I buy that, purely for aesthetic reasons. Larger, or higher speakers than ... what is needed if the placement BTM does not provide any sound advantages compared to BMT.But if you ignore the purely aesthetic and concentrate solely on the sound itself, in that case?
I'm guessing most people would prefer a shorter stand, given the choice.I buy that, purely for aesthetic reasons. Larger, or higher speakers than ... what is needed if the placement BTM does not provide any sound advantages compared to BMT.But if you ignore the purely aesthetic and concentrate solely on the sound itself, in that case?
Or for that matter take a smaller model of two-way speakers, you rarely see the tweeter placed at the bottom then. And then he it not so much to do with the size of the speaker. The only thing that is then needed is a slightly higher speaker stand.
You can get more vertical directivity by separating bass and midrange drivers. Only other reason I can think of to do it.
Technically, the only issue should be the height relative to the ear. The usually arrangement is probably mostly for aesthetics.
The tweeter array in my wacko "speaker stack" is near the 8-foot ceiling in my living room (angled down). The Pioneer's are my rear speakers. "Floor Standards" hanging near the ceiling above my couch. The center speaker in this mis-matched setup not in the same league as the others.
Interesting. I use digital delay, so I'm spoiled. That scheme will certainly improve the time alignment, although it will be dependent on listener distance. I think.The example you pictured, the Faital-3WC-10) from Troels Gravesen, has this explanation further down the page:
The reason for having the midrange driver not flush-mounted and on top of the tweeter is to take advantage of the above alignment, assuming listening height on midrange on-axis. This way we can avoid a stepped baffle making an overall easier cabinet construction.
This reason would seem to be be common to quite a few loudspeaker systems, both 3-way and 2-way.
The crossover point between the woofer and the mid was said to be 400 Hz. That's about 33 inches long.
The example you pictured, the Faital-3WC-10) from Troels Gravesen, has this explanation further down the page:
The reason for having the midrange driver not flush-mounted and on top of the tweeter is to take advantage of the above alignment, assuming listening height on midrange on-axis. This way we can avoid a stepped baffle making an overall easier cabinet construction.
This reason would seem to be be common to quite a few loudspeaker systems, both 3-way and 2-way.
The crossover point between the woofer and the mid was said to be 400 Hz. That's about 33 inches long.
This is what Ken Kantor thinks about Time Alignment:
audiosciencereview.com
If and if so when it is, that's what I'm curious about.
I googled, you are absolutely right:
In addition, this with c-c distance depends on the type of crossover. There is a lot to think about when designing speakers and getting different speaker elements to work together in a good way:Technically, the only issue should be the height relative to the ear. The usually arrangement is probably mostly for aesthetics.
The tweeter should be close to the midrange (or the woofer in a 2-way) because of the wavelength. But let's assume the crossover between the woofer & midrange is 1kHz. That's a wavelength of about 1 foot so they don't have to be super-close together. And what's really critical is the distance-difference to your ears. If the distance from the different drivers to your ears is the same the soundwaves will arrive in-phase. At a half-wavelength they will be out-of-phase and cancel. And this is only critical around the crossover frequency where both drivers are putting-out about the same sound level.
I have some old Pioneer 5-ways and I haven't had the grills off recently but from what I remember the drivers are kind-of arranged "randomly". Probably so they can all fit on the baffle...
audiosciencereview.com
I know Ken, having talked with him on other forums about break-in. I have to disagree with him somewhat, especially if time-alignment is low-hanging fruit because of digital delay. Of course, the vast majority of speakers are passive, and pure delay over a wide band is difficult. Here's Rod Elliott's take:This is what Ken Kantor thinks about Time Alignment:
View attachment 240946
Time Alignment
Hello, I was curious of the idea behind driver time alignment. I know there are speaker designs that proclaim an improvement in sound because of the individual drivers' placement so that the combined sound from all drivers reach the listener at the same time. The question in my mind is...audiokarma.org
Time aligned speakers - do they make sense?
I see some speaker brands claiming to be physically time-aligned, usually by titling the speaker back so the tweeter is farther from the listener. Is this truly effective? It seems if there’s a positive effect, it would be for only one narrow listening position (which may not be where you’re...
You probably know who he is, but for others who are reading the thread and thinking, who is that Ken:
Kenneth Kantor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
If and if so when it is, that's what I'm curious about.
I googled, you are absolutely right:
View attachment 240947
Think it’s known as the D’Apollito configuration?
No, that's like my design, with the tweeter between dual midrange drivers. Strictly that's MTM, and becomes D'Appolito when the mid center to center is about 1.5 wavelengths at crossover and you use a third order Butterworth (BW3) xover.
When I bought my Castle Conway 3s in 2005 they were described as being a d'Appolito design. I think the two mid/woofers were supposed to act like one larger driver?
