ygmn Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 ---------------- On 3/11/2004 3:50:42 PM HornEd wrote: Not exactly true, WDST speakers are effectively tripoles that have a woofer that sends frequencies under about 2,000 Hz toward the sweet spot… and two tractrix horns to spray everything over 2,000 Hz toward reflective surfaces rather than the audience. Thus the audience can get a sense of direction from sounds under 2,000 Hz and sounds above arrive at about the same time and confuse the ear… and that passes for ambience enhancement. Therefore, WDST speakers do NOT spread the same sound over 180 degrees. I believe WDST to be better than other tripoles since there ends are tapered. ---------------- But the sound wave coming out of the horn is a much wider then say the woofer...so the cone of sound is quite large for horns ....not sure for the WDST horns.... the sound is spread out and will hit peeps right beside this surround...also since side surrounds should be slightly behind the listener...would one not hear the sound coming out of the front horn at the same time as the woofer? I mean they are away from the listen and the sound wave propagates and gets larger as it travels so there is a point where the sound from the woofer and horn mesh together....and one would hear this first before andy room echos...which all rooms have no matter what speaker you use.... We could beat this to death...but there is no fact as to what is better since we all like different sounds....and no where on dolby heck nor DTS do they tell you optimum speaker type and size and placement for particula HT rooms..... For short rooms I could see a monopole but for long rooms either more then one monopole or the WDST....to simulate the surround wall of sound I am not saying one is better....but both have merits and it is up to each to decide..but I decided based on testing in my HT room.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Sorry, ymgn, but the speed of sound is constant and the distance the sound has to travel to hit your ears directly gets to your ear first and the echoes arrive a fraction of a second later and thats just enough to determine the direction and timbre. Thats what happens with monopoles. With multiple pole speakers, all you get is ricochet sounds that arrive at your ear at almost the same instant which destroys most of the critical aspects of processing the sound as a normal human being. The longer and wider the room, the more space monopoles have to show off their grandeur and one can always do what the theaters do, build a bigger restaurant and have it turned into another place. More later. -HornEd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 oops, I intended it to be laer than this... -HornEd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ygmn Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 ---------------- On 3/11/2004 8:57:20 PM HornEd wrote: Sorry, ymgn, but the speed of sound is constant and the distance the sound has to travel to hit your ears directly gets to your ear first… and the echoes arrive a fraction of a second later… and that’s just enough to determine the direction and timbre. That’s what happens with monopoles. With multiple pole speakers, all you get is ricochet sounds that arrive at your ear at almost the same instant which destroys most of the critical aspects of processing the sound as a normal human being. The longer and wider the room, the more space monopoles have to show off their grandeur… and one can always do what the theaters do, build a bigger restaurant and have it turned into another place. More later. -HornEd ---------------- actually the speed of sound depends on atmospheric pressure temperature, denisty too..... And since the woofer and horn are about 1" apart at closest point...the sound will hit you within miliseconds...which the mind cannot comprehend... Also you state with WDST you hear the echos which confuse....what about echos from monopoles? I mean they echo too....and well the echo will be from opposite wall which depending on room arrangement furniture etc...could confuse the mind more... also with a larger room....one seating position could be outside the cone of sound..and hear the echos first from a monopole.... what I am saying...is the layout of the room plays a major impact on which speakers should be chosen...and saying monopole should always be used is well not acurate...it depends on the room acoustics...and most use the living room for HT...which has the wife factor.... In the perfect world one could build the perfect room...and then most likely some monopoles would work...but for most ....when they have more then one door...windows...funky furniture...bookshelfs, wife knick knack crap...WDST may sound better.