• 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!

Your loudspeakers are too small!

D

Deleted member 48726

Guest
The original L100 almost but doesn't quite fit the optimal placement instructions that I like to share whenever anyone asks about Klipsch Heresys.
Face down on the floor is good -- in someone else's abode is even better.

:cool:
Udklip.JPG
 

Neddy

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
754
Likes
1,019
Location
Wisconsin
Definitely landed on a vastly better speaker!

Maybe I'm an outlier. I always preferred the cleanly chiseled edges of the L200 over the big rounded over edges of the L300s. To me the L200 is dated but classic, the L300 has an early 80s vibe that has always put me off and still does.

View attachment 263117View attachment 263118
I agree on the design, for some reason the 200s are a cleaner look, not sure why - details, I suppose.
I still have my modified L200s; (trying not to be repetitive, but here we go again):
2216ND1s - which drop right in - pretty much 'fix' the bass issues (to 21hz), and even clean up the horn harshness around 1khz or so.
My L200s, with the 'JBL engineer approved' N8000+077 xover upgrade, and original woofers replaced with 2216ND1s:
Bi-amped, Woofs + Horn/077
New woofs:
IMG_20190520_181907517 sm .png
In place:
P1030078 cr2.png
I liked them so much I built a 'clone' L200 19" rack for the hardware:
_1030092 cr.png
 

Mr. Widget

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2022
Messages
1,146
Likes
1,697
Location
SF Bay Area
I agree on the design, for some reason the 200s are a cleaner look, not sure why - details, I suppose.
I still have my modified L200s; (trying not to be repetitive, but here we go again):
2216ND1s - which drop right in - pretty much 'fix' the bass issues (to 21hz), and even clean up the horn harshness around 1khz or so.
My L200s, with the 'JBL engineer approved' N8000+077 xover upgrade, and original woofers replaced with 2216ND1s:
Bi-amped, Woofs + Horn/077

I liked them so much I built a 'clone' L200 19" rack for the hardware:
Cool project.

I have kicked that idea around a bit myself. I think you picked the ideal woofer for the upgrade. I would suggest you look at a 10KHz 3rd order network between the LE85 and 077.

Did you actually scratch build the amp rack or did you rework a spare L200 cabinet... fun idea, but you are certifiable. :)
 

Neddy

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
754
Likes
1,019
Location
Wisconsin
Thanks!
Yes, that N8000 xover between 077 and horn has had me guessing from day 1, and haven't been able to make up my mind between fixed (op-amp) crossovers, or another DSP/crossover but better performing than the Venu. Not sure my hearing would detect subtle changes in that area, though.
Tri-amp would be possible, but would need (yet) another amp, so kind of want to stay with a two way (overall).
BTW, I think I have the sales slip for the 077 and N8000s upgrades - in 1974 it was like $250 for the set.

The rack was one of those 'gazing at the system requirements' &... 'what-if-?' - moments, so, insanely, it is scratch built.
Pretty similar to original (a bit less wide), of 3/4" walnut veneer and various add'l bits of scrap exotic woods from here and there for the edges, shelves and LOTs of rack bracing, and dual 8" (dead silent) fans in doors in back.
Milling the front edges (almost no parallel edges or planes!) was the toughest bit, otherwise just a long fussy build.
Had I known where to grab a carcasss from I'd sure have done that first, but this was a challenge I could not resist, and I have to say it turned out quite well.
It's sturdy as all get out, though it is a wee bit tight in there, for an 8 channel system; and visually can't be told from one of the real L200 cabs, even sitting side by side.

The 'input' gear - AppleTV, Oppo Bluray player, Motu ADC-USB are all behind the flap of the shelf to the right, plus 70s preamp and sony TT on top (now).
Have been a few neat projects.
 

srm51555

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
7
Likes
14
Thanks!
Yes, that N8000 xover between 077 and horn has had me guessing from day 1, and haven't been able to make up my mind between fixed (op-amp) crossovers, or another DSP/crossover but better performing than the Venu.
Or I can stop over and we can give the Giskard charged coupled crossovers I made a listen that Widget recommended to me 10 years ago. I've see these L200 cabinet in person and they are extremely well done.

Widget - Good to see you out and about. Your always a great wealth of knowledge.

Both of these members do some fine work.
 

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
722
Likes
638
Location
Eugene, OR
Horses for courses. Speakers of all sizes and shapes can sound amazingly good (at least to some people) in the right setting. That said, I'm a big fan of big, efficient speakers.

