• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Objections to speaker qualifications

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I understand that,.. but that is NOT what was really being discussed here,.. was it ??
How many people listen,.. in the Far Field as their Norm' ??
Some subtle 'Hair-Splitting', ....
cheers
:)
 
Yes, I understand that,.. but that is NOT what was really being discussed here,.. was it ??
How many people listen,.. in the Far Field as their Norm' ??
Some subtle 'Hair-Splitting', ....
cheers
:)
Everyone should be. You don't want to listen in the near field. Many people (and I am guessing that includes you) confuse the concept of near-field/far-field with direct-field/reverberant-field. See below for more info:
 
Comb filtering:

Lobing due to interaction among drivers could be considered a subset of comb filtering in the region the drivers interact, but that is not how I have seen it used.

Skimming through this whole mess, it seems yet another thread where somebody posts a strawman argument based on questionable (if not outright incorrect) assumptions and data, then gets to argue for another 10 or 100 pages, never changing his or any other minds. Not worth the effort to me. Hopefully the arguments can be revealing to some, but IME/IMO just lead to confusion and choosing sides based upon Internet posters rather than actual research. The ones with actual science are too easily shouted down by armchair experts, and a casual untrained observer has no good way of telling them apart.

For the record (see what I did there? ;) ) I have been in studios a number of times in the past, have friends who visit them to make or master recordings now, and there are indeed live musicians (instrumentalists and singers) in studios -- it's not all completely electronic music generated on a computer.
 
Last edited:
Everyone should be. You don't want to listen in the near field. Many people (and I am guessing that includes you) confuse the concept of near-field/far-field with direct-field/reverberant-field.
NO, sorry, Not me,.. and I was perhaps being Facetious,.. but regarding Your comments, WHY would Far Field have to be ascribed as the 'Reverberant Field', Far Field could be Outdoors, like in the Many large Concert PA setups I have both setup and used in my 35 to 40 Odd year Professional Audio career ;) :)

Whilst I personally prefer to listen at some distance with suitably Sized and powered speakers, I am not sure I can completely concur with your comments re listening in the Near-Field. Both have the virtues and vices and for many, Near-Feld may be there only/best option, if space limited, let alone it being of serious referential use in Most Studios !!

I'm sitting here with a very nice pair of Eq'd self powered Fostex Near-Field Monitors (as my PC / Music playback and they provide particularly good and accurate playback but are obviously not particularly suitable as Far Field devices, due to their size.
Like How far away do you reccommend listening to an Auratone,.. lol

Having built and worked in a number of serious recording studios in my time, I was and am still proud of being involved in the creation of one of Australia's best studios and also for it having the First, acoustically correct "Live-End - Dead-End" control room, (as well as having the first SSL 4000 series console in the country),.. think INXS's Kick album, amongst Many others :)

For the record (see what I did there? ;) ) I have been in studios a number of times in the past, have friends who visit them to make or master recordings now, and there are indeed live musicians (instrumentalists and singers) in studios -- it's not all completely electronic music generated on a computer.
Absolutely ;):)
 
So you're proposing that only a speaker system with a full-range driver is a point source? I presume this speaker would also have to be in a sealed enclosure and not ported, yes? (EDIT: see @Blumlein 88 's comment just above for more along the same lines I'm raising here.)

That would fail the criteria in the question I posed that a working definition be useful and practical.

So then what are you arguing that we should call speaker systems that have two or more coaxial drivers?
No, that is your proposition, and probably a good starting point., I am only rejecting the term point source. Sealed enclosure always, for simplicity and almost error proof loading.. 2 or more coaxial drivers? I don't think that would work.
 
Comb filtering:

Lobing due to interaction among drivers could be considered a subset of comb filtering in the region the drivers interact, but that is not how I have seen it used.

Skimming through this whole mess, it seems yet another thread where somebody posts a strawman argument based on questionable (if not outright incorrect) assumptions and data, then gets to argue for another 10 or 100 pages, never changing his or any other minds. Not worth the effort to me. Hopefully the arguments can be revealing to some, but IME/IMO just lead to confusion and choosing sides based upon Internet posters rather than actual research. The ones with actual science are too easily shouted down by armchair experts, and a casual untrained observer has no good way of telling them apart.

For the record (see what I did there? ;) ) I have been in studios a number of times in the past, have friends who visit them to make or master recordings now, and there are indeed live musicians (instrumentalists and singers) in studios -- it's not all completely electronic music generated on a computer.
I started it and I am all for ending it, thank you.
 
