Recommend speakers that disappear

[Thomas_A]

Ime a fair amount of radiation pattern control is required before time/intensity trading works well. I have never had it work well with conventional cone-n-dome speakers, nor with any speakers that have a wide-dispersion tweeter. I have had it work well with speakers that use a good waveguide, as well as with speakers that use a small, well-behaved wideband driver for the top end.

Eyeballing @Thomas_A's avatar, it looks to me like his speakers use a small-diameter wideband driver for the top end, along with felt that is thick enough to actually be effective, and then his front baffle has nice large bevels along with a non-rectangular face which further reduces the already minimal edge diffraction effects. The increased directivity of the wideband drivers would further reduce the illumination of the cabinet edges. Imo his is a very thorough design.

And more to the point of this thread, the above mentioned characteristics all reduce undesirable cabinet edge diffraction effects, which tend to degrade the spatial quality and can keep speakers from "disappearing".



Ime with speakers which work well with time/intensity trading there is no degradation of sound quality when they are set up that way. Ime the primary tradeoff is a reduction in the apparent source width (soundstage width) relative to a more conventional setup geometry due to the significant reduction in strength of the early same-side-wall reflections.

With 45 degrees of toe-in and an equilateral triangle (speaker axes crossing in front of the listener), the central sweet spot is 15 degrees off-axis of each loudspeaker. With the same equilateral triangle and the speakers toed-in by a modest 15 degrees (speaker axes crossing behind the listener), the listener is at the same 15 degrees off-axis. So the change in direct-to-reverberant sound ratio from using a time/intensity trading setup geometry may not be as much as one would expect.

What DOES change significantly is, the time delay between the direct sound and the first strong lateral reflections, which now arrive from the OPPOSITE side wall. Imo this can have spatial quality benefits, which I can describe if you're interested.

* * *

Since there seems to be controversy over the use of the term "disappearing" in this context, here is my usage of the term:

If you close your eyes and can easily hear the loudspeaker locations (using source material which is not hard-panned to one speaker of the other), then imo the speakers do not "disappear". If you close your eyes and the locations of the loudspeakers are not apparent, then imo the speakers do "disappear".

My speakers are something in-between. Side-wall reflections are there but quite controlled and low enough in level to not disturb. My most important "thing" to me is the bit less energy around 2.5-4 kHz (7-8 kHz is an area of interest as well...). It is just tuned by listening; a perfect linear response gives me a bit fatigue especially female voices and counter tenors, and reveals the speakers as speakers. Below on-axis (narrow window) and LP (wide window).

 

[Snarfie]

Here's Erin's measurements of the Treo CT:

Vandersteen Treo CT Speaker Review

Vandersteen Treo CT Speaker

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Got Vandersteen model 1 speakers even the model 2 did sound less in my attic with sadle roof. Specific in my room an DSP corrected they sound (subjectively) using well recorded music almost liquid they disappear completely.

 

[Jaxjax]

Guess I'm good...my shits all scrambled in the middle between the speakers with an occasional outside the speakers with baked in studio trickery on the recording.

 

[goat76]

Ime a fair amount of radiation pattern control is required before time/intensity trading works well. I have never had it work well with conventional cone-n-dome speakers, nor with any speakers that have a wide-dispersion tweeter. I have had it work well with speakers that use a good waveguide, as well as with speakers that use a small, well-behaved wideband driver for the top end.

Eyeballing @Thomas_A's avatar, it looks to me like his speakers use a small-diameter wideband driver for the top end, along with felt that is thick enough to actually be effective, and then his front baffle has nice large bevels along with a non-rectangular face which further reduces the already minimal edge diffraction effects. The increased directivity of the wideband drivers would further reduce the illumination of the cabinet edges. The tilt-back of his front baffle improves the time-domain blending of the two drivers, and reduces internal standing waves. Imo his is a very thorough design.

And more to the point of this thread, the above mentioned characteristics all reduce undesirable cabinet edge diffraction effects, which tend to degrade the spatial quality and can keep speakers from "disappearing". Potential resonances would also be minimized.



Ime with speakers which work well with time/intensity trading there is no degradation of sound quality when they are set up that way. Ime the primary tradeoff is a reduction in the apparent source width (soundstage width) relative to a more conventional setup geometry due to the significant reduction in strength of the early same-side-wall reflections.

With 45 degrees of toe-in and an equilateral triangle (speaker axes crossing in front of the listener), the central sweet spot is 15 degrees off-axis of each loudspeaker. With the same equilateral triangle and the speakers toed-in by a modest 15 degrees (speaker axes crossing behind the listener), the listener is at the same 15 degrees off-axis. So the change in direct-to-reverberant sound ratio from using a time/intensity trading setup geometry may not be as much as one would expect.

What DOES change significantly is, the time delay between the direct sound and the first strong lateral reflections, which now arrive from the OPPOSITE side wall. Imo this can have spatial quality benefits, which I can describe if you're interested.

* * *

@Thomas_A can probably confirm this himself, but I don't think he has an equilateral listening triangle of 30 degrees, it's likely closer to 22 degrees if I remember it correctly from a Swedish forum we both are members of. So, how will that compare in direct-to-reverberant sound ratio to an equilateral setup where the speaker axes are crossing one foot behind the listener's head?

If someone is interested in fully optimizing stereo listening, it can only be a "one-man-sport" activity where all the optimization should be for a single sweet spot. Anything else will be a compromise, and if that was what it takes to "force" the disappearance of the loudspeakers, I would personally gladly be without it in favor of a fully optimized stereo image. Happily, this is all down to personal preferences in the end, and everyone is free to tune their systems as they like.

Since there seems to be controversy over the use of the term "disappearing" in this context, here is my usage of the term:

If you close your eyes and can easily hear the loudspeaker locations (using source material which is not hard-panned to one speaker of the other), then imo the speakers do not "disappear". If you close your eyes and the locations of the loudspeakers are not apparent, then imo the speakers do "disappear".

I have the same view as you on this.

It is only when recorded sound objects that are supposed to be phantom sounds but are still perceived as coming from the position of the loudspeakers that there is a real "disappearing" problem. The most common reason for this is most likely a speaker positioning problem, but it can also be other things like resonances, distortion, or a mismatched frequency response between the two loudspeakers. But I don't think deliberately making the sound less defined/more diffused to achieve the "disappearance" of the loudspeakers is something to strive for, in general.

 

[Daverz]

To me speakers "disappearing" means producing a seamless, even curtain of sound between and perhaps a little beyond the edges of the speakers (when set up to close the "hole in the middle") so that the locations of the speakers aren't priveliged. Instrumental images are stable and don't shift around (unless the musicians or mics do). The enemies of this effect are, I believe, cabinet resonances and poor on-axis and off-axis response.

Of the speakers I've owned, the best disappearing act was achieved by the diminutive NHT XDS active system. You could just plop these down anywhere and stable images would seem to float in between them.

 

[J.M. Noble]

For the OP: Bose 901s with the front facing driver disconnected.

Or just face one of your speakers at the wall. Run the other one out of phase.

Imaging is overrated.

 

[Duke]

@Thomas_A can probably confirm this himself, but I don't think he has an equilateral listening triangle of 30 degrees, it's likely closer to 22 degrees if I remember it correctly from a Swedish forum we both are members of. So, how will that compare in direct-to-reverberant sound ratio to an equilateral setup where the speaker axes are crossing one foot behind the listener's head?

I would be interested to know what setup geometry @Thomas_A has found to work best in his situation.

I don't think deliberately making the sound less defined/more diffused to achieve the "disappearance" of the loudspeakers is something to strive for, in general.

I don't think it's necessarily either/or, but sometimes it probably is. Like many things in audio, it depends on the specifics.

Ime there is more to definition and clarity than the direct-to-reverberant ratio. There is also the time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections. We can increase this time gap by moving to a larger room and taking advantage of its size; by pulling our speakers further out from the walls and/or sitting closer to them; by using a time/intensity trading setup geometry IF and ONLY IF our speakers work well that way; or some combination thereof.

 

[thewas]

Since there seems to be controversy over the use of the term "disappearing" in this context, here is my usage of the term:

If you close your eyes and can easily hear the loudspeaker locations (using source material which is not hard-panned to one speaker of the other), then imo the speakers do not "disappear". If you close your eyes and the locations of the loudspeakers are not apparent, then imo the speakers do "disappear".

In good combinations of loudspeakers and rooms I would take that even a step further, namely the sound seems to not come from the loudspeakers even with open eyes.

 

[Duke]

In good combinations of loudspeakers and rooms I would take that even a step further, namely the sound seems to not come from the loudspeakers even with open eyes.

Yes, and imo THAT is a lot of fun! It's like the music is just happening spontaneously in the air over there, independent of those two questionable-looking objects with the ugly wires snaking across the floor to them.

 

[thewas]

Yes, and imo THAT is a lot of fun! It's like the music is just happening spontaneously in the air over there, independent of those two questionable-looking objects with the ugly wires snaking across the floor to them.

Exactly, I love that and this is something that from my experience most of normal population have never experienced in their lives. As a funny anecdote once I had the mother of an ex girlfriend of mine to listen to my setup and she immediately acted surprised and asked me if there was also a loudspeaker in the middle where the electronics rack was.

 

[Thomas_A]

@Thomas_A can probably confirm this himself, but I don't think he has an equilateral listening triangle of 30 degrees, it's likely closer to 22 degrees if I remember it correctly from a Swedish forum we both are members of. So, how will that compare in direct-to-reverberant sound ratio to an equilateral setup where the speaker axes are crossing one foot behind the listener's head?

If someone is interested in fully optimizing stereo listening, it can only be a "one-man-sport" activity where all the optimization should be for a single sweet spot. Anything else will be a compromise, and if that was what it takes to "force" the disappearance of the loudspeakers, I would personally gladly be without it in favor of a fully optimized stereo image. Happily, this is all down to personal preferences in the end, and everyone is free to tune their systems as they like.

You are correct in that it is closer to 23° and a bit more if I am leaning forward. Due to the beveled design there is not much diffraction effects and a very smooth off-axis response. That and reducing the level of the first reflections that comes from speaker side and walls is done by heavy toe-in and also the felt around the tweeter. The felt mainly reduce reflection against the speaker-wall and gives better detail. A poor mans wave-guide. With only two speakers it is a challenge to reduce the cues that reveals the speakers as speakers.

 

[solderdude]

I don't care about anything else other than,
1. Speakers that disappear

ask a burglar to nick them when you aren't watching ?

 

[Beave]

Hey @Wavetouch, instead of spamming the forum with your speakers, why don't you send a pair in to Amir so he can measure them with the NFS?

 

[Daverz]

I have 2 recommendations.
Wavetouch audio GT SE ($3k used)

Wavetouch audio Antero ($6k used)

Too horny looking for me.

 

[Newman]

I am not sure of what I think about the concept of disappearing loudspeakers. I am especially not sure what I think about it being a major priority. But I am well aware of how entrenched it is in the audiophile mantra list.

My issue is this. Quite a lot of individual subtracks of a stereo mix (and MCH too) are hard-panned to one side, and it would be wrong to have that not sound like it is coming exactly from the speaker. So why make it a goal?

Imagine mono music from a mono speaker. How would you make this disappear, while still having the sound waves coming from its exact location? By making it omni, spraying music everywhere? Even if it were entirely rear-firing, it would still seem to have the music coming from the exact speaker location, only bigger. The only way to 'dislodge' the music from the speaker would be to place it asymmetrically near to one wall, and hope the music sprayed at the wall will create a phantom source between the two. This does not seem like a goal that does much more than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And talk of mono brings me to centre speakers. I have one. Even when it is not turned on, and I am playing stereo music, I have had people observe that the centre speaker is playing, and ask why I am doing that (I use an AVR). They have literally disbelieved me when I said it is not playing, and insisted that something must be turned on that I am not aware of, and making the centre speaker play. I have had to lie it face down on the carpet before they say, "well I'll be darned". The centre speaker is not even on a straight line between the left and right, instead it is 300mm lower. So there is a strong ventriloquist effect going on here, which is perfectly natural, even when the speaker is completely silent! So I ask, do we want the centre speaker to disappear? Why? It isn't even natural. And if we don't care about the centre speaker disappearing, why care about the others?

The ventriloquist effect means it would be only right and natural to perceive sound as coming exactly from the speaker, even when it isn't, eg when it is panned to anywhere near it. Viewed in this way, the goal of disappearing speakers seems absolutely unnatural and bizarre. Worth a rethink?

cheers

 

[Clmrt]

I think it is tone, placement, and ambience (room and recorded space) in perfect balance, both inside, outside and above the speakers' plane of placement. Perfect channel matching, no resonance, no room noise from fixtures or furnishings.

In mono, it would be a 2-dimensional, narrow window of sound at the source that gains some width, just a little, as you back away from the speaker and let the room help reinforce the 3D illusion in a central space.

 

[Beave]

"Speaker that disappears" is a sound quality of many in hi-end audio. My priority in hi-end audio is the recreation of original sound. And these Anteros do that better than others.

Send a pair to Amir for measurements so we can see for ourselves.

 

[Galliardist]

I am not sure of what I think about the concept of disappearing loudspeakers. I am especially not sure what I think about it being a major priority. But I am well aware of how entrenched it is in the audiophile mantra list.

My issue is this. Quite a lot of individual subtracks of a stereo mix (and MCH too) are hard-panned to one side, and it would be wrong to have that not sound like it is coming exactly from the speaker. So why make it a goal?

Imagine mono music from a mono speaker. How would you make this disappear, while still having the sound waves coming from its exact location? By making it omni, spraying music everywhere? Even if it were entirely rear-firing, it would still seem to have the music coming from the exact speaker location, only bigger. The only way to 'dislodge' the music from the speaker would be to place it asymmetrically near to one wall, and hope the music sprayed at the wall will create a phantom source between the two. This does not seem like a goal that does much more than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And talk of mono brings me to centre speakers. I have one. Even when it is not turned on, and I am playing stereo music, I have had people observe that the centre speaker is playing, and ask why I am doing that (I use an AVR). They have literally disbelieved me when I said it is not playing, and insisted that something must be turned on that I am not aware of, and making the centre speaker play. I have had to lie it face down on the carpet before they say, "well I'll be darned". The centre speaker is not even on a straight line between the left and right, instead it is 300mm lower. So there is a strong ventriloquist effect going on here, which is perfectly natural, even when the speaker is completely silent! So I ask, do we want the centre speaker to disappear? Why? It isn't even natural. And if we don't care about the centre speaker disappearing, why care about the others?

The ventriloquist effect means it would be only right and natural to perceive sound as coming exactly from the speaker, even when it isn't, eg when it is panned to anywhere near it. Viewed in this way, the goal of disappearing speakers seems absolutely unnatural and bizarre. Worth a rethink?

cheers

The visual aspect of this is quite strong. I remember attending a guitar quartet concert - must be 20 years ago now - in a theatre where amplification was in use. Eyes open, the guitarists were playing the music.
Eyes closed, they were blobs hovering 20 feet above the stage!

A different effect can happen with stereo speakers in the home, that I have observed myself (including with a CD of the same quartet). Eyes open, two of the guitarists played from the speakers, and the other two between the speakers, spread evenly. Eyes closed, the guitarists at the edges seemed to be coming from slightly beyond the speakers, if I tried to point at them and then open my eyes. I imagine this to be the "disappearing effect", where an image hangs in space slightly in front of the speakers and is wider than the distance between the speakers.

With a different recording of a jazz quartet with the piano in the left speaker, when I closed my eyes, again, the piano moved to a point well inside the speaker.

With both of these recordings, listening through headphones, none of the instrurments actually seemed to be hard-panned left or right. When listening to other music like electronic recordings with obviously hard panned instruments, the sound of the instruments with my speakers resolutely refuses to move from the front of the speaker itself.

My conclusion is that you can't completely make speakers disappear, but maybe effects from the recording or the room (or specific adaptation like BACCH) can play a part in expanding the apparent image. In my case, my sight is dominant enough to make me hear certain things from the "likely source" at a guess.

My target for stereo has always been to have a good soundstage between the speakers with some depth. How well this happens depends a lot on the recording. Remember that my speakers are not properly placed in the room by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm a strong believer in optimal stereo speaker placement for good results, building things like subs, EQ and treatments around that optimal placement as needed.

In practice, we should get more of the speaker disappearing act from multichannel because sound placement can always then sit between channels rather than panned to any one. Atmos and similar systems can use virtual channels, and so apparent sources don't need to be where speakers are. If the OP wants their speakers to disappear, properly, then (as so often) is that the real solution, depending maybe on the mix?

As an aside, my new work headphones (Bose QC Ultra) give some height and depth information from Apple Music with Dolby Atmos rather than the phasey mess I had before, but the headphones don't "disappear" either... now, how to get that from Windows at home? - that's OT to this thread though.

 

[antcollinet]

I have 2 recommendations.
Wavetouch audio GT SE ($3k used)

Wavetouch audio Antero ($6k used)

Rules for Audio Dealers, Manufacturers, Members with Commercial Interest. This includes any Guest Contributors/Reviewer with Commercial endorsement

Audio Science Review Rules for Dealers, Manufacturers, Reviewers and Members of Industry. We encourage participation from members of industry in the forum. So please do not feel unwelcome here. We expect you to post with highest levels of professionalism. You are representing an industry...

www.audiosciencereview.com

In particular

Any for sale item needs to be posted in the Desperate Dealers forum: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?forums/desperate-dealers-forum.37/

 

[Wavetouch]

Rules for Audio Dealers, Manufacturers, Members with Commercial Interest. This includes any Guest Contributors/Reviewer with Commercial endorsement

Audio Science Review Rules for Dealers, Manufacturers, Reviewers and Members of Industry. We encourage participation from members of industry in the forum. So please do not feel unwelcome here. We expect you to post with highest levels of professionalism. You are representing an industry...

www.audiosciencereview.com

In particular

I see my post can be inappropriate. Yes. I made these spkrs. I'm careful what I post. These spkrs are not in production currently. They are not selling anywhere by me or anyone. I posted only once of these spkrs info to OP's request of recommendation. I won't post these spkrs again in this thread. Thank you for info!