

Read more closely the text is in perfect agreement with what I said previously, Siggy talks about the front of the speaker. In the previous configuration i.e. without the rear tweeter, the backwave comes from the back of the tweeter (and speaker) not the front.

This is getting most tedious.

"The rear tweeter does not contribute to the direct sound coming from the front of the speaker over a very wide angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis"

Translation: the front tweeter's dispersion is completely unaffected by bolting another tweeter directly behind it. Sheesh!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What then did you mean by a "matter of degrees"? What is the variable.


Several factors. Dipolar bass tends to provide smoother in-room response. Since I prefer the resolution and coherency of a single virtually massless driver, I choose what is available.


With respect to side wall interaction due to lateral dispersion, no.


The concept should be clear to those who understand the meaning of the word. The sound of the arrow was steered from right front to left rear. I really couldn't care less how the effect was achieved. Home theater uses that precise placement to good effect.


I speak of the English language, not limited to mixing jargon.


If it were universal, then everyone would use the term. Some do. Many, however, like THX, NAD, Onkyo, Sony, Pioneer, McIntosh, Krell (and likely a host of others) do not. This is a great example of where there can be more than one term for the same concept. I find that the word "rear" more closely associated with "back" than to "surrounds". In the infinite wisdom of some, apparently that is not the case. You may reasonably choose to use different terminology than the companies who use another term.


rw

Okay, I give up. The posturing is making me sick. E-stat, just tell eveyone you don't like to be wrong and get it over with. Wait, you already have.....

[theaudiohobby]

Such assumes that rear interaction is greater than lateral interaction. I do not agree with that concept with all speaker designs when the point under discussion is precise image location, not bass response.

Sigh....trying to muddy the waters, eh...

"The rear tweeter does not contribute to the direct sound coming from the front of the speaker over a very wide angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis"

Translation: the front tweeter's dispersion is completely unaffected by bolting another tweeter directly behind it. Sheesh!

So you....wonder why anyone would consider that a tweeter's frontal dispersion over an angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis would be modified by the addition of a rear tweeter in the first place, you are labouring an issue that was never under contention.

[Feanor]

Okay, I give up. The posturing is making me sick. E-stat, just tell eveyone you don't like to be wrong and get it over with. Wait, you already have.....

So you two do agree on something.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So you two do agree on something.

I outta........LOLOL

[E-Stat]

Okay, I give up. The posturing is making me sick. E-stat, just tell eveyone you don't like to be wrong and get it over with. Wait, you already have.....

Perhaps you should embark on a crusade to correct all the manufacturers who don't use the term "rear". Is that why you replaced your Onkyo? Have fun!

rw

[E-Stat]

wonder why anyone would consider that a tweeter's frontal dispersion over an angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis would be modified by the addition of a rear tweeter in the first place, you are labouring an issue that was never under contention.

Exactly! Narrow dispersion planars have greatly lower effect with side wall interaction than do wide dispersion domes. That's why an Orion's side wall interaction is different than that of a Quad. You've got it!

rw

[E-Stat]

So you two do agree on something.

And this all started because I observed that all dipoles do not interact with rooms in exactly the same way.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

And this all started because I observed that all dipoles do not interact with rooms in exactly the same way.

rw

Kudos for the strawman

[E-Stat]

Hey Ralph, any thoughts on Bozak speakers? Are they truly the cats azz? I have never heard any...

My memory is quite distant with the last audition being about forty years ago. They were big sounding, but were not particularly extended at the top nor could they create much of a holographic image. Part of those observations could be because of the McIntosh gear used with them.

rw

[Pat D]

Kudos for the strawman

He was arguing about something about which no one disagreed!

[theaudiohobby]

He was arguing about something about which no one disagreed!

correct

[theaudiohobby]

Exactly! Narrow dispersion planars have greatly lower effect with side wall interaction than do wide dispersion domes.That's why an Orion's side wall interaction is different than that of a Quad. You've got it!

rw

You are now waffling....a few posts ago, it was unanimously agreed that lateral boundary interaction was dependent on speaker configuration therefore your new commentary brings nothing new to the table.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps you should embark on a crusade to correct all the manufacturers who don't use the term "rear". Is that why you replaced your Onkyo? Have fun!

rw

Call the dog in, the trail is cold and the hunt is over. Senseless catty remarks are the hallmark of one that has no where to hide.

This thread has pretty much run its course, and I think everyone is pretty clear of what is really happening here. The level of transparency is pretty staggering.

