Audio theory on "upgrade or expand". - Page 3

No, I do understand. There is no diffraction in Sweden.
So here is a nice article to read. Very pertinent:
http://www.speakerdesign.net/audioXp...ffraction.html



Got it now?

cheers,

AJ

Looks sort of like Lubriderm. Btw, you know how some real estate listings have walk-throughs with static pictures of all the rooms? A couple of years ago I saw one where there was a room with something like an entertainment unit with shelves. Well on that shelf was a big old facial massager that could've been a toy cruise missile. I should've saved the pic because a couple of days later it was gone.
OK.

first post since mine, and again he has avoided the questions directed towards him.

Terry, how on earth could your speakers suffer from diffraction problems? Or any other, like horrible polar response due to direct radiators of wildly varying piston diameter, slapped on a flat baffle???
Look, lets remember the facts -
Here is what you said about those delusional, narcissistic, exaggerated hyperbole subjectivists:
Clearly you are not self delusional or prone to exaggerated hyperbole.
So when you say:
Then we know this is an accurate, humble assessment, rather than self delusional exaggerated hyperbole!

I mean, yes, I know it appears the drivers aren't even flush mounted. And are direct radiators with zero directional control. But what would that matter?
Remember, when you designed them for the easy chair with the DEQX remote, you jut pressed the button "Fix All Off Axis...and Polar Response"...right?? Yes? Must have, because:
Make sense?

cheers,

AJ

p.s. Btw, terry, if your speakers can "compete with any system at any price anywhere on the planet", why do you have mandatory bandages and gauze pasted to your walls??
You're not listening in that 8x8 tiled dunny are you?

Terry, on second thought, it's abundantly clear why you feel happy and confident that your speakers would compete with any system at any price anywhere on the planet





Clearly you have superior off axis and polar response, like the overwhelming body of research by Toole et al show via DBT to be preferred.
Btw, do you wear a mask when you breathe while listening? Or doing that way cool "forget to remember blind testing"?

cheers,

AJ

p.s. if you don't wear a mask while breathing in that room, that would explain a great many things also

Possibly, but only recommended with measuring capability.

I'm 97% sure it does

It probably wouldn't hurt, but the money would be better spent on a second or third sub, which when spaced, can result in smoother averaged bass over a wider area, which is especially important for HT where there is multiple seating positions.

No, it's very much on topic. Off topic are things like mice infestation and toilet mouth talk.

It means the speakers off axis is smooth as you move further away from the on axis.
An nice example of a small inexpensive $200 2 way:

A poor example, in a $3000 2 way:

Perceptual research has shown that speakers with smooth, controlled mid-high frequency off axis, will be preferred by the majority in a majority of rooms.
Except in Australia and Sweden.

cheers,

AJ

I don't think those examples at all show what you intend for them to.

For one, the first example has ruler flat on axis response. And I mean ruler flat. This is not the native response. Rather, I'm confident the graph has been normalized to the on axis response, much like geddes does in many of his published plots. That you were attempting to draw comparisons between the "smoothness" of this vs the other example is quite telling. Second, the response of the first example off axis begins to diverge wildly from the on axis response above a few hundred hz, reaching a whopping, I dunno, -30db or so at higher frequencies. 30db isnt bad at all if it is uniform across the spectrum... this one is anything but. We have no idea how "smooth" the off axis really is due to the normalization, but we can see that the way it diverges from on axis is about the exact opposite of smooth. And one thing we can tell for certain is that the power response is absolute junk. As you move off axis at each five degree increment the speaker will have an entirely different spectral balance. If you think this is what it means for a speaker to have 'controlled directivity' then I'm simply floored.

As for the second example, it may look rough at first glance, but the off axis response is a near perfect mirror spectrally of the on axis response from above 700hz or so, being down only 5db at whatever the maximum measured angle is. It actually looks quite good from 200hz up. And the on axis response isn't as bad as it appears due to the scale used. +/- 3db from 40 to 10khz isnt really that bad... better than a lot of other 'high end' speakers im sure. These variations would be swamped by the destructive effects of a typical room, especially one as poorly planned and treated as yours.

