Archive through February 07, 2016
|
New member Username: Gwix98Post Number: 1 Registered: Jun-13 | Just got a pair of ADS L7E speakers recently as replacements for some failed Kef Q30's. They sound great. Can anyone give me some history of the company and the sspeaker line? These re in great shape, and from the 70's I suspect. SBJ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 17770 Registered: May-04 | . I assume you've looked for on line information by now. I never sold ADS, just sold against them. A short search indicates your speakers were built in the late '80's, rather after the heyday of ADS. The line itself, which existed under several names, was the victim of never being a real company. This made it an idea which was easy to sell and a design entity which had no real home base. As a design team ADS was eventually distributed through several parent companies - many of whom attached their own name to the ADS brand, ADS-Braun being the most well known. At one time ADS and Braun existed as competing models selling essentially the same product but through different distribution lines and dealers. What was a "real" ADS speaker was difficult to discern for the customer. Ownership of warranties became contentious and this as much as anything eventually led to the demise of ADS as a brand after the idea had finally run its course. During their best years ADS existed as a semi-high end consumer loudspeaker which was either loved dearly or ignored as just another speaker line. The main "hit" on ADS was their similar tonal balance to many JBL speakers of the day. While ADS produced an incredible number of speakers over the years and it was difficult to say there was an "ADS house sound", as a whole they were best described as "punchy and dynamic". The ADS speakers had many virtues going for them in the showroom when demonstrated against more "East Coast" sounding Boston Acoustics or more highly pedigreed Thiels. They require a bit more wattage to adequately drive to level and they can be difficult loads on many modern day amplifiers not well suited to low impedance loads. The ADS speakers will ultimately sound as good as the amplifier/system driving them. With decent bass extension in most of their speakers, any ADS product will require careful set up in any room to really provide their best sound quality. ADS's best models were created during the days of acoustic suspension design dominance. Sealed systems have their own set of advantages and disadvantages but they have largely fallen out of favor since the introduction of home theater. While the market for small, shoebox sized speakers had already been established long before ADS hit the US dealerships it was their introduction of the aluminum boxed micro-monitors which drew the most attention from buyers looking for small speakers with bigger than you would expect sound. You don't say why your KEF's died but, if you were overdriving them, be very careful with the ADS. They do require a bit more power than most modern speakers and they are somewhat fragile when the amp begins to clip. Repairs are difficult for the ADS products due to the line being kicked around through various ownerships over the years. Most original parts have been used for repairs and it is doubtful any repairs would actually return the speakers to their original sound quality. Would I own an ADS speaker? No, I'm after a slightly different sound quality. But ADS has developed a cult following and there are many people who have enjoyed their ADS speakers for more than two decades. I think though ADS speakers are a rather difficult sale today since their sun and moon exists in older buyers who aren't looking for new speakers other than for parts value. . |
|
New member Username: Gwix98Post Number: 2 Registered: Jun-13 | Thanks Jan, I appreciate the post .You are very informed on the history of ADS. I did get a similar lesson from the seller ( a well respected audio dealer) in the Seattle area. I was looking for a replacement for the Kef Q30's. I am not sure exactly why they failed. One of the pair began sounding poorly about 6 months ago. A local speaker shop told me that the woofers in both were in need of rebuild as was one of the tweeters. They felt that parts would be hard to get, and perhaps the repair money would be better spent on something else. Naturally that "something" was in the $800 and up range. I did not feel I could spend that much, so opted to shop around the used market and we have one well thought of shop in the area that deals in such items. The Kefs never ever were abused, so I was a bit surprised when one unit started to sound poorly. I was told that this particular model had a high failure rate. I have 1 year in which to return the ADS for 80 percent credit towards different speakers, which I thought seemed reasonable. I have two amps/receiver systems. One is a Heath preamp feeding a Haffler 220, and the other is a Yamaha 595. So far, I have just tried the Yamaha, and it seems to work OK. I am certainly not an audiophile, but overall these sound good to me, but not quite as good as in the sound room in the shop. But of course they had some very high end electronics in front of the speakers for demonstration. Hopefully we won't be in a situation where we need to upgrade, but it sounds as if we can do that if we become unhappy. I will be certain to keep the power levels down. We tend to listen to our music at lower levels anyhow so that won't be a problem. Were you in the sales of speaker/audio systems at one time? Thank you again for your very thoughtful post. P.S. What's your recommended amp for this 4 ohm load? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 17772 Registered: May-04 | . I sold high end audio for about twenty five years. I haven't been actively involved in audio sales for over a decade and things have certainly changed in that time. While the ADS speakers are spec'd at 4 Ohms, no multi-way speaker tends to present a consistent load to an amplifier. I'll kill two birds with one link here and send you to this page; http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs41-lr-loudspeaker Go to the "Measurements" page of that article and you'll see a graph which represents impedance and electrical phase. These two values together are what determine how difficult a speaker will be for any amplifier. There are several threads in the archives of the forum which discuss how these values work together and you should read those to know a bit more about what you might buy in the future. I won't go into detail about the combined values of the load but just say any speaker rated at 4 Ohms "nominal" is likely to fall below that value at some frequency. Most modern mass market amplifiers have a difficult time which such loads due to the amperage - or current - reserves required to adequately drive such a load. In general, I would rank the Yamaha products as less than ideal for such loads. The Hafler was far better suited to driving the more difficult speakers of its day and should provide a rather distinctly different personality when paired with the ADS than what you are hearing from the Yamaha. The set up of the ADS in your room will largely determine the quality of sound you perceive. I prefer the Wilson WASP set up procedure in most cases and there are also threads which deal with this procedure; http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/waspe.html While there have always been "giant killers" in home audio, the modern day market has resulted in some rather incredibly good products available at very reasonable prices. While you would probably feel the need for a subwoofer if you moved from the ADS to the speaker I linked to above, I would suggest you give them some consideration for any move from the ADS. The character of many consumer speakers has shifted somewhat since the ADS' time and auditions would be worth your time and money IMO. The "T-amps" and "class D" amplifiers have made very high end audio music quality available at a budget price; https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/668896.html Most of the time budget audio works when you recognize the trade offs which have been made to produce quality at a price point. To be honest, you can get yourself into a less than stellar system by simply buying at a price point. However, if you have a little bit of savvy about how things go together - for example, T amps don't like 4 Ohm speakers, you can piece together a system for under $1k that really is a contender for "how much more could you ask for?" quality. (http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=108242.0 There you have a system which is based on speakers sold in the big box stores paired with a high end class D amp sold on line. Put that together with a computer based source' http://www.computeraudiophile.com/ and a good set up for everything and I think you'd be surprised at the quality such a system can achieve. That said, recommendations of any product for someone else are always difficult on line. You know what you prefer better than I do and you don't have my ears or vice versa. I've heard this amplifier several times; http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=310-326 Personally, I find the lower priced variations on this to be just as good if you can adequately drive your speaker with lower power. So many products in the class D arena are built around similar chip sets, just like our cars and computers, and the little Muse amp mentioned in that one link is a great value for about $30. You'll need speakers with a more easy load and a slightly higher "electrical sensitivity" spec than the ADS though. Good system matching and set up are the key to getting great value from your system. Read the archives of the forum and you'll get some ideas. On the other hand, if you find the Hafler/ADS combo to be satisfying, don't take my links to mean anything other than look at what's available today. Prefer what you prefer and don't let me influence your decisions. The music is what matters and, if you like the ADS, then that's all that counts. There is also a thing called "classic audio" where you can find some very good values. I would say the ADS qualify for that category. Good luck. . |
|
New member Username: Gwix98Post Number: 3 Registered: Jun-13 | Jan, Thank you, I have a lot of info to digest from your links,and look forward to doing it. I used to to be active in amateur radio, building antennas and we used Impedance matching devices. They were always a compromise, but presented an appropriate load to the PA. I know these exist for audio amps, but don't if performance would be affected...certainly a close match is best. I will know in a few weeks how this is all going to work out. Perhaps we can post again. Steve |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3046 Registered: Oct-07 | The NEW KEF LS50, while expensive, is an amazing loudspeaker. Even though it is a standmount, I don't know that in an appropriate space, you'd need or want a sub. They are, according to the KEF rep, a reasonable load and don't require a massive amp to sound good. I heard them with Cary amps......which show very well. I'd expect the Hafler amp to do very well, too. |
|
New member Username: Gwix98Post Number: 4 Registered: Jun-13 | Jan/Leo, What might be a better preamp to go with the Haffler? The old Heathkit AP-1800 is bulky, and not really destined to work with CD's. I suspect CD technology was not even around during that time. I have used it though for 10 years. In all honesty, to many knobs which have not been all that useful. Trying to go fairly simple here. Lots to learn beyond plug and play which has been my approach for many years. Regarding classic audio, Jan, I had a Marantz 20 watt per channel receiver Which performed very well for me for many years, and was very simple. The Heath and Haffler were the replacement. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 17773 Registered: May-04 | . Recommending specific gear is troublesome, more so when you have very little information to work with. "Something to replace the Heath" isn't quite enough to go on. You would hope for a synergistic match between all components using some electrical parameters and some personal preferences. I have neither to work with in your request. The position of a pre amp within the circuit of a system makes it either a very important component which sets the "tone" for all that follows or a component that should be said to do nothing at all. Many listeners prefer a tube based pre amp paired with a solid state amp yet, IMO, tubes in any portion of the system are often not for the less experienced user. Ideally, a pre amp for high level sources - not phonograph based - should do nothing more than be a control center for the system. That would require only a switch for source selection and a volume control in most cases. In a single source system using CD, tape or computer you could use something as simple as this; http://www.amazon.com/Bravo-Audio-Multi-Hybrid-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B00ADR2DTG since many headphone amps can double as line stage pre amps. Also many outboard DAC's (digital to analog converters) can serve as a single source pre amp of sorts if they control output levels; http://www.nuforce.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=661:dac-80&Itemid=25 97 Pre amps generally fall into categories; active or passive and phono or line stage. If you no longer use a turntable, you have no need for the expense of a phono pre amp and can go with a line stage. If you require switching for multiple sources, switching can be included in the pre amp or as an outboard device. Many of the least expensive - and a few rather expensive - pre amps and integrated amps employ what is known as a "passive pre amp" which has no circuitry other than wiring from input through a volume control and back to the outputs; http://www.nhthifi.com/PVC_Pro_XLR_professional_passive_volume_control That particular unit is very good for a single source system since it uses transformers for level control thus avoiding many of the potential drawbacks to a truly passive pre amp system. I use it in my own system when I'm not using my turntable. If your system is, say, CD or computer only, you can run the outputs of the source player directly through any power amplifier which has its own level controls. Many CD players and any computer allow you to use no pre amp at all by directly controlling output level from the playing device. Hook your computer directly to the Hafler and adjust the volume using your computer's digital controls. Remember in such a connection to always begin with the volume control on the CD or computer at its lowest levels or risk blowing out your speakers with far too much volume surging through at start up. That barely scratches the surface of today's pre amps and, as you can see, any one recommendation would need to be made on the basis of much more information and discussion than can be accomplished on this forum. Each choice would lead you down another path and each path will have good and bad decisions involved. Add to that the fact there are literally thousands of new and used pre amps you could consider which might fit into any given price range once you've narrowed down what it is you want/require. I would suggest you do a bit of reading and thinking about what would best serve your needs and budget. You can begin by looking at the webpages of several better retailers of new and used equipment and then, if you have specific questions, contacting the retailer directly. I would hesitate to suggest you buy from eBay or any such source since you have no opportunity to audition any equipment they might offer, but you know your buying habits better than I ever might. http://www.audioclassics.com/cat?cat=Preamplifiers http://www.audioadvisor.com/ http://www.musicdirect.com/ http://www.needledoctor.com/ http://www.elusivedisc.com/ There are a handful of places to begin. Not at all an extensive list but one that should give you some ideas. Many audio equipment manufacturers sell exclusively on the web and they can offer some very nice values since the middle man profit of a dealer has largely been excluded. Of course, sometimes that middle man can be quite useful and I would always encourage anyone in the market to check with their local retailers before buying from the web. Sorry I can't be more useful, SBJ, but your question is so open ended it's rather like asking me what you should for dinner tonight. . |
|
New member Username: Sb001Post Number: 1 Registered: May-14 | Wow- I don't know where to start- but Jan has fed you a world of misinformation about ADS- so let’s get a few things straight. They were very, VERY good speakers all the way through the 80s and into the early 90s. They weren't "owned" by lots of various entities- they started in Germany as a speaker division of Braun and then when their manufacturing production was moved to the states and became its own entity away from Braun they took the ADS (Analog & Digital Systems) name. Also or many years they were manufactured in Wilmington Massachusetts- thus they had a DISTINCTLY NEW ENGLAND sound to them- very SIMILAR to Boston Acoustics and they sounded NOTHING like the west coast JBL speakers, emphasizing tight controlled dynamics and liquid midrange over punchy bass and more forward pronounced highs like JBL. He is correct that most of their best known and revered speakers are probably the more cabinet-type speakers they produced in the early-to-mid 80s, but even into the late 80s their tower speakers (like the L-1290, look it up to see rave reviews) were hugely cherished. Their MV and architectural lines of the early 90s still sell for loads of money. They did change ownership hands a couple of times, first becoming ADST in the mid-90s and moving production to west coast (although they still in NO way sounded like west coast speakers) and then Directed Electronics took them over in the early 2000s and unfortunately considered them an afterthought, producing lower quality products and eventually letting the company drop off completely. So Jan is sort of correct about that but the other tripe he fed you is a load. The reason your L7e's sound so good is because they ARE good, very good, speakers. I don't know what Jan's problem is with ADS but it's obvious he has one- at least he admitted that he sold against them so there's that--but for someone who has been â€in the business†for 20 years he sure doesn’t know his stuff. ADS for a long time were some of the most musical, balanced, detailed, non-fatiguing speaker you could hope to buy. Enjoy yours! P.S. For further rebuttal against Jan’s completely erroneous information concerning ADS, you might read the following article regarding the L-1290 floorstanders from Stereo Review: http://www.sportsbil.com/ads/l-1290-review.pdf |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3126 Registered: Oct-07 | I would personally take Any JH review with a grain of salt. Using a Carver amp, even the robust 1.5t would not have been my first choice. As a note of full disclosure, I OWNED the m400t for probably 20 years. That being said, my ONE path-cross with ADS speakers occurred in an Orange County stereo store where I heard the 'Braun Tri-Amp'. They were, as advertised, a 3-way powered speaker with something like 100 watts per enclosure distributed something like 50/35/15 for bass/mid/hf. Listeners were generally impressed until the PRICE was revealed to be �. well, LOTS. These days, virtually all 'pro' speakers and even some home speakers, like the powered Paradigm Atom and AudioEngine series feature internal amps. 'D' amps are popular in these applications due to low heat and relative efficiency. |
|
New member Username: KlccharterMinneapolis, Minnesota US Post Number: 1 Registered: Jan-15 | I agree Steve, Jan hasn't got a clue. A 30+ year audiophile, I have coveted ADS speakers from the beginning. I have owned so many speakers I lost track of them. B&Ws, Maggies, Von-Schwiekert, Boston Acoustic, and ADS L730s. 10 years ago I found a pair of L1530s on audiogon. They are the sweetest most dynamic, coherent speaker I have ever heard. I take that back, I listened to a pair of $50K speakers from Wilson audio with DACs built into the mono-blocks. This setup sounded better but cost $49K less. You cannot beat these speakers. I can hardly wait to get them bi-amped. |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 1 Registered: Feb-15 | I have loved ADS speakers since the day I heard them back in 1978. My brother inlaw got a pair of L1230s and drove them with a Nikko Alpha 440 amp. At 220 watts a channel the bass was loud and very accurate. I have since owned pairs of L810/2s L1090s and last L1290/2s that are incredible. The L1290/2s are a tiny bit more accurate in the midbass than the L1230s. When fourier transform testing became available using computers ADS changed the crossovers from the woofers and midrange to a slightly higher point and the improvement is clear to me. I still have to build a center channel to match the 4 L1290/2 mains and surrounds. There is an engineer that used to work at the factory in Wilmington MA. that went to Pheonix Arizona with Direct Electronics when they took over the company, and he sells parts and repairs and rebuilds all ADS products. I had him rebuild a couple of tweeters and midranges for me on some speakers I purchased on Ebay and they came out PERFECT. He has all original parts and well over 30 yrs experience. I would highly recommend picking up a pair of these wonderful speakers on Ebay or US adiomart or craigslist. The price will get you a pair of great sounding speakers that can still be serviced and backed up and will beat the sound of any new speaker on the market today unless you are willing to spend 4000$ or more. Some of there large speakers like the L2030s or L1590s would require you to spend 10000$ or more to outperform. Check out Rich So on google, his website has an accurate history of the company and a great collection of pictures of different models. Google Dr Goedhard Gunther and learn about the Nasa Astrophysist who helped design the speakers. He held 3 different phds. He now resides in Concord MA. His inteligence is reflected in the flat frequency response of his speakers. Hearing is believing. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18011 Registered: May-04 | . " Some of there large speakers like the L2030s or L1590s would require you to spend 10000$ or more to outperform." Ten grand, eh? Or, more?! Like, maybe, $50k??? Wow! Sure don'wanna do that! . |
