Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

[sigbergaudio]

Again with the frequency response curves. Frequency response has nothing to do with spatial response.

Again with the highly directional polar response. That response would have no spatial qualities. Speakers would call attention to themselves and not disappear.

Not sure exactly what you are commenting or referring to here. I explicitly said we currently don't really know how the CEA2034 says anything about this. As @Mort said the 8361 had the best soundstage, it was interesting to compare.

Our speakers definitely disappear, the sound is completely disconnected from the speakers.

 

[Arindal]

height is typically the smallest dimension, and floor and ceiling reflections (including higher order reflections such as sound bouncing first off the floor and then off the ceiling) are responsible for the vast majority of reverberant sound degradation

While I agree that floor and ceiling reflections are very important (particularly their tonality), usually creating the first wave of reflections with very little chance for proper diffusing (unlike side walls), I would not say that this creates the vast majority of sound degradation linked to reverb.

Build a speaker with a very narrow vertical beamwidth (less than 60 degrees: aka +/-30) and you find clarity much, much farther into the room than with a conventional speaker

I fully agree in theory. Practically, you would need to do that for basically the complete frequency range being localizable to the human brain, on an equal level of attenuation outside the listening window beam width. That is roughly from 500 Hz to 7,000Hz. +-30deg vertical is not only too wide in my understanding to properly attenuate floor/ceiling reflections, it is also very difficult to achieve constantly over such a broad range of wavelengths.

Which speakers do achieve such even vertical pattern, except from CBT or (virtually) curved line sources or maybe very very big horns (which are difficult to meet the ´point source´ condition at the same time)?

I am highlighting this because a lot of people seemingly mix up the minimum vertical listening window angle which appears narrow on paper (like +-20deg with some d´Apollito concepts) and the average or constant angle over the aforementioned band which can be much much wider. And in practice, it regularly is, and the resulting tonality of early floor/ceiling reflections with some bands dominating, will not solve the problem you have brought up. Rather the opposite.

Me thinks, the goal of attenuating floor and ceiling reflections will be easier to achieve with some sort of line source, limited and frequency-dependent in length, so you can really create a more or less constant vertical directivity pattern. Sounds easier than it is.

it makes some sense to prioritize the horizontal reflections, except that you have to include the virtual vertical sources to properly understand the distribution of your virtual sources even in the horizontal plane. Those vertical reflections reinforce the sound and don't widen the soundstange at all.

Absolutely true, and maybe one of the reasons why coaxial speakers are more likely to create a stable and coherent virtual imaging, with both the phantom sources and the perceived reverb surrounding them making sense to our brain and blending nicely.

Humans can sense vertical position. Not very well, mind you, but we can. Research on this shows that vertical localization is inconsistent when using multiple speakers with the signal manipulated through stereophonic intensity and timing differences

Vertical localization is mostly HRTF-related, so very much dependent on the our ability to perceive tonality and compare tonality pattern of different sound events (such as direct sound, early reflections, multiple reflections and diffuse reverb). It is a well-known phenomenon among recording engineers that a frontal phantom localization might cause the impression of the source being elevated, as the HRTF-related change in tonality between +-30deg and 0deg brings our brain to such a conclusion.

One of the effects in such setups or in concert halls with hanging reflectors is vertical broadening.

In concert halls and theaters, such are mainly used to reduce the initial time delay of the first wave of vertical reflections in order to improve clarity and intelligibility. Vertical broadening can be a positive side-effect, surely.

I disagree with the benefits of narrow vertical directivity speakers being worthwhile. I cannot stand hearing spectral shifts as I move my head.

Why should there be spectral shifts with constantly narrow vertical directivity?

Moving the head I would more associate with horizontal movement, or turning one´s head. Vertical movement is not covering a vast angle, unless you permanently sit down and stand up while listening in a nearfield environment.

 

[thewas]

And here is 8361 vs Manta for reference/comparison:
View attachment 456559

Those are due to enclosure sizes more similar of course, although there are still differences which probably would be audible.

 

[Curvature]

Why should there be spectral shifts with constantly narrow vertical directivity?

Moving the head I would more associate with horizontal movement, or turning one´s head. Vertical movement is not covering a vast angle, unless you permanently sit down and stand up while listening in a nearfield envenvironment

You must be a very disciplined person not to enjoy a variety of postures when listening.

 

[Arindal]

And if you are worried about ceiling reflections, put up some absorbers.

Absorbers, unless they are very thick, might contribute to even more shift in tonality of the early reflections they tend to overdampen treble and brillance bands.

They are thrillingly clear and precise but the image doesn't extend much beyond the speaker.

Would say that depends on the recording and the room. If there is no reverb or runtime-stereophonic information in the recording to extend the stereo base, I would expect any speaker to show exactly that limited width.

Again with the frequency response curves. Frequency response has nothing to do with spatial response.

Indirectly, off-axis response does have to do with spatial qualities. The main aspect is in my understanding the tonality of the reverb added by the listening room, so dependent on directivity index, room treatment and listening distance.