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Well ygmn, have it your way... but what you are saying just isn't correct. For all intents and purposes, the speed of sound as it affects speakers in the same room is likely to be constant. The distance traveled by the sound is the variable. The direct sound from a monopole strikes the ear before the echoes can... your ear uses that split second difference to determine direction and timbre as a comparative analysis. You are obviously a bright person, why not invest a little time in learning about acoustics and psychoacoustics so we can have a more meaningful chat. The biography of Paul W. Klipsch is available on Amazon and the "White Papers" of Dr. Floyd E. Toole (the most respected authority in acoustics) are available at the Harmon International website: http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=default. We use professional sound equipment every day in my resort... and I have built quite a few music and theater rigs over the last fifty years. bipole, tripole and especially dipole speakers are built to provide an intensity of sound that overcomes audio impediments in lesser listening environment. The trade-off is that such speakers distort the potential for natural sound. IMHO, seven identical speakers would produce the best 7.1 sound for that given speaker... not a smaller version for a front center and an altogether different design for the surrounds. You might try using seven WDST speakers in a 7.1 system on your trail to acoustic truth. Happy trails, pard. -HornEd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Hello Ed and all! I'm closing on a new home today and need to get my HT setups designed so I can rewire prior to reinsulating the attic. I appreciate Ed's dislike of multiple-pole loudspeakers for surround. I've got a set of Definitive Bi-poles and not only are they limited bandwidth and much less efficient that any Klipsch design, but the 'bouncy' effect that seems useful in Pro-logic movie background sounds seems like it will be very distasteful when I get my new Dolby Digital receiver for the new house. I have been assuming that I would add RS7's to my Cornwall RC7 system, but am having misgivings about this approach. First, please don't flog me for mixing heritage and Reference. I don't mind the timbre difference, because I love the Rock and Roll sound from the Corns (about half of listening is to classic rock), and the RC7 does a great job of sound localization for movie dialog. Plus it's the only center that physically fit (LaScala or Belles- fawghetaboudit) and could keep up with the Corns. Please confirm/deny these assumptions about using RB series for surrounds: 1. vs bipolars, the mono surrounds would seem to be more flexible in terms of positioning in various rooms. 2. vs RS series, by reducing the amount of reflected sounds should increase clarity and localization of sound as the mix engineer intended. This would also hold true in the case of using the many excellent 'soundfields' available on Yamaha receivers. 3. on the position/height issue. I believe that time differences in driver placement are crucial. Therefore I can't understand placeing an RB5 on it's side, I would tend to keep the drivers time aligned toward the listening position. Also, placing the cabinets VERY near the ceiling would tend to make the first early reflecting very short and therefore indistinguishable to the ear. How far away from the ceiling could you place the cabinet before the ear could hear the first early reflecting distinctly? 4. with regard to side positioning of monopoles, in a long room with the system on a short side and sofa, say 2/3 way down the room, should surrounds be behind the listening position aimed at ear, aimed straight into room, ?? thanks gang- lot of $$ at stake, I'm anxious, and don't want to make any costly mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Ok, pardon my 'newness' but I've been following several threads re surround cabinet style and placement and keep hearing WDST. Let me guess... Wide Dispersioin Surround T????? Am I even close? Is this a Klipsch-specific theory used for the RS series cabinets? Does Ed love these? In general, it seems like the gang is starting to shy away from not only tri/di/bi poles, but also any cabinet that disperses the sound in any direction except at the listeners ears. Is it possible that this is a function of moving from Pro-Logic where the limited bandwidth, matrixed sound was designed to bounce around the room, to the Dolby Digital sound which is discrete, full bandwidth sound engineered with all the ambience necessary and SHOULD be heard as direct, time-aligned, localizable sounds???? Your thoughts, Ed? I am listening and trying to learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Well, colterphoto1, a brief visit to your hometown Klipsch audio museum will reveal that you were close WDST = Wide Dispersion Surround Technology. This Klipsch version of a tripole (single cabinet with speakers aimed in three different directions) uses a small woofer limited to frequencies under about 2kHz to be aimed at the audience (this direct radiated sound gives the first clue to your ear in order to determine direction and timbre from the subsequent reflected clues), and two angled horns that distribute frequencies over 2kHz toward the front/middle and rear/middle of your listening area (but were not intended to be aimed at your ear so that only reflected sounds reach your ear that is what causes your ear to tell your brain your immersed in sound there is no first sound then multiple reflections to tell you the truth that the audio engineer intended). Whew, thats a long sentence but it does embody insights into the WDST which seems to have been a technology aimed at doing a better job at beefing wimpy ProLogic narrow bandwidth surround signals to create more ambience from weak surround signals and this approach has lingered on in the discrete full-range surround channels to be found on 5.1 