-
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!
Poll: Speakers closer to which wall(s)?
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #22
I didn't realize you had dipoles! I used to do that with my big SoundLabs. As for the resulting reflection path for the backwave, imo the configuration you described does a lot of things right.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #24
Intense!
So, are the Magnepan's bass panels supplemented by the 4x12" dipoles, or replaced by the 4x12" dipoles?
I've never experienced a Double Bass Array. How many subs on each facing wall? Are you comfortable sharing your subjective impression? I'd be very interested in them.
Last edited:
Supplemented may be the right word. The 4x12" dipoles work from 80 to 550 Hz, and the MG 3.7 "bass" panels (or midranges that I would call them) from 550 to 1500 Hz. In that range they have quite good sensitivity of about 90 dB, and extremely low distortion.
I have twelve 10" subs on each wall (front and rear). Never heard bass like this. What you get with a well-tuned DBA is no audible room resonance at all. The decay is very clean and short.
I have twelve 10" subs on each wall (front and rear). Never heard bass like this. What you get with a well-tuned DBA is no audible room resonance at all. The decay is very clean and short.
Try it. Even four pieces give a significant effect. See my thread. Including a link to diyaudio in #3. There, Nils tells Earl about subjective impressions
.
Last edited:
audiofooled
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2021
- Messages
- 533
- Likes
- 594
I voted option no. 1. Mains are close to the long wall but also left is close to the sidewall and right is very far from it's sidewall. I use toe in to miss the left wall.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #29
Twelve subs distributed on each wall is presumably enough to effectively generate a planar wave. And the smoothness of your decay, with the subs on the opposite wall cancelling... WOW!
Last edited:
Front wall, close as is reasonably possible. It's the most acoustically advantageous place for monopoles, really - you get all that extra bass from boundary effect so in effect it's free bass headroom after you EQ back to nominal, plus it's going to reduce SBIR as low as you can without flush mounts.
Hi,
do you point the speaker towards the wall? If transducers points to listener I think 2" is about impossible unless in-wall, no? In general, it is not relevant how close a back of a speaker is to a wall, it only matters how close the transducers (center of) are from the wall.
For example, lets take a 8" deep speaker box with 6" wide baffle to house tweeter and a small woofer. If it was backed against the wall distance from transducer center to wall behind would be roughly 11". Or, for simplicity 8", depth of the box + distance the back of the box is from the wall.
I've got also close to wall speakers with varying success. Bass driver is either towards wall about 10cm from dust cap to wall but now there is distance around the box toward listener, or if I put the box sideways its about 20cm from center of cone to wall, as 15" in small enclosure. This gives frequency response anomalies on midrange, bit above pass band. Midwoofer must point toward listener, and to get midwoofer close to wall it's not possible to get a 10cm deep basket closer than about 12cm or so including some kind of a enclosure, so distance from center of driver and toed in and all that ends up being at least something like 20cm, which also means interference dip on the mid range, on the pass band. This requires then to reduce sound to the boundary, either by acoustic damping and/or by utilizing directivity. And still, the front wall has an effect So to contribute the thread my speaker has varying distance to the wall behind speaker. And if you have figured some better way to couple with the wall I'd be interested
do you point the speaker towards the wall? If transducers points to listener I think 2" is about impossible unless in-wall, no? In general, it is not relevant how close a back of a speaker is to a wall, it only matters how close the transducers (center of) are from the wall.
For example, lets take a 8" deep speaker box with 6" wide baffle to house tweeter and a small woofer. If it was backed against the wall distance from transducer center to wall behind would be roughly 11". Or, for simplicity 8", depth of the box + distance the back of the box is from the wall.
I've got also close to wall speakers with varying success. Bass driver is either towards wall about 10cm from dust cap to wall but now there is distance around the box toward listener, or if I put the box sideways its about 20cm from center of cone to wall, as 15" in small enclosure. This gives frequency response anomalies on midrange, bit above pass band. Midwoofer must point toward listener, and to get midwoofer close to wall it's not possible to get a 10cm deep basket closer than about 12cm or so including some kind of a enclosure, so distance from center of driver and toed in and all that ends up being at least something like 20cm, which also means interference dip on the mid range, on the pass band. This requires then to reduce sound to the boundary, either by acoustic damping and/or by utilizing directivity. And still, the front wall has an effect
So to contribute the thread my speaker has varying distance to the wall behind speaker. And if you have figured some better way to couple with the wall I'd be interested
Last edited:
ShadowFiend
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 69
- Likes
- 89
Dipole speaker: minimum 1 m (preferly 1.5 m) from front wall. Side wall not as important. but preferly 0.5 m minimum and with toe-in
Cardioid speaker (with cardioid down to 100 Hz): as close to front wall as possible, minimum 1m (preferly 1.5 m) from side wall.