Well, let's see how the furbie went eh?

Check.

Ignored. As predicted.

Unchanged.

See his post above. To him, it IS obviously a severe problem. Hence, his earlier protestations were yet another lie.

We'll get to the first part in a second.

All note, as predicted, he avoided any analysis of his own.

Geez, I'm pretty good you say? Nahh, but thanks anyway. A coward is a bully is a liar is a coward.

You've all come across them from kindergarten often? Usually they grow up tho.

Check.



Yep, that was the question. Let's see if you answered it. You may THINK people fall for your misdirections, I am here to ensure they don't.

Ok, so you recommend we use drivers of the same size? 'Wildly varying', what does that mean? Horrible polar response, oh yeah, says furbie? How the fvck would you know, and even if you do (which you think you do) why do you go further and think people should listen to your cookie cutter ramblings?

We are still waiting to get the answer to the diffraction problems. All we have is your statement of belief.

So, explain them.


Yep, we've had your rant before.

Back to diffraction. The misdirection is not working.

Just beofre you do that, why do you continually invite people to hear a 'proper system' (ie yours) when you go on an ignorant drivel about others? Yes, I have told you before, I fully stand by my statement.

You however, being the coward that you are, pretend 'outrage' for a statement like mine, yet snivel and hide behind similar sentiments of your own about yours.

Do you agree that no-one wants to hear yours because they could not stand to be in the same room as you?

Correct. I could not be bothered doing the amount of work flush mounting my drivers entailed. I did think about it, but could not be stuffed doing it.

Because I prefer wide dispersion. I know the big flavour of the month in diy forums is currently going in the opposite direction, but why would I care what bandwagon others get on? If that is for you, then go for it.

No. As I have told you in the past. The easy chair and press buttons is YOUR particular strawman. I simply enjoy you exposing yourself so that others also see you for what you are.

Because dear fellow, it is a SYSTEM. dunno if you can keep up, but that includes the speakers and speaker room interaction. That is what I mean when I say system. You think it will sound the same in another room? Well, it won't.

So any treatment becomes an integral part of the system.

Try and keep up eh?

Obviously not. You posted some pics of where I listen.

But it looks very much like YOU are listening in a tiled dunny.

I am, and the system would. As I said, keep up.

Widen your horizons little fellow.

Have a look at the construction of the room. Tell me...wait, scratch that. If you can, have a little think about what phenomenon that treatment might be addressing. You will struggle, because it is something not covered by Toole and falls outside your bookmark knowledge.

No, not at all. Should I? If so, expose your ignorance and tell us all why.

Now, back to the diffraction, and back to whether or not you blind test your speakers (as well as 'when you decided against treatment detail the blind tests you did to come to that decision').

All we have is your huff and bluster. You showed a pic of my speakers, we can all see it, now explain t us the diffraction problems. (save your time on this one, because the drivers are not flush mounted).
\\
THEN, explain how your speakers overcame the diffraction problems.

People are watching you duck and weave. You said you are a civil engineer right? Well, straight away we know that is a lie, nothing civil about you. So I am trying to get a handle on your real job, beginning to think you are a lawyer.

Runne, Ducket and Weeve I think.

True to his mental condition, AJ ommitted to provide the on-axis response. He also like to show measurements of a 10 litre bookshelf and an image of a completely different 60 litre speaker, implying that the measurement is infact from those...

Here's the missing 0, 15, 30-degree response of the 10 litre QM10 (equipped with one four inch woofer and a 16mm tweeter crossed over at 2,700 Hz in a 10 litre vented box):


...and here is the plot AJ choose for his "on-axis comparison", showing 45, 60 and 75 degree of-axis:


On axis including distortion @ 90db/m:


Also, allow me to quote the very first section in the article AJ pulls these images from:
AJ naturally uses the higher output measurement to show the higher distortion figures.

