Thanks for entering the conversation Kimmosto you’re really one of the luminaries in the field.Cardioid bass in a small room compared to much larger semi-open concept living space.
Thanks for entering the conversation Kimmosto you’re really one of the luminaries in the field.Cardioid bass in a small room compared to much larger semi-open concept living space.
Cardioide isn't worth it if you're sacrificing performance in other places. Here's a comparison between a single Kii Three and a single Devialet Phantom Silver in the exact same placement (near corner) in my room;
View attachment 150417
The Phantom is stupidly bassheavy, but disregarding that there's practically no benefit with cardioide below the schroeder (around 200 hz here) and very little above that. You will gain some clarity between that and up to a certain point, but you'll be giving up efficiency and get more distortion as a side-effect. Take a look at distortion plots on Dutch 8c and Kii Three to see what I mean.
A couple of subs with EQ and some absorption will give you better effect without the penalties, but will be uglier.
If you're not planning on pushing the speaker to the point where the distortion comes into play or can't/won't use subs and/or absorption, then cardioide will make the sound a little bit better. I wouldn't buy a certain speaker just because it has cardioide, but it would be a welcome bonus.
So it seems like there are better ways to deal with under 200Hz room issues. Multi sub I suppose with the added kicker that between 80-200Hz sounds can be localized.Cardioide isn't worth it if you're sacrificing performance in other places. Here's a comparison between a single Kii Three and a single Devialet Phantom Silver in the exact same placement (near corner) in my room;
View attachment 150417
The Phantom is stupidly bassheavy, but disregarding that there's practically no benefit with cardioide below the schroeder (around 200 hz here) and very little above that. You will gain some clarity between that and up to a certain point, but you'll be giving up efficiency and get more distortion as a side-effect. Take a look at distortion plots on Dutch 8c and Kii Three to see what I mean.
A couple of subs with EQ and some absorption will give you better effect without the penalties, but will be uglier.
If you're not planning on pushing the speaker to the point where the distortion comes into play or can't/won't use subs and/or absorption, then cardioide will make the sound a little bit better. I wouldn't buy a certain speaker just because it has cardioide, but it would be a welcome bonus.
I can, but not right now. I'm fiddling with my M2 speakers, adding protection cap to the insanely expensive Beryllium driver and experimenting with stuffing in the cabinet.can you give us more details?
the dimensions of the room, the exact distance from boundaries .etc
Because personally i think there is a gigantic difference in the 200Hz to 300Hz region, which i think is a boundary response that the Kii Three is alleviating.
I think you're mistaken about the distortion of the Kii three, it uses 6 drivers to get the cardioid directivity, i don't think it has as much distortion as the D&D that relies on out of phase sound leaking out of the cabinet.
IMHO you should have known that regardless of the loudspeaker, sound directionality increases with frequency. So treble is very directional while bass is much less. So logically the acoustic axis must be the tweeter axis or very close to it. Which is why many loudspeaker manufacturers put their tweeters at sitting ear height (around 90-95 cm), or higher but aimed lower in that case. Just my two cents.For example I’ve had the Solo 6be for a decade now. I always thought the acoustic axis was between the woofer and tweeter. I listened that way. Just this year we saw measurements on ASR for this monitor. What’s the advice here? Sit with ears at or slightly above tweeter position. How was I supposed to know that?
With some distance between the drivers it's very possible to get a huge suckout around the crossover depending on the listening axis and distance to the speaker.IMHO you should have known that regardless of the loudspeaker, sound directionality increases with frequency. So treble is very directional while bass is much less. So logically the acoustic axis must be the tweeter axis or very close to it. Which is why many loudspeaker manufacturers put their tweeters at sitting ear height (around 90-95 cm), or higher but aimed lower in that case. Just my two cents.
https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/220003-focal-twin-6-vertical-position.htmlIMHO you should have known that regardless of the loudspeaker, sound directionality increases with frequency. So treble is very directional while bass is much less. So logically the acoustic axis must be the tweeter axis or very close to it. Which is why many loudspeaker manufacturers put their tweeters at sitting ear height (around 90-95 cm), or higher but aimed lower in that case. Just my two cents.
Of course coaxial speakers are a theoretical ideal, and with non-coaxial speakers it's all a matter of compromise But the fact that the person you mention works at Focal doesn't prove anything (I only believe scientific arguments - a lot of Audioquest reps claim that their cables are magical, and I don't believe a single one of them ). Plus in that same thread (posts > 30) people seem to be going against his recommendations.https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/220003-focal-twin-6-vertical-position.html
Take a look at post 30 where a focal rep says it is between the tweeter and woofer. They were not more than 24” from my ears. These are for the twins but from memory the same was said for the solos.
Why?This may be of interest to the cardioid-curious:
I am interested in Toole's reaction to cardioid speakers. As far as I can tell, no comments, no listening, testing. I do feel that cardioid speakers are an important and state-of-the-art improvement, and some of Toole's ideas may or not be accurate in regard to them.It seems both JJ and Dr. Toole think omni-bass is the way to go. (JJ's post, follow up question, clarification; Floyd Toole's post)
I am interested in Toole's reaction to cardioid speakers. As far as I can tell, no comments, no listening, testing. I do feel that cardioid speakers are an important and state-of-the-art improvement, and some of Toole's ideas may or not be accurate in regard to them.
But surely seamless integration is aided by cardioids. I certainly can't see them hindering it.I'd say it's a different approach. Tool seem to focus on seamlessly integrating speakers into a room, whereas cardioids are designed to "eliminate" (part of) the room.