Need advice for a small room

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:58:37 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
>> Robert Peirce > wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>>>
>>> Regardless of room constructions and shape, there are speakers
>>> that work well if you are in a single position but not so well if
>>> you are not, and speakers that possibly aren't the best for a
>>> fixed location but provide good sound throughout the space.
>>
>> This is to do with the directivity of a loudspeaker and the way
>> that it interacts with a room. Many loudspeakers that have an
>> excellent frequency response on axis are very ragged off-axis. The
>> most desirable trait, from your point of view, is that the
>> directivity of your loudspeakers should be constant, or at least
>> only gradually changing, over most of the frequency range.
>
> Thanks. I couldn't exactly describe the desired characteristics of
> the speaker but I think that is pretty close. The panel speakers I
> have probably aren't terribly directional, especially since half the
> sound is bouncing of the front wall. The mini-monitors I have
> described as working well only at a point are probably highly
> directional.
>
> So, where does one find information on small, non-directional
> speakers that can get down to, say, 25-30Hz, probably with the
> addition of woofers?

With the addition of proper subwoofers, ANY small speakers will "get
down" to 25-30 Hz. The thing about small speakers is that price-wise,
they're all over the map. You can go for a pair of Magico Q1's
(approx. 14" X 14" X 9" - two way) for twenty-five THOUSAND dollars a
pair, to a pair of Usher "Tiny Dancer" 2-way for about $2,700 a pair
down to the similar (and also excellent) Monitor Audio BX1s at less
than $500/pair. Hint: The British are really good at making this type
of speaker and most British speaker brands have these small
stand-mounted speakers as part of their product lineup.

I have heard the Magicos, and they are magic, but I've also heard the
BX1s and they too are amazing for 1/50 the price with an on-axis
frequency response of 55 to 30KHz +/- 3 dB! But whatever you decide on
don't forget to budget for some decent stands.

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> with an on-axis frequency response of 55 to 30KHz +/- 3 dB!

That's the problem. Apparently, what I am looking for is a speaker that
has an off-axis response very similar to its on-axis response. That
seems to explain a soundstage that stays focused from various points in
the room, unless I completely mis-read what Haley was saying.

Robert Peirce > wrote:
> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> with an on-axis frequency response of 55 to 30KHz +/- 3 dB!
>
> That's the problem. Apparently, what I am looking for is a speaker
> that has an off-axis response very similar to its on-axis response.

In practice that's extremely hard to do: the best you can hope for is
something that's reasonably well-behaved. Even that won't guarantee
you a good soundstage everywhere in the room, because stereo isn't
really adequate for that. A separate subwoofer is good advice,
though, because the ideal speaker placement for lower bass may not be
the same place as that for the rest if the spectrum.

Andrew.

On 5/1/12 9:12 AM, in article , "Robert
Peirce" > wrote:

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> with an on-axis frequency response of 55 to 30KHz +/- 3 dB!
>
> That's the problem. Apparently, what I am looking for is a speaker that
> has an off-axis response very similar to its on-axis response. That
> seems to explain a soundstage that stays focused from various points in
> the room, unless I completely mis-read what Haley was saying.
>
How about this:
http://linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/intro.htm

and the upgrade:
http://linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/Pluto-2.1.htm

In article >,
John Stone > wrote:

> How about this:
> http://linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/intro.htm
>
> and the upgrade:
> http://linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/Pluto-2.1.htm

Can't say. I bookmarked both URLs for later review.

On Tue, 1 May 2012 08:38:24 -0700, John Stone wrote
(in article >):

> On 5/1/12 9:12 AM, in article , "Robert
> Peirce" > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>>> with an on-axis frequency response of 55 to 30KHz +/- 3 dB!
>>
>> That's the problem. Apparently, what I am looking for is a speaker that
>> has an off-axis response very similar to its on-axis response. That
>> seems to explain a soundstage that stays focused from various points in
>> the room, unless I completely mis-read what Haley was saying.
>>
> How about this:
> http://linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/intro.htm
>
> and the upgrade:
> http://linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/Pluto-2.1.htm
>
>

I can't say. I have heard the Orion at the "Burning Amp" DIY audio show and
they were very good, but I don't know how wide their soundstage is , or how
stable their imaging is off-axis.

On Tue, 1 May 2012 07:12:53 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> with an on-axis frequency response of 55 to 30KHz +/- 3 dB!
>
> That's the problem. Apparently, what I am looking for is a speaker that
> has an off-axis response very similar to its on-axis response. That
> seems to explain a soundstage that stays focused from various points in
> the room, unless I completely mis-read what Haley was saying.
>

Well, since 30 KHz is well beyond the best human hearing, I suspect that
these speakers will still have good response to AT LEAST 15 KHz off-axis.
That's why I mentioned them.

You'll just have to make a short list and go listen....

"Robert Peirce" > wrote in message
...

> I am prepared to hear there are exceptions. For example, I have been
> told the Steinway Lyngdorf S-series actually does this very well; I had
> started to come to the conclusion it wouldn't. There are probably many
> other small speakers of which I am unaware that also can serve my
> purposes.
>
> The key is very good sound everywhere at the expense of close to perfect
> sound at one spot.

If and when I ever have to move to a smaller apartment, I would relish the
chance to experiment with multiple small computer speakers suspended from
the ceiling. I would be able to aim them any which way I want, reflect some
sound from front and side walls, establish a center channel with wide
dispersion, and have multiple surround speakers anywhere I want. The number
of these speakers would make up for any lack of power put out by each one,
and a subwoofer would take care of bass duties. All this while remaining
relatively invisible and needing no Wife Acceptance Factor.

Gary Eickmeier

"Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Peirce > wrote:

>> That's the problem. Apparently, what I am looking for is a speaker
>> that has an off-axis response very similar to its on-axis response.
>
> In practice that's extremely hard to do: the best you can hope for is
> something that's reasonably well-behaved. Even that won't guarantee
> you a good soundstage everywhere in the room, because stereo isn't
> really adequate for that. A separate subwoofer is good advice,
> though, because the ideal speaker placement for lower bass may not be
> the same place as that for the rest if the spectrum.

Not hard to do. It's called an omni.

But omni is not necessarily the ideal radiation pattern. What you want is
time/intensity trading in both the direct and early reflected domains. This
plus a certain speaker positioning scheme that is very easy to do and very
beneficial no matter what speakers you have. Just think of your walls as
mirrors, and position the two stereo speakers 1/4 of the room width in from
side walls and out from front wall. If you make a drawing of this, you can
see that the two actual and six reflected (virtual) speakers are positioned
in an even lattice equidistant from each other, for a solid, even, deep,
wide soundstage that can "project" any program material like a 3-dimensional
canvas on which you paint the recorded sound. Notice also that we position
speakers for imaging, not frequency response. For that, we can EQ and use
subwoofers placed in the corners of the room.

Take a look at my earlier response below, the last post in the current
thread. I said it would be fun to take a bunch of small speakers, like
computer desk speakers or home theater sattelites and hang them from the
ceiling and position and aim them to create this magical sound field that
has all of the characteristics of depth, imaging, time/intensity trading so
you can walk all around and get even imaging everywhere. It would be done
with techniques similar to Mark Davis's experiment in creating the
Soundfield One speaker. Add a center channel and surround speakers placed
ideally for your small room, and voila - a sonic Holodeck.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Peirce > wrote:
>
>>> That's the problem. Apparently, what I am looking for is a speaker
>>> that has an off-axis response very similar to its on-axis response.
>>
>> In practice that's extremely hard to do: the best you can hope for
>> is something that's reasonably well-behaved. Even that won't
>> guarantee you a good soundstage everywhere in the room, because
>> stereo isn't really adequate for that. A separate subwoofer is
>> good advice, though, because the ideal speaker placement for lower
>> bass may not be the same place as that for the rest if the
>> spectrum.
>
> Not hard to do. It's called an omni.
>
> But omni is not necessarily the ideal radiation pattern. What you
> want is time/intensity trading in both the direct and early
> reflected domains. This plus a certain speaker positioning scheme
> that is very easy to do and very beneficial no matter what speakers
> you have. Just think of your walls as mirrors, and position the two
> stereo speakers 1/4 of the room width in from side walls and out
> from front wall. If you make a drawing of this, you can see that the
> two actual and six reflected (virtual) speakers are positioned in an
> even lattice equidistant from each other, for a solid, even, deep,
> wide soundstage that can "project" any program material like a
> 3-dimensional canvas on which you paint the recorded sound. Notice
> also that we position speakers for imaging, not frequency
> response. For that, we can EQ and use subwoofers placed in the
> corners of the room.

Well, hold on. Placing the speakers at exactly 1/4 of the room width
is going to maximally excite the second mode. Notching that out isn't
going to be so easy, especially if you want to be able to listen in
more than one position. Placing subwoofers in the corners is
efficient, but it also maximally excites *all* of the room modes.

I repeat to the OP: don't believe any simple solutions. I recommend
CARA <http://www.cara.de> which alows people to do some simulations.

Andrew.