Also, when adding to the equation that the speakers are explicitly designed to be positioned right up against a the back wall with 5-7cm acoustic foam around it (to soak up early reflections), and toed in to cross slightly infront of the listeer, the wall will help up the low end, and the foam will alter the power response favourlably by soaking up some of the energy from the wide dispersion, woofer above say, 300-400 Hz.

well hevi, what do you expect from a liar?

Shall we have a look at the diffraction control graphs he posted above?

What do you reckon the chances are he has again lied??

See, he can't be concerned about diffraction for the (clearly shown) roundovers on the cabinet box can he.

No, he is talking about the lip. (the roundovers, especially of large radius as these are tending towards are clearly stated in the link furbie gave to be effective ways of addressing cabinet edge diffraction).

So, what are the ACTUAL changes shown in the link when ONLY the lip is addressed??

(HINT, it is NOT the graph he showed. He is lying and being deceptive, just as you have shown. He just thinks no-one will bother to check. Well, once you know someone is a liar then you know you gotta look eh?)

HERE are the changes in the link from addressing the lip only.



That graph (read the note, "felt between drivers only'') goes with this pic



the graph he gave above



(note, it even says in the pic 'FULL felt application) goes with THIS following picture



In the link that pic comes under the heading.

Photo 6: Baffle with full treatment of felt

Well, whoda thought he was lying eh?

First of all, sorry to hi-jack your thread, it is however important to expose the fact that what AJinFLA says and presents as "facts" under no circumstanses should be trusted.


Totally missed that part. Are you perhaps living close to where I live? Same country? In that case I am willing to help arranging an audition of the, highly regarded yet affordable speakers, subs and sat/sub solutions the QM10 and QM60 are based on. PM me if you're interested.

Bigus, what do you attribute that sharp notch aroun 13K to?

.
You said it Chu, not me.
Bigus obviously has no clue how to look at data. His "On axis is ruler flat" comment about the zero line of the window is very very funny. And then the -30db HF @ 90 degrees off axis.
You can't make stuff like that up.
But this is an audio board. Abject ignorance is bliss. Just read the links I provided, then the comments by Hevi & Dunny.

The notch @ 13k in the $3k bookshelf?
I'll let these einsteins answer, then I'll tell you the correct response.
Oh...and such a notch would be highly unlikely to be audible.
Now the rest of the spectrum on this $3k superbly designed gem......

cheers,

AJ

p.s. you bringing Neutron with you?

I don't know if it's audible but it's presence is disturbing. My guess is it's some kind of cancellation effect from driver/cabinet interactions. Maybe the way its recessed?

It means that you are using an (approximately) 1" piston (tweeter) and attempting to match it's spherical wavefront with a (approximately) 6" piston (midrange). The directional characteristics at the top if its range will be "wildly varying" from the directional characteristics at the bottom of the 1" dome. A physics high schooler would know this. But alas...
That's why even horizontally, your (self-assessed but absolutely non-delusional) speakers that would "compete with any system at any price anywhere on the planet", will have poor off axis smoothness.
Vertically, it will be a disaster.
But of course, this has no effect on the perceived soundwaves since:

..and we know you "detest" the self delusional exaggerated hyperbole types.


Uh oh, here comes the Dunny talk.
Physics. High school level.

Because they can actually listen to my speakers in person at audio shows like CapFest and judge for themselves?
It's clear you can't even comprehend the links you attempt to read, which clearly show the pic of the step baffle and the graphs I posted.
Dunning-Kruger has it's price.

cheers,

AJ

A disturbance in the Force?
That is one of the double edged sword effects of measurements. People are bound to misinterpret them. That particular artifact, while visible, is highly unlikely to be audible.
I'll show you the data on my speakers after you listen to them. Standard review practice.
See if what you heard corresponds with what you see (not vice versa).

cheers,

AJ

You may want to look again at around 5KHz.