|
New member Username: Sb001Post Number: 2 Registered: May-14 | Bob, I am very familiar with Richard So and have had him rebuild a few drivers recently for me as well, for a pair of L-1230s I had. Once put back together and operating properly they were spectacular. KLCCharter, I have also owned many ADS models including a pair of the L-1290s in rosewood finish, still to this day probably the favorite speaker I have owned. What I wouldn't give to find a pair of the PA-1's to drive them!! Remember to biamp your L-1530s you MUST have an outboard crossover along with the amps-- flipping the switch on the speakers basically decouples the woofers from the internal crossover, so you must compensate for that. If you could ever find the elusive ADS C-2000 crossover unit, that would be perfect of course-- but others have used alternate crossovers with good success. Jan, you can leave this conversation- it's been made abundantly clear that you either have zero clue regarding ADS speakers, or a vendetta against ADS for whatever reason (probably because they stole a lot of your business) and your posts are filled with childish contempt. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18019 Registered: May-04 | . You talkin' to me?! Please, don't start bossing people around and telling them you know what they think. Particularly when you on on post #2. Seems to me you are doing fine with your version of ADS history and so on and so on. If I add an editorial comment now and again that you find to be not within your concept of how the universe operates, I have no doubt you'll just keep jabberin' away. Besides, the blatant egotism of thinking your speakers can't be bettered for less than a $10-50,000 investment today is,to be more than kind, just the sort of stuff that makes me fall on the floor and roll around laughing till my sides begin to hurt. I don't care if you like your biga$$ ADS speakers from several decades back. He!!, I don't care if you still have and prefer BIC Venturi 6's! Driven by a Phase Linear 700. You get to like what you like for whatever reason you like it. But let's just keep this real if you insist I have no clue about ADS. OK? You've found someone on a forum that will allow you to spout. To go on about your superb speakers and how difficult they will be to improve upon after more than thirty years have passed. Be my guest. Spout! It is, after all, a forum where anyone can say pretty much whatever they want. IMO most realistic and attentive music lovers and audiophiles alike would be honest when they say there are but a very small handful of speakers from the last half of the 20th century which are worth listening through today. And, while you may think your ADS to be superb - particularly when you MUST use an outboard crossover and, OH, that elusive ADS C-2000 crossover unit! - I doubt they would make it onto that short list of anyone who has ventured into a decent live music venue in the last half century. Have fun discussing what you feel you must. But don't ever tell me to go away. That's just simply rude. Particularly when you are on post #2. . |
|
New member Username: Sb001Post Number: 3 Registered: May-14 | That's right Jan, I'm talking SPECIFICALLY to you. Not only because you fed the OP a wealth of misinformation concerning the history of ADS, but because you allowed your bias to get in the way of the true performance capabilities of these speakers. "Fall to the floor in laughter??" Typing stuff like that just makes you sound even more disconnected from reality. Does it bother you that everyone else has also called you out for the lies you posted? I don' THINK ADS speakers are superb, they have their history in that category backed up by many recording studios who chose to use them due to their wide, flat, accurate response, and incredible dynamics. This ESPECIALLY holds true for the L-2030 which you actually are ignorant enough to insult in your post above, without a shred of a clue as to their capabilities. And oh by the way, dozens of studios used them as reference monitors WITHOUT the C-2000 unit, so that should tell you something about how wrong you are right there as well. But it will probably sail right over your head, since you sound like a high strung audiophile-WANNABE who thinks throwing money around wastefully enters you into that category, but who in no way exhibits the talents of a true audiophile. Quite simply, as pointed out by not just me but others who have responded to your completely mistaken posts above, you are an uninformed fool, and therefore yes you desperately need to leave. That is EXACTLY what I feel I MUST discuss, when some uninformed dimwit starts talking nonsense about a speaker company. Does it bother you more that I called you out as a liar about ADS specifically, proving you have an unfounded biased opinion toward them--an opinion that has been thoroughly trashed here by others as well as myself? Or that I destroyed any chance you had to have people legitimately view you as an audiophile with one post? Go away and leave the speaker discussion to the real experts. |
|
New member Username: Sb001Post Number: 4 Registered: May-14 | In fact, God, even your name reeks of petulant high strung wine sipping lip curling snobbyness. Change it, or don't ever post here again. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18021 Registered: May-04 | . Not bad for an eight year old. You know words with more than one syllable. Oops! I hear your mama calling you in for a nose wiping. You better run now, you don't want to get yourself grounded. . |
|
New member Username: Sleepr0Little Ferry, New Jersey United States Post Number: 1 Registered: May-15 | Not to disparage, but a/d/s loudspeakers date back to the late 70's. I looked at some in a Hamton Roads, VA hifi shop way back then. I was pretty impressed. At the time, I was using either Magnepan MG-1s or the New Advents (stacked). In those days, those were as good as it got for mid-fi. The a/d/s L710 and L810 made me consider a trade-up (oh yes, trade-ins were very common practice back then). I asked the salesman quite a few questions about the company and he did indeed say that a/d/s was a Braun affiliate with components made in Germany. As a matter of fact, he also sold Canton speakers, so they partial to German audio design. a/d/s also designed and distributed one of the first surround-sound ambient audio processors (pre-dating Yamaha in that regard) in the early 80's. It was well-regarded and had a nice 100 watt amplifier onboard. I know because I owned one. So much for "badge engineering"... I am surprised about the dearth of information pertaining to a/d/s. I did a little research a few years ago and recall that the person behind it moved on in the late 80s. His name was Ron Fone. Apparently, he was a bit of a scalawag and more interested in new opportunities than long-term development. Perhaps that is where Jan gets his poor image of the company. Mr. Fone may have driven the company into the ground. At any rate, a/d/s lived on for a time making computer chips and you may, as I have, find the occasional chip with their logo on it in older PCs on their way to the recyclers.} |
|
New member Username: AloysiusgabrielPost Number: 1 Registered: Jun-15 | I have a new set of ADS AL4 car speakers... unused in its original box with the following... 2 - 1"/25mm copolymer dome tweeters with integral grilles 2 - 4"/104mm copolymer cone woofers with grilles 2 - Custom matched passive crossovers 1 - Complete hardware and wire kit Can anyone tell me what these are worth? I have no idea, and I cannot find any info on them. Thanks!! |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3245 Registered: Oct-07 | Except for a few absolute classics of speaker design and execution, like the KLH9 or Magnepan Tympani, or perhaps even a few of the IRS series, you'll find they are only worth what someone will PAY for them. You might try an ad on Canuk Audio Mart or the US offshoot, Audiogon or with all the usual disclaimers, even Craigslist. You'll get a bunch of lowballs. Help may be provided in the form of audio bluebook values for which you'll need to see a dealer or sales history on EPray. All that being said, it MAY be possible to build a small enclosure and USE them as small desk monitors or in a den as a personal system. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the <100$ T-Amps would work wonders. |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 2266 Registered: Oct-10 | Steve B. You're better off just ignoring Jan. He's not worth your time. |
|
New member Username: SoundmotorPost Number: 1 Registered: Jun-15 | aDs was formed by Dr. Godehard Guenther in the early 1970s and after he started the Braun-Aria company. Braun-Aria and was an importer of Braun loudspeakers. This led to building cabinets in the USA with Braun drivers. This was the first iteration of aDs (mirroring the brAun logo at the time.) Eventually, a factory was opened in MA and the drivers were built there. This takes the company up to ~1981. In 1981, ADS (new logo) was approached by Gillette which had bought Braun. Gillette sold the Braun hi-fi division to ADS. By 1981 ADS was quite successful and Dr. Guenther's earlier relationship with Braun opened the door. Although there was collaboration between the 2 companies, each had unique speaker lines which were not shared. Braun continued producing its own drivers as did ADS. Electronics however were, the Atelier line specifically.In 1990, a/d/s/ (logo change in 1988 or thereabouts) sold Braun back to Gillette. In 1992, a/d/s/ was purchase by the Museatex group out of Canada. In the late 90s, the last office for a/d/s/ closed in MA and the company relocated to AZ. I am hazy on the timeline after that. As far as Ron Fone having any involvement with the company, none that I am aware of. From 1991-1995 he was president of McIntosh and prior to that had been involved with a high-end video company. After 1995 he was with several other companies but not a/d/s/ AFAIK so the attribution of him running a/d/s/ into the ground is undeserved. I worked for ADS from 1987-1993 and he was not there then either. Computer chips, really? |
|
New member Username: BobkafMidland, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1 Registered: Jan-16 | Jan Vigne: wow, your perception and understanding of ADS is perfect. I moved from ADS in the late 70's to MagnaPan and then Martin Logan around 1990 which I still use. I want to update, what would you recommend for amplifier and speakers today? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18129 Registered: May-04 | . I don't know how "perfect" my perception is when it comes to ADS but, it is my perception. And, ultimately, that is what matters to me. In no way am I tied down to only my perceptions but they are where I start from knowing I may not have the entire picture in my head but I have done the best I could at forming an educated opinion. And, of course, some things are just more important than others and some don't require I know all that much about them. Part of the journey is to find new avenues and less well known, often unexplored pathways to a fuller perception. IMO I am seldom offended by a new or unknown bit of knowledge as long as there is logic and, at times, some interesting mystery behind it. Anyone and everyone else is entitled to their perception of ADS (or audio or music or life in general) and we should all be capable of getting along without ad hominem attacks just for the sake of being an a**hole and getting away with it on line. Or, at least, that's always been my perception of how music and audio should operate. Life too. They exist for the enjoyment of the event and not for starting a fight over who is right or wrong. That said, ... First, I would say you should re-read my earlier comments regarding system/component selection. In your case, I have no idea whether your perception of needs/wants/priorities would best be completed by the purchase of a Ford F350 king cab, dualie, extended bed Eddie Bauer edition pick'em up truck or with owning a Fiat 500. I currently drive the Fiat and I think it's a great car for my present needs. However, whenever I go to a large parking lot and place my car 50' from the nearest vehicle with dozens of open spaces between my Fiat and the next vehicle, when I come out, I find my Fiat surrounded by Ford F350 king cab, dualie, extended bed Eddie Bauer edition pick'em up trucks and the like. I can only assume this is a thought process thing being performed by the owners of vehicles which are not closer in their DNA to the 500. And that too is very much a part of buying an audio system if you are paying the least bit of attention. Your mental predispositions will lead you where you want to be in the end ... though there may be several surprises and detours along the way. Take for example, despite the fact I can achieve roughly 46-47 mpg on the highway with my car (which suits me quite well), a few weeks ago I had a small project around the house which required I purchase and transport one eight foot long piece of 1X6 lumber. To do so with the Fiat I had to roll back the sunroof and prop the piece up so that it stuck out the roof of the car. Since this is the sort of "need" I very seldom encounter and since the trip was only a few blocks long, there wasn't a problem with the trade off of gas mileage/handling/driving enjoyment vs hauling capacity. At no point in that process did I think I really should have purchased a larger vehicle and given up the desirable qualities of the sub-compact. In the same manner, your situation predicts what you will prefer and your preference is shaped by your average needs and desires vs your momentary diversions into "other" type gear. If you are asking for my personal preferences in equipment, which I don't feel you are, it is for relatively low wattage amplifiers paired with single, full range driver loudspeaker systems. Paired with an outboard powered subwoofer, this combination offers me the greatest musicality for the dollar I have to invest. Obviously, not all such systems but a few and generally more than any other type of configuration. Equally obvious, that combination will not be suitable for all listeners. Just as a very wild guess though, given your past preference for panel type speakers, I would say you would likely be very happy with some variation on the SDFR concept. Simplicity leading to transparency would be my first take away from your past speaker selection. You would probably say you don't want your music to sound like it's coming from an audio system. For example, your panel type speakers offer a wide variation on the concept of musical dynamics. While many listeners would say the panels lack the ultimate dynamic range of a large cone based loudspeaker, that's seldom important to the panel listener. Typically, they place more emphasis on the micro-dynamics rather than the macro-dynamics. Nuance is more valued than grand gestures. How to go about this in a loudspeaker is widely disputed and each designer will offer their own recipe. While the "speed" of a system is often pointed to as the benefit of a panel, it is not so much "speed" as it is transient capability. While the idea of coherence is often a selling point with a panel, it is really more a matter of the system not getting in its own way. While the lack of a boxy sound is most certainly an advantage with a panel, it is also the priority which drives a designer of a small mini-monitor or a large transmission line. And each has its own set of trade offs. Pretty much the same with amplification. There are more ways to achieve your goals today than ever before. IMO watts are largely un-important. Power is more a factor of what is required by your speaker choice and your speakers will live with your amplifier selection. Synergism is more important than viewing each as a discrete component IMO. Obviously, if you decide you prefer a low wattage amplifier, you probably wouldn't venture towards a speaker with a 82dB sensitivity specification. Yet, if the electrical load of the speaker on the amp was very benign, then a 25 watt amp of good pedigree might easily suffice with most low sensitivity loudspeakers. As with modern automobiles and cameras, the number of concepts in audio equipment has grown increasingly diverse over the last 15-20 years. Each has its own justification for its existence. Each buyer must wade into the waters on their own with maybe just the knowledge that there is no perfect system. Yet, as with today's cameras and cars, there are few bad products available once you have left the lowest common denominator category. Like today's cars and cameras, most audio gear can provide what most listeners would say is quite good sound and music quality that is capable of long term enjoyment. And, in the end, it is your room you are listening through as much as your components/loudspeakers. If you're not prepared to put some effort into getting the room right, then, no matter what system you buy, the room will still dominate the music quality you perceive. More like cameras than cars, most of the enjoyment of an audio system will come from the perception of the user and the knowledge they bring to the subject. Entry level or high end, if you have the perceptive ability to get to the root of what it is you hear in your head, you will almost always be able to translate that into what your equipment can accomplish. Sorry, I can't do better than that with the information you've provided. Good luck. . |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 4 Registered: Feb-15 | Finally built my center channel speaker to match my L1290/2s. Bought the rebuilt drivers and crossover from Rich So. Now using 5 L1290/2s and a powered sub. Sound is Crystal clear. Just bought a pair of L300e minis for the ceiling. Gonna go to Dolby Atmos. |
|
New member Username: BobkafMidland, Ontario Canada Post Number: 2 Registered: Jan-16 | Jan thanks for your response. My perception of sound has been... I absolutely loved the ADS, those tweeters performed so well. Whatever that sound was, it won me over. For whatever reason Martin Logan doesn't seem to get much mention, but to me the CLS is a sound that I love and may be the most perfect speaker going. But what do i know, I haven't been following speakers for 20 years. But I'm thinking of getting into a nice new Martin Logan speaker set with a 5 figure budget. You only live once! Can anyone recommend speakers that can reminisce my ears to the ADS. Bob the ADS L1290 were my dream speakers back in the day. Are B&W similar to ADS? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3287 Registered: Oct-07 | Bob, I'm going to jump in here and maybe ask a few questions. I read you owned Magnepan. What did you like or DISlike about them? The Martin Logans, too, for that matter? Late 70s Magnepan could have been MG-1 (I owned a pair for 20+ years) or perhaps the Tympani in its various revisions. Still on many short-lists of 'all time best'. Magnepan has evolved over the years. The ribbon tweeter is considered a landmark design. The new Quasi Ribbon, which replaces the round wire with a flat conductor has improved several aspects of performance, not the least of which is reliability. Good watts (the amp) don't have to cost a bunch. Some people, but not me, swear by 'd' amps and even the 'pro' stuff from Crown and Beheringer. Going upstream you'll find gear from NAD, ROTEL, and PARASOUND. I'd tend to buy a speaker / amp as a SET. For ME? Braun STOPPED at the LV 1020, the powered speaker, a 3-way with 3 amps. Boy, Those sounded so sweet to my ears a LONG time ago, I still remember them fondly. It would be impossible to actually recommend something that 'sounds like' something to YOUR ears. |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 5 Registered: Feb-15 | Bobkaf Check out DB Keele. He has a great line source article and a do it yourself speaker that is great for room acoustics. And please check out Accuton. They make extremely fine speakers. They used a laser vibrometer to measure cone breakup at 50,000hz. Like Jan said strengths and weeknesses in all different designs but with Hypex class D Ncore biamp modules and DSP used in the crossovers alot of issues can be controlled. Coherence, impedence and frequency response anomalies. I guess I like ADS because of the domes. The strike of a bell or pluck of a string is so clear. I looked for a bunch of tweeters to compare the mass and couldn't find one lighter. I am not familiar with ribbon tweeters though. Started with Large Advents and they were week in the tweeter. Not too bad at low volume but not airy. And they would sizzle at high volume. Bass was awesome. Had Boston Acoustics A400s and they used copolymer tweeters and they seemed a tad bit less clear than ADS silk domes. And then no matter how good everything is the room has the final say. I have been reading alot about open source free room measuring software that is on the internet, and you can use a calibrated mic with your computer to measure the room response for standing waves, decay rates, frequency response for nodes and modes and the software has digital parametric eq and memory to store before and after curves. Sounds like a new adventure. Not to fond of algorithm based room correction. Tried Audessy and did my system manually with pink noise and log sweeps and various signal sources and kept adjusting amplitude,Q factor, phase and crossover to the sub and got better results.Used Transformers Dark of the Moon for the extreme low frequencies. Boston Acoustical Society recorded a pipe organ with clear sustained 16z bass and it came with my HSU subwoofer as a setup disc. I also use the Spears and Munsil 2nd edition test disc. The rear pair of L1290/2s that I bought used in Conecticut were replace by the owner with a pair of Magnepans and he augmented those with 2 REL subs. It sounded quite nice for the short time I heard them but would have loved to expose them to a large variety of signals especially some synthesizer music from Wendy Carlos. |
