Cardioid Loudspeakers - Are they worth it?

[janbth]

Wrong. The energy emitted to the room is lower for cardioids.

I’m trying to compare what happens if the energy is the same. By assumption.

 

[Grimoire]

I’m trying to compare what happens if the energy is the same. By assumption.

If the energy is the same, then at the listening position the SPL will be higher with cardioid speakers. But you have a volume control to compensate for that!

 

[sigbergaudio]

Then do it.

I was rather suggesting you could use physics to figure this out. So far you have only stated there will be a difference. In the context this information is meaningless if you can't quantify it. If the difference for the neighbour is 0.5dB, then this would be a very poor argument to purchase cardioid speakers.

But that will be for you with your speakers that are cardioid down to 100Hz at best, higher for the Saranna and not at all for the others.

And your domestic circumstances are unlikely to be representative.

I thought that you respected the laws of physics. My mistake.

Why are you getting personal and confrontational? If you care to read my posts, I have not challenged that there is a difference in emitted energy, I have challenged the significance in the context of the discussion. You have so far provided zero evidence that I am wrong.

Since I have non-representative circumstances, why don't you set up a theoretical representative circumstance and quantify the assumed neighbour effect using the laws of physics?

 

[janbth]

If the energy is the same, then at the listening position the SPL will be higher with cardioid speakers. But you have a volume control to compensate for that!

Yes, thats my point exactly. I would say we agree!

 

[janbth]

… I have not challenged that there is a difference in emitted energy, I have challenged the significance in the context of the discussion.

Yes, to be fair, I myself think the significance is quite low. If you want to spare your neighbours it’s not a question of cardiods vs. non-cardioids. You need to find some other solution.

 

[Grimoire]

I was rather suggesting you could use physics to figure this out. So far you have only stated there will be a difference. In the context this information is meaningless if you can't quantify it. If the difference for the neighbour is 0.5dB, then this would be a very poor argument to purchase cardioid speakers.



Why are you getting personal and confrontational? If you care to read my posts, I have not challenged that there is a difference in emitted energy, I have challenged the significance in the context of the discussion. You have so far provided zero evidence that I am wrong.

Since I have non-representative circumstances, why don't you set up a theoretical representative circumstance and quantify the assumed neighbour effect using the laws of physics?

So you suggest that I set up a totally subjective experiment in order to challenge your totally subjective results from an experiment that you have not done.

I stand by science. It is clear that you do not. If there is less energy then there is less energy to be transferred. Fact.

And you are setting up straw men. Who knows what the difference will be in some subjective situation that you seem to wish to argue about?

And you have not said that there is difference. The closest you got was "maybe".

I have read the posts by you. From what you have said, you seem confused about direct and reflected sounds.

I say that not to be confrontational but because it is my truth. Grounded in physics.

 

[sigbergaudio]

So you suggest that I set up a totally subjective experiment in order to challenge your totally subjective results from an experiment that you have not done.

If you have a suggestion for how to prove your case, feel free to use whatever you want. repeating "It's physics" is not proof.

I stand by science. It is clear that you do not. If there is less energy then there is less energy to be transferred. Fact.

A fact which I have not disputed.

And you are setting up straw men. Who knows what the difference will be in some subjective situation that you seem to wish to argue about?

The original question that spawned this discussion was as follows (emphasis mine):
"Does the side/back cancelling nature of cardioid designs actually reduce what can be heard by neighbors to a significant degree? Has anyone tested if cardioid designs are significantly less audible in the non listening room vs. Non cardioid designs?"

I am leaning towards no, you seem so far to be very clear that the answer is yes, until now you are claiming no one can know for sure. Which is at least closer to what I am suggesting.

And you have not said that there is difference. The closest you got was "maybe".

I have read the posts by you. From what you have said, you seem confused about direct and reflected sounds.

I say that not to be confrontational but because it is my truth. Grounded in physics.

I have said there will be a difference, but unlikely to be significant, which is what the question was. If you are answering a different question, you are free to do that of course, but it's a bit confusing. As I said in my previous post, the information "there is a difference" is not super useful until we can quantify it at some level.

 

[Grimoire]

I do not have to provide prove my case. Less energy equals less energy. And stop giving your untested opinions on things as facts.

And why haven't you sent any of your allegedly great speakers to Amirm for testing?

You seem to be very afraid of (or in denial of) physics.

 

[NTK]

It is physics, but it is slightly more complicated than it appears.

The SPL at the listening position is the sum of direct sound and reverberant sound. The direct sound of a cardioid (or omni) loudspeaker is easy enough to predict, but the reverberant sound is not, and it is determined by the room, the speaker orientation (for cardioid), and the locations of the speaker and listener in the room.

For example, for the same direct (on-axis) sound SPL at the listening position, a cardioid sub will radiate less total power (1/3 = -4.8 dB, the directivity index of the textbook cardioid pattern) than an omni-directional one. However, for the omni sub, you can take advantage of boundary gains, up to 6 dB sitting against a wall, 12 dB on the floor against a wall, or 18 dB in a corner. The boundary gain you'll get from a cardioid sub will/should be less, but not zero. Therefore, it is difficult to say if you will get more or less SPL at the listening position with a cardioid sub versus an omni sub when they output the same total sound power.

The main benefit (or difference) of cardioid, for low frequencies, is that it can couple to either velocity modes or pressure modes of the room, and therefore offers different placement and/or EQ options than those from omni subs.

 

[Grimoire]

It is physics, but it is slightly more complicated than it appears.

The SPL at the listening position is the sum of direct sound and reverberant sound. The direct sound of a cardioid (or omni) loudspeaker is easy enough to predict, but the reverberant sound is not, and it is determined by the room, the speaker orientation (for cardioid), and the locations of the speaker and listener in the room.

For example, for the same direct (on-axis) sound SPL at the listening position, a cardioid sub will radiate less total power (1/3 = -4.8 dB, the directivity index of the textbook cardioid pattern) than an omni-directional one. However, for the omni sub, you can take advantage of boundary gains, up to 6 dB sitting against a wall, 12 dB on the floor against a wall, or 18 dB in a corner. The boundary gain you'll get from a cardioid sub will/should be less, but not zero. Therefore, it is difficult to say if you will get more or less SPL at the listening position with a cardioid sub versus an omni sub when they output the same total sound power.

The main benefit (or difference) of cardioid, for low frequencies, is that it can couple to either velocity modes or pressure modes of the room, and therefore offers different placement and/or EQ options than those from omni subs.

Whatever, less energy equals less energy, right?

 

[NTK]

Whatever, less energy equals less energy, right?

You have to compare the sound power output for the same SPL at the listening position.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Whatever, less energy equals less energy, right?

That doesn't answer the question, which is about significant audible difference.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I do not have to provide prove my case. Less energy equals less energy.

If you are not prepared to prove your case, you can't expect others to accept them as facts either. That is completely fine. I am free to say that there are aliens on the moon, but I can't expect everyone to agree with me if I don't even try to prove it.

And stop giving your untested opinions on things as facts.

Did you decide to join me and the strawmen? We welcome you in our midst!

You say I provide speculation, but as long as you have neither simulated or tested your own stance, you provide nothing but speculation yourself.

And why haven't you sent any of your allegedly great speakers to Amirm for testing?

What does that have to do with anything?

You seem to be very afraid of (or in denial of) physics.

Not at all, I accept physics as a very real part of my life. I have little choice in the matter.

 

[Bjorn]

Unless a cardioid subwoofer can be changed to monopole, it's generally a poor design for small room acoustics IMO. You basically get less SPL and higher distortion.

There are a few cases, particularly if one is stuck with position, where cardioid can offer a more even response. But it's rare and because of the mentioned drawbacks the sub should be able to work as monopole also.

 

[Goldhamster916]

Unless a cardioid subwoofer can be changed to monopole, it's generally a poor design for small room acoustics IMO. You basically get less SPL and higher distortion.

There are a few cases, particularly if one is stuck with position, where cardioid can offer a more even response. But it's rare and because of the mentioned drawbacks the sub should be able to work as monopole also.

I would argue the possibility of changing speaker positions is quite limited for many people and in most of those cases cardioid should help smoothen out the SBIR affected frequency band or would you disagree? Why would you say there is rarely a benefit?

the question is of course by how much. I would really like to see more meaningful cardioid vs. non cardioid in room measurements. I think there have been some in the forum but not many. and i am not even sure if you can conclude anything unless you have a identical non cardioid version of the same speaker... does anyone have ideas or resources how we can get a clearer picture of the actual in room benefits of cardioid designs?

 

[phoenixdogfan]

The thing I notice with cardoid designs vs monopoles is a good monopole will typically widen out its radiation from plus/minus 60 degrees to plus/minus 90 degrees starting at about 700-800 hz down to around 150 hz. That means those frequencies will be heard differently because they will come at the listener with more reflected rather than direct sound. Unfortunately, at least half of the bass fundamentals and most of the midrange fundamentals are in that range. OTOH, cardioid designs like the Kii 3, D & D 8c's and the Mesanovic CDM 65 keep their plus/minus 60 degree radiation patterns down to around 150 hz, preserving the characteristic of having the reflected sound be more like the higher frequencies. Obviously, this still does not address the fact that below the Schroeder frequency, the woofers essentially just load bass into the room and the room re-radiates it from all directions making it omnidirectional. But Schroeder happens in most rooms between 100-200 Hz, so cardioid seems to help make the speakers more room agnostic between 200-800 hz. Again, that area is where a good portion of the musical fundamental are.