Does that dip around 3.6KHz (mids - critical to our hearing) look good to you?

AJ, you disapoint me... Why am I the only one that get the scilent treatment?


Hmm, was that your way of defining an oxymoron?


Your bizarre fabulations constantly remind us of that, yes.


Amuse us. Let's hear your explanation, and I'll give you the *correct* one. I have allready PM:ed Chu and Bigus what it is. I'll give you a clue, to help you on the way:

Um, you mean in the on-axis response, or in the 75 degree off-axis response AJ keeps showing? I wouldn't say it is ruler flat, but I'd say +-2dB on axis in the range you're talking about (and +-20 degrees off-axis or so) is a pretty damn smooth -except for the 13kHz notch, which I am waiting for AJ to explain to us all.

Reread my post while paying closer attention to what I quoted which is what I was replying to.

This one shows on axis response (top curve) which still has a dip around 3.6KHz area. What you posted only states "frequency response @ 90dB SPL". It doesn't say which angle it was measured from.

Well, it looked simple enough to me. I was a bit surprised when you challenged this point, so I took the time to actually look at the article you cited. From the article:

You're an idiot AJ. And annoying.

And posting off-axis only without mentioning that little omission? You're intellectually dishonest too. Or challenged. Or both.

Oh, the sad irony.

I suggest you do the same with the links you so leisurely toss around, or else stop wasting everyone's time.

What, that the off axis curves have an elevation in response of less than 1dB? Seriously?

But thanks to AJ's dishonesty it's a moot point anyway.

Yes brainiac, it's normalized, to on axis - which is itself flat and most importantly, the whole point:

JA assessment. I agree. The fact that it is "normalized" has zero to do with how smooth the off axis is...and how gradual the dispersion decreases (you fail to mention the -30db was at 90 degrees...or couldn't comprehend it most likely).

Ideally the same exact measurements would be performed on both speakers and graphing displayed, but it's abundantly clear to anyone who isn't an idiot which of these 2 examples has the smoother off axis (and on).

I would suggest you learn how interpret data from loudspeakers, even if you don't actually build any.






Quite telling.

cheers,

AJ

Au contraie moi frei, Tis I that is dissappointed...you PM others and keep them in the loop yet ignore me?? sniff

It's fun showing Oxy for the ignorant Moron he is.

We'll soon see how he went with his homework.

Note he did not even address his dishonest use of graphs everyone? See, HE sticks his head in the sand, and thinks to himself that because if HE has his head in the sand and can no longer see the problem then no-one else can see the problem too.

High up the food chain eh?


It can get confusing WHICH graph is being referred to and when. But I think I worked it out, you are referring to the notch in the 30 degree off axis r4esponse of the guru's??

THAT is what is being dissected??? A single sharp (therefore probably inaudible) notch that doesn't start till 30 degrees off axis??



Still stands. No analysis of his own and how he avoided DIFFRACTION.

Don't fall for the misdirections.


still applies.









Alas indeed.

So, to avoid this 'problem' you are again advising drivers of the same diameter?

Or, is there a way around that hm?

Would the high schooler (if you mean you, I think you are stuck back in kindy) have done BLIND tests to see how audible it is in fact for him? Or would he just refer to 'someone elses' writings. Do YOU have any personal knowledge of any of this?? Have you anything of your own to contribute to audio??

Or is it 'I read it, so it must be true' (the it being whatever you have already decided)

Well Mr Bookmarks, if (as most seem wont to do) we use different diameter drivers, we are stuck with varying dispersion (not diffraction) 'problems' are we not?

IF NOT, then dear fellow tell us how we approach the problem. Then show me how you ''''know''' I have not done anything about it.

And, as always, show us how YOU have resolved these problems you pick on everyone else's designs, how yours are the first in history to have done it right. Anything right. Everything right. Whichever one it is.