|
New member Username: BobkafMidland, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3 Registered: Jan-16 | I loved the magnepans but man they were so inefficient you couldn't get any volume out of them and of course without a woofer well one missed the full range without a subwoofer which I didn't have. And I didn't like the straight line source. That's when I fell in love with ML - they covered off both of these issues with Magnepan. ML was brilliant concept. I think I would like to get a new ML, but I don't really care for the current lineup and the prices are ridiculous. yeah Bobby, that ADS tweeter was so damn sweet! I blew a bunch. Who makes them? |
|
New member Username: Sleepr0Little Ferry, New Jersey United States Post Number: 2 Registered: May-15 | My bad on the Ron Fone thing. He may not be a prince, but he's not guilty inre a/d/s, apparently. Yes, I build PCs and I've seen the a/d/s logo on microchips way back when (late 90s). My guess is that it was on sound cards. I also admit to some confusion on ADS companies. Apparently, the surround processor I had was made by a company called ADS. Their logo was exactly that in block letters at the bottom of a rectangle - just like the NAD logo except inverted. I was wrong twice lol. My bet is that it won't be the last time. ;) https://www.flickr.com/photos/kelvins_pics/2382167262 |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18130 Registered: May-04 | . Speaking very broadly, I'd say, yes, the top several models of the current B&W speaker line are probably "similar" to (reminiscent of) the presentational character of the old ADS systems. I'd caution the top of the B&W line is somewhat more analytical than the old ADS systems but could remind a listener who has been away from ADS for a few decades of their old system. Both lines tend, IMO, to be voiced rather more like a vintage JBL (though better overall) than I prefer but that's for you to decide. Both lines have a certain "jump" factor that sells well in the showroom and does well on a wide variety of music styles. The B&W's tend, overall, to be more difficult amplifier loads and would require a fairly stout amp (solid state IMO), to provide their best musical performance. And, yes, the room MUST be taken into account with the large B&W's. If the ADS/B&W jump factor is what you are after, it is fairly represented in the newest ML speakers. Being a panel there is no deepest octave of bass from the ML's which sets it apart from the ADS/B&W character. However, the mild bass boost which occurs in the largest ML panel will trick your ears into accepting what is there as being deeper in frequency than it actually is (the Doppler effect). If you are not listening to music with the lowest octave of music broadly displayed, find a ML dealer for an audition. You don't state what you use, if any, as a subwoofer. This has traditionally been the weakest point for any electrostat, bass simply rolls off rather quickly (-24dB per octave) beneath system resonance due to the open baffle dipole/bipole nature of the design. Mating a powered sub to such a system is somewhat difficult if top to bottom coherence is high on your list of priorities. Of course, there is always the Quad ESL as an alternative. Overall, flatter in response and sounding less like a speaker (less "jump"), the Quad should be auditioned IMO before deciding to spend big on other systems. If there are only two well known electrostats available today, the Quad remains the speaker to which all others must compare IMO. I did, though, recognize the fact my tastes in equipment seldom matched that of my clients. The Quad is a recognized "classic" in any form and does warrant a listen IMO. Pre-owned models are readily available as many Quad buyers find they simply do not have the listening room that does the music justice when using the Quads. The Wilson line has the apparent speed and transparency of the ML's though it is, IMO, much more critical of what equipment is placed in front of it. "Jump factor" can be substituted for "scary real factor" when using the Wilsons and the right front end equipment. Not at all cheap though. Pre owned models show up with sufficient regularity to make it a consideration IMO. People buy a Wilson thinking they can live with such a speaker. Most can't if they aren't committed to supporting such a speaker. And, IMO, Wilsons are a bit too ... "accurate" for my tastes. Unless you live close to a large city with a good supply of high end audio dealers, there's only so many lines that I can honestly suggest. Thiel turns out a very particular type of musicality which might appeal to an old ADS owner. Magico and Sonus Faber are, IMO, captivating speakers which dispense with audio tricks, convince you of their dedication and get back to when all a speaker had to do was play beautiful music. Audio Note has speakers which do nothing, a very good thing for a loudspeaker to do. They do not, however, remind me of ADS or B&W. If I had to recommend one loudspeaker for nearly every listener to audition, it would be the Gallo 3.5; http://www.anthonygallo.co.uk/pages/products-reference-reference3-5.php If I apply hard logic to the issue, I would have to say with all honesty, the music I have heard reproduced through this speaker is at a level where I really cannot ask for more. They really are that good. Somewhat different though equally satisfying would be the Harbeth line of studio monitors or their consumer version cousins. Honestly beautiful music. And, finally, if you want a different musical experience that will possibly leave you wondering just what high end audio has accomplished in the last seven decades, find a pair of Altec 604's; http://www.greatplainsaudio.com/two_way.html (I've not heard a recent version of a 604 in a cabinet. Only as an open baffle system in a relatively small room.) Once again, all the speaker does is reproduce music. If he music has jump, the speaker will give you jump. If the music is laid back, you'll get laid back. Soft or loud, purring or brash, classical or classic rock the Altec 604 is, IMO, the real deal. Some folks may not get it and some will. The 604 is, in many ways, the presentational opposite of the Quad. Yet either could be my forever speaker. The Quad will take an exceptional amplifier to drive it well. The Altec could be very happy with the best 6 watt amp you could find. That's where I would start if you are looking for actual product suggestions. If you live anywhere near a large city that has an audio show, attend. If you are willing to make the trip for that last pair of speakers, make plans to attend the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest; https://www.audiofest.net/ . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18131 Registered: May-04 | . As an addendum, I have not heard this speaker in its current form but the OHM Walsh driver system is probably one of a handful of most memorable speakers I have come across. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3288 Registered: Oct-07 | The current Magnepan tweeter is a true ribbon. Available new on 3.x and 20.x models, you can also get this driver in 'used' speakers for quite the discount. The 3.6 is a near-bargain a pre-loved prices. This driver has terrific horizontal dispersion but poor coupling with ceiling and floor. Some advantages are therefore a lesser 'decay with distance' measure than conventional box speakers. A friend has some 20's (2 generations off the pace) which are SPECTACULAR. And inexpensive. Magnepan has a tweeter exchange program for cheap OR will sell you the rebuild kit. Cost no-object stats? I've been impressed many times by Sanders Electrostats. With the partnering MagTech amp, this is really special. But also will REALLY put a dent in the bank. For a more modest price the JansZen at 10grand attenuated the 'stat backwave and adds conventional cones for lower frequencies. I've heard these both on demo AND in home with terrific results. The SON of the inventor of Electrostats is the owner operator of this business. Think KLH9, for example. Jan talks about the bass boost of ML panels. This is COMMON to most planar speakers. This is partly to make up for SELF CANCELATION of front / back wave and is a perceptual issue. Deep bass from panels would appear to be directly related to surface area. pure and simple. A GOOD sub works wonders when properly setup and integrated. The new OHM speakers are VERY DIFFERENT than the Original Ohm Walsh drivers which operated on a slightly different principal than the pistonic model used by virtually ALL cone speakers today. The cone operated in 'ripple' mode. The claims for new are more / better which may very well be true. The originals were VERY VERY low sensitivity, much lower even than my Maggies. I would LOVE to hear some in an actual house environment. |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 6 Registered: Feb-15 | I remember hearing and seeing an Ohm F model in the 70s in a shop in Harvard Square MA. At the time I was into Advents and there was alot of AR speakers on the wall too. I remember an upsidedown single driver made out of different materials, the beginning of the cone seemed to be metalic looking like tinfoil and the end or the large diameter portion was paper. The sound was amazing. I was totally confused as to the looks and design of the speakers, but I remember the fantastic sound. Would love to have read the white paper on how they experimented to get to that design. Seems like the engineer was ahead of his time and on to something alot of other designers were missing. I wonder if this was the first true Balanced Mode Radiator in a simple form. |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 7 Registered: Feb-15 | http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/bostonglobe/obituary.aspx?n=godehard-a-guenther &pid=172858972 I wanted to post this since it is part of the history of ADS and not without respect. I truly appreciate all the ear candy his company brought to me. RIP |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18132 Registered: May-04 | . "I wonder if this was the first true Balanced Mode Radiator in a simple form." Since we have one poster who might be interested in new speakers and since there are some posters who do remember the Ohm loudspeakers, I'll address this as briefly as I can. No, the BMR technology has virtually nothing in common with the Walsh driver technology. Not even close. OK, that's as brief as I can get. From my experience selling audio, I would caution anyone intent on a new component or loudspeaker purchase to be wary of acronyms. IMO acronyms in audio are the shaggy dog stories of a less informed sales staff and a too ... "inventive" marketing department. There's usually a long story that equates to why the acronym is what it is but, in the end, you wonder if the explanation was worth the time spent in exposition. Japanese audio companies and "third world" camera companies love acronyms. Every year their "new" products carry yet another acronym to grace the faceplate. Without them, it would be very difficult to recognize this year's models from last year's. That's not to disparage BMR technology, just a general observation on letters intended to click mental switches in a buyer's mind. What we often refer to as "buzzwords". Honestly, the last time I really had the opportunity to spend time with a Walsh driver system was back in the mid 1970's. Like the original Quad ESL, however, it's recollection is a moment in my audio perceptions that I carry with me as being so distinctly different from the rest that I will remember it all of my days. The shop where I was selling at that time carried the Ohm line and we displayed the F's in our largest speaker demo room. (I have never experienced an original Ohm A though I was led to believe their performance well outstripped that of the F which had been turned into a somewhat more commercially viable product. Barely.) Being a sealed enclosure system, the F's were on the "less efficient" side of what was then accepted from the Kloss/Vilchur based "East Coast" speaker systems. And an even a farther cry from the bass reflex/horn driven sound of the Altec's, JBL's, Bozak's and Klipsch's which were still quite present in large numbers in many high quality audio "salons" of the day. We normally demo'd the F's using a 300 watt RMS per channel McIntosh solid state amplifier though I do recall one afternoon where a HK 40 watt receiver was the amplifier of choice. The high current delivery, fast rise time HK did a yoeman's job with the F's though the Mac was much more suited to the F's demands. About the only aspect of BMR technology I can recognize as being similar to the Walsh concept is the absence of a crossover within the driver's passband and, therefore, the elimination of its component's unavoidable phase and time errors. That though is really nothing new in audio. Full range dynamic drivers have been around since the first quarter of the 20th century. If top to bottom coherency is one of your musical priorities, then there's still very little in modern audio that surpasses a SDFR (single driver full range) system such as a Lowther. With a small portion of today's audio market harkening back to the concept of simplicity in design equates to realism in reproduction, the SDFR field has grown considerably over the last decade or so. While the technical/mental concepts of a Lowther and a Quad ESL are somewhat similar - each takes the approach "natural" sounding music reproduction is best created by a single point source driver - the greatest difference between the two is the direct connection of the Lowther's voice coil to the outputs of the amplifier vs the inductive coils placed at the input to the ESL. Since any "electrostatic" system is, in essence, a large, unrolled capacitor, the Quad presents a very different load on the average consumer amplifier than does the Lowther. And, while Peter Walker designed his 25 watt tube based Quad amplifier with the intent of it being used specifically to create a "Quad system" sound, the Lowther harks back to the 1930's when pentodes and beam power vacuum tubes had yet to be invented. At that time, a five watt, triode based amp was all the more common in a true music lover's home. The "two part" cone of the Walsh driver is the result of materials of the mid century not being up to the task of Lincoln Walsh's initial concept of a single "transmission line" type of driver. Plastics such as Mylar were still fairly new inventions when Walsh began putting his design concepts to work in a real world product. They had already shown their (mostly) superior performance as light weight/high rigidity materials for high frequency drivers due to their stiffness to mass ratios which made them a fairly natural choice for inclusion on the Walsh driver. As I remember the explanation of the F's design, one of the most difficult aspects of the single driver's design and implementation was the actual manner in which the upper portion of the Walsh driver could be mated to the heavier paper portion of the system which supported the lower bandwidth. Like the Quad ESL, the Walsh driver gained a reputation for being "fragile". Most retailers would advise their clients it would take 250 watts to adequately drive the F's and 300 would destroy them. We never had a problem with this in our store though the reputation did stick with the Ohm's and it certainly didn't help sales in any way. Certainly, for what was the major music source player of the day, the F's high frequency response was adequate at about 12kHz before roll out. Given the acceptance of the LP over open reel tape by the typical consumer, extending the high frequency response of any driver much beyond that 12-13kHz range began to show the distortions of the typical phono cartridge of the 1970's. Consider also, and it is still a debatable subject, humans take their auditory clues from the fundamental and the fist harmonic of a sound. If you roll off the upper harmonics of a musical instrument's output, the instrument in most cases retains its recognizable quality as a distinct instrument. If you extend the harmonic organization of the sound, you (debatably) gain little while you risk introducing upper order harmonic distortions which make a musical note sound less "organic" rather than more. One of the greatest distinctions I would make between the Walsh driver and the BMR driver is the manner in which each driver deals with the dispersion of pressure waves into a listening room. The BMR driver, by its nature, must be a monopole system, radiating forward into the listening room virtually all of its musical energy. Beaming of the upper frequencies would still be an issue with the BMR driver as it is in all loudspeaker systems of a "conventional" nature. "In room" frequency response would be subject to the reflective nature of the enclosure and the position of the loudspeaker/listener within the room. As the peak to peak dimension of a wavefront becomes smaller than the surface of the driver reproducing that frequency, dispersion narrows with the decreasing amplitude/increasing frequency of the signal. As with a SDFR, the BMR system is still prone to a rather obvious sweet spot for listening if, once again, top to bottom coherence is your priority. Add to that the BMR technology does not seem capable of being employed in a full range system and you still face the discontinuity of two drivers of dissimilar shape, size and materials being used to create a full range output. The more conventional crossover of a multi-way loudspeaker still exists in the current BMR technology which means both electrical and acoustic time and phase errors have been introduced to the system. The Walsh driver (as it was conceived) remains a single full range driver without a crossover. The mechanical mass of the driver operates as a passive filter for separating the frequency range which will most effectively be reproduced by the single driver system. Most importantly, and what was so impressive to most listeners, was the true, full frequency range 360 degree omni-directional dispersion of the wavefront into the room when created by the inverted Walsh driver. This simulated both the nature of most musical instruments and the manner in which an omni-directional microphone capsule operates. In other words, the transducers on both the recording and the reproducing side of the equation matched. While it is true this full range dispersion pattern existed solely (or, more correctly, predominantly) in the horizontal plane, the difference between the in room performance of the Walsh driver and any monopole loudspeaker of the day was a bit startling in the Ohm's overall hyper-realistic recreation of the musical event. Certainly, in this respect, the omni-directional nature of the Walsh system and that of the current generation of BMR drivers is as different as night is to day. http://www.blackdahlia.com/tipindex/Tip__6/tip__6.html . |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 8 Registered: Feb-15 | Jan what I've read about the Balanced Mode Radiators that are being made over at Accuton can be put together with there DSP enabled crossovers and the phase errors can be solved. I only know what I read and supposedly the DSP solves the frequency impedance variations that the amp would find hard to put up with. I thought the Ohm speaker was like the BMR only in the sense that it rippled as well as moved as a piston. I would like your take on multichannel music. And how do you treat your room for reflections and standing waves? What do you think about binaural sound? Is it the lack of reflections that gives binaural it's superior imaging or the way it was recorded in the first place. Do you think ultrasonic and subsonic waves have an influence on the waves that we CAN hear or not. And after all these years of listening what do you think is the best way to produce sound waves in a room. What do you think of the open source software available on the internet, to measure room response and apply DSP to correct for phase, frequency response, decay rate and standing waves. I have read that some of them offer several memory curves pre and post comparison both on the graphs and so we can hear the difference between each correction. Can we ever achieve perfect reproduction or will the laws of physics always get in the way? Please feel free to learn me some science. I have an open mind and love to learn more about acoustics. And thanks for all the posts. I am new here but see alot of posts by you. You seem to be out to help. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18133 Registered: May-04 | . WoW! Bob, that's a lot of 'splainin' to do. Most are topics not dicussed on this forum however, so I will try to address what I can. This thread is now more than a decade old; https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/56709.html It remains one of the longest running threads in this forum's history and it rambles at times, get's contentious at times but most of what is said about music reproduction still has value. IMO, not much has changed in multi-channel music reproduction, therefore, what I say in that thread regarding multi-channel (which seems not to have had a very long or pronounced shelf life this time around) still expresses most of my current ideas regarding multi-channel music reproduction. And, of course, it is said from the perspective of someone who certainly does not subscribe to the idea more of anything is necessarily better. "And how do you treat your room for reflections and standing waves?" How do I treat my room? Or, how would I suggest you treat your room? As I've noted above, either the Quads or the Lowthers or the (open baffle) Altecs could be my forever speakers. I no longer have the listening room for any of those speakers. Never did for the Quads, otherwise, some 57's would have been in my system for the last forty years. Technically, there are much better speakers. Musically, I still go back to a system that simply reproduces music and forgoes all the audio system tricks the audio press has introduced since the 1960's. Two of those systems are multi-polar dispersion systems, primarily dipole where there is a distinct lobing created which results in a figure of 8 pattern of pressure waves. Therefore, those sounds radiated to the sides of the system are out of acoustic phase with each other and (theoretically) there is no sound. Most typically, the Lowther drivers are mounted in some type of mono-pole enclosure which radiates in a omni-directional manner only at those lower frequencies which tend to be rather large. The Lowhther's, as with virtually all SDFR's of any size, are faced with the laws of physics which create a beaming effect as frequency rises. Remember, when thinking of room treatments that all drivers are affected by this narrowing of dispersion as frequency rises. If you are using a three way system, then the woofer narrows, the mid narrows and the tweeter narrows. At each point where the driver is reproducing its lowest frequencies, dispersion is broad and those are the pressure waves creating first reflections. On axis measurements, therefore, are largely irrelevant unless you are listening inside an anechoic chamber where room reflections are all but non-existent. In room response - what you actually experience in your room - is never flat as a movement of as little as 1" to either side may result in fairly large frequency response changes. If you use an absorption panel to treat an early reflection in this frequency, you are also affecting the energy in another frequency. And you are wasting most of what the panel is intended to do as many of the pressure waves from the driver never reach the side walls. The Quads and the Altecs would have a similar situation in the high frequencies since the Quad was not aiming for wide dispersion as one of its design goals. (Most British speakers designed for British buyers tend not to think in terms of the very large listening rooms we have here in the States.) The Altec's horn would effectively minimize the amount of side wall reflections as frequency rises. A multi-polar response requires somewhat different thinking about room acoustics than would a mono-pole. I do, though, prefer an overall less is best attitude toward room acoustics. I've cautioned forum members to go slowly when first experimenting with bass traps and acoustic panels. It's virtually impossible, IMO, to have good sound (and, therefore, good music reproduction) without dealing with bass. My thinking when it comes to bass is to imagine the room as another speaker enclosure. Just as a mono-pole speaker system must deal with the backwave of the low frequency driver inserting pressure into the speaker enclosure, so too must a listening room deal with the essentially omni-directional bass pressure waves being placed inside the enclosed walls of the room deal with similar issues. Therefore, corner bass traps are a must for good in room frequency response and clean dynamic range without muddiness. After you've treated the corners effectively, you can begin to think of other ways to go about dealing with bass. Speaker and listening chair positioning being the most common. It's often counter-intuitive for someone to think of "trapping" bass as resulting in higher quality bass. Of course, what is occurring in the "trap" is the absorption of the reflected pressure wave of the original at a location in the room where pressure gradients increase by dramatic amounts. The physics of this will quite often mean a first time user of traps will suddenly experience a cleaning up of a broad range of midbass/lower midrange energy which is exactly where much of the life and drive of music exists. (It's all but impossible to deal with bass energy beneath about 150-200Hz in any room unless you are willing to create a very large room with very large and very deep/tall traps.) The range where, say, a 48" trap is effective should create a much cleaner lower midrange which adds to the clarity of the vocals and several rhythm instruments. It's the odd case where that is not an improvement over the original room sound. From there, most users then go overboard and begin to add too many traps. Pre-owned room acoustics treatments are sold not because they didn't do their job but, precisely because they did. The buyer simply overbought until they ended up with a too dead room that sucked out energy too effectively. One very simple answer to reflections in the mid to upper frequencies is to sit in a near field arrangement to your drivers. Now we've already begun to decide which type of speaker system you own however. Toe-in works well for some speakers and not so well for others. If your speakers provide their best or smoothest in room response when pointed straight down the length of the walls, then near field may not work for you. This means you must attend to first reflections off the side wall in any system and, in some, more so than others. Two points here; first, pay no attention to room acoustics "explanations" which depict high frequencies as a single straight line bouncing around the room. Second, any acoustic treatment you place in the room is rather broadband and very non-discriminant as to what frequencies it will affect. It's all too easy to remove the desirable energy while attempting to control the less desirable energy. Rather than treat the side walls heavily, I often suggest a speaker with very wide dispersion tweeters (and mids, though middle frequencies are still more commonly driven by a cone type driver than, say, the ADS dome) be dealt with as the pressure waves leaves the front of the baffle. Assuming the speaker has no serious diffraction effects, placing a trap to the immediate side of the baffle will minimize the energy which creates first reflections off the side walls. From that point, estimate and observe the amount of energy the second third and fourth reflections have. After a pressure wave has traveled the distance of the typical third reflection, it has lost most of the sound pressure level and its effect on your listening position is minimal. Once again, over damping a room is a more serious sin than is under damping IMO. Dealing with reflections arriving at the floor and ceiling is unpredictable as most decors simple will not support the specific treatments required. You really have to use your best judgement and live with what is acceptable for these two surfaces. Rugs do little to deal with reflections though carpet pads can help. Keep in mind, all of these are very broadband in their effects. Room size predicts how much should be done on the wall behind the listener. Also, the construction of the room must be considered. Windows reflect mid and upper frequencies while allowing lower frequencies to escape the room. Thin draperies do little to solve either problem. Thick draperies again suffer from the problem of being too broadband and lack selectivity of treatment in most cases. I tend to think of walls behind the listener as if they were strings on a guitar and I will often damp the center resonant point of that wall. Of course, if the listener is positioned ten to fifteen feet away from that wall, there's seldom much point to adding dampening material at that location. Listening position plays a large part in room treatments. Near field positioning often is the best, though, not always possible or appropriate. MTM driver arrays, line source systems and certain crossover configurations tend to have lobing effects which do not combine well until the listener is seated a specific distance away from the front baffle. Whether you are using a truly "full range" system or a sat/sub also predicts seating flexibility. That's about as general as I can make it without knowing more specifics of a room and system. And, of course, all of this assumes you have a room which is your's to deal with and no one will comment on your choice of wall decorations and furniture placement. My generic recommendation is to read several decent articles on room acoustics so you have a general idea what is actually going on with your speakers and your room. After you can sort of predict what adding or moving a piece of absorption or reflection might do, start with the Wilson WASP system. It allows for the least amount of territory to be taken up by your speakers and treatments while concentrating most of your listening/observing to occur in the mids where the music lives. https://www.google.com/search?q=absorbtion&rlz=1CAACAJ_enUS656US656&oq=absorbtio n&aqs=chrome..69i57.3316j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#q=wislon+wasp+loud speaker+placement And, of course, all this hinges on whether you have your system mounted on the long or short wall of the room. A common problem with "good sound" vs a good room lay out is that speakers get placed where they fit. Another issue is the type of music you prefer. And, as always, whether you have any sort of reference for what a live (unamplified) music event actually stimulates in your perceptions/emotions. If you have yet to put your musical priorities in order, then you are still shooting at the moon without aiming. There's really far too much to cover and chapters have been devoted to the subject. Educated yourself and, if you need help, most treatment companies have assistance available. If you seek guidance from a company, make sure their objectives are your objectives. A treatment system that aims for the flattest in room (averaged) frequency response may literally suck the life out of the music. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18134 Registered: May-04 | . " What do you think about binaural sound? Is it the lack of reflections that gives binaural it's superior imaging or the way it was recorded in the first place." Binaural is an odd duck, isn't it? It doesn't really suit most audiophiles today since it is not a close mic'd, over dubbed, edited and highly processed process. It comes down to the recording engineer getting everything right the first time or, as with the old three microphone Mercury Living Presence recordings, starting over from the beginning again. EQ is broadly applied to the total recording and spot lighting of any one instrument is impossible. Lesser niggles of whether the placement of the mics within the original performance venue align with the listener's preference will, at times, come into play. Unfortunately, "natural" sound is not what most "modern" audiophiles are either familiar with or desire. Too many "audiophiles' tend to be "imaging freaks". They've never attended an unamplified performance and, if they did, they paid attention to how much better their system imaged than does a live performance. Too many audiophiles are "detail freaks" who, rather than listening to the total performance, live for the sound of saliva smacking on the lips of a female vocalist. Binaural recording techniques will not prove satisfactory for either group. In a sense, your question is wrong. It is the close/multi mic'd recording that lacks "natural" hall ambience. Binaural recordings tend to capture those room reflections that a listener would experience in a live performance. If that is within your musical priorities, then binaural will likely appeal to you. If the stars align. The issue often becomes how to listen to binaural recordings. If you think of the comments I have made regarding Amar Bose and his 901 speaker, binaural recordings played back over a loudspeaker tend to suffer from many of the same problems. Adding your room's sound to the original room ambiance can, too many times, seem to be too much of a good thing. Headphones are still not comfortable for many listeners. Maybe I've missed all the news regarding personal systems but headphones still leave me cold. Binaural sound recordings are, IMO, a niche item. They can teach important lessons to any attentive listener. Most listeners I've encountered in the last decade don't care to know those lessons. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18135 Registered: May-04 | . More later. |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 9 Registered: Feb-15 | Thanks Jan I found many of your explanations to be accurate from what I've read. I have read alot about the figure 8 pattern on the Linkwitz lab site, but never understood the cancellation effect on the reflections out of phase. I did bump into a website of some university acoustic dept. and the professor explained the reflections going back off the opposite wall and coming back and adding volume on some waves and subtracting on the other. I think it was called nodes and modes. There were several animations as well and the best one was the diffraction on the face of the speaker cabinet. There is 3 or 4 different speakers on the Linkwitz website that are open baffle to get the figure 8 polar pattern. As far as lobing goes some well designed crossovers will not cause lobing and that also depends on the drivers too. I have learned that the crossover points are not usually on the extreme ends of the bandwith of the drivers. Then there is the amount of roll off in db like 6 or 12 or 24. As an analogy in video I used alot of black velvet to absorb reflected light because it had such a good absorption factor, but in sound I still have to experiment to find what works for me. A website that I found http://www.bksv.com/ has a tool that uses math and can accurately measure the absorption efficiency of any material and in a certain formula it can be expressed as good or not. This company makes speakers too and they make medical gear for ultrasound and hearing testing. Soooo scientific no BS. They make alot of measuring devices for audio that can be applied to manufacturing of speakers as well and for evaluation. Also for our speaker listening devices, our ears. I guess to really get the best sound we should learn physics, acoustics, mechanical engineering, electronics engineering and probably computer science as well. I seem to get carried away on these rants. With the binaural stuff. I think recording with the Dummy Head putting the mics inside the ear canal gives a great way to let our brains decode the information with a similar listening setup as the recording of the info can't get much similar tha n that. Plus the total seperation of the signal left and right when with stereo there is a little left signal in the right and vice versa. I only have a few recordings in binaural, one made by Stax and some classical music too. I used Sennheiser HD 600 s and not a pair of 15ooo$ electrostatic Stax phones. I have a limited budget and a wife too. But I have to say I was blown away at the you are there illusion. I hope somebody will get heavily into the science behind binaural and figure out a way to play it back without headphones. I just picked up my second pair of mini speakers a pair of L300aw's that I will match with my first pair of L300e's. I am going to go from a 5.1 setup to a 9.2. I didn't get your take on comb filtering. Any way any light you could shed on room acuostics is appreciated. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18138 Registered: May-04 | . Probably not much is going to be done on binaural. It's a time consuming technology that locks the recording into one thing forever. Music recordings must be fluid for future revisions/remixes/remasters - or so the recording industry feels. There's not much more I can add to your knowledge of acoustics. It's complicated enough that you can get a college degree specialized in just that. It's difficult to reduce that to a few forum posts. Rooms and systems are taken as a one off situation where there are general rules but not much else. As I said, read a few articles on room treatments and get and idea of how to position treatments and why. Then use your ears and your willingness to devote time to the tweaking of the system/treatments will pay off. Don't become obsessed with tweaking but realize that, at times, as little as a 1/4" change can make the difference. Know when that is worth the effort and when it is advantageous to move to another point. I'm really not much on measurements when it comes to room treatments. Not that they can't show you certain things. More that moving the mic an inch or so will change what you are being shown when it comes to in room testing. Measurements do not use music as a source for their testing. The use static signals which have nothing to do with music. That's like taking a photograph of an orange and saying, "See what I did on my vacation?" Room treatment materials are pretty simple; you either absorb, reflect or diffuse. Most people rely too much on the first and ignore the third. There are no selective filtering materials used for room treatments. They are all broad band. That's it for now. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18141 Registered: May-04 | . "Do you think ultrasonic and subsonic waves have an influence on the waves that we CAN hear or not." Where are the ultrasonic and subsonic frequencies generated? I use a Schumann Resonance generator in my main audio room. While purely objective arguments claim this can have no effect on our perception of music, there does seems to be reasonable proof otherwise. That, though, is a purely external source which is totally disconnected from the audio system. Would I prefer my woofers pump out an 8Hz subsonic signal? Not at all. Ultrasonic frequencies which emanate from the equipment can be bothersome even if your hearing is compromised. They exist due to the very real effects which may then occur in the audible range and they are created by the system itself. Digital filters create time and phase shifts which may not be as obvious as in an analog filter but they still exist. Aliasing noises within the audible range are typical of any digital music signal. The basics of digital sound reproduction where created back in the 1930's by a fellow named Nyquist. There was nothing other than a mono signal to discuss back then and no circuits which were capable of testing the theories. The idea that we can arbitrarily stop music at 20kHz does seem wrong to many listeners no matter what the on paper theories suggest. On the other hand, I listen to many historical recordings, often on 78 RPM discs. The frequency response of these discs is about 80-8kHz. However, due largely to the manner in which these discs were recorded, in my perception of music they present a far more accurate idea of how the performance would have sounded if I had been present at the recording session. That despite the resonances which occur within the disc/cartridge and the obvious issues of tracking distortion created by the non-linear movement of the tonearm across the disc. You see many tube enthusiasts claiming the lower order harmonic distortions of a vacuum tube vs a bipolar transistor makes a tubed audio component more "musical". Possibly, but so too does the fact most tube circuits are far simpler and contain far fewer components than the average solid state circuit. Many vacuum tube circuits can operate with little to no negative feedback loop. NFB again introduces time and phase distortions while (possibly) decreasing THD and adding gain. No doubt, even when these added noises and distortions are suppressed in level, they can influence our perception of music. IMO it's important to remember the fact perception occurs within your mind, not your brain and not your ears or eyes. The cognitive sciences are discovering new ideas regarding perception and, the more they study, the more obvious it becomes we really don't know very much about perception. As I've said all along, there are advantages and disadvantages to everything in audio. It simply comes down to an organization of your personal priorities that matters when you decide which values falls on which side of the fence. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18142 Registered: May-04 | . "And after all these years of listening what do you think is the best way to produce sound waves in a room." Sorry, I don't understand this question. And, do you mean "produce" or "reproduce"? . |
|
