B&O Beolab 90? A lot more than $30k unless you found one used. Not sure if they are cardioid that low either.active speakers that are full range with cardioid down to 40Hz and variable directivity are rare
NopeB&O Beolab 90? A lot more than $30k unless you found one used. Not sure if they are cardioid that low either.
https://www.audioholics.com/room-ac...ons-human-adaptation/what-do-listeners-preferFor optimum stereo listening if your music tastes are as eclectic as mine, one really needs adjustable acoustics and, possibly, variable-directivity loudspeakers, but we know that won’t happen.
I used to feel the same way... And then I realized that the untamed peaks elswhere in the room would cause the floor, walls, ceiling, and furniture to resonate and rattle (never mind nuisance noise to those outside the room!). Even though I couldn't hear the peaks directly, once I picked up on what was happening, I couldn't unhear it; now I'm in favor of as uniform a response throughout the room as possible, even for a single listener. As a bonus, there is also less sound leakage outside of the room due to fewer and lower magnitude in-room bass peaks.I agree. I don’t care if it’s smooth bass around the room. I only care about my listening position.
You’re absolutely right. When I did tests with the mids and tweeters off I found areas of my room to resonate badly.I used to feel the same way... And then I realized that the untamed peaks elswhere in the room would cause the floor, walls, ceiling, and furniture to resonate and rattle (never mind nuisance noise to those outside the room!). Even though I couldn't hear the peaks directly, once I picked up on what was happening, I couldn't unhear it; now I'm in favor of as uniform a response throughout the room as possible, even for a single listener. As a bonus, there is also less sound leakage outside of the room due to fewer and lower magnitude in-room bass peaks.
None of that is meant to imply that multi-sub is superior, or cardioid isn't a great solution.
The air in the room is excited by the speaker drivers and, in a similar (but 3D rather than 2D) way to the string of a stringed instrument, the amplitude of the harmonics excited depend on where in the 3D volume of air the drivers are (and where on the string the player plucks or bows).I just have to hold my nose until one day I can custom treat a room for my needs. With all the resonant areas addressed.
Quite, WAF ( I suppose partner acceptance factor would be more acceptable) is much more important than I ever imagined.The air in the room is excited by the speaker drivers and, in a similar (but 3D rather than 2D) way to the string of a stringed instrument, the amplitude of the harmonics excited depend on where in the 3D volume of air the drivers are (and where on the string the player plucks or bows).
On the stringed instrument it has a big influence on timbre, in a room it has a big influence on the amplitude of the peaks, both of the fundamental but also all the harmonics.
By varying the position of the speakers it is possible to alter the amplitude of the peaks and even to even out the sound in the room, a bit like the modal speakers like NXT and BMR types by positioning the exciter.
The most beneficial effects IME are putting the speakers at a position which isn’t a simple ratio of a room dimension. You are a bit stuck with the vertical except playing with stands.
I started with 1/7 of the long dimension and 1/5 of the short. A friend who does this sort of thing for a living used MLSSA (I think that is what it is) to measure locations all over the room to make sure the biggest peaks were as small as we could get them.
Only a very small correction was then needed to be applied by room compensation software and the difference with and without is relatively small laying out the room this way.
The downside for a domestic room is the optimum speaker positions may not meet with universal aesthetic approval…
"overrated": Based on what facts or studies or ?Simple, no need, and multi sub approach overrated. Full range cardioid mains, this is the way
Fair comment. There may be studies, I do not know. And I have no doubt you can achieve outstanding results with multi sub approach. My point is I think correct acoustics are easier to achieve if cardioid is in the picture. Pushing the ”easy button“ a bit so to speak. And again, not saying I won’t have multi subs, just that I won’t fully rely on it to fix all of the issues and cardioid is just one tool in my tool box to get to where I want to be. But the jury is still out, we shall see …"overrated": Based on what facts or studies or ?
Any study that suggest or prove that cardioid mains are superior to multiple subwoofers + "limited" or Full, range mains? For the record, Geddes one of the proponent of the subwoofer approach is very adamant about non full range mains, although his own (sadly non longer produced) mains were very capable in the SPL department.
At the end , you choose whatever pleases you. I am pointing out that we tend here, to prefer studies proving a position, rather than opinions.
You never ever seem to link any scientific studies though. Let me assist as usual: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eo-sub-vs-dual-mono.43767/page-2#post-1555765I have not seen much benefit with a cardioide subwoofer in small acoustical space in regards to a more even response. Neither have the few studies conducted showed any serious improvement. They have showed that cardioide is sligthly more flexible in placement, which is of course something if one is locked to certain placements. But when one uses the optimal placement for either cardioide, dipole or monopole no clear benefit has been shown for either. Which makes sense considering the room modes will swamp any directivty. With both cardioide and dipole we end up with less SPL and higher distortion with the same driver dimension.
I wonder if when Toole and Olive jokingly say "Money traps" when referring to bass traps, they are aware of such science? Apologies to those who sell bass traps.Ferekidis and Kempe  consider room mode excitation using monopolar, dipolar and cardioid low frequency sources. The motivation for their studies was the difference in coupling to the room depending on whether the source is more a pressure source (monopole) or a pressure-gradient source (dipole) or somewhere in between (cardioid). Comparison of a single monopole with a single cardioid (at the same position) showed that the cardioid produced shorter decay times than the monopole. Use of multiple cardioids showed a further reduction in the decay time, and showed less variation in response at different listening positions.
3.3 Is the perception of spatial information in a recording affected by the decay time of room modes in the listening room? This question is largely answered by the papers summarised in section 2. Papers describing tests which found little or no spatial effect at low frequencies  were all done in listening rooms with long decay times at low frequencies. Papers which describe tests showing detection of spatial information at low frequencies  were done in rooms with lower decay times.  used two rooms with different decay times and found that discrimination was noticeably easier in the room with lower decay time.  and  point out that it is easier to hear in to the recording when the modal artifacts in the listening room do not dominate.