Yep, we noticed that still you have NOT mentioned the diffraction problems. You have diverted onto another tack (as predicted way back), and will of course now avoid answering questions about the latest diversion.

I expect to see yet a further attempt to divert.




What questions are we still waiting on?

Why I need to wear a face mask.

ANY discussion of DIFFRACTION problems of my speakers.

Now he has brought it up, HOW we overcome dispersion problems if we use different diameter drivers.

A reference back to HIS that explains how he has overcome those problems.

Whether or not he blind tests HIS speakers.

The results of HIS investigations into the merits or otherwise of room treatments. That means hearing it for himself in his own room.

What acoustic phenomenon the treatment in my room might be addressing.

Why he lies and uses innappropriate graphs to 'illustrate' his point.

Why I need to worry about vertical dispersion.

Why he used THIS graph



and LIED and pretended it went with THIS picture



which is totally untrue.

Those of us who have been around already know he will simply avoid and divert.

Just watch, and enjoy the show!

Nice to see you finally have to admit error, glaring in this case, after getting your balls nailed to the wall for being lazy, dishonest, and ignorant.

Here's a tip braniac, if you know what someone has said is true, don't disagree and attempt to insult them only to have to crawdad in public. It makes you look even worse, if that's possible. The only thing worse than that is disagreeing out of pure stupidity. Whoops.


By a paid writer for a marketing driven magazine known for frequently losing contact with any semblance of reality and giving bad reviews to... well, who wants to guess at the percentage of total reviews? Lol. No, I prefer to use my brain and think for myself.

But I suppose if you lack one, agreeing with reviews that support your opinions, superficial as they may be, probably does make sense.

As for the rest of your objective measurements, just stop trying. You've been shown for the flake you are, unwilling or unable to even read and understand simple descriptions of the graphs you fling about. No one is impressed, but I'm sure a few do pity you.

As was the case in another recent thread, I'm done. You're exposed, and it's obvious you lack the fund of knowledge (or intellect) and moral character necessary to continue further meaningful discussion. If you feel the need to continue, post the on an off axis plots for your speakers. Then we'll talk.


Chu, erratic responses like that are almost always diffraction effects, whether intrinsic to the driver due to it's geometry, the baffle and other objects nearby, or both. Hevi's pm discloses the likely specific cause in this case. And it probably isn't very audible in this case.

Then you must have been looking at a different graph at the time you made the earlier post.

The "error" that normalizing the graph is "dishonest"...or somehow negates the fact that the Infinity is far more linear on and off axis...which is exactly what the OP should be looking for.
Rode the short bus to school eh?

Check the mirror and then learn how to read data. Your interpretation that the data doesn't show exactly what I posited puts you on the short bus undoubtedly.

JA's commentary is specific to the data and measurable aspect of the DUT. He lets the the primary reviewer wax poetically about the purely subjective, while he comments on the objective.
You cornering yourself into claiming that the examples shown don't adhere to the stated "speakers off axis is smooth as you move further away from the on axis" makes your technical literacy clear.

Or lack thereof.

And when you ride the short bus, discriminating between commentary on objective data and purely subjective swooning is impossible.


Run and hide if you wish. I'll be here.
Feel free to unveil your own design. Get over the shame.
Then we'll compare. Remember, one of us brings their designs to audio shows for peer review and critique, unashamed.
The other makes bogus claims, hiding behind a screen...in shame.


And I'd be less vague and say that it's a combination of the driver break-up and phase shield itself, including cavity resonance due to the air mass between the dome and shield, given the fact that the driver itself will be highly directional at 13k. The "baffle" would play little role.


As noted.


Wrong. You made that up, then pitched a still continuing tantrum because I called your BS.


Wrong. You made it up and there is no science or "decades if research and experience."


The floor is yours Bogus (sorry Chu).

cheers,

AJ

I am actually curious, IS it only me that see's the idiocies of OxyMorons statements?

