|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
|
|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
In Reply to: RE: that may well be the case, Dave ... posted by Davey on August 15, 2015 at 06:42:46:
I see that the first significant simplification in the Ureda calculation is that the distance on axis at th middle of the line is much higher than the height of the array.ao that you are an order of magnitude farther out than you would be in a home setup. The second issue is that listening is largely close to the midpoint normal to the line so the angle (alpha) is 0 or very near it.At home you have a 1.5 to 2 m source and a 2-4 m listening distance. For a full length line source at ~2m height you are at 1 to 2 times L. The ends condition is that the top and bottom are constrained by the floor and ceiling. So the floor and ceiling act as a waveguide to keep the vertical pressure drop and dispersion from developing. I don't know how much of the model holds up for a home setting of a near floor to ceiling line source at 1.5L listening distance at the midline.
This is not to say that there is absolutely nothing coming to your ears from the bottom or top of the line source. And from anywhere else on the line, but the overwhelming amount coming from ear level and the precedence rule would make transients fully unsmeared. The comb filtering effects result in a very closely spaced set of sharp squiggles on an unsmoothed FR scan. But that is less important to our hearing since our FFT breakdown of pitch and harmonics takes much longer (10-30 ms once the steady state pitch arrives) than our response to transient acoustic events (0.001/0.01-1 ms,), which is independent of pitch and harmonic content (and distortion thereof). Our pitch resolution is fairly crude like our amplitude resolution, hence the violinist's practice of vibrato changing pitch in a +/- 5% band is still perceived as a single pitch tone.
Efit: actually our pitch resolution is much much netter than our amplitude resolution at any frequency. But it takes some time and tends to average.
I will claim that in a home setting a line source is going to have an inherent advantage over point sources since the latter do not contribute their own floor bounce cues to those on the recording. That would not be an issue in an anechoic floor and ceiling room. But I don't know how you walk on an anechoic floor made of absorbers,, snow shoes?. Also at close listening distances you can get much less floor bounce (and room reflections) in the mix reaching your ears..
Edits: 08/16/15
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: that may well be the case, Dave ... - Satie 14:18:42 08/16/15 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