Big horn speakers in small rooms just surprised me - specifically big tweeters with directional control. I've been listening to some little Revel M16s in my 12' x 20' x 7.6' listening space and enjoying them quite a bit. They needed a sub so I ended up in the funny predicament of using my big horn bass cabinets as subs - giving me four 18" woofers loaded into 6' folded corner horns for each channel. That's a lot of woofer for such small speakers but with EQ and attenuation they matched up nicely. I noticed that as I went up in frequency with the horns it was always a win in sound quality, so the crossover frequency kept inching up. I eventually ended up at 800Hz with some heroic equalization! The bass horns were not meant to do that but they could, and the in-room response measured better and it sounded better than the little M16s could do through that entire range. Plus the M16s were now unloaded from a lot of bass and midrange duty. Next step was to incorporate the mid-bass horns to cover 300 to 800 hz, which required much less equalization and sounded and measured better of course. Finally I decided to let my horn mid-tweeters take over for the M16s. The improvement was beyond my expectations and different than I expected. Those M16s are good sounding speakers in the mids and highs and measure well so I really didn't know what more could be done other than placing them better or treating the room, which I experimenting with. I didn't feel I needed more volume. They could play loud, but seemed to lack life. The big horn tweeters made the room come alive with clarity and air that was eluded me with M16s. I thought the horns would sound loud, clear, but make the room sound even dryer because of their narrow dispersion. Somehow it doesn't work that way.

The reason I even bothered with the M16s was because I was experimenting with a 3 speaker crosstalk elimination array and I didn't have three horns that matched and could play broadband and be small enough to be fairly near each other. So now I know that I really only need the crosstalk matrix from about 800 Hz on up. Below that regular 2 channel stereo can be integrated and the imaging effects of the matrix remain. I still don't have 3 horns that match but I got an oddball center horn equalized to match the side horns well enough that the imaging width is excellent and it sounds great.

It's weird to me that even though these horn tweeters are narrow dispersion they seem to add a lot of life and air to the room. I don't notice a dullness from lack of higher frequencies as I go off axis. The measured frequency response at the listening position is very close to the same as with the M16s, with the same downward tilted room response. Subjectively it's so different it's hard to explain. It's dramatically more vibrant and clear at all levels. The room no longer sounds over damped, and the sound clarity and air carries well throughout the house. The M16s sounded good on axis but the sound thickened and seemed to lose dynamic contrast when off axis, and sounded very flat and dry when heard from adjacent spaces. That's a surprise because I thought, if anything, their wider dispersion above 800Hz would make them sound brighter and airier and maintain better clarity off axis. It's definitely not what I was expecting.

The downside is that I now hear my Denon AV receiver hissing at me because of the tweeter and mid-woofer efficiency. There's also some cone break up or something going on with the 10" drivers in the midwoofers. There are audible gremlins that need to be addressed but the overall quality of the sound is much better nonetheless.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
@Tim Link your report defies logic. Several times.

Why is it that only your M16s sound “thicker” off axis? It’s not a general property of that speaker. And at the same time “flat and dry” from “adjacent spaces” — whatever that means?

And “the in-room response measured better than the M16” — what does a better-looking in-room response look like, to you? Interested to see what is your approach to that.

And adding masses of EQ based on in-room response is very risky in terms of making the direct sound response worse, not better, especially up around 800 Hz as you said.
 

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
722
Likes
638
Location
Eugene, OR
@Tim Link your report defies logic. Several times.

Why is it that only your M16s sound “thicker” off axis? It’s not a general property of that speaker. And at the same time “flat and dry” from “adjacent spaces” — whatever that means?

And “the in-room response measured better than the M16” — what does a better-looking in-room response look like, to you? Interested to see what is your approach to that.

And adding masses of EQ based on in-room response is very risky in terms of making the direct sound response worse, not better, especially up around 800 Hz as you said.
Good questions. I'm not claiming that only my M16s sound "thicker" off axis, or that it's specifically an M16 thing. I'm struggling for words to describe the apparent effect. It sounds like something to do with how the speakers are interacting with the room, but it's not quite what I was expecting. They have a relatively wide dispersion up high compared to my horn tweeters. It's small direct radiator sound. It may not be how everybody perceives it. The M16 is a particularly good little speaker but it sounds like a very good version of that specific kind of sound. I find little speakers like this best when listened to close - like 4 or 5 feet. But it might depend on the size of the room. I might be able to get further back in a bigger room with longer first reflection times. The thing with the sound not carrying well to other rooms is a claim I make relative to horn speakers. I've had other people comment how unusually clear horn speakers can remain as you go around corners and down hallways. It's like the sound follows you. I think it's because the sound gets further into the room before significant reflections start to occur, and sound escapes the room before they can pile up so it reaches out into other spaces sounding clearer, not so "thick and flattened." The dynamics are making it through relatively unscathed.