Or, more likely, is it that for some strange reason others DO see it, yet are afraid to point it out???

C'mon, he's just a kindy bully. A coward. He is also a liar, hence we know he is a coward.

He cannot answer direct questions, because he is a coward.

So I'm having a real hard time understanding why people let him get away with it.

Unless of course it IS only me that see's his idiocies.

I let this one go for a bit to see if others noticed. Seems they didn't.


Well, let's ask the question then. WHO is it in this thread and all others he pollutes that is judging a speakers performance from graphs?? Who is judging the sound of a speaker before hearing them?

Correct. You saw it straight away when I mentioned it now, why is it that you have all been silent to date?

Again, the total and complete hypocrisy from the forum furbie.




Here are your questions.


(I always like to keep the 'cheers' in when I quote The Moron, the ever present proof of the hypocrite he is!)

So, once again, bearing in mind he is a liar and a coward-meaning whatever he says is usually the diametric opposite of the truth-let's have a look again shall we?


We are ALL still waiting for his design to be unveiled. NOT some dark, detail obscured photo, but a clear one where we can all see the wondrous design features.

Let's see ANY graphs of it's response, so we can all cast an equally critical eye over them as he does to other designs.

Note the sneer directed outward, yet due to our past experiences with liars, cowards and bullies (all different ways of saying the same thing, a coward) we KNOW it is actually an inward comment.


Again, not even completely true is it.

We have NOT seen his design. OTOH, we have all seen mine, and indeed I have encouraged and invited inspection.

What a liar and coward.

Still waiting for his response to that invitation for scientific critique (listed above to make sure we can watch the dancing to come.)

C'mon coward. Put it all up there for us. Stop hiding behind the screen.

Answer the questions.

Diomania, I was looking at the graph aj posted, the ONLY graph he posted of that speaker. I usually browse and post from my phone. Chasing down links in a full web browser and returning to the forum isn't a trivial exercise. I know now that anything aj posts is subject to gross misrepresentation so I won't make that mistake again. But in that context, when I made that original comment there were but three response curves to compare, unlabeled, but appearing as if we were looking at on axis and two unspecified off axis angles (since it was compared to a graph showing the same thing albeit in normalized form). Do you not agree that within those curves there is indeed a tight mirroring from one to another? When talking about off axis spectral balance, less than 1db variation is impressive.

If you are judging my comment by the true on axis response, then I again make the point that we have aj to thank for that as that isn't what he posted.

If in fact I'm mistaken, you could elaborate as perhaps I'm simply not seeing it. I'm open to admitting mistakes as that's how we learn.

I wish I had brought my laptop with me to take a better look at all the graphs in question. I like how the infinity meets the eyeball test for flatness, but on closer inspection the comparison isn't so clear. Both speakers look to have about a 5db variation in on axis response from 100hz to 15khz or so. Looking at off axis, the second more expensive speaker actually looks to have fairly consistent and wide dispersion. I'd love to normalize it's data for a better comparison but obviously can't do that on my phone. Having to flip between images is a pain, but all the off axis curves have the same pattern of response variations as the on axis. The maximum difference is about 10db around 4khz. 10db grouping with smooth progression as angle increases? Not bad at all. I suspect the normalized response would look better than the first example posted which progresses from none to 15-20 db variation over that range, and 30db looks to happen around 50-60deg off axis giving a rough eyeball estimate.

Diomania, looking at the full set of data for the second speaker cited, the off axis response isn't a near perfect mirror as was initially suggested by the incomplete data, but it is certainly pretty good. Surprisingly good given how wide the dispersion is, ruling out horns and dipoles. This is part of the tradeoff for the HF notch, and I think a great one.

What's your take on the actual analysis of the data presented for these two speakers? Anyone else? Not handwaiving and masterbaiting vague inferences and generalizations, but a real discussion using real numbers and logical analysis.

They still don't show what aj thought they would, which is kinda sad really as he had a web full of data to choose from and this is what he came up with.