or 6.1 DVD technologies. In many awkward acoustic environments, the Klipsch WDST approach covers room and equipment shortfalls (such as timbre mismatches, early reflections, etc.) with an audio band-aid that some folks enjoy but that truly represents a forced corruption of the sound intended by modern mixes of DVD programming. You see, with full range channels, the audio engineer can mix as much ambience as the given DVD needs by stacking specific audio tracks in one or more of the discrete 5-6.1 channels to make the sound broadcast by monopoles to be a lone clear tone or a cacophony of sound radiated from every loudspeaker or any combination between the two. Thus, all things being equal, monopoles on side and rear effects speakers (surrounds) have the flexibility to recreate the audio engineers intent and multiple pole speakers force frequencies to bounce around the room to confuse the natural process of discerning timbre and direction. Even if you accept this as the audio version of rose colored glasses the sound you hear is less natural than what the audio engineer anticipated. Generally speaking, early reflections distort the intent of the audio engineer and are eliminated in serious home theaters by physically removing them or, more likely, covering them with a sound absorbent material. Basically, the purest sound comes from a clean direct signal to the ear and reflected signals that arrive later but at near the same instant. Your ear can distinguish an incredible range of comparisons in a very short time span but there must be sufficient time before the first direct sound and secondary reflections to make a determination multiple pole speakers are designed to reduce or eliminate that gap in one or more frequency ranges. Similarly, very long bass waves are too long for the ear to process for direction subwoofer waves can stretch out more than 35 feet and bump into one another causing standing waves that can be perceived as nulls (canceling one another out) or doubling the sound (reinforcing one another) in the same room. Thus, sounds under about 85 Hz cannot be distinguished by the ear as coming from a particular direction. Some audio mavericks (such as HornEd) deliberately cut off their 5.1 (or above) monopoles at this place where directional discernment drops off and recreates that entire range with a subwoofer array designed to produce these long waves. This technique accomplishes two purposes it puts fewer but more accurate long waves into the listening area to simplify adjustment of most standing wave problems and allows the woofers of the monopoles to be quicker in the midrange musical areas due to the absence of slower long throws needed to push enough air to create those long super low frequencies. Clearly, anyone who uses this technique needs an adequate subwoofer array and that means hitting 121.5 dB at 20 Hz which is the low cutoff point for Dolby Digital DVDs and the minimum standard for a HornEd subwoofer array. Of course, multiple subwoofers strategically placed can also eliminate or greatly reduce standing wave problems. In fact, a stealth factor on modern nuclear submarines include powerful subwoofers designed to negate (e.g., hide) the low frequencies caused in the engine room. I have used as many as six quality subwoofers in the quest for better bottom scraping bass and have fairly well settled on stacked woofers in the same corner to get the job done effectively and with the least amount of hassle. Putting subwoofers in a corner doubles their power stacking two adequate subs in the same corner quadruples the power of one sub keeps the long, longer, longest waves marching in order from the same direction (and, usually, in phase for the best result but thats a choice/room thing). Getting adequate performance out of a single sub is indeed possible but beyond the audio budget of most audiophiles and only the most dedicated basophile, such as TheEar(s) or the SubHuman (Tom Vodhanel), live their lives at the bottom of that deep audio well. As to the height of surround speakers, I favor aiming the surrounds just behind and just over the head of your most significant listener in the center of the sweet spot. Ideally, the surrounds will be aimed flat against the opposite wall to aid in the efficient determination of your ear to distinguish initial sounds and appropriate reflections of those sounds from the opposite wall. This gets the maximum ambience benefit to be found in most listening environments and is consistent with the mainstream of modern sound mixing techniques IMHO. Theoretically, a perfectly mixed 6.1 DVD would be complete in its ambience creation within the six main audio and supplementary low bass channel that a room without reflections would suffice. Add to this the reality that modern DVDs put upwards of 75% of the total sound of movies through the middle speaker (to anchor the sound to screen action) while music CDs pour most of the sound to the right and left channels to simulate a stage presentation. Thus better Home Theater and Music installations will have identical speakers across the front array yep, thats right, the left, center and right main speakers should be of equal quality. Klipsch should be applauded for making the RC-7 closer to the RF-7 than most but once you try a great DVD with a three RF-7s in a front array, you will be hard pressed to return to a lesser