I missed this thread as well.. ops:
Note that the compensation curve is not unlike the reverse of the dispersion pattern for the loudspeaker. (..where the loudspeaker becomes more "omni" as freq.s lower, and is more directive higher in freq. w/ increased diffraction artifacts - even if it's not a particularly directive loudspeaker as with the Ardent.)
There is of course an alternative:
Aim the loudspeakers forward (no "toe-in"), and make sure that the left speaker for the listener's left ear is significantly off-axis (like 45-50 degrees) and vice-versa (..for a less directive design like the Ardent, less so for a more directive design). This usually means moving the loudspeaker much closer to the listener, but that ALSO pays "*dividends" (in several respects). Of course, it might not make for domestic "harmony". :W CAUTION: you can't spread the speakers to far apart either and still get the best results (which again, necessitates a closer listening distance to the loudspeakers). I find that about a 7 foot loudspeaker spread is usually optimal, and I usually start with them forward and then have two people if available (one for each loudspeaker), start rotating them in-ward (modest toe-in) relative to my listening position (..which I'll change a bit moving forward and backward from the loudspeakers until I get what I'm looking for). The rotation (toe-in) in this instance is because of diffraction effects which can sometimes be a bit to pronounced relative to the angle: basically looking for a "happy compromise".
*among other things, the compensation curve/filter - tends to reproduce depth a bit better. This sort of setup adds to that with superior width reproduction (because you still have that monophonic emphasis below 1 kHz (depth), and above you've increased listener channel separation (width, including imaging separation)). You'll also get other benefits as well like intensity effects, lower distortion for a given spl, etc..
Note that the compensation curve is not unlike the reverse of the dispersion pattern for the loudspeaker. (..where the loudspeaker becomes more "omni" as freq.s lower, and is more directive higher in freq. w/ increased diffraction artifacts - even if it's not a particularly directive loudspeaker as with the Ardent.)
There is of course an alternative:
Aim the loudspeakers forward (no "toe-in"), and make sure that the left speaker for the listener's left ear is significantly off-axis (like 45-50 degrees) and vice-versa (..for a less directive design like the Ardent, less so for a more directive design). This usually means moving the loudspeaker much closer to the listener, but that ALSO pays "*dividends" (in several respects). Of course, it might not make for domestic "harmony". :W CAUTION: you can't spread the speakers to far apart either and still get the best results (which again, necessitates a closer listening distance to the loudspeakers). I find that about a 7 foot loudspeaker spread is usually optimal, and I usually start with them forward and then have two people if available (one for each loudspeaker), start rotating them in-ward (modest toe-in) relative to my listening position (..which I'll change a bit moving forward and backward from the loudspeakers until I get what I'm looking for). The rotation (toe-in) in this instance is because of diffraction effects which can sometimes be a bit to pronounced relative to the angle: basically looking for a "happy compromise".
*among other things, the compensation curve/filter - tends to reproduce depth a bit better. This sort of setup adds to that with superior width reproduction (because you still have that monophonic emphasis below 1 kHz (depth), and above you've increased listener channel separation (width, including imaging separation)). You'll also get other benefits as well like intensity effects, lower distortion for a given spl, etc..
Comment