As for the measured in-room response I'm talking about C50 clarity and the cleanness of the spectrogram plot. The first reflections create early cancellations at some frequencies that are then followed by buildup so the timing is off. It shows up as group delay. Not a fault of the speaker but a consequence of it's wide dispersion and my room dimensions. My horn speakers are floor to ceiling line arrays with mouth openings that are wider than the M16 speakers - more than twice as wide and then there's a big roundover on each side of the mouth so they reduce the problem. I agree that heavy room EQ can be dangerous but my EQ was not just based on room response in this case. The speakers themselves have a drooping response as they leave the band I designed them to work in, which is 200Hz and below. They put out sound higher than that and it happens to remain surprisingly time aligned and low in distortion. The M16 output is lower so EQing the lower bass of the horns down so that the output is flat up to 800Hz still provides an output that reasonably matches the M16s. I really didn't expect it would sound good up that high but it measured as having low distortion and a cleaner spectrogram plot at the listening position. What I heard was more to my liking.

I'm a horn fan, but I'm not certain of what all it is about horns that makes me prefer their sound. I suspect it has a lot to do with the narrower dispersion. When I first got interested in horns I assumed it was because of lower distortion and better dynamics because the cones or domes are efficiently loaded and don't have to move much. I've come to doubt that explanation because the sound that I like persists at low volume levels and my own tests of direct radiators showed me they were just as fast and dynamic at those levels and actually had a cleaner response because of a lack of compression chamber, throat and mouth resonances. It's when I look at measurements taken a ways back from the speaker at the listening position that I see more significant differences that I suspect tell more of the story. With the little M16s I can clearly see the early reflections showing up cleanly on the spectrogram plot. With the big horns they barely show up at all. I suspect those early reflections are what are giving me the impression of reduced dynamics and speed, that sound I might call thick and flat. It sounds clear and articulate but it sounds.... thickened. I might say dulled too but in saying that I don't mean lacking high frequencies. I mean the dynamics seem dulled, they come across to my ears that way, like crisp edges got a little rounded off. I know the speaker is not doing that so I'll speculate it has something to do with how my ears are percieveing the effect of the early room reflections and their relation to later room reflections. I don't know what else it can be.
 
Last edited:

Zapper

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 4, 2023
Messages
608
Likes
822
Good questions. I'm not claiming that only my M16s sound "thicker" off axis, or that it's specifically an M16 thing. I'm struggling for words to describe the apparent effect. It sounds like something to do with how the speakers are interacting with the room, but it's not quite what I was expecting. They have a relatively wide dispersion up high compared to my horn tweeters. It's small direct radiator sound. It may not be how everybody perceives it. The M16 is a particularly good little speaker but it sounds like a very good version of that specific kind of sound. I find little speakers like this best when listened to close - like 4 or 5 feet. But it might depend on the size of the room. I might be able to get further back in a bigger room with longer first reflection times. The thing with the sound not carrying well to other rooms is a claim I make relative to horn speakers. I've had other people comment how unusually clear horn speakers can remain as you go around corners and down hallways. It's like the sound follows you. I think it's because the sound gets further into the room before significant reflections start to occur, and sound escapes the room before they can pile up so it reaches out into other spaces sounding clearer, not so "thick and flattened." The dynamics are making it through relatively unscathed.

As for the measured in-room response I'm talking about C50 clarity and the cleanness of the spectrogram plot. The first reflections create early cancellations at some frequencies that are then followed by buildup so the timing is off. It shows up as group delay. Not a fault of the speaker but a consequence of it's wide dispersion and my room dimensions. My horn speakers are floor to ceiling line arrays with mouth openings that are wider than the M16 speakers - more than twice as wide and then there's a big roundover on each side of the mouth so they reduce the problem. I agree that heavy room EQ can be dangerous but my EQ was not just based on room response in this case. The speakers themselves have a drooping response as they leave the band I designed them to work in, which is 200Hz and below. They put out sound higher than that and it happens to remain surprisingly time aligned and low in distortion. The M16 output is lower so EQing the lower bass of the horns down so that the output is flat up to 800Hz still provides an output that reasonably matches the M16s. I really didn't expect it would sound good up that high but it measured as having low distortion and a cleaner spectrogram plot at the listening position. What I heard was more to my liking.