mode! Further, once you try a full out 7.1 all RF-7 system properly set up any local movie theater will pale in comparison with your sound! The same sound principles apply with every quality sound system whether it is based on the Klipsch Synergy line or the best that Heritage loudspeakers have to offer. I have personally set up those extremes in my own listening areas and have helped uncounted numbers of Klipsch Forum folk to set up their systems using these guidelines. I have yet to have anyone follow my guidelines (including setting up their monopoles with an Avia disc and a Radio Shack SPL meter) complain that their sound system was worse. Most of the flack that I get are from people who have bought WDST or dipole speakers and have never heard a properly set up monopole system. Well, folks, it has been a long time since Ive been this comprehensive (err long winded?), but the shorter explanations that I have given (after being away from this Forum for about eight months) have flooded me with email, pms, and Forum questions from those new to the Klipsch Forum. Please note that sharing my thoughts is done in order to save others from having to spend as much time and money in the research and development of audio experiments. These represent my personal opinions of what I and others have learned from those experiments. They are not brag but just fact as close as I can determine. I have no quarrel with those who quarrel with my conclusions this is a place where we should all be able to express our audio views within the taste parameters of the Klipsch personnel that monitor this Forum. I do not appreciate those who make personal attacks upon me or anyone else for posting an opinion whether I consider that opinion well informed or off the wall. These long explanations irritate some folks but they are made in the spirit of Paul W. Klipsch and his penchant for discovering truth where he found it and passing out yellow BS buttons if he suspected less than accurate assessments. He would have been a century old now and he is sorely missed in many ways. Mr. Paul was bold enough to fold a horn into a corner and produce a patented monaural symphonic sound in the original Klipschorn. When stereo hit the marketplace, Mr. Paul used two Klipschorns and (after learning of Bell Labs approach to three channel stereo) invented the LaScala to be a horn-loaded center that didnt need a corner. The first Mrs. Klipsch (Belle) found the LaScala to be beneath her furnishing tastes and Mr. Paul responded with a modified version which he named after his wife (Belle Klipsch) and successfully transcended the first known Klipsch WAF (Wife Approval Factor). After becoming a widower, Mr. Paul found Miss Valerie in a Hope (AR) high school and found the perfect WAF and they lived happily ever after with a Klipschorn, Belle, Klipschorn front array. There have been a lot of audio engineering changes since 1948 but the Klipschorn, LaScala, and Klipsch Belle are still being assembled in the Hope factory. .. even though Uncle Fred brought the HQ to Indy. The consumer trend is for smaller loudspeakers and audiophile rather than natural sound. The best selling speakers, Bose, makes a travesty of both approaches, IMHO. Tricked up approaches to Home Theaters (e.g., ProLogic and its declining successor THX} are not my example of a good audio time weather in multi-channel music or DVD movies. I dont care to bathe my ears in a dense dipole fog no matter what the audio engineer mixed for me to hear. Fortune has smiled upon my labors and I have the resources to build big enough rooms and populate them fully loaded horn speakers. I realize that not everyone can do that in this day and age but I have used these techniques to make great sound in a 240 sq. ft. motorhome using the Klipsch Synergy line the lowest end of the Klipsch full-range speaker spectrum and I have used WDST to cure some of the acoustic problems of such a small and cabinet crowded space. I hope my audio adventures bring more Klipsch audio quality into your life. HornEd PS: This post will likely get the usual blast from my habitual detractors and I have chosen not to respond to them to preserve the civility and family acceptable prose that ought to be maintained on this Forum. If such rhetoric does appear, please consider the source. Peace, Love, Monopoles and adequacy of Centers and Subwoofers to all... and a healthy WDST to those who come up short in their listening environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 On the other hand... there are four fingers and a thumb... may you rest your case. -HornEd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 ---------------- On 3/13/2004 1:54:19 PM T2K wrote: People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities. ---------------- The short version: When your circle of knowledge is small and fixed, you believe it to be all-encompassing. As soon as it begins to expand, you start recognizing how utterly tiny it really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtop Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Well stated HornEd... And some food for thought for the rest of you... "Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact." - George Eliot (1819-1880) Redtop p.s. HornEd, the preceding quote is not pointed at you...you keep talking, I'll keep learning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.