No, that is your proposition, and probably a good starting point., I am only rejecting the term point source. Sealed enclosure always, for simplicity and almost error proof loading.. 2 or more coaxial drivers? I don't think that would work.
NTK gave us the proper idea about point source. People love the optical analogies. Stars are point sources for us here on earth. Planets are not. The stars are far larger, but far enough away to effectively be a point source. I collimate telescopes sometimes using a ball bearing placed a couple hundred feet away and reflecting the sun. Done that way it is a good enough point source. A pair of coincident drivers used at an appropriate distance would be a point source sonically.

None of which is getting us anywhere in this discussion you've started.
 
Hmmm, Really ??
Are there any Measurements / Field 'Plots' that Prove or Disprove this ??

Personally, I think considering the 'Vertical 'Cone' of the Ohm F is, .. a Cone, perhaps the Term 'Axially Symmetric' is a misnomer, as it's 'Dispersion', is in 360 degrees, (Horizontally) and I'd venture to quite some degree vertically as well, plus with the Woofer also firing vertically at quite Low frequency, may I suggest it's dispersion would also be pretty close to Omni-Directional.

I'm actually rather unsure as to What type of Loudspeaker you may or might be trying to describe as 'Truly' Omni-Directional,.. OR,.. for that Matter What and Where it's actual application, would or could be appropriate ??

For ANY True Onmi loudspeaker to work effectively in Omni 'Mode', it would (in effect), have to be 'flying' In the Operational Space :)
As said also from others here that doesn't really work vertically due to its size and nature of bending beam modal behaviour. A real close full band 2 pi omni source is quite impossible to implement, for tweeters (for example Plasma) and woofers it might be possible but due to their spacial distance it still wouldn't be one as a sum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
When somebody go to a modern music concert (i.e. Madonna, U2....) or in a high end night club, nobody is using point source speakers but very large multiple speakers arrangements. Same remark about the Chinese theater in Hollywood (larger room THX certified).
Somebody could want a point source speaker at home for the Center channel as there are some issue of interaction between the drivers.
For my computer desk I tried a small point source Chinese speaker but the sound was so bad that I bought some 2 way Focal speakers and the sound quality is far better.
To me, a point source speaker is only justified for a center speaker or a large tower speaker to be able to get the tweeter at the ear level when sitting in the couch.
 
As said also from others here that doesn't really work vertically due to its size and nature of bending beam modal behaviour. A real close full band 2 pi omni source is quite impossible to implement, for tweeters (for example Plasma) and woofers it might be possible but due to their spacial distance it still wouldn't be one as a sum.
Well, as I also suggested:
may I suggest it's dispersion would also be pretty close to Omni-Directional :)
"I'm actually rather unsure as to What type of Loudspeaker you may or might be trying to describe as 'Truly' Omni-Directional,.. OR,.. for that Matter What and Where it's actual application, would or could be appropriate ??
For ANY True Onmi loudspeaker to work effectively in Omni 'Mode', it would (in effect), have to be 'flying' In the Operational Space"

Perhaps some truly useful info' can be found here: A design of an omnidirectional sound source used for impulse response measurements
With some appropriate 'devices' seen here: https://www.lookline.com/omnidirectional-noise-sources/
Info' here: https://www.lookline.com/
 
NO, sorry, Not me,.. and I was perhaps being Facetious,.. but regarding Your comments, WHY would Far Field have to be ascribed as the 'Reverberant Field', Far Field could be Outdoors, like in the Many large Concert PA setups I have both setup and used in my 35 to 40 Odd year Professional Audio career ;) :)

Whilst I personally prefer to listen at some distance with suitably Sized and powered speakers, I am not sure I can completely concur with your comments re listening in the Near-Field. Both have the virtues and vices and for many, Near-Feld may be there only/best option, if space limited, let alone it being of serious referential use in Most Studios !!

I'm sitting here with a very nice pair of Eq'd self powered Fostex Near-Field Monitors (as my PC / Music playback and they provide particularly good and accurate playback but are obviously not particularly suitable as Far Field devices, due to their size.
Like How far away do you reccommend listening to an Auratone,.. lol

Having built and worked in a number of serious recording studios in my time, I was and am still proud of being involved in the creation of one of Australia's best studios and also for it having the First, acoustically correct "Live-End - Dead-End" control room, (as well as having the first SSL 4000 series console in the country),.. think INXS's Kick album, amongst Many others :)


Absolutely ;):)
It is probably worth to mention that the pro audio use of the word "nearfield" (as in "nearfield monitor") is not the same as the use of the word "nearfield" in acoustical science.