I'm a horn fan, but I'm not certain of what all it is about horns that makes me prefer their sound. I suspect it has a lot to do with the narrower dispersion. When I first got interested in horns I assumed it was because of lower distortion and better dynamics because the cones or domes are efficiently loaded and don't have to move much. I've come to doubt that explanation because the sound that I like persists at low volume levels and my own tests of direct radiators showed me they were just as fast and dynamic at those levels and actually had a cleaner response because of a lack of compression chamber, throat and mouth resonances. It's when I look at measurements taken a ways back from the speaker at the listening position that I see more significant differences that I suspect tell more of the story. With the little M16s I can clearly see the early reflections showing up cleanly on the spectrogram plot. With the big horns they barely show up at all. I suspect those early reflections are what are giving me the impression of reduced dynamics and speed, that sound I might call thick and flat. It sounds clear and articulate but it sounds.... thickened. I might say dulled too but in saying that I don't mean lacking high frequencies. I mean the dynamics seem dulled, they come across to my ears that way, like crisp edges got a little rounded off. I know the speaker is not doing that so I'll speculate it has something to do with how my ears are percieveing the effect of the early room reflections and their relation to later room reflections. I don't know what else it can be.
Makes sense to me. It seems like your big horns give you a near-field listening experience, but further away. You get the direct sound from the speaker without a lot of interference from reflections which confuse the perception of timing in the music. Similar to listening to your M16's up close. I prefer listening to small monitors up close for the same reason.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
Good questions. I'm not claiming that only my M16s sound "thicker" off axis, or that it's specifically an M16 thing. I'm struggling for words to describe the apparent effect. It sounds like something to do with how the speakers are interacting with the room, but it's not quite what I was expecting. They have a relatively wide dispersion up high compared to my horn tweeters. It's small direct radiator sound. It may not be how everybody perceives it. The M16 is a particularly good little speaker but it sounds like a very good version of that specific kind of sound. I find little speakers like this best when listened to close - like 4 or 5 feet. But it might depend on the size of the room. I might be able to get further back in a bigger room with longer first reflection times. The thing with the sound not carrying well to other rooms is a claim I make relative to horn speakers. I've had other people comment how unusually clear horn speakers can remain as you go around corners and down hallways. It's like the sound follows you. I think it's because the sound gets further into the room before significant reflections start to occur, and sound escapes the room before they can pile up so it reaches out into other spaces sounding clearer, not so "thick and flattened." The dynamics are making it through relatively unscathed.

As for the measured in-room response I'm talking about C50 clarity and the cleanness of the spectrogram plot. The first reflections create early cancellations at some frequencies that are then followed by buildup so the timing is off. It shows up as group delay. Not a fault of the speaker but a consequence of it's wide dispersion and my room dimensions. My horn speakers are floor to ceiling line arrays with mouth openings that are wider than the M16 speakers - more than twice as wide and then there's a big roundover on each side of the mouth so they reduce the problem. I agree that heavy room EQ can be dangerous but my EQ was not just based on room response in this case. The speakers themselves have a drooping response as they leave the band I designed them to work in, which is 200Hz and below. They put out sound higher than that and it happens to remain surprisingly time aligned and low in distortion. The M16 output is lower so EQing the lower bass of the horns down so that the output is flat up to 800Hz still provides an output that reasonably matches the M16s. I really didn't expect it would sound good up that high but it measured as having low distortion and a cleaner spectrogram plot at the listening position. What I heard was more to my liking.