True omnidirectional speaker: as far as front and side wall as possible, minimum 1.5 m
Normal box speaker: like true omni speaker
Cardioid speaker (with cardioid down to 100 Hz): as close to front wall as possible, minimum 1m (preferly 1.5 m) from side wall.
True omnidirectional speaker: as far as front and side wall as possible, minimum 1.5 m
Normal box speaker: like true omni speaker
I'm also very impressed by this.
As for my setup, in a restricted temporary space—against the long wall of a 5x3.5 metre mezzanine which spans across 5x7 metre space—the stereo pair is necessarily quite close to the front wall. Later downstairs in the larger volume I expect I'll try much further into the room, more like 1.5 metres. Either choice aims to avoid the worst of the boundary effect.
Burning Sounds
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Dipoles in a long narrowish room, so approx 2 metres from front wall and approx 1 metre from sidewalls.
Bloody heck I would kill for that! LOL.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #37
It sounds like you are in a unique position to make comparisons between dipole, cardioid, omni, and "normal" speakers. If you feel like making any subjective comparisons, feel free, and ramble all you want. I'd be very interested in your observations.
ShadowFiend
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 69
- Likes
- 89
Thanks Duke. As an engineer, my principle when approaching audio is
1. Everything in audio engineering is compromise, sometimes technical, sometimes financial, sometimes both. So nothing is one size fit all.
2. Before I can form any opinion about technology, I must audition the best or the most technically accomplished implementation of that technology in their most suitable working environment. If not, the opinion is misleading and worthless.
3. If there are scienctific papers about this subject, the approach is not just reading the headline of this research and repeating like a mindless parrot. The testing condition as well as any limitation of the reasearch need to be understood. The most important thing is that opinions, even from trustable experts, which are only the consequence based on result of the test, not the direct statistical result of the test, need to be evaluated with critical thinking rather than treating it like a Bible.
So I spent nearly ten years trying to hear as much as speaker as possible, especially the ones which measurement has been published, to ensure the quality of tech implementation. At that time, I don't have resources to own expensive speakers, my speaker was a pair of modest KH120A. But thanks to my connection, I have chances to audition them in suitable environments. here is my experience:
1. "normal" speakers: I can't count how many of them I have heard, B&W801, Revel Salon2, ATC SCM50, Neumann KH420, KEF Reference 5, Harbeth SHL5, YG Acoustics Carmel, Sonus Faber Stradivari, Thiel CS3.7 are the most notable ones. Out of those, the jack-off-all-trade is a Revel Salon2 and KH420. But the one I like best and want to own is Thiel CS3.7, too bad they are out-of-business after the death of Jim Thiel.
Even though I like some "normal" speakers, but the more I explore them, the less satisfy about them I get. No amount of placing them can result in a soundstage and imaging I like. Put them near side wall and I get a big but very shallow soundstage, plus the very blurring image. Put them far from side wall, ok I get good imaging now but at the same time soundstage is restricted. It is a big problem for well-done box speakers. Other speakers tries to overcome that by letting peak in frequency response, but it is only sound good with a subset of music recordings. And I don't want to be restricted.
2. For omnidirectional speaker, I have heard the quasi-omni speakers like Bose 901 long before but I don't like them due to their messy FR. I also do not impress with MBL 101 speaker at the show case. Then one of my friend bought a 101D and I got a chance to audition properly. The moment "Aha" happens when we pull it out with the distance from walls is 2 meter. Soundstage is immersive, imaging is great as well, absolutely sumblime. The downside is that the estate to accomondate them. 2m out of side wall to each speaker means that one dimension of room need at least 6m. Due to the fact that the listener need to be 2m from wall as well (to avoid LIBR) then the other side of room will be 7m. So a room 6 m x 7 m is needed. My friend's room is 50m2 but it is not something I can afford just for listening space. The good implementation is rare and expensve as well.
3. Dipole speakers: I heard Magnapan and even owned the LXmini, but while they exhibit some special quality in soundstage, their shortcoming in terms of high frequency extension and low frequency volume is too much to bear. But at least they are promising, so I go to build LX521.4, and it clicks. Small baffle lead to more even off-axis FR, bass module with 2x 10" high excursion L26R04Y per channel is decently enough. Side wall 0.5m-1m with toe-in and 1.5m from front wall is enough to get the wide and deep soundstage with good imaging as well. Another good thing is that it requires room only with around 22-25 m2 to work well, with dimension like 4m x 6m, which is suitable for me.
Even then, LX521.4 is a compromise, albeit a good compromise in term of cost. Living with it for a round six month, I began to notice its shortcoming. It has nothing to do with the concept or its execution, but rather on the cost constraint of its. The MU10RB driver has an uneven FR in working range (2k-2.5kHz) lead to a little bit rough in upper midrange around 2kHz. Secondly, both U22REX/P-SL and MU10RB has high breakup at 500Hz and 1.5kHz respectively which create the not so detail sound signature. Thirdly, their dipole pattern brakes up at 2.5 kHz due to magnet blocking in MU10RB and only comebacks at 6kHz, when dipole tweeters take more responsibility, so it is not a ultimate implementation of dipole as I hope. After that time I go all in with dipole by diy with nude-driver configuration (which I learn from CharlieLaub) and high quality driver like SS 26W/4867, Purify PTT6.5M and Mundorf AMT 25D1.1 plus bass module from LX521 and two nearfield ripole subs. And for my room, it is until now the best for strictly stereo sounds.