New member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 10 Registered: Feb-15 | Sorry Jan It is actually both. What do you think is the best way to Produce a reproduction with soundwaves in a room. What would be the most accurate reproduction of the original signal, no matter how it was generated. I mean the entire chain. Signal generation, what machine, what medium, disc, high res file streamed from a computer, vinyl lp, reel to reel at high speed? And then what kind of amplification, class A. Tubes, solid state, class D, what kind of interconnects, and speaker wire, and also speakers. I am probably driving you crazy but I want to learn what you know. I value your opinion and believe you posses a good amount of experience in audio. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18143 Registered: May-04 | . Likely not the response you wanted but, IMO, the best way to "produce" soundwaves is the diy method; learn to play an instrument. So few "audiophiles" I have met have no idea what a live instrument sounds like nor do they have any concept of how music operates. High end audio is one of the few hobbies I can think of where the participant is not expected to comprehend the operation of anything. If you are a car junkie, you generally know a bit about how an automobile operates and maybe some of the history of the machines. If you are into photography, you probably know something about the physics of what is termed the exposure triangle and how one value affects the other two. Probably a little about lenses and sensors in digital cameras. A woodworker would learn their tools and how to use them and know about various materials. Even someone who sews for a hobby probably knows more about their hobby than do many audiophiles. Admittedly, audio is a very broad topic to address. You had earlier mentioned several of the disciplines you might need to study to grasp a little of what is occurring in a room. Very true though you do not need to become an acoustician to set up your speaker in your room. Only enough knowledge to know when you are in trouble and then enough to have some idea how to rectify the situation. Having a moderately deep knowledge of basic electronic theory is better than nothing when it comes to matching components. I have always said I am not an engineer and I am not a designer. This is my hobby and it was my profession for several decades. I was expected to explain what the engineers and designers had done. I was also expected to put into practical use what I knew or could learn. Most of the time, I was spending someone else's money. At times, I was also expected to draw conclusions regarding what the engineers and designers had done. Early in my career, I was the person other salespeople would come to for answers. Eventually, I realized I didn't need to know everything. What I really needed was the knowledge to know where to find the answers when they were required. And to forget the rest because there's a lot of "rest". There really are at least half a dozen fields of study you could explore if you wished to become familiar with cables and how to decide BS marketing from too strict science. That all leaves out the fact several audio companies are now making attempts to promote their products as operating on a quantum physics level. http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev120.htm And all of that still only addresses the objective theories of the gear itself. So few audiophiles and audio buyers I have worked with know a thing about music. IMO music is the only purpose of a "music system", is it not? We all experience music in our daily life yet so few of us pay attention to what is around us. Sort of like a photography forum I was visiting; one poster asked where they could go to experience "good photography". Again, not the answer the person was probably expecting or wanting but I replied, "Simply open your eyes." IMO learning how to play any instrument will involve you in the hobby in a much deeper manner than any technical study of transmission line theory or materials usage. You do not need to go so deep you can identify a tenor saxophone from a baritone sax. Or a specific venue's ambient sound character. Though, IMO, knowing a bit about either would not hurt. When you know a bit more about music, these are the things which interest you more than which the direction an interconnect should operate. Know enough to get a grasp of what the performer is doing and, possibly, why. Preferably, begin listening for how they are doing it. It is the "how" which separates one artist from another. How one blues player creates, say, their vibrato is not the same as how another will. One vocalist is breathing in their own way. Not in the same way as another, even when they are credited with being "another X". Even if the instrument is amplified, the performer makes the instrument their own. Appreciating when a 12 bar blues turns into a 14 bar blues is one of those small enjoyments which informs you of the artist's intent and their thought process. There are so many small, seemingly throw away items of music making in a good performance that go totally without notice by those audiophiles consumed with the tricks their system can play with imaging and soundstaging and so on and so on. Stop listening to the system and begin learning how to appreciate listening to the music. Read about music and learn something about your favorite artist's ideas regarding how they do what they do and how they differ from another artist or composer/songwriter. You're totally free to enjoy Willie Nelson just being Willie. There is, though, another layer entirely to your appreciation when you begin to really hear what Nelson plays and how he plays it. So there's my lecture for the day. To address the technical aspects of your question, Bob, decades ago I came to the conclusion there are many ways to do things. Some ideas are real Rube Goldbergs and some bear fruit which is worth appreciating even if you are going to consume it. New ideas and new takes on old ideas are constantly being presented in audio. Computer aided design is still largely re-writing what we know about physics and how we can apply that knowledge. Over twenty years ago, not many audiophiles took the Well Tempered tonearm seriously in an age when over engineering and hyper-rigidity to the max were the pass codes to a good arm. Suspended as it was by a simple, single monofilament, it seemed to be absurd. Until you dropped the stylus into a record groove. The Well Tempered table had a platter that flopped to one side when not in use. Perfectly logical when you thought about the micro-dynamics of a record groove and a spinning object. Absolutely the opposite of what Linn and VPI were building. VPI has used rim drive on several of their tables. Not completely unlike my forty year old Dual 1009. In the 1950's Edgar Vilchur rejected rim drive for the benefits of belt drive and largely re-wrote the principle of turntable design. Both designs are right. And, if you look at the whole concept of playing a disc, they are both wrong. Everything in audio is a trade off for something else. I honestly cannot think of anything about audio that doesn't fall under that principle. Ideas such as those develop from people who are not constrained by what is. They often take years to come to fruition. But they make you sort of jump a little when you encounter them because they are so scarily right. And they make everything else look so ridiculously wrong. If you find BMR technology interesting, study it. Learn enough about how audio components operate that you can form an opinion of such ideas. You don't need to be an engineer to do so. In fact, most of the time, engineers have had their curiosity damped down by needing to conform to what the education system says they must put in their head. Remain curious and always question whatever is said about audio and music. Beyond that, IMO, anything can be made to work - and, possibly even work well - if you are willing to devote sufficient amounts of time, money and energy to the project. Whether your ideas will be marketable as a workable "thing" in the consumer market is not within your control. Great ideas and great products have come and gone for purely economic reasons. Good designers are not always good business people. Bad business people often succeed simply by sucking the life out of good designers. There is no right or wrong in the hobby. Rather like playing music, if it sounds right, it is right. We can figure out why later. It all hinges on context and context is what so many audiophiles seem to lack IMO. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18144 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0452288525 |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 11 Registered: Feb-15 | Love reading your posts. I had a belt drive thorens. Loved it. Very low rumble and couldn't hear the wow and flutter. Had alot of fun tweaking the weight on the cartridge and the anti skating. Pain in the but miss the control. First got into CD s with a telarc Bach organ disc. It was mastered using ADS for a monitor. I agree with your words of wit. I can just about look up anything on the internet. And WOW what a book. I can't wait to get it and read, and I'm sure I will learn from it. Ahh the brain. What do we really know. I did think of something this afternoon while reading your post in work. What would it sound like listening to my equipment outdoors in the yard without walls. No reflections or standing waves. My neighbors might be worse than those two problems. I sometimes think wild ideas. Always seems to go mainstream a few years later too. Thanks again for the book link. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18145 Registered: May-04 | . Back in my selling days of the 1970's, one of the lines I was demonstrating was KEF. At the time, there was a noticeable uptick in the reputation of British audio designers and loudspeaker manufacturers in particular. Several lines were widely recognized as true "monitor" quality products which, at the time, carried a certain cache with the consumer level audiophile. Along with Celestion, KEF was a common source for many other British designer's drivers. This fact alone gave many of the speaker systems arriving on American shores and in American stores a certain commonality in their personality. The BBC had selected KEF drivers for their LS3/5a mini-monitor and it was achieving legendary success on both sides of the Atlantic at the time. Several other builders had been allowed a license to build BBC authorized versions of the 3/5a. KEF produced a version along with their own 101A mini-monitor using the same drivers in their own similarly dimensioned cabinet (though the 101 was built with flush mounted drivers on a flat baffle to minimize diffraction effects) and with their own (less complicated) crossover network. Soon, the cylindrical JR version would be seen in American audio salons with a first nod to the evils of right angles and parallel surfaces in a loudspeaker enclosure. The "evils of right angles and parallel surfaces" was poised on the verge of becoming a noticeable negative when it came to the average audiophile's listening room. The British government, spurred by the numerous technological advances in audio which contributed to second world war victories, was pouring funds into research into the varied sciences of audio. KEF, through their long association with the BBC, was a major beneficiary of those funds. One of the terms we would have seen on a loudspeaker manufacturer's literature back then was the term "free field response". In the days before anechoic chambers were created and more widely available for loudspeaker testing, this was then the gold standard for how a system was designed and tested. However, for most designers, it really meant not much more than guessing at the performance of their systems in an imagined free field environment. And, like most things created by a marketing department, many liberties were taken with those imaginings. A brochure could claim virtually anything and very few had the technical equipment and the knowldege to raise a reasoned challenge. All of this leads up to a KEF sales brochure from the mid '70's that I still have in my files which shows photographic proof of just how many loudspeaker manufacturers tested their designs back then and how KEF tested their designs. It was a common practice, among many of the BBC approved British designers at least, to haul their prototypes out into a cow pasture and raise them up on a tall pole which would, for all but the deepest frequencies with the longest wavelengths (attained only by a handful of consumer loudspeakers at the time) to be measured in a "free field" situation. Particularly, when talking British loudspeakers which were at the time still aimed primarily at the home market, for any loudspeaker which was intended for the consumer market were the listening room was rather compact, this told the designers of the day very important things about their designs. Keep in mind, this was rather early on in the development of drivers which could exhibit wider and smoother dispersion than their predecessors. "In room power response" was not yet a popular term in consumer audio and room treatments were largely limited to the LEDE (live end- dead end) concept where control was mostly left to hard, reflective surfaces (walls, floors, ceilings) and softer, semi-absorptive materials such as heavy draperies. There did exist a small contingent of designers who recognized the proximity effect of the average consumer room. Harkening back to the very early days of radio cabinets with a single, full range driver intended for AM radio reproduction (50-5kHz), the practice of backing the rear wave of the driver into a corner was an intriguing idea for a loudspeaker designer interested in pushing their system's low frequency response. Of course, the Klipschorn system quickly comes to mind as a "must have a corner" type of loudspeaker. Allison though had a brief fling with fame and sales numbers. JBL, Altec and Empire are still listed in several 1970's catalogs with systems designed specifically for corner placement. The two divergent design camps; extremely wide dispersion and dispersion constrained by the listening room itself, represented much of what came to be known as the American sound vs the British sound when it came to loudspeaker design. Power vs musical life. 300 watt McIntosh and Crown solid state amps vs 25 watt tubed Quads and Radfords. (Ampzilla and Phase Linear 700's were still a few years out.) Elvis and Dion vs The Cream and The Stones. I can still recall the most explanatory display of standing waves I have encountered. A quad set of Advents (Double Advents) mounted, as was the norm back then, close to the floor and paired with a Mac MC2300 amp in a room with 7' ceilings. Playing loud rock music you could easily walk through the room and both feel and hear the positive and negative going bass pressure waves where standing wave cancellations negated all but the middle up frequencies. The room wasn't overly large but you could still count at least four distinct areas of loud bass content within the room along with an equal number of no-bass areas. There was no question left unanswered regarding standing waves other than how to actually deal with them. Corner mounted bass traps were also still a few years out. CAD has aided loudspeaker designers in numerous ways but the most prominent benefit from its use is probably the ability to predict and model exactly how driver dispersion will occur in any one enclosure. Along with that, we can widen the concept to include the room as the next enclosure to the pressure waves created by a loudspeaker. I feel I can fairly well predict what would occur and what your response would be to taking your loudspeakers outdoors, Bob. It would though be a possibly valuable experiment for you. Give it a try with the knowledge KEF used to haul their systems up on top of a twenty five foot pole to perform similar tests. "Mainstream" did already beat you to this one. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 12 Registered: Feb-15 | Once again Jan thoroughly enjoyed this post. I found a link all about Advents and read a review from Stereophile mag testing stacked ones. They stated that they held there own with speakers 4 times the price. I loved my Advents but the tweeter couldn't play loud and I fried a couple. Mostly from clipping. My first pair of L1290/2s that I bought on Ebay, I picked up in Connecticut. The gentleman I bought them off of is a KEF fanatic. The room they were in when I got there had a pair of KEFs right next to the ADS pair. The electronics he was using were seperates and he had super thick speaker wire too. He kept disconnecting the speaker wires from the ADS and the KEF without powering down the electronics much to my horror but luckily didn't short anything out. I still thought the ADS sounded clearer. I wish I could remember the model of the KEF. I used to go into the stereo shops in Harvard square in the 70s and play with all the gear. I was always respectful and careful with the gear, but the salesmen knew I didn't have the money to buy. I used to read Stereo Review faithfully and started to catch on to the terms in the tests. I was already bitten by the bug by then to get addicted to all the meters and the of course the music. I was mostly into rock back then and got a little carried away when I heard my first synthesizer. I did take piano lessons for a while from my cousin who went to the conservatory of music in Boston but quit after a few months. I bought a synthesizer and learned all the knobs myself without instructions. It didn't come with any. I wanted a Moog but couldn't afford it so I got a Roland. I hung around with a large crowd and we had a bunch of kids who played alot of blues. I had an upright piano, a cheap organ and the synth. I thought I was going to be the next Keith Emerson lol. I did observe a strange thing when tuning all the instruments, that the oscillations would come together when they got in tune and location of the source went out the window. I think the experience helped me to crossover my sub at the right frequency as well as to get the best Q factor and volume. I could recognize the point when the mains would mesh with the sub first by running log sweeps and adjusting the volume till it just blended. Then I would use extremely low frequency signals, the best I found so far were on Transformers Dark of the Moon movie,there is some sustained signals where the space ships are crashing to earth. I used the remote to adjust the crossover, after the volume and Q was attained for the deepest bass, and just bounced back and forth with the Blue Ray player on AB loop, and I could hear when it got thin and when it was too much and distorted, I ended up a 80 hz. What pissed me off the most was that was the recommended crossover from THX. I originally thought I would cross it over at the point where the ADS began to really drop off. I have used a sound pressure level meter to see the response of the drivers using log sweeps and it usually drops after 40hz. I thought ok thats the point, but I think once again the room dictates more than I like it too. That is the frustrating part. I cannot exhibit control over my room. I just haven't learned how and I'm not sure if it is physics or just lack of knowledge.Thank God my ears don't cost anything to use as devices to tweak stuff, but I crave the science to justify what my ears are telling me.I remember hearing a difference from one record label to the other when fine tuning my turntable. REALLY! I had a Marantz reciever and the large Advents in a very dead room. I had wall to wall carpeting, sand painted ceilings, soft cushioned furniture and very heavy drapes blocking a sliding door. I could almost hear my heart beating in this room. I can't wait to get into room measurment. I have become aware of some open source software that can be used with my computer, and with a calibrated mic I can both measure and adjust a whole lot of parameters and store them for pre and post comparison. I will tell you how crazy I am I just bought an amp on Ebay that has to be fixed. I have an old amp in my cellar and I remember how good it sounded as far as transients and damping goes. It is a Nikko Alpha 440 stereo amp. I used to blow tweeters from clipping untill I got this and at 220 watts the bass was unreal without a sub. I figured another one to power the rear channel L1290/2s then I only need 5 more channels of amplification to do the center and 4 minis on the ceiling. I also have to get another sub to have a 9.2 system. I was going to go with Bryston but I guess I am just too cheap. I do remember the warm and powerful control of the 440 with the mosfets. I am sitting on 3/4 of a million now but 500$ thousand of that is my house value. The wife is not always on board with the wires and such but she does like the movies. Almost 60 years old and still love Metallica on ear blead level. I have alot of classical from The Academy of Ancient Music too. They did all the music on original instruments that the piece was composed for. I make books for a living and we do alot of Bach Books for the Handel and Hayden society with Christopher Hogwood on board.I guess I have bent your ear enough Jan. One more question, how do you know a good technician to work on your equipment? Thanks for the great post, found it most interesting. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18146 Registered: May-04 | . What equipment are you trying to get serviced? |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 13 Registered: Feb-15 | 2 channel power amplifier solid state alpha 440 |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3290 Registered: Oct-07 | The NIKKO will be a bear to get serviced IF it requires proprietary parts. Output devices, caps and resistors are mainly commodity devices and easily sourced. If you need a circuit board or ANY other made-for-Nikko part, you might have a problem or have to invent a rework. East Coast and especially NYC should have a bunch of competent techs capable of fixing or simply updating the Nikko. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 14 Registered: Feb-15 | Thanks Leo I took a gamble for 200$ but I already own this amp and it has been very dependable. I have had my amp in storage for years. I am putting together a 9.2 theater and want large wattage. I purchased the amp to be serviced on Ebay and cosmetically it looks extremely well cared for. The power cords insulation is missing like someone ran it over with heavy furniture or something, so I was hoping it shorted out a simple fuse or something not too critical. If it turns out to be affordable I will have two decent amps to power my 4 towers with authority. I will still have to get a mono amp similar in wattage for the center channel, and then 4 more channels of amplification for the ceiling mini speakers. I will have 5-ADSL1290/2s and 4-ADSL300s on the ceiling with two self powered HSU VTF-3 MK-4s. My room is 24 feet long and and 12 feet wide. Right now I have just 5.1 hooked up with an Audio Video Reciever. Can't wait to complete the upgrade to Dolby Atmos and DTS X. I have bought all the ADS speakers second hand and rebuilt where needed and painted the cabinets and built the center channel cabinet myself.I think my completed theater project will sound very clear, as ADS tweeters usually do when working properly and the bass should really kick butt. I put this equipment together at a budget price mostly because of it's age, but refurbished to original specs it is superb. The subs are new not vintage. They go down easily to 16hz, something alot of subs twice there price can't do. I just wish I knew more about acoustics to tweak it scientifically not just by ear. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18147 Registered: May-04 | . Nikko had a relatively brief and under represented presence in the US, which will make repairs more difficult. I remember selling the line, though I can't remember actually selling too many individual pieces of the line, way back when. US distribution of the line and sales/service representation have certainly changed over the decades. That makes it a bit more difficult to find someone willing to work on the amp and how they will source any required components. Often when it comes to this type of vintage audio repair, another similar "donor" amp is used for what parts can reliably be used in the repair. That typically comes down to passive parts; switches and controls and less so any active components such as relays and regulators. As leo said, most resistors, coils and caps are fairly generic with the exception of the multi-element caps frequently used in power supplies. These all too frequently have very specific mountings and are infrequently interchangeable with more modern equivalents. If a pc board is cracked, the odds on returning this amp to useful life have been reduced considerably. I'm not even sure I would want to see how most techs might work around a cracked pc board. Transformers can be difficult to replace due to size restrictions but transformers seldom fail. Of course, once you say the power cord has been damaged and the amp has been in storage, you also suggest anything is possible. Fuses are "current over time" based devices. They only fail once excessive Amperage has been allowed through for "X" amount of time. In a solid state amp, current is your enemy once it exceeds the design limits. All too often, this means when one part fails, it is due to other parts further up stream in the circuit being subjected to excessive current. Resistors generally tend not to act as reliable fuses. It is not always possible to diagnose this situation until the tech replaces the obviously damaged part(s) and then they find out they blow up too. The tell tale sign of a bad or inexperienced tech is to look in their bench drawers. If you see a good many blown out parts, this means the tech really had no idea how to troubleshoot a circuit. They'd blow things up and simply stick the used part in their bench to avoid detection by the shop owner. 'Till, that is, they get fired. For the most part, all technicians get paid by production. The more they turn out in X amount of time, the more profit they bring in. This makes most techs very unwilling to take on "mystery amps". It's considerably easier to repair a well known product with conventional and repeated failures. Hunting and pecking your way through a schematic/circuit takes time and, therefore, costs money. More so if you've never seen this schematic before. I really can't imagine a 2016 tech who can say they know the Nikko well. These amps didn't exist in great numbers and when they failed it was far more common for an owner to simply move on to another amp. This amp just isn't the same as keeping alive, say a Marantz 8 or a Citation II. Once any electronic component has been in storage and sat unused for any amount of time, it's like allowing a vintage car to sit in your environmentally uncontrolled garage. Lack of use is actually more deadly to vintage gear than is use 24/7. Like a light bulb, things blow up and stop working most frequently when power is applied. You should NEVER slam a unit pulled from storage with an instantaneous, full 120 VAC power up. If you've already done this, pray to whatever gods you recognize. Animal sacrifice is not advised though, you will personally need to determine it's need. Full moons do help if it comes to that. Ideally, a technician should connect the component to a VARIAC which can slowly bring up the Voltage/Amperage component while the output of the circuit is observed through connection to an oscilloscope. A signal generator will provide the frequencies needed to fully test the ability of the component to respond to actual music. This slow and steady testing allows the tech to observe any sudden or unusual current draw which would indicate a problem in the component. If the scope shows excessive current draw prior to the component reaching full operating Voltage and warming up to normal operating temperature, at that point, the tech would power down the unit before more serious damage occurred. Alternately, an individual can use a simple light bulb tester to make some assessment of the situation; https://www.google.com/search?q=light+bulb+testing+circuit&rlz=1CAACAJ_enUS656US 656&oq=light+bulb+testing+circuit&aqs=chrome..69i57.7371j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_ sm=0&ie=UTF-8 This still presents the basic problem of how to properly power up such a component. A heavy duty dimmer can be used but is pretty crude. That really means you need to take this to a technician before you do anything else. Ask the tech for an estimate of repair costs unless you really are prepared to simply have a working component. Estimates cover the shop's time and any possible components used to diagnose the problems. If you proceed with the repairs, the estimate costs will be applied to your total bill. The schematic for the Nikko is available on line,which helps; http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/nikko-alpha-440-repair-with-schem atic.608150/ Be aware there may be proprietary components within the amp's circuitry, particularly in the power supply. Any audio component can be reduced to a simple description as a "modulated power supply" creating its output, so operational problems are often related to ps problems. Filter and supply caps are generally available today unless an oddball circuit is involved. Or the aforementioned multi-element caps with specific mountings. The Nikko existed as a new component at the transition period between discrete solid state and IC integration of parts. Your problems are most likely to come from any IC which has long been out of production and now discontinued output transistors. That generation/age of outputs has long ago been replaced by newer parts which don't always have easy equivalents to vintage parts. That may mean your amp will not be the exact component Nikko designed once it has been repaired. Normally, this isn't a serious problem. Since, though, you have another Nikko available for comparison, you might find some sonic differences between the two amps after one has been serviced. Judging whether any one tech is qualified to service your equipment is, at times, not the issue. Since most techs fear being tied down to a vintage component with problems lurking around every subsequent power up, at times your choices for techs comes down to a simple question, who is willing? Assuming you have several choices, I would always avoid the over zealous tech who has been waiting to get one of those amps on their bench. Today, I'd say the internet is your best source for judging the viability of a tech's services. You may find techs in other parts of the country more willing and more capable of doing the work. That adds the element of shipping both ways to your repair. Beyond that, you have to trust your instincts. Is the shop organized as though work actually occurs? Is this a shop or an individual? Both can disappear overnight but the shop is a bit more long term. Which usually means they have better things to do than sit around diddling with a thirty five year old amp they can't repair. The bottom line is there is nothing other than your feelings about handing your amp to a total stranger. Several years ago I gave two of my 50 year old McIntosh tube amps to a friend I'd known for decades. He developed cancer and they sat and sat. In the end, I had to retrieve my amps from his widow and take them to another shop. You are asking for very specialized service and, as they say, compost happens. I would mention something about your last post ... "My room is 24 feet long and and 12 feet wide." I'm going to assume you are aware of the difficulties you will face with acoustics within any room where two or more dimensions can be divided by a common number. Otherwise, I think I'll leave this, "They go down easily to 16hz ... ", alone. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 15 Registered: Feb-15 | My sub does go to 16hz. Shakes the floor at very loud volume. I bumped into this site today and it is all about the room acoustics. I'll post the url http://www.tubetrap.com/tubetrap-rooms.htm I was reading some of the reviews on the shop I am going to take the Amp to and it is one of the longest running audio stores in the area. It is kind of ironic that I started my love of all this equipment and the music in the record stores by going to Harvard Square and browsing on the weekends. This shop outlasted Tech Hi Fi and Tweeter and everyone else around there. It is called the Audio Lab. I read in the reviews that the guys working there are old, and seem like they are from the 70s. I should get along with them very well. LOL. Anyway thanks for the info on my new amp I feel I haven't got much to loose and alot to gain. Maybe if I'm still alive by the time I finish upgrading I will post some pics of the ADS speakers with the repair pics too and pics of the whole theater. It's been fun talking with guys as much into audio as myself. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3291 Registered: Oct-07 | Except for non-musical effects in movies, I can think of only 1 need for 16hz. The Saint Saens Symphony #3 'Organ Symphony'. And few and far between are instruments capable of producing such a fundamental. Home subs which can move that amount of air will be many db 'down' at that point and of questionalable musicality. My HSU research WILL produce such a note, but not at high or even higher levels. Still and all, it does work. If I were interested in the simulated EarthQuake destruction of my house, I'd experiment with a Rotary Subwoofer. This type of device will even just pressurize a room which is essentially 'Zero hz.' 16hz would be nothing and if designed right would be not only flat at that frequency, but could go to 100db PLUS. I've stood INSIDE a pipe organ being played and can assure it it is one of the MOST visceral experiences I've ever had. Even the 32hz pedal tone is quite beyond description except to say you should have something near to brace up against. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18148 Registered: May-04 | . ACS is the original consumer bass trap manufacturer. They know what they are doing and their products do what they claim for them. Their technical assistance is very good and worth the cost when you have a troublesome room. With the design of their essential products aimed at maintaining musical life in a room they are, IMO far superior to, say, RealTraps. Read their technical articles, they are presented without a prejudice. Their data is science based and not the creation of someone self "educated" in acoustics. They are widely accepted as a go-to company when you want acoustic treatments that work. DIY absorption, reflection and diffusion materials are available and can save money. The basic principles of construction aren't that difficult. The ACS products, though, offer good looks and efficiency that diy seldom matches. I never said your sub didn't go down to 16Hz, Bob. Placed in a 12'x24' room, however, I think I'll just not discuss your sub. Good luck with your amp repairs. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 16 Registered: Feb-15 | Well Leo I guess you know your music. My sub came with a test disc of course to help set it up and the 1st track of music is Saint-Saens organ sympnony. It was recorded in Boston's Jordan Hall 1983. I understand Dr. Hsu went to MIT and knew Boston very well. He states in the accompanying paper that this recording is the strongest and the cleanest 16hz signal that he ever came across. Before I knew what I was doing with my sub, I followed the quick set up in the brochure that said set the volume at half way. I was getting a Pella sliding door installed by a carpenter and while he was busy installing the door from my kitchen out to the deck I was in the living room hooking up the sub. The first time I cued up the Oppo and heard the track with the 16hz I thought I was going to do damage to the windows. I quickly realised half volume was WAY tooo much. Took me about a few months to get it balanced, and I learned some very good tips in an article in Widescreen Magazine. It was a reprint from an earlier article all about subs. It went into detail about how to adjust the controls and what they did. I really like the example he gave about the Q factor adjustment being like a spring. I find that adjustment to make a big difference on how low my sub can go. I have adjusted it on the fly with the blu ray player in an a-b loop doing downward log sweeps and after the volume has been zeroed out, gotten as close as I can get it to match the other speakers, I would adjust the Q to the deepest reproduction of the lowest frequencies. I compensated for the roll off where the sound got real weak by boosting the playback volume on the reciever higher than usuall. After hearing that sustained fluttering and feeling the bass in tune with the other speakers with the heaviest signal without obvious distortion I was there. Then I used extremely low special effects signals, the best I have found so far is the crash seens from chapter 19 to the end of the movie Transformers Dark of The Moon, to zero in the crossover point. I set the volume of the playback on the receiver to the loudest point where it was on the tip of distorting and then from my chair with the remote I would adjust the crossover point on the sub up and down. I noticed it too heavy and bloated and muddy crossed over at 40-50-60-70- and it sounded good at 80 but never satisfied I went to 90 and noticed it get too thin. I locked it in at 80hz and it works fine there. I would love to know how THX came to recommend that point, like how did they arrive at that number, did they hear it or measure it and with what signals. And Jan I thought you were doubting that the sub could go that low at first. I knocked down a non support wall to make the long room 1 room out of 2. When I first moved to this house I told the wife she could do anything she wanted just give me this room to build a theater and we're good. I read an article in Audio magazine years back and it gave a bunch of math examples of room dimensions and resonance frequencies. If I remember correctly my room was supposed to have a resonant frequency of 22hz. At the time I read the article I didn't have a sub and the full range speakers I had at the time rolled off around 40 with log sweeps so I thought a 22hz resonance would augment the speakers dip. I now wish I had no resonant frequency at all at any point. But like I have said before, the room is the last thing I get to play with after I get a system that will play loud as I want with distortion levels I can't hear reproducing all the frequencies in music on most average instruments, as well as pipe organs and synthesizers and do justice to the rediculous low level special effects in movies. I am gettin another sub same as the one I have now to help with the standing waves, but also with distortion. I believe it is one of the cheapest subs that kicks but. Can't use certain words here I found out. I bumped into this site with the tube traps from a link on this site http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/links7.htm when I ran a query on amplifier repair in MA. on google. Once again a boatload of information to absorb. Thanks for the well wishes on my amp and thanks for all the info you have shared with your posts, they are both helpful as well as amusing. Same goes for you Leo. I feel lucky to have found a place to bounce ideas around with knowledgeable people. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18149 Registered: May-04 | . The THX format was originally designed for movie houses, not home use. THX licensed audio products are ... "questionable", IMO, since the user would need a complete system of THX licensed components set up in a THX approved manner. Not impossible to achieve, if you have the money, but, what's the real point? To me, this is a bit like being NASCAR approved and believing you can hold a 500 mile race in your driveway. I will admit, though, I am more interested in music than video. Possibly, I am simply missing something important. Most video based users will not approach the full implementation of a THX system even if they have the space they can devote to a small home theater room. If, however, they feel better about having the name tag on their stuff, more power to them. The perceptual differences between a THX licensed component and a non-THX licensed component in a consumer video system are, IMO, highly questionable. The cost differences, however, are always noticeable. 80Hz crossover from the LFE channel to the front mains/center channel was arrived at by decisions based upon the perceptual localization of sound sources above and beneath that frequency. Certainly with a few male voices, if they were allowed any entrance to a LFE channel, they would become distracting in their perceived discontinuity between a center channel which carries the lion's share of vocals and a sub which may be placed a good distance from the center loudspeakers. Tracking of signals across or through the soundfield would possibly be disrupted if the LFE channel were allowed to run any higher or the front mains/center(s) were allowed to extend any deeper. Keep in mind, there are no brick wall filters involved here. If you are using a THX approved processor for your video systen, the "knee" of the crossover is centered at 80 Hz. The "knee" is generally assumed to be the frequency where each side of the filter is down -3dB. The digital LFE processor in the THX system should roll out at -24dB per octave (if I remember correctly). That would mean there is still some usable response above and beneath that 80 Hz center that will be shared by the LFE channel and the center/front mains. If you are not using a THX system, then the processor may have a more shallow filter order which would typically operate at a -12dB per octave roll out. If you bypass the processor or have no processor for a music signal, then what the manufacturer has spec'd for bass management is seldom stated in their product information. IMO the "reason" for THX approved components is the fact they must conform to consistent and known specifications. Otherwise, ... This lack of specificity can create some problems when an AV processor is used for music reproduction. Generally, when you are adding a subwoofer to your video system, the advice is to run the crossover point on your sub all the way up to its highest frequency. You then allow the processor to set the crossover frequency and you do not double up on filters which would result in severe comb filtering of the signals. In other words, you set the crossover in one location only, typically at the processor. This would be especially true if the LFE processing and the analog filter of the subwoofer employed different roll out filter orders. Once you go from a 5.1 (or greater) number of discrete channels to a two channel music source, bass management can get very funky. Not all processors will apply bass management to the two channel analog music signal (a digital music signal will have been sent through the DAC prior to its arrival at the bass management circuits in most cases) and that leaves your sub possibly out of the equation all together or maybe running at its highest crossover frequency. This is one of the many reasons music often sounds fairly bad on many systems set up primarily for video sources. Of course, any test disc that came with the sub intended for video system use should be programmed to run through the LFE channel, if one is present in the signal path. I have no question your sub can respond to a 16Hz input signal, Bob. In fact, one of the most common problems we encountered in the days when turntables were a main music source was how to stop a woofer from responding to a subsonic frequency. Certainly, filters in this sub-sonic frequency band create problems when they intrude on the music itself. Most "high end" pre-amplifiers therefore dispensed with sub-sonic or "rumble" filers due to these very problems. However, it was all too common to see expensive woofers flapping wildly in response to a 7-8 Hz warp frequency when playing a LP. This takes a tremendous amount of amplifier power operating in a completely non-musical bandwidth in addition to always driving the voice coil well beyond its linear movement extreme. While extended bass response is a desirable feature in some systems and for some listeners, it has its problems. As noted, unless you are relying on a computer/electronically generated signal, music simply doesn't exist in great preponderance beneath about 35-40Hz. Though a very few musical instruments can reach beneath that point, composers seldom write for that extension. Analog recordings often transposed the lowest bass frequencies upward in hopes of creating less havoc with the modulated groove of an LP. Particularly so when those frequencies occurred at the inner groove where stylus velocities rose dramatically and tracking errors/distortions were often at their highest margins. Since this is a frequency region where problems compound exponentially, every few extra Hz of extension is costly in more ways than one. Add to that the simple fact human perception of sounds falling much beneath that 18-20Hz range is seldom heard as a discrete signal and reaching for that point doesn't always make sense. Driver distortions tend to rise quickly as frequency drops and what is often heard is a sound made up of harmonic distortions all too common to a loudspeaker being driven to its physical limits. Given just those issues, Bob, I have to say I doubt what you "heard" from that recording was an actual 16Hz frequency. Since you mentioned Dr Hsu, I am going to assume you have either this sub; http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/vtf-15hmk2.html, or a similar product. I do respect Dr. Hsu's products as very good values for the money though I personally am not after the same audio values he seeks. His 16Hz "spec" does lack context and, when you look at the frequency response charts provided, his data is somewhat lacking. Best case scenario, as I read it, is 16Hz will be down about 10dB from, say, an easily achievable 50Hz. Most loudspeaker specs would not claim a signal down 10dB to be usable response even if the driver is still moving. The spec doesn't indicate just how - or, more appropriately, IMO, where - the measurement was derived. I assume you are aware of the peak to peak wavelength created by a 16Hz signal. It is, to say the least, immense. A real world measurement of this frequency emanating from the driver would require either a space without boundaries or, in an actual room, a basketball court and its seating area... at least. In room measurements of this bandwidth are extremely difficult to track with precision due to the reflective nature of the room/enclosure and the numerous resonances and echos, meaning additions and negations, this will create. It's not necessary to propagate the entire pressure wave within an enclosed room, that's true. However, once you begin to constrain the wave propagation, you begin to run into serious and multiple problems. Given the typical ceiling height of a domestic listening room at approximately 8' to 10', real world 16Hz signals become almost impossible to state as fact. The reality of your windows shaking is the result of the average domestic room being unable to constrain such a wavelength and leakage occurring which would fight the actual sound from being heard. 