I'm a horn fan, but I'm not certain of what all it is about horns that makes me prefer their sound. I suspect it has a lot to do with the narrower dispersion. When I first got interested in horns I assumed it was because of lower distortion and better dynamics because the cones or domes are efficiently loaded and don't have to move much. I've come to doubt that explanation because the sound that I like persists at low volume levels and my own tests of direct radiators showed me they were just as fast and dynamic at those levels and actually had a cleaner response because of a lack of compression chamber, throat and mouth resonances. It's when I look at measurements taken a ways back from the speaker at the listening position that I see more significant differences that I suspect tell more of the story. With the little M16s I can clearly see the early reflections showing up cleanly on the spectrogram plot. With the big horns they barely show up at all. I suspect those early reflections are what are giving me the impression of reduced dynamics and speed, that sound I might call thick and flat. It sounds clear and articulate but it sounds.... thickened. I might say dulled too but in saying that I don't mean lacking high frequencies. I mean the dynamics seem dulled, they come across to my ears that way, like crisp edges got a little rounded off. I know the speaker is not doing that so I'll speculate it has something to do with how my ears are percieveing the effect of the early room reflections and their relation to later room reflections. I don't know what else it can be.
Good answer, and thanks for taking the time. BTW I am more experienced with multi way EQ’d horns at home than anything else, about 25 years, going back to the days of Edgar bass horns and the first BSS digital equalisers. Glory days LOL.

So I sympathise with your story and resonate with your experiences, but your explanations jar. Hence the questions.

As Toole explains, blind listener preferences do not follow the oft-proposed dislike for early side wall reflections. In fact they are preferred in 2-channel, adding a sense of spaciousness and envelopment that is heard as advantageous by listeners.

One thing that is not doubted by Toole is the sighted listening effect (varies by individual, with some aspects like speaker size and cost more common than others). This is a tricky discussion point, because our perception mechanism is wired in such a way that we are sceptical of any suggestion that what we are perceiving may be not present in the sound waves, so convincing is the effect. Despite this I will say, as a fan of home horns, that the size, visual projection and pointiness of horns at home contribute to a very positive sighted listening effect. And there is nothing wrong with that, since we do all our listening at home sighted, so the pleasure that follows from those perceptions is real. Walking away from it is like cutting off our noses to spite our faces. I say embrace it!

The no-doubt narrower dispersion of your horns is a perceptual negative, not positive. Especially in 2-channel. The perceived clarity (if it survives a blind test) could be a direct-arrival response that is less matched to the M16 than you think, which drops off a few dB above 5.5 kHz and a few more above 11 kHz. Look at the M16 response: it could be EQ’d a bit to advantage.

I intend to continue with horns, despite the everpresent need to EQ and tweak and tune to get the objective sonics aligned with the science of preferred perceptions, and my reason for the choice is because sighted listening effect is a real thing to take advantage of, not to be ignored.

cheers
 
Last edited:

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
722
Likes
638
Location
Eugene, OR
I am convinced of sighted listening effects and how powerful they can be. I will admit that I have no idea how much of an effect it is having on me. If I have inadvertently romanced myself into a desireable perception, that in itself is a marvelous thing. Can I learn to do this with my Bose wave radio?

So it is accepted that narrower dispersion undoubtedly sounds different to most listeners, with most preferring a wider dispersion with more early reflections in blind listening tests. It doesn't mean I prefer it in every situation, but I've never tried the blind test in a variety of different sized rooms. An experience I've had with wide dispersion speakers is a sudden change in perception of the sound. All of a sudden it can go from sounding spacious to thick and confused. I go back and play the piece I was just listening to and it's like my mind can't get itself around it like could just minutes before. Reminds me of looking at those 3D pattern pictures that you have to uncross your eyes to see. I sometimes just couldn't get it to happen, or sometimes my eyes would go the wrong way and the 3d effect would be inverted. Ever look at a picture of the moon taken by a spacecraft and had the craters all look like mounds? I get that when I can't tell which way the sun is shining on the surface. The lighting can be intrepted by my mind wrong and it's hard for me to get it back once I'm in the wrong mode. It's a confusing signal. The surface of the moon goes from looking sharp and jagged to smooth and roundy.

In a small bedroom I experimented with some very wide dispersion designs and in that situation the speakers that were close to omni were my favorites for listening at as much distance a the room would reasonably allow. For some reason I didn't stick with that. Ultimately I found much more satisfaction in just getting closer to some speakers with waveguides, playing them out of the corner and adding some TubeTraps to the room.

Yes, I saw the drooping response on the M16s and hoped to work on that to counter what I percieved to be a over damped room problem but couldn't get anything perceptually beneficial to happen with EQ. I really thought they sounded great without any EQ. I've set up the similar F35 speakers in a much larger space and they sounded great in there once I got a subwoofer coordinated with them. Plenty of liveliness and spaciousness. I preferred them by a significant margin with a center channel and Dolby logic upmixing - movie mode not music mode.