[E-Stat]

He was arguing about something about which no one disagreed!

When discussing the dispersion characteristics of a dome tweeter vs. a Quad, I posed this question to TAH:

Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

His answer?

Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

So, he needs to look at a polar plot in order to figure out for himself that a dome tweeter has far wider dispersion characteristics than a Quad? Do you face that same challenge deciding the answer having owned both a Quad and now a speaker with a dome tweeter?

rw

[E-Stat]

Call the dog in, the trail is cold and the hunt is over.

Indeed. I didn't expect you to acknowledge the facts.

rw

[Pat D]

When discussing the dispersion characteristics of a dome tweeter vs. a Quad, I posed this question to TAH:

Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

His answer?

Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

So, he needs to look at a polar plot in order to figure out for himself that a dome tweeter has far wider dispersion characteristics than a Quad? Do you face that same challenge deciding the answer having owned both a Quad and now a speaker with a dome tweeter?

rw

You can't be serious! GUAB

[E-Stat]

You can't be serious! GUAB

That was my reaction to his response as well. GUAB?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Indeed. I didn't expect you to acknowledge the facts.

rw

You haven't presented any. You have stonewalled, been evasive, you have postured, and done everything else but deal with the issue at hand.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Exactly! Narrow dispersion planars have greatly lower effect with side wall interaction than do wide dispersion domes. That's why an Orion's side wall interaction is different than that of a Quad. You've got it!

rw

Since reflections don't travel in straight lines, what do you think happens to a front wall reflection after it hits the walls?

They spill around the speaker on both sides and over it, so whatever lack of direct interaction the speaker has with the side walls is nullified by the spill over of reflections from the front wall caused by the rearward wave of the speaker. Since a monopolar speaker does not have this characteristic, it therefore interacts with the room less than a dipolar would, and that was my original statement in the first place.

[E-Stat]

You haven't presented any.

Actually, you just fail to acknowledge them. Which is fine by me. Now that everyone (including GUAB) agrees that dome drivers have wider dispersion that flat planars, that observation is no longer questioned. I also pointed out there are quite a few manufacturers who do not agree with your notion of the universal use of the term "rear" when it comes to surround sound. As per your recommendation, it's quite easy to take a look at the back of receivers and processors to determine that. In the space of five minutes I found THX, NAD, Onkyo, Sony, Pioneer, McIntosh, and Krell. There are likely others. Accept that or not - your choice.

What triggered my original comment was a series of observations regarding directivity by Tom Danley of Danley Sound Labs, a speaker manufacturer of commercial horns. Here are some examples:

Extended nearfield

Constant Directivity

Advantage of large panel speakers

Reduced Phase shift

Preserve waveshape

What can kill imaging

Larger direct field

Convey more information

While I likely didn't convey the role of directivity nearly as well as Tom, that has been my point all along. Naturally, there is no consensus among speaker designers as to what works best in all aspects, but I do relate facts.

One decided sensitivity I have is with coherency and the typical use of multi driver solutions. While there are certainly exceptions (and one of Tom's designs might be one of them), I am aware of the different radiation patterns of the different drivers. I was listening to a friend's JBL speaker and was immediately taken with the weird image. Since it ran a 5" midrange beyond the ideal range, its dispersion in the upper midrange / lower high region was significantly narrower than either the woofer below or the dome tweeter above. The image was like that of a carnival mirror, pinched in the middle and wide at the top and bottom. While I'm not suggesting this is the case with every speaker, that is the first thing I noticed - which the owner had never noticed.

You might want to look at Tom's work (via the link) as it is used commercially in places like Turner Stadium in Atlanta. His horn designs are unique in that all the drivers radiate from the same mouth - and thus have the same radiation pattern and directivity one finds with full range speakers. Because the directivity is constant, it readily supports use in any kind of array given its symmetric design. Which, by the way is also true of the Sound Lab electrostat. In my gallery is a large array demonstrated at RMAF by Ray Kimber. Dr. West put together an even larger proof of concept array at a large auditorium in Utah using a 2 x 6 grid of the same 922s used by Kimber. Two tall by six wide. It created a full range constant directivity source measuring about eighteen feet square.

Peace.

rw

[E-Stat]

They spill around the speaker on both sides and over it, so whatever lack of direct interaction the speaker has with the side walls is nullified by the spill over of reflections from the front wall caused by the rearward wave of the speaker.

We have diffferent views of which spill is more deleterious to the image - an aspect that is both speaker specific and room dependent. There is no one answer for every speaker type and room. That was my point from the outset.

rw