4. Cardioid speakers: I only heard the D&D 8C. They are great speaker aside from a less than effortless low midrange, which somewhat remind me of LX521, so I suspect it is because of an 8" Seas driver they use. The nicest thing with great implementation cardioid speakers like 8C is that they can be placed near front wall without detrimenting sound quality. So we need only to focus on the side wall, and a distance of 1.5m-2m from side wall is not that hard in most normal room to create the wide soundtage and great imaging. The depth of soundstage can be done by small toe in but not as impressive as dipole and omni speakers. I think that due to lack of rear dispersion, cardioid speaker is more suitable for multichannel setup, especially the center speaker, than dipole and omni speakers without the need of big room. That why I am in the process of building floorstanding cardioid speakers dedicated for multichannel sound systems.
5. Horn Speaker: In my opinion, great horn systems, with horn supported frequency down to 100 Hz and the right recordings which cues from hall is embedded properly in, is the most lifelike sound system I have heard. Problem is that these recordings are very rare, like great 1960s stereo like Mercury, RCA Living Stereo and Chesky. Modern reverb cue is artifical and sound weird to my ear. Due to the horn, it is even more comfortable in terms of placing than cardioid speaker. But the downsize is the huge size for horn supported frequency down to 100 Hz lead me to thing that it is not for me, just like omni speakers. Most smaller horn systems with horn supported frequency down to 500 Hz, while still sound very dynamic, have an abrupt directivity change which don't like.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #39
Thank you @ShadowFiend for your in-depth reply.
This has been my experience too. I have not found a way to get BOTH consistently beyond-the-speakers soundstage width AND image precision & soundstage depth at the same time. Early sidewall reflections enable the one but inhibit the other. As you said, "Everything in audio engineering is compromise."
This has been my experience as well. More distance is needed to the side walls than to the wall behind the speakers in order to push the arrival time of the sidewall reflections far enough back in time. Once that it is done, assuming those later-onset reflections are spectrally correct (as they are with the MBLs), the result is image precision AND immersion/envelopment at the same time. But it's impractical in most home listening rooms.
Yes, ime dipoles tend to be more practical than omnis in most rooms.
This all makes sense to me. Imo that late-onset inrush of spectrally-correct reflections that you get with a good multi-directional speaker like a dipole or omni, assuming adequate reflection path lengths, enables very good spatial quality.
My first-hand experience with cardioids is not nearly as extensive as my experience with dipoles, but my impression is that cardioids have a similar potential for very nice midbass quality without the distance-to-the-wall requirements.
I would have to agree.
If I can't fit a pair of them in my car and take them to an audio show, they are too big for me!
I use a higher crossover frequency in my "woofer + horn" designs so that I can match the radiation patterns in the crossover region, or at least come pretty close.
This has been my experience too. I have not found a way to get BOTH consistently beyond-the-speakers soundstage width AND image precision & soundstage depth at the same time. Early sidewall reflections enable the one but inhibit the other. As you said, "Everything in audio engineering is compromise."
This has been my experience as well. More distance is needed to the side walls than to the wall behind the speakers in order to push the arrival time of the sidewall reflections far enough back in time. Once that it is done, assuming those later-onset reflections are spectrally correct (as they are with the MBLs), the result is image precision AND immersion/envelopment at the same time. But it's impractical in most home listening rooms.
Yes, ime dipoles tend to be more practical than omnis in most rooms.
This all makes sense to me. Imo that late-onset inrush of spectrally-correct reflections that you get with a good multi-directional speaker like a dipole or omni, assuming adequate reflection path lengths, enables very good spatial quality.
My first-hand experience with cardioids is not nearly as extensive as my experience with dipoles, but my impression is that cardioids have a similar potential for very nice midbass quality without the distance-to-the-wall requirements.
I would have to agree.
If I can't fit a pair of them in my car and take them to an audio show, they are too big for me!
I use a higher crossover frequency in my "woofer + horn" designs so that I can match the radiation patterns in the crossover region, or at least come pretty close.
ShadowFiend
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 69
- Likes
- 89
One more note, the most impressive sound I have heard is not from all of those speaker I listed above but from a speaker I have heard in a fellow audiophile's house in Germany near 10 years ago. This speaker is RDAcoustics Evolution. It is just a 8" full range driver in huge back-loaded horn. I only heard it with one track of choral music and one track of female vocal, but it is unbelievably transcendent. I think this type of speaker will not fare well with a variety of music recordings, but for specific recordings, they excel hard.