We should take into consideration that our brain is capable of detecting spectral differences between direct sound and reflections being directly linked to it. The more tonally-balanced the reverb, the more ´natural´ it would feel to us coming in from the angles we would expect (and blend with the reverb on the recording). Experience is showing that presence-heavy reverb (particularly 0.8-2K highlighted) is signaling our brains to receive reverb as coming from behind us, hence being detached from the phantom sources originated from the direct sound. On the other hand, highlighting the band 2-5K is the typical pattern we would expect from reverb coming in from frontal angles, hence ´hiding´ behind the reverb on the recording and giving an impression of what we would expect from listening to stereo under quasi-anechoic conditions.

Again with the highly directional polar response. That response would have no spatial qualities. Speakers would call attention to themselves and not disappear.

Do not really agree to that conclusion. Speakers can wonderfully disappear and give a spatial impression within the limits of stereophony, even under true anechoic conditions, if there is enough of meaningful reverb on the recording (I tested that). Dominant reflections added by the listening room might give an additional feeling of ´natural´ envelopment (if originating from constant directivity speakers) and might add a certain degree of reverb to ´dry´ recordings or such with decorrelated reverb, but I would not call this spatial qualities.

Frequency-indepdent, highly directional polar response does make sense under home conditions as it improves localization and dominance of the direct sound. It is just a question how frequency-independent it can get with practical loudspeakers, and at which point the listening window would be meeting audible changes of the direct sound.

I fully side with Ben (if I have understood it correctly), that narrow vertical pattern and wide horizontal pattern is a proper way to the ideal conditions, if only both are as constant over frequency bands as possible.

 

[Arindal]

You must be a very disciplined person not to enjoy a variety of postures when listening.

As mentioned, this includes a variety of positions, even laying down on the sofa or standing behind it, on vertically directional speakers, without the tonal changes you have described. If only the directional behavior of the speaker is vastly independent from frequency bands even when reaching the limits of the listening window. If you have non-coaxial speakers, particularly waveguide-loaded or d´Apollito-style arrangements, prone to lobing, this might change the picture.

 

[Curvature]

As mentioned, this includes a variety of positions, even laying down on the sofa or standing behind it, on vertically directional speakers, without the tonal changes you have described. If only the directional behavior of the speaker is vastly independent from frequency bands even when reaching the limits of the listening window. If you have non-coaxial speakers, particularly waveguide-loaded or d´Apollito-style arrangements, prone to lobing, this might change the picture.

Suggest a few speakers, with measurements, that have consistent narrow vertical directivity.

 

[Arindal]

And here is 8361 vs Manta for reference/comparison:

As mentioned previously, I would pay closer attention to the off-axis behavior in the 1-5K bands. Increase in d.i. is a bit pronounced here in my understanding to really meet constant directivity requirements. It might work out nevertheless, as the typical cardioid behavior of these frequency bands, might under real-world conditions prevent a dominance in the room, other than the d.i. is suggesting.

 

[Arindal]

Suggest a few speakers, with measurements, that have consistent narrow vertical directivity.

I agree that this category of speakers is not really popular for home use, if we do not take full range planar concepts into account which give a similar impression. Out of the ones I have tried, maybe Perlisten S7T and R7T are maybe fairly good and popular examples, with measurements being publicly available. Will check for further matches.

 

[gnarly]

That is roughly from 500 Hz to 7,000Hz. +-30deg vertical is not only too wide in my understanding to properly attenuate floor/ceiling reflections, it is also very difficult to achieve constantly over such a broad range of wavelengths.

Which speakers do achieve such even vertical pattern, except from CBT or (virtually) curved line sources or maybe very very big horns (which are difficult to meet the ´point source´ condition at the same time)?

Yep, hard to do.....but doable.
I agree that CBT lines and planars are a way to obtain even and apparent narrow vertical coverage.
I've built both CBT and straight-lines that can mimic CBTs (or act as floor to ceiling arrays. The biggest problem with such is getting VHF drivers center-to-center spacing close enough to continue acting as a line as frequency increases. That's where electrostat's, etc, shine, imo.
And agree that big horns work too.

This DIY 90x60 conical horn holds constant directivity vertically down to almost 500Hz. (and horizontal to 230Hz using Keele's classic formula).
It's MEH/unity/synergy driver arrangement is the closest solution towards 'point source' I've found yet..

I've built a bunch of these big guys with varying H/V patterns. I think +/- 30 degree vertical definitely helps reduce floor and ceiling bounce.
Oh, can't forget,..... and help with creating a large and precise soundstage!

 

[Pearljam5000]

Not sure exactly what you are commenting or referring to here. I explicitly said we currently don't really know how the CEA2034 says anything about this. As @Mort said the 8361 had the best soundstage, it was interesting to compare.

Our speakers definitely disappear, the sound is completely disconnected from the speakers.

So your speakers are better than Genelec?

 

[sigbergaudio]

So your speakers are better than Genelec?

These are your words, not mine. Where have I said this?

 

[Pearljam5000]

These are your words, not mine. Where have I said this?

I'm not saying
I'm asking
Do you feel your speakers are better

 

[sigbergaudio]

I'm not saying
I'm asking
Do you feel your speakers are better

Given how many and different models Genelec has, that is a very vague question.

I also don't think this line of reasoning leads to a good place, as I will indirectly be saying negative things about other manufacturers. I do not wish to do that if I can avoid it. There's a reason I didn't disclose which other manufacturers were in the test I referred to earlier.

From a completely generic perspective (not considering such and such manufacturer), I am very confident that our speakers deliver very good value and that anyone purchasing them will be very happy. Consumers are in the lucky situation that there is not just one, but several good manufacturers out there. Each individual customer needs to make a choice based on which compromises they want to make (price, aesthetics, sound quality, dynamic capacity, etc) - and choose the product that most closely matches that. It may be something from Sigberg Audio, it may be something from another manufacturer.

 

[Mort]

And since I see that both you and Pearljam5000 are Genelec fans,

I'm a fan for sure. I like them particularly for nearfield with high direct ratio for the bass heavy rock, pop and metal to which I listen most of the time. I also think the way they seamlessly integrate the (admittedly very expensive) subwoofers and deal with room acoustics in GLM 5.2 is the best I tried (Diraclive, audyssey, minidsp, wiim).

I like them less in larger rooms and for acoustic recordings in general I prefer something with wider directivity, so I have a ribbon tweeter downstairs in the family home theater.

There are things to not like about Genelecs aside from the directivity. The weird and limited looks turn many off. They don't play well with others. When used with GLM they make it difficult to get exactly the curve I want. They might not be expensive, and they have high resale value, but they also aren't cheap.

 

[Arindal]

It's MEH/unity/synergy driver arrangement is the closest solution towards 'point source' I've found yet..

Agreed, this is a very promising concept to achieve all goals at the same time, but very very difficult to design properly. If you build it broad enough to achieve horizontal constant directivity, it might be acting as a ´blurring´ broad source for near- or midfield. If you bring all the drivers close to each other and get it to produce vertically narrow dispersion, you might end up with horn colorations or treble radiation pattern being too narrow.
But from theoretical point - one of the most promising.

The biggest problem with such is getting VHF drivers center-to-center spacing close enough to continue acting as a line as frequency increases. That's where electrostat's, etc, shine, imo.

Fully agree. I would not count on conventional line arrays for treble. Having tried quite a few, it brought me to the idea that the problems you have described, do not allow a solution with dome tweeters. Perlisten tried a very clever combination but it is basically no array above 4K and that is a wise decision. Electrostats would be an option, but they are too broad if suitable for higher SPL.

I imagine something similar to linesources with narrow planar magnetostats and a very capable midrange array, would be easier to achieve a compromise. Just a wild guess.

 

[gnarly]

Agreed, this is a very promising concept to achieve all goals at the same time, but very very difficult to design properly. If you build it broad enough to achieve horizontal constant directivity, it might be acting as a ´blurring´ broad source for near- or midfield. If you bring all the drivers close to each other and get it to produce vertically narrow dispersion, you might end up with horn colorations or treble radiation pattern being too narrow.
But from theoretical point - one of the most promising.

Yep, they are definitely more difficult to build that conventional speakers, but enough folks have been doing it for enough years now, that they are within reach of any serious speaker builder. As far as near or midfield blurring, they probably do better up close than most all conventional designs. Certainly any design of equivalent size. Simply because the drivers are all located within a tighter distance to one another. But that said, the design does not lend itself to simply trying to get drivers as close together as possible. It's more about precisely locating the drivers on the horn to work within 1/4 wavelengths summations for each and every frequency range of crossover and driver summations. Then, the horn is what produces the H/V pattern (and the narrow vertical dispersion). Putting the drivers closer together doesn't change the dispersion.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Given how many and different models Genelec has, that is a very vague question.

I also don't think this line of reasoning leads to a good place, as I will indirectly be saying negative things about other manufacturers. I do not wish to do that if I can avoid it. There's a reason I didn't disclose which other manufacturers were in the test I referred to earlier.

From a completely generic perspective (not considering such and such manufacturer), I am very confident that our speakers deliver very good value and that anyone purchasing them will be very happy. Consumers are in the lucky situation that there is not just one, but several good manufacturers out there. Each individual customer needs to make a choice based on which compromises they want to make (price, aesthetics, sound quality, dynamic capacity, etc) - and choose the product that most closely matches that. It may be something from Sigberg Audio, it may be something from another manufacturer.

What is the science behind a big and precise soundstage and making the speaker dissappear, in the context of designing a speaker?

 

[Salt]

53 pages and 1057 posts
....

 

[Pearljam5000]

53 pages and 1057 posts
....

Lol
He said his speakers have a big soundstage and that they dissappear
So I guess he knows and can explain in one comment, and I can't read 53 pages so...