What is considered as "nearfield" in a studio (e.g. listening to smallish studio monitors from 0,5-2m away) may actually be "farfield" from acoustical perspective (the region where interference patterns caused by non-point-sources no longer dominate).

A common rule of thumb is that the acoustical farfield of a loudspeaker starts at approx. 3 times its largest dimension, which is usually 1-2m for bookshelf-type loudspeakers - i.e. within the typical studio "nearfield" distance.
EDIT: Finding the exact distance where acoustical nearfield ends at any frequency is a bit more complicated unfortunately, please refer to this great post by @NTK for more information.

So as you see, you can be in the nearfield and farfield at the same time - depending on the context (and frequency). :D
 
Last edited:
When somebody go to a modern music concert (i.e. Madonna, U2....) or in a high end night club, nobody is using point source speakers but very large multiple speakers arrangements. Same remark about the Chinese theater in Hollywood (larger room THX certified).
Somebody could want a point source speaker at home for the Center channel as there are some issue of interaction between the drivers.
For my computer desk I tried a small point source Chinese speaker but the sound was so bad that I bought some 2 way Focal speakers and the sound quality is far better.
To me, a point source speaker is only justified for a center speaker or a large tower speaker to be able to get the tweeter at the ear level when sitting in the couch.
In concert situation you get 80% reflective sound and 20% direct sound at best. Point source is not only a one speaker reference, many 2 way and 3 way speaker designer, manufacturers have the pretention of calling their design "point source" speakers, it seems to be a winning sales narative..
 
Well, as I also suggested:
may I suggest it's dispersion would also be pretty close to Omni-Directional :)
"I'm actually rather unsure as to What type of Loudspeaker you may or might be trying to describe as 'Truly' Omni-Directional,.. OR,.. for that Matter What and Where it's actual application, would or could be appropriate ??
For ANY True Onmi loudspeaker to work effectively in Omni 'Mode', it would (in effect), have to be 'flying' In the Operational Space"

Perhaps some truly useful info' can be found here: A design of an omnidirectional sound source used for impulse response measurements
With some appropriate 'devices' seen here: https://www.lookline.com/omnidirectional-noise-sources/
Info' here: https://www.lookline.com/
Those links show exactly the problems and limitations of full band implementations, I have used such dodecahedral sound sources for acoustic research measurements, they are typically used in combination with reverberation chambers to approximate a diffuse field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
manufacturers have the pretention of calling their design "point source" speakers, it seems to be a winning sales narative..
I don't really have an impression that this sales narrative would be very efficient - what percent of the intended market would even understand the terminology, not to mention its implications? IMHO it likely isn't more efficient than using any other design characteristic for marketing purposes, as long as it sounds equally exotic and sciency.

On ASR I don't really see that most people argue that near-coincident configuration loudspeakers are implicitly "better" that other designs. On the contrary, it seems to me that a lot of ASR members understand that most design choices bring some benefits and some drawbacks - like in any engineering discipline.

E.g. coaxial loudspeaker designs can result in an almost perfect dispersion pattern at the expense of often having narrower dispersion, and sometimes lower max SPL capacity.
On the other hand multi-driver, multi-way loudspeakers without waveguides can have wide dispersion and be made to play very loud, at the expense of their dispersion patterns being less uniform. Either can sound good if implemented well, and if used in the appropriate context.
Either can also sound bad if implemented poorly!

It is also perhaps worth noting that adding multiple drivers in the vertical plane negatively affects only the vertical dispersion, which appears to be less of an issue perceptually. Which is probably at least part of the reason why coaxial / near-coincident driver loudspeakers are still more of an exception rather than the rule.
 
For a reference point at ear leveI listening: tri-amplified Yamaha NS1000. OK but very constraining.
Constraining? Sitting in the chair (reference point at ear level), sipping the wine and enjoying the music? Constraining??? Really???

For omni-directional: Duevel Venus,
Overall height of Duevel Venus = 970 mm. Tweeter reference axis = about at ear level while seating in the chair). So, your point is...???
 
Last edited:
No, that is your proposition, and probably a good starting point., I am only rejecting the term point source. Sealed enclosure always, for simplicity and almost error proof loading.. 2 or more coaxial drivers? I don't think that would work.

It’s not a proposition, because I’m not proposing anything here, you are. It’s a logical supposition, based on what you keep arguing. If the supposition is not what you had in mind, that’s not an error on my part; it’s the result of incomplete, contradictory, or otherwise unclear explanation or reasoning on your part. The onus is on you to explain and clarify.

As for being the one who started this thread and “being all for ending it,” you’re in good company on that sentiment. The thread is a point source itself in terms of where it started and where it’s gotten us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom