• 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!

What makes speakers "disappear " and can it be measured?

That pulse response in the link, is stunning.
Tack!/Tak!

I know that it is “frequency response uber alles” here.
At some point the time domain behaviour matters. These seem to have it.
To add, the designer does not really say that this is a crucial property. In the frequency range of 200-2000 Hz there may be, during certain circumstances, audible difference. And he adds that other aspects of the speaker out such as frequency response and distortion is much more important.

(I reread his documents and the first pi60 speaker came 1978. The designer, Ingvar Öhman, was at that time 16 years old.)
 
My simpleton theory, they definitely don’t need to be a source point design. Very low enclosure resonance is important. The quality of design as in matching the drivers correctly with well thought out crossover and driver selection and attention to phase coherence. A narrow enclosure with rounded edges helps. And a decent frequency response.

Also, the room and speaker setup is extremely important.
 
That pulse response in the link, is stunning.
Tack!/Tak!

I know that it is “frequency response uber alles” here.
At some point the time domain behaviour matters. These seem to have it.
These graphs are from the original Dunlavy SC-IV, released 30 years ago. The impulse and step response are nearly perfect. A year after production started John Dunlavy changed tweeters, woofers, tweaked the crossovers, improved cabinet bracing and binding posts, because he didn't think this was good enough, and he could improve them. Stereophile also reviewed the SC-I, SC-IV/A and SC-VI, which all had similar impressive measurements. Unfortunately Stereophile never reviewed the SC-V, which John claimed was his favorite speaker. and the most accurate speaker he'd ever built, so the measurements should have been even better. The SC-III, IV, IV/A, V, and VI were all spec'd ± 1.5 db across the frequency range, and speakers never left the factory unless they met or exceeded reference specs.

1726903470253.png
1726903532637.png
 
Is part of the esoteric realm with a relation to the cost of the speaker and the personality of the owner.
 
Is part of the esoteric realm with a relation to the cost of the speaker and the personality of the owner.

No - probably more that most people do not care that the speaker is putting the sound out into the room in the way that the microphone picked it.
They do not care whether the speaker is going backwards or forwards, as long the FR looks ok.
 
I’ve listened to some pretty humble speakers that successfully disappeared, so I really don’t think this is significantly a property of the speaker.

A good room with speakers and seating placed well in the room seems to me all that is required as long as the speakers don’t have extreme faults.
 
I’ve listened to some pretty humble speakers that successfully disappeared, so I really don’t think this is significantly a property of the speaker.

A good room with speakers and seating placed well in the room seems to me all that is required as long as the speakers don’t have extreme faults.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this whole thread is just people throwing up 'sensible-seeming ideas'...
 
I’ve listened to some pretty humble speakers that successfully disappeared, so I really don’t think this is significantly a property of the speaker.

A good room with speakers and seating placed well in the room seems to me all that is required as long as the speakers don’t have extreme faults.

I certainly see something to that. it doesn’t seem to take much for a pair of stereo speakers to produce a stereo presentation, and naturally that’s going to mean a lot happening in between the speakers.

But then, and I think it’s clear many of us have had this experience, there just seems to be speakers that take it to a whole new level.
Even when you were used to regular stereo imaging, some speakers seem to “ disappear” just that much more so you kind of go “Whoah.” That sense that you can look right at the speaker and not get any sense whatsoever that they are creating the sound is pretty neat.

As I mentioned before in my experience a number of audio physics speakers seem to do that really well, as did my MBL omnis, some Waveform speakers that I had (egg shaped mid range tweeter enclosure).
My current floorstander speakers do that very well too.

I also had the Thiel flagship 3.7 speakers and the slightly smaller 2.7 version of those speakers in my home at the same time for quite a while, going back-and-forth between them. Although the 3.7s were the bigger wider speaker, they actually seemed to
“ disappear” a bit better, in the sense that even hard panned instruments seem to float more free of the speaker. I’m not sure why, if perhaps there is some little resonance or something calling attention to the smaller 2.7.

I know the 3.7 was a bit more of an ambitious design, with the front baffle holding the drivers being made of solid aluminum, and a solid aluminum cap. Versus the cheaper MDF front baffle of the 2.7. so perhaps there’s a little little bit more resonance going on with the 2.7? I don’t know.
 
Last edited:
the sound was coming from the big black room dividers against the wall
My speakers (average 2-way, SEOS24+15", in corners, 45º toed in) look like pointless, unnecessary, superfluous objects. The sounds look like they're coming from wall-mounted subwoofers.
 
Last edited:
I did an experiment over the last few days where I used 2' x 4' panels to redirect first reflections away from me and back toward the speaker they came from, including across the room reflections, the ones that would normally cross your head from the opposite direction than the sound directly from the speaker. This creates some amazing stereophonic effects that normally don't happen in my untreated room, so I'm giving another vote for room setup helping to make speakers disappear. Even sounds panned directly on the speaker seemed to be somehow disassociated from the speaker. This was particularly interesting to me because I've been slowly working on a project to make a wide range mid-horn with constant directivity and minimal diffraction in hopes that it would cause just this sort of effect.
Funny thing about it is that after a couple days of listening, I took the panels down and it was a bit of a relief. The soundstage is flatter and more stuck to the front wall, less of a sonic marvel, and thus less distracting.
It seems like ultimately I can't be pleased with any result.
 
I did an experiment over the last few days where I used 2' x 4' panels to redirect first reflections away from me and back toward the speaker they came from, including across the room reflections, the ones that would normally cross your head from the opposite direction than the sound directly from the speaker. This creates some amazing stereophonic effects that normally don't happen in my untreated room, so I'm giving another vote for room setup helping to make speakers disappear. Even sounds panned directly on the speaker seemed to be somehow disassociated from the speaker. This was particularly interesting to me because I've been slowly working on a project to make a wide range mid-horn with constant directivity and minimal diffraction in hopes that it would cause just this sort of effect.
Funny thing about it is that after a couple days of listening, I took the panels down and it was a bit of a relief. The soundstage is flatter and more stuck to the front wall, less of a sonic marvel, and thus less distracting.
It seems like ultimately I can't be pleased with any result.

That’s interesting. I’m trying to imagine it in my head now. Any chance of a diagram/sketch of the setup?
 
These graphs are from the original Dunlavy SC-IV, released 30 years ago. The impulse and step response are nearly perfect. A year after production started John Dunlavy changed tweeters, woofers, tweaked the crossovers, improved cabinet bracing and binding posts, because he didn't think this was good enough, and he could improve them. Stereophile also reviewed the SC-I, SC-IV/A and SC-VI, which all had similar impressive measurements. Unfortunately Stereophile never reviewed the SC-V, which John claimed was his favorite speaker. and the most accurate speaker he'd ever built, so the measurements should have been even better. The SC-III, IV, IV/A, V, and VI were all spec'd ± 1.5 db across the frequency range, and speakers never left the factory unless they met or exceeded reference specs.

View attachment 393725View attachment 393726
I had a pair of VIs and a few of the smaller Dunlavy, I think it was the I. Bought them sight unseen just listening to John explain what he had done and looking at the impulse and step response. The VIs were huge. Really too big for residential use. Looking back I should have gotten Vs. Sounded OK, but not terribly resolving. It would be interesting to see how these measure using more modern tools. If I had to guess, this would show increasing distortion and compression at moderate to high levels. Challenge using first order crossovers because the drivers are tasked to operate at lower frequencies than they like. That said, for the time they were extraordinary.
 
Last edited:
Not on ASR!!! The horror......
apocalpyse-now-.gif


maybe dipole speakers for surrounds again , sidewall arrays of them and back wall and arrays of them on the ceiling , and below in-floor surround matrix arrays that can be format mode type that will put rich peoples home atmos theatres in the dust

JBL HT1D these make you feel like george lucas if you can get arrays of them cheaply under $£100 for the pair often they are in good condition
the way i would use them for overhead shhhh top secret you want the overhead to be directional and diffused at the same time
s-l1200 (1).jpg
 
Last edited:
That’s interesting. I’m trying to imagine it in my head now. Any chance of a diagram/sketch of the setup?
Hopefully this explains it well. I'm using horn speakers in the corners. They're pretty directional so I'm not treating the first reflections directly adjacent to a speaker. But there is a panel right next to each speaker that is actually treating the reflection caused by the speaker on the other side of the room. The two panels flanking the chair to catch the rear reflections seem to be most effective.

I just set it back up and was perplexed that it didn't seem to be working. Turns out I had the flanking panels too close, to me, so they were missing the actual reflection path to my head.

Another thing I forgot to do that turns out to be important is catch the ceiling reflections too. I put little absorber hoods above my tweeters and that seems to make more imaging magic happen.

reflection redirection panels.png
 
Last edited:
I’ve listened to some pretty humble speakers that successfully disappeared, so I really don’t think this is significantly a property of the speaker.

A good room with speakers and seating placed well in the room seems to me all that is required as long as the speakers don’t have extreme faults.
Horn speakers do this. Near field does this. It’s not quality. It’s the relative absence of reflections.

Horns tend to have irregular frequency response. Waveguides seem to be a good compromise.
 
Horn speakers do this. Near field does this. It’s not quality. It’s the relative absence of reflections.

Horns tend to have irregular frequency response. Waveguides seem to be a good compromise.
Yes, I've decided that efficiently loading horns are usually more efficient than anybody really needs at home. I think of a waveguide as a 90 degree flare sort of thing that's basically conical with some curves to deal with the throat transition, and a roundover at the mouth. They control directivity and give you some amount of loading boost that you get to EQ back to flat as a bonus.
 
Hopefully this explains it well. I'm using horn speakers in the corners. They're pretty directional so I'm not treating the first reflections directly adjacent to a speaker. But there is a panel right next to each speaker that is actually treating the reflection caused by the speaker on the other side of the room. The two panels flanking the chair to catch the rear reflections seem to be most effective.

I just set it back up and was perplexed that it didn't seem to be working. Turns out I had the flanking panels too close, to me, so they were missing the actual reflection path to my head.

Another thing I forgot to do that turns out to be important is catch the ceiling reflections too. I put little absorber hoods above my tweeters and that seems to make more imaging magic happen.

View attachment 421724

Got it, thank you (my initial mistake was trying to visualise how you angled for same side first reflection and its across-the-room counterpart).
 
Back
Top Bottom