I'm not surprised that people prefered more reflections especially with stereo listening. 2 speaker stereo setups absolutely need help from room reflections. The direct signal from the 2 speakers has strong direct crosstalk so spacioiusness effects are limited and tonality is altered for center panned images. Reflections can mask the tonality issues and widen the stereo effect. I've suffered with unsatisfying center panned vocals from my 2 channel horns for years. Currently I'm using a crosstalk elimination method which creates much more than usual inter arual separation from the direct signal and has a dedicated center channel. Wall reflections don't seem to be as helpful in this case. Others who have worked with crosstalk reduction methods all pretty much report that the early reflections are not so helpful and usually harmful to the imaging and tone.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
How many of those blind tests of narrow vs wide dispersion speakers included speakers that had an equal constant directivity in frequency? And how many were conducted with different types of acoustic treatment or room sizes?

It's very likely that the wide dispersion speaker under such test maintained the directivity much lower in frequency. Meaning one is also comparing speakers that are very different in the uniformity of the dispersion pattern and the comparison of wide vs narrow directivity becomes moot. It's much easier to design a speaker with wide and constant directivty over a wide frequency band compared to narrow and constant over a wide frequency area. One also needs to consider the vertical directivity here.

The geometry of the room and acoustics will also effect such a test.

Bottom line is that we don't really have any proper science that tell us that wide dispersion speaker is preferable.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
How many of those blind tests of narrow vs wide dispersion speakers included speakers that had an equal constant directivity in frequency? And how many were conducted with different types of acoustic treatment or room sizes?

It's very likely that the wide dispersion speaker under such test maintained the directivity much lower in frequency. Meaning one is also comparing speakers that are very different in the uniformity of the dispersion pattern and the comparison of wide vs narrow directivity becomes moot. It's much easier to design a speaker with wide and constant directivty over a wide frequency band compared to narrow and constant over a wide frequency area. One also needs to consider the vertical directivity here.

The geometry of the room and acoustics will also effect such a test.

Bottom line is that we don't really have any proper science that tell us that wide dispersion speaker is preferable.
I think there is ‘proper science’ and that the point is sufficiently demonstrated to adopt.
 

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
722
Likes
638
Location
Eugene, OR
How many of those blind tests of narrow vs wide dispersion speakers included speakers that had an equal constant directivity in frequency? And how many were conducted with different types of acoustic treatment or room sizes?

It's very likely that the wide dispersion speaker under such test maintained the directivity much lower in frequency. Meaning one is also comparing speakers that are very different in the uniformity of the dispersion pattern and the comparison of wide vs narrow directivity becomes moot. It's much easier to design a speaker with wide and constant directivty over a wide frequency band compared to narrow and constant over a wide frequency area. One also needs to consider the vertical directivity here.

The geometry of the room and acoustics will also effect such a test.

Bottom line is that we don't really have any proper science that tell us that wide dispersion speaker is preferable.
I was wondering about that too but decided not to mention it in my reply as I really don't know for sure how narrow the speakers they tested were in the midrange and if any of them were well balanced full range horns. I have found speakers that are very narrow up top compared to down below to sound dark in 2 speaker configurations if I wasn't right on axis. On my big horns I found that pursuing a smooth off axis response was important and I ended up with tweeter horns that were large and not too narrow up top to make that happen. My current setup has a very narrow dispersion exponential horn for the center because that's all I've got available now. I expect the sound would improve if I got another CD type horn.
One interesting thing about my room measurements with the horns compared to the M16s is that the RT60 time actually increased in the higher frequencies. It's now close to 0.3 seconds all the way up when measuring the center speaker where before it was falling considerably below that above about 3000 Hz. My guess about why is that less of the sound is being shot down at the carpet and at angles toward the sidewalls, with more of iit able to bounce straight back and forth between the back wall and the TV screen. right angle bounces tend to also be more efficient than angled sidewall bounces so the sound can persist longer. Also there are fewer bounces because that's the longest path iin the room. And finally there's an upright piano in the back with a hard glossy finish, and the TV also has a hard glossy finish.
Another notable thing is that the initial spike is higher now compared to the reverb tail. So we've got the situation of a higher direct to reflected ratio with a. longer reverb tail. That sounds like what you might expect from listening in a larger, more lively space. My understanding is that 0.3 is generally recognized as a good RT60 for hifi rooms, and it is preferable if it is little higher down in the lower bass and upper treble. My bass does go up but my treble is still drooping a little.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom