R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Acoustics in Motion => Topic started by: Brent Handy on July 19, 2008, 04:52:27 pm

Title: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: Brent Handy on July 19, 2008, 04:52:27 pm
Has anyone come across research or experiments detailing that the stereo sound field is reduced as a result of soffit mounting speakers?  The argument that I have heard in my audiophile shop is that a speaker uses the space behind to reproduce a bigger sound field.  Sounds stupid to me.

Thought?
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: johnR on July 19, 2008, 05:01:17 pm
Soffit mounting will reduce the diffraction caused by the sharp edges of the speaker cabinet (assuming you haven't got gaps around them). That will improve stereo imaging.
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: Brent Handy on July 19, 2008, 05:21:29 pm
Yes I know.  These guys (and some manufacturers rep from Dynaudio) state that by soffit mounting, a whole dimension of useful information is lost.  I say that is crap.  We are eliminating the reflections that would sum and cancel with the out of phase bass coming from the back of the free standing speaker, which would IMPROVE the stereo image.
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: avare on July 20, 2008, 11:17:00 am
Brent Handy wrote on Sat, 19 July 2008 17:21

Yes I know.  These guys (and some manufacturers rep from Dynaudio) state that by soffit mounting, a whole dimension of useful information is lost.



The same Dynaudio that offers "Custom cabinet designs for existing soffits" for its M4s? Cool

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=286&AjrN ws=185&AjrNwsPg=1

Andre
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: Brent Handy on July 20, 2008, 01:13:26 pm
Remember these are audiophiles selling consumer stuff.  I am not even impressed by the evidence stuff.  I will say, while the bass seems a bit undefined and not as extended as I would like it, the top end is nice without being harsh.
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: avare on July 20, 2008, 06:25:37 pm
Brent Handy wrote on Sun, 20 July 2008 13:13

Remember these are audiophiles selling consumer stuff.  I am not even impressed by the evidence stuff.  I will say, while the bass seems a bit undefined and not as extended as I would like it, the top end is nice without being harsh.


And which does soffit mounting help with? Bass or high end predominantly?  You are answering your own question.

The most important thing is that the speakers and room are part of a system.  Both ways can give  excellent results if designed as part of a system.  Proof of this is in Griffin Audio having both in-wall and and free-standing versions of the G1.

Andre
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: Brent Handy on July 20, 2008, 08:58:11 pm
I know the benefits of soffit mounting.  I don't need to know why we do it.  My question again relates to any experience or documented studies on soffit mounting reducing the stereo soundstage as a result.  I want to cover my butt before I go into battle.

My education tells me that this is marketing BS.  I just want to make sure.
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: jensenmann on July 21, 2008, 11:14:52 am
Philip Newell wrote some stuff about the benefit of soffit mounting in his book Recording Studio Design. Though I don?t remember if he is referring to scientific studies in this particular case, he has a welleducated opinion in acoustics.
Title: Re: Soffit mounting speakers vs. imaging
Post by: avare on July 21, 2008, 12:01:11 pm
Brent Handy wrote on Sun, 20 July 2008 20:58

I know the benefits of soffit mounting.  I don't need to know why we do it.  My question again relates to any experience or documented studies on soffit mounting reducing the stereo soundstage as a result.  I want to cover my butt before I go into battle.

My education tells me that this is marketing BS.  I just want to make sure.



Your basis is wrong right off the bat.  Audiophiles are interested in pleasing sound from their speakers (and unknowingly room).  We are interested in accuracy.  Toole even makes the case from experiments that some early reflections are conducive to pleasant sound.

As an example of the difference, Bob Katz wrote on the recording.list how a high end CD player did not reproduce errors on one of his CDs that a cheaper one did.  The high end player had better error correction.  It "covered" the sonic flaws on the CD.  He changed to another player.  One player is better for audiophiles, the other is better for critical mastering listening.

Andre