2x4 stud walls simply cannot contain such force and doors, archways and windows allow the pressure wave to escape. You would essentially require a concrete structure the size of an airplane hanger to deal with a 16Hz wave front. That only deals with the first wave and does not take into account subsequent or reflected pressure waves. IMO claiming 16Hz response from your product is a bit like arguing the number of angels dancing on a pinhead. So, while I don't intend to say your subwoofer will not respond to to a 16Hz signal, I would suggest what you "heard" was more likely the first harmonic of that fundamental tone, which would occur at 32Hz. Since you have played an instrument, I'm sure you understand the construction of musical notes as being a fundamental frequency accompanied by a series of harmonics which extend upward into infinity. Most musical instruments will carry a very strong first harmonic above the fundamental. Therefore, while 32Hz would still be a good size wavelength and still not easily contained by most domestic listening rooms, it is within the real world bandwidth of a decent subwoofer. As to your 22Hz room resonance, well, that too is a fundamental resonance that must be excited to come into play and there are multiple other resonances which occur within a room. Proximity to reflective surfaces is, IMO, a better way to deal with bass roll out in a consumer level loudspeaker or subwoofer. The problem again becomes one of multiple enclosure resonances along with proximity effects being rather broadband and, therefore, not very controllable in the real world. Placing your woofer location within the tri-corner of a room will add to the bass "feel" of the music, no doubt. The problem though is the reflectivity of the surfaces extends upward and, due to the more omni-directional nature of the lowest octaves vs driver size, it eventually begins to affect the lower midrange. Now your room is the cause of muddiness in exactly the bandwidth where the human ear/perception is most sensitive. Locating a loudspeaker/subwoofer with truly extended low frequency response is always a dance between bass "feel" and musical clarity/momentum. Add, once again, the inefficiencies of the average domestic room and the "Q" of the bass boost provided by reflecting surfaces and it all becomes a shell game of where is the 27Hz frequency located. And, will your listening chair fit in that spot? Widescreen Review is, last time I read it, a good source of information relating to video playback. IMO though, magazines such as this and subjective and objective audio magazines are not shooting straight with their readers. They tend to oversimplify the subjects to the point where what they are claiming is seldom, if ever, achievable in a real world situation. They drive designs where a subwoofer spec'd at 16Hz is seen as desirable over a subwoofer spec'd at 27Hz, though the real world difference between the two has nothing to do with either of those two numbers. Sorry, Bob, I said I wasn't going to address this. Your comments though have me thinking you are chasing phantoms that cannot really exist. You are free to do whatever you care to with your system. I'm not here to be an audio police hound. And, I could be full of sh!t. I'm not an engineer. I only know what I know. It's your stuff, do with it what you please. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 17 Registered: Feb-15 | http://www.hps4000.com/pages/general_.html Just bumped into a fascinating piece. Written by a guy who sets up his own designs of theater sound. Once again, experience has taught him other ways to measure and set up spl. in very large spaces. Talks about limitations of using full bandwith pink noise played through 3 way speakers not as good as using a spectrum anylizer in a limited bandwith. Seems to make sense. Alot of the reading here is new to me. Will have to try some of his suggestions and see if there is any improvements. I just saw Star Wars in a Dolby Atmos theater and the volume was toooo loud for my ears. I also heard distortion on the bass. I have no idea if it was the amplifier being too weak or the speakers being pushed too far. I think there is only one volume you can reach before the sound gets inaccurate. Each room size and the equipment vary the level but still there are limits. I can't wait till someone gets it down to a science so I don't have to purchase software, calibrated microphones and learn a complicated science just to get more accurate sound. Hope this is an enlightening read for all. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18152 Registered: May-04 | The link you provided sends me to articles which are 30 years old. Those are the days of early Dolby Surround only. A "stereo" VHS tape (the video quality was actually lower than standard resolution broadcast television) was the norm and four speakers, no subwoofer, would have been the lay out. There was no (matrixed) center channel yet and the surround channels were derived through a matrixed signal (mono) created by taking the difference signals from the front stereo feed. The idea was very similar to the original David Hafler designed DynaQuad adapter created back in the mid 1960's. In terms of digital audio for video use, this information is about as fresh as a knee action shock absorber. One article refers to cassettes outselling LP's for the first time. And to the rising number of licensed DBX providers for consumer audio. Both are referred to as "proof" consumers are after higher quality sound reproduction! Well, that ship has sailed ... Bob, IMO, if you are using these articles as any sort of guide to "accurate" sound, you have fallen down a rabbit hole of your own design. Honestly, I doubt I would have found Mr. Allen's articles to be "enlightening" way back in 1985. If you are purchasing software, calibrated microphones and learning complicated science, I'm not sure what you are using for your home video system. Most consumer AV receivers now come with calibrated mics and software installed. The tests are run with the push of a single button on the remote. If you can engage the system turn on via the remote and place the calibrated microphone somewhere around your preferred listening position, you need learn no more. Of course, the calibration does only relate to the single position of the microphone and cannot take into account the numerous listening positions found in the average home video system. So, no matter how accurate the adjustments are made for that one discrete, solitary location, they are not accurate for all the rest. Or even if you move your head slightly from that one discrete, solitary location. As far as accuracy goes, it's not really possible in a home situation to achieve such a thing and is, IMO, highly overrated as an objective. Even if it were possible, personally, I've never been kept awake at nights pulling out old favorites simply because I measured anything. YMMV . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3293 Registered: Oct-07 | The most sophisticated home measurement systems allow multiple measurements from many points. This helps arrive at an 'average' adjustment and might allow for a larger 'sweet spot'. Of course, if you have huge bumps and dips in bass, the fix might entail use of multiple subs and some room changes. One of the more promising systems entail measuring the SPEAKER first, in a quasi-anachoic space. Outside, with the speaker raised and no walls near would be a reasonable start. In room response would be next. Something like MiniDSP which allows for as many as 5 parametric EQ points per INPUT and 5 per OUTPUT is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, you need a calibrated mic with calibration file AND a program like REW to string it all together. Broad action filters / and crossovers can be designed. Even FIR filters which have NO phase shift thru the passband are doable. The last would be primarily for advanced lunatics who are gutting the speaker crossover and going to multiple amplifiers. The Linkwitz Open Baffle speaker systems use MiniDSP crossovers as part of the system. The cost adds up, no question about it, but it would appear the future lies at least in part, in this direction. The Odyssey system as well as DIRAC are also contenders in the room correction space. Than |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18153 Registered: May-04 | . "The most sophisticated home measurement systems allow multiple measurements from many points. This helps arrive at an 'average' adjustment and might allow for a larger 'sweet spot'. Of course, if you have huge bumps and dips in bass, the fix might entail use of multiple subs and some room changes. One of the more promising systems entail measuring the SPEAKER first, in a quasi-anachoic space. Outside, with the speaker raised and no walls near would be a reasonable start. In room response would be next. Something like MiniDSP which allows for as many as 5 parametric EQ points per INPUT and 5 per OUTPUT is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, you need a calibrated mic with calibration file AND a program like REW to string it all together. Broad action filters / and crossovers can be designed. Even FIR filters which have NO phase shift thru the passband are doable. The last would be primarily for advanced lunatics who are gutting the speaker crossover and going to multiple amplifiers. The Linkwitz Open Baffle speaker systems use MiniDSP crossovers as part of the system. The cost adds up, no question about it, but it would appear the future lies at least in part, in this direction. The Odyssey system as well as DIRAC are also contenders in the room correction space." All that just to watch a movie? Or, to be diagnosed as OCD? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3294 Registered: Oct-07 | Fair Question. I think the entry level room adjustment systems are a reasonable idea, if the Fundamentals of the system and installation are good. You can't make some of the setups I've seen sound good almost no matter WHAT. But if the fundamentals are their, you can probably help your system with either the Audasy or Dirac systems. The MiniDSP is great for those experimenters building their speaker systems from raw drivers and with custom cabinetry. Even the Braun TriAmp was an early / modern effort at a powered speaker. A quick trip to Guitar Center will disclose many powered speakers. Even JBL has several entries in this space. The Paradigm Atom and even the Audio Engine powered speakers work well and have both best uses and a fan base. I'll use a MiniDSP system to DUPLICATE the crossovers in my panels and go to true BiAmp. This will net me as much as a 3db increase in apparent amp power�.I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here. Their are many pages of Linkwitz / MiniDSP stuff. Linkwitz uses this system for (IIRC) the Orion model. Be ready to buy a lot of amps. Drive 'ya nuts? Maybe. But everyone needs a hobby. How about the guy who spends every weekend under the hood of some wreck of an automobile? I spend a lot of OCD time either with my BBQ or Camera. Or various woodworking projects. Remember how much time Andre spent getting a massive sub together? Calculations. Projections. Tuning for perfection? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18154 Registered: May-04 | . IMO Andre spent a lot of time not accomplishing much because Andre was another seeker of the near impossible and the most definitely impractical. I applauded Andre, and even encouraged him, because he was a young mind interested in something. And his interest wasn't in video games or hacking his neighbor's WiFi account. Andre was someone interested in learning. How could you not like young Andre? However, from the start, it was obvious, what Andre was trying to accomplish wasn't going to happen given his means and his environment. Andre, as I remember, got his father involved in his efforts. Hardly a bad thing. But, between the two of them, their goal would have required the same aircraft sized hanger that anyone seeking "clean" subsonic bass response will need. And, of course, Andre wasn't simply after subsonic response. He wanted response that would have been in the 110-113dB range down to what silly frequency? 12Hz or so? And, still, to what practical end? We never heard the end of the Andre saga. I assume, like many young minds involved in such a topic, he learned as much as he could at the time and then found another avenue for his research. It was his constant searching that I would say endeared him to so many here on the forum. That and the idea that, at one time, we too were allowed the luxury of being impractical dreamers. Audyssey and other such programs are capable of making a system "sound good"? "Sound good" is a far cry from "accurate". "Sound good" is so fungible in its description as to be all but indefinable between a crowd of a dozen people. Can such systems "probably help" an audio/video system? That too is hardly a lawyerly question. There are enough loopholes in any response to such a question as to allow Manson to still walk the streets as a free man. I believe (at least one of) the more pertinent issues before us is the use of calibrated microphones and difficult to understand software employed by a layman to make their in-room loudspeaker response more "accurate". And, even if we use your example of multiple measurement points to achieve an averaged response, how "accurate" is "average"? Yes, that does raise the question of how many hours (and dollars) can be spent on other (manly) projects. It does seem to be (mostly) a manly trait to pursue a hobby until they have slain it, skinned and gutted it and then dragged it back to their lair. Not exclusively but, often. That does not, however, say too many hours does not stray into the OCD category for any of them. For example, I was on the unofficial Martin guitar forum awhile back (unofficial because Martin offers no such support on their own, their opinion being their products are meant for playing and not for endless jabbering about), when the ever recurring question of how to humidify an acoustic guitar was once again introduced. (Mind you this information is available on line with an easy search engine entry and has been discussed to death numerous times on numerous forums and can easily be found on most manufacturer's and "high end" retailer's web pages.) None the less, with the possible (about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000) change that might have occurred since last this question was asked, responses began to pour in. Well, of course, before you can tell whether your guitar might need more or less humidification, you must first address the relative humidity conditions it now faces. Cutting to the important part here, suggestions for hygrometers began to appear as that is the accepted tool to be used when measuring relative humidity conditions within a room. Some (most, thankfully IMO) were for basic $10-20 digital meters and some poopoo'd such instruments as being far too "inaccurate" for use maintaining a high end Martin guitar or an even more expensive hand built luthier branded instrument. For anyone unfamiliar with the basic suggestions for relative humidity values which should allow an all wood musical instrument to maintain its playable condition, the agreed upon humidity for the area around the instrument has been "officially" determined to range from a low of 40% to a high of 60%. Therefore, any relative humidity below 40% and above 60% can have deleterious effects on the woods IF those conditions persist for long periods of time. Yet, more than a few forum members argued against the $10-20 meter by saying it offered readings which were no more accurate than plus or minus 0.10% deviations. I'm hoping no one needs me to explain the silliness of debating a 0.20% accuracy range when the acceptable range for maintenance for an all wood guitar is 20%. To the OCD'd out there though, that 0.20% is far and away too much deviation from their acceptable norms. I have a neighbor who has pulled out a torque wrench to measure the bolts which hold his outside rear-view mirrors in place. OCD? As I mentioned previously, there are instances when small, and even smaller, changes can influence a result. In wooodworking the difference between a cut made at 45 degrees and one made at 44.5 degrees can, given certain circumstances, be sufficiently large enough to make easily visible differences in the final product. The point, IMO, is to realize when such accuracy is of value and when to move on. If your true goal is "accuracy" yet you are willing to settle for "average", which goal have you best served? I'm not at all certain why you would bring up the powered speakers found at Guitar Center. That seems to me to be about as relevant to this discussion as me saying it will be 65 in Dallas today but snow is still on the ground in New York. First, are you suggesting the self powered speakers from Guitar Center represent some kind of accuracy we should all seek? I doubt that since most of those products don't even make a pretense towards accuracy or even, in most cases, towards musicality. Second, the ascendancy of self powered speakers at a musical instrument purveyor is the result of (at least) two values important to someone shopping at a musical instrument retailer and not at a high end audio retailer. One type of self powered speaker allows the performer with an instrument which requires amplification to make one simple connection to a self contained component. No need for extra cables or adapters. Set up and transportation are relatively easy and straight forward. A second type of self powered speaker system found at GC is the one appealing to the person using their computer as their musical instrument, composing tool, mixer (digital audio workstation) or what have you. These people need a monitor that doesn't require a power source taken from the computer. None of that has anything to do with home audio or video use. Self powered speakers from GC are not suggested to be set up and stabilized in that location. They are, in most cases, portable in their nature. The history of self powered speakers in home audio use though is long and not that well remembered. Your grandmother's Magnavox console could, by rights, be considered a self powered speaker system. However, jumping to the end of a bunch of silly responses, the average "audiophile" over the last forty or more years has strongly resisted the self powered speaker for at least one very logical reason. There is no flexibility in a self powered speaker. You can't argue whether the amplifier the manufacturer has chosen is better or worse at, say, making a cymbal "sound like" a cymbal in real life. By stripping away the ability to easily exchange this amp for that amp, the self powered speaker is a dead end for the typical audiophile. If a deficiency exists in the "sounds like" category, how the user determines whether it is the fault of the amplifier or the driver(s) (or even the cable running between the two) is difficult if not impossible in some/most cases. That is not to argue against self powered speakers, they make perfect sense as long as you are looking only at the pros of a self powered speaker vs an externally powered speaker system. Once you consider the many negatives of self powered speakers, they look just like any other product sold to the consumer for the purpose of reproducing music in their home. They are a series of trade offs and there are as many pros as there are negatives to any design. While I find Linkwitz to be a valuable read if you are interested in loudspeaker design, the same trade off issues exist with any of his designs. This is another area we have discussed to death, leo. Bi-amped and tri-amped speakers have more than a few advantages and more than a few disadvantages. Same for external vs internal Xovers and open baffle vs monopole systems. I hope we don't have to delve into those issues once again. IMO they really have little to do with with whatever the he!! topic it is we've been discussing here lately. IMO they're very much like arguing about camshaft profiles. As I have repeated and repeated on this forum, I listen to music reproduced through my audio system. I'm not particularly interested in how my system measures and certainly not interested in how it measures in one very specific location within my room. This is even more the case for my video system. Adding more speakers within a single room, IMO, only makes the concept of "accuracy" all the more elusive. Give each of those speakers a discrete room location and a discrete frequency response and a distinct dispersion pattern and all of this talk of accuracy just flies out the window like a 16Hz pressure wave tends to do. There will be a lot of rattling around but none of it will really add up to anything even slightly resembling "accuracy". . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 18 Registered: Feb-15 | Haven't been around lately been busy. The article I pointed to Jan is dated I just wanted to point out how interesting it was to learn a different point of view. I am unfamiliar with the horn or horn loaded speakers. I never heard or came across the Klipshorns. I found the info to be both new to me and very interesting how he came to his conclusions. Of course we are talking multichannel not just stereo. John Allen seemed to vary off the beaten path and came upon some good results. He was one of the first persons I heard mention humidity. I don't know about you, but I love when the air is dry and about 70 degrees. My system sounds crisp and super clear as opposed to a rainy or super humid day. Leo I have used the Audessy in my receiver, either 1 measurement at the sweet spot, or 3 measurements to get an average response. I personally don't like the results. I think the processor is too weak and the mic, is too cheap to get accurate results. OCD I would say is how I aproach anything. I remember my first test disc for video on laser disc called a Video Standard. In the booklet it stated NOT to go into the back of the display device due to risk of shock. Then it told of how to begin an adjustment with all the gains and cuts RGB adjustments on the yoke of the picture tube set to half way. Turn down all user adjustments on front of set like focus, contrast or white level, brightness or black level and then display a crosshatch test pattern and turn down the focus inside the set on the flyback transformer as well as the screen voltage to total black. Then bring up the screen voltage just untill the horizontal lines apeared. Then display a 10 percent IRE window and start the adjusting. I must have done the adjustments a billion times. Dropped the screwdriver once too. I guess I'm lucky not to be electrocuted. I certainly had my fun. I thought about taking the cover off of the broken amp I bought on Ebay but read about the danger and not knowing how to drain whatever charges might still be there I decided not to check all the fuses myself. When I had to build the centerchannel cabinet to match my 4 other ADS speakers I learned alot about the Linkwitz Riley crossovers and the pros and cons of biamping. I don't know as much as you Jan but what I read is selfpowered speakers have better damping and transient responses. The transducers are direct coupled to the amp so the bass is tighter without loss from the coil in the crossover. If the amp is constructed exactly for the transducer the parameters can match better than after market amps. ADS made the PA1 bi amp module to go with the L1290 and 1590 and it was better controlled that way. Leo stated the tri amp card I believe for the L910. When the bi amp modules are built in house by the tranducer manufacturer I would imagine the match could be no better. All the parameters can be tweaked to very tight tolerances, and can be exhaustingly tested for performance. As well as eliminating the crossover the connection path is super short, no speaker wire capacitance, resistance either. And to suggest that all the fuss just to watch a movie, is sounding a little snobish. There is a boatload of signal source in multichannel as well as great movie sound. I have always listened to my system play sound. I like classical as well as garage rock. We have a school in Boston in the North End that teaches bookbinding, piano tuning, furniture building and instrument building too. I think it is called the North Bennett school. They did a study on violins with the help of MIT. They were trying to figure out why the sound of a Stradivarious and excuse my spelling was so admired by so many. They studied the wood the S cut outs like the cut out on an acoustic guitar, and concluded that the old time builders knew what they were doing, and the S cut outs had a big influence on the sound. I always want to get the system to sound better. For whatever sound comes out of it. I find music to be emotional. I like metal to lift weights to, and love a nice concerto to make a large Sunday dinner to. Does have an influence on mood. I love electronic music too. I guess I listen to the transducers like an instrument sometimes. I love to push them with trinkly little bells, and listen to the attack and then the decay of the signal. I drive the woofers with kick drums and organs and synthesizers. Mutch like the envelope on a synth the attack, decay, sustain and release can be enjoyed. I remember when I was using the L1230s I was so obsessed with placement and 1st wave arrival, I took off the covers and on the top were little holes that the grill would lock into, I inserted a bolt and tied a string around it. Then after both speakers had there little kite strings in place I bought the strings to my sitting position and inserted them into a straw, then I brought the straw to the tip of my nose when I was seated. If that's not overkill. But outside of a laser beam I bet the balance of left and right time arrival was the same for each speaker. I won't apologize for being anel to a fault or OCD because "That's the way I like it". It's just one of my many addictions. If I had it my way I would have all my speakers with laser guides and have them on movable platforms. Then put pair of calibrated mics inside my ears, sit in my chair and let the automation begin. A signal would be emitted that would adjust the distances automatically for each speaker. It would also adjust the toe in and tilt back. Then electronically a DSP adjustment would take care of the phase response. Then a frequency anylizer would adjust for reflections with sliding panels on the walls that absorb where needed. Have motorized drapes. I would even install heavy black velvet curtains for the display device to absorb light in the room. Can you get the idea how crazy I really am now Jan. My wife says I'm an extremist. I guess I should read a little bit of the latest DSM-5 . Someday I believe science will catch up with acoustics and the room will be designed for listening to music and watching movies too. The demand for high performance will go mainstream. After all the electronics including speakers get to the flawless stage, and they will, there will be nothing left to tweak except the room, and the air. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18155 Registered: May-04 | . OK, Bob, you've convinced me you are OCD. Anyone who has devoted the amount of time to think about as many things as you have is definitely OCD. My approach to both audio and video has been through the trade offs I can see in any approach. And I have yet to find a way to do something/anything in audio or video that is not, in the end, a trade off for something else. "... selfpowered speakers have better damping and transient responses. The transducers are direct coupled to the amp so the bass is tighter without loss from the coil in the crossover." Remember, Bob, they also did advertisements back in the 1960's for the health benefits of smoking cigarettes. IMO if someone tells you these are the benefits to my idea without telling you the downsides to their idea, you are being led down a path of their own choosing. Unfortunately, one of the most deceitful words in audio is "better". What exactly does "better" mean? Can we always make something that is better than the last thing we made which was better than the model prior to that? IMO, no, we can only make something that has different sets of trade offs in the end result. "Damping factor" is essentially the looking at the output impedance of the amplifier vs the impedance of the load. How much DF is required for "good sound"? There is no agreement on the subject. In the days prior to Bob Carver's Phase Linear amplifiers, most every solid state amplifier manufacturer was content with a DF around 50. Carver's amp was introduced with a stated DF of 1,000. Suddenly, DF was a hot topic in the audio press. First, though, you have to realize there is no single constant impedance which can be measured at the amplifier outputs or at the driver's voice coil. An amplifier of any sort has an output impedance which varies with frequency - as does music. More or less the same thing occurs with a driver's voice coil, it has no single, constant impedance. Even when using a single driver as the load on the amp, the voice coil, which is the motor assembly of the system, is a "coil". A "coil" is simply another term for an inductor. An inductor presents, therefore, both inductance and resistance to the amplifier. Neither are constant with frequency and an inductor always presents a shift between incoming Voltage and Amperage components. This makes stating a DF as a spec, merely another on paper spec. It can only be relevant when certain conditions are met. One technique used to change the specified DF of an amplifier is to further lower its output impedance. Or to lower its frequency limit at the bass end. Since the vast majority of solid state power amplifiers use no intervening transformers/autoformers, they are all considered to be "direct coupled" to the load. Since all amplifier manufacturers have access to every output transistor every other manufacturer might use, there's not much to be gained by selecting a different transistor. Transistor selection is also a series of trade offs. Therefore, a manufacturer seeking a higher DF might try to further extend the low frequency limit of their amplifier. There have been amplifiers which claimed a 0.5Hz low frequency limit, which, of course, is only 0.5Hz above DC. A good many source components and pre amps will leak a small bit of DC through their outputs and send that signal to the power amp. Filters not being perfect, the slightest amount of DC that reaches the voice coil of the driver will destroy it immediately. Fried speaker! Not a good situation, even if the speaker is still in warranty. The other approach to raising DF is to lower the output impedance of the amplifier. Once again, all amplifiers have variable output impedance according to frequency. Therefore, whether the amp you select for your powered speaker is running into a woofer, a mid or a tweeter will determine its relative DF. DF for a self powered speaker system can only be "accurately" expressed as a value relative to each amplifier/driver at a very specific frequency. One way to lower output impedance of an amplifier is to increase the negative feedback loop value. This was a very common technique in the days of specmanship between the various Japanese receiver manufacturers of the 1970's and 80's. Most listeners considered the 200 watt Technics receivers to be very bad joojoo when it came to music. Many of these receivers bit the dust due to a too low load value from a poorly spec'd loudspeaker. NFB is broadly viewed as a bad thing by most audiophiles due to the inverse nature of the amount of NFB vs the amount of phase and time errors introduced. Global NFB, the type which really lowers output impedance, is the most offensive here. While some degree of localized NFB is required for a solid state amplifier to remain stable into a reactive load, a hair too much global NFB and you have flipped the equation to the point the amp is hovering near self destruction at all times. This was the case with Carver's amplifiers which quickly developed the nickname "Flame Linear". Therefore, while the most direct connection between the amplifier outputs and the load inputs is desirable, it is also a path fraught with dangers. And it is a spec which is really fairly dust for most users as it is relative only to static conditions rather than music conditions and, even then, only to very specific static conditions many systems may never - will never, if you use the system to reproduce music - achieve. The question then of how much DF is enough DF is still left unanswered. The best answer is typically just a bit more than too little. This does, though, go to the reason many music lovers find themself preferring the musical values of a low wattage, single ended triode amplifier driving a full range single driver loudspeaker system. The triode type vacuum tube has a self contained NFB loop with only a few dB of localized feedback, just enough to correct most errors in its gain structure. Its harmonic distortion values are comprised of relatively low order harmonics of the even order nature making it's reproduction sound more "like" the structure of a musical instrument than any other gain device in practical use. Its transformer coupling will not allow DC to pass through to the driver yet it needs no further filters in line. The circuit structure of a triode gain stage is the simplest available. It is, however, limited to only a handful of measured watts compared to the highest powered transistor amplifiers. The SDFR loudspeaker load has no crossover and is connected directly to the proper output tap of the triode amplifier. Many listeners will tell you this is the truest path to musical excellence, yet it is also the oldest. To calculate DF in a system, you would need to include the cable running between the amplifier's outputs and the inputs/outputs of the driver's voice coil. Any two conductor cable will have an impedance value made up of combined resistance, capacitance and inductance. Therefore, the gauge, the materials, the length and the construction of the cable will influence DF. As I stated above, most self powered speakers are a dead end for the average audiophile due to the inability to exchange any part of the system for another. IMO, this means the claim for "better damping" (if we are claiming DF as the agent of this value) is only relevant to an externally powered system with the same components other than the length of the connecting cable between amp and driver. I would suggest you look at the impedance values for various speaker cables at various frequencies. OK, you can't do that, consumer audio cable manufacturers don't print those specs. Try simply comparing the total loop DC resistance of two identical cables, one two feet in length and the other eight feet in length. You should find the total DC resistance of such cables to vary by as little as 0.01 Ohm. Stick 0.01 Ohm into your calculation for DF and see what difference you get. Self powered speakers have "better" transient response? Transient response is very difficult to measure in an amplifier due to its reactive nature which balances the amplifier's capacity against the music's dynamic demands and the load's reactive nature. There really is no generally accepted test or measurement for such a thing as "system transient response". We measure the components separately and then guess at what their combined value might be. Or we simply listen and make up our mind. We can test an amplifier for transient response using squarewaves to see what the rise time is for a dynamic signal at various output wattages and at various frequencies. We can check for ringing in the circuit which might possibly suggest the amp has a fast transient response time but very poor control over the load after the signal has passed. This is often the result of lower power supply values or higher NFB values and can result in the driver actually driving the amplifier rather than the other way 'round. There are many values which determine whether an amplifier has good measured transient response yet none of them really tell us that much about how the amp reproduces music as a dynamic and an emotional event. Transient response has nothing to do with distinguishing between Clapton, King (any of the three) and Guy when it comes to their vibrato technique. When it comes to transient response we can find it to be a useful design tool for an amplifier but we can also see it as looking through the wrong end of the telescope when it comes to enjoying music. When it comes to transient response in a driver, we need an amplifier to, first, excite the driver into motion. Therefore, the quality of the chosen amplifier that is included with the self powered speaker will largely determine the initial and resulting transient response of the system. Therefore again, take all of what was said above and now we can add that to the measured transient response of the driver. Driver's cannot reproduce squarewaves, only sinewaves. So we test drivers with various sinewaves output from the amplifier at various frequencies and at various power levels. The most significant problem here is the same problem we have measuring any audio device, we tend to use single sinewaves at a single frequency as our testing device. There is no musical instrument on earth which produces the type of signal we have chosen to use as our test signal. Music from any one single instrument producing one single fundamental frequency will also have an infinite number of harmonic frequencies which accompany it. Play another note with another fundamental frequency and we have exponentially made the job of the amplifier and driver more difficult. Add a second, third and fourth instrument and guess what happens then. For many people, this means any static test we do with or to an audio component is not telling us what we need to know about how that component might resolve the human qualities of a musical performance. I could go on and on, Bob, about driver motor size and power vs transient response or how driver structure relates to transient response or even how the enclosure or lack of enclosure influences transient response from a single driver. Etc, etc, etc ... If you haven't caught on by now that any statement which makes the claim self powered speakers have "better" transient response and damping is a somewhat bogus claim, then I don't really need to go any further. You are seeing what you want to see and nothing else. And, as I have seen things in audio and video for many decades, there is nothing that cannot be described as "better" than something else until you begin to examine the something else. And you take a look at why it is "better" than the other thing. . } |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3295 Registered: Oct-07 | I just want to make a simple note: The guys who get excited about humidity for the guitar complain about the 'accuracy' of a 20$ meter. Who cares? The MOST IMPORTANT thing is Repeatability. Taking the same measurement a number of times should result is a VERY close 'cluster' of results. Even if they are 'off' what a lab grade instrument would show misses the point of keeping your instrument in similar conditions as much of the time as possible. As for a Calibratin Mic? Well, you must agree that the Learning Curve for such a device may be daunting. Setup needs to not only be 'repeatable' but so too the source material or test tones. Levels must be matched. Making such devices and software easy to use is NOT easy. I suspect that 5 people measuring the same room would get results far exeeding the microphone alone under anachoic or other labratory conditions. Though they may 'cluster' about some reasonable value. After some instruction and head banging, I'd expect the same folks to do somewhat better. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18158 Registered: May-04 | . There is no "repeatability" in environmental conditions for most guitarists. For most players, the environment is in constant flux. In the winter, most heating systems will introduce forced air into the room at irregular intervals, systems which suck moisture out of the room. How often that occurs is a factor of outdoor temps and prevailing weather conditions throughout the day, efficiency of the home envelope and the HVAC system, location of vents vs guitars (room size) and the preferred temperature selected at the thermostat. Then more or less moisture may be controlled through further mechanical/biometric means. I can tell you with as many of those values as stabilized as common sense allows and a humidifier running 24/7 within close proximity to my more expensive instruments, I can check the meter five or six times a day and find five or six different readings. If I move the meter to another location on the room, within a few minutes I see it has registered the difference between "this" location and "that" location. Whether a guitar is kept in its case or out on a stand makes a difference in the environment it faces. I no longer take my guitars out of the house but, for those people who do, that's yet another issue to deal with combined with rapid temperature changes. If there is repeatability in any of this, it is, IMO, in just how rapidly the organic components of a guitar respond to these environmental changes. Should the measured humidity fall to, say, 37% at some point, how much time do I have before I can anticipate my guitar will react to that change? How much change can I expect to occur over that time? Will the instrument return to its previous state if I can raise the relative humidity in the room above 40%. How long will that change take in the course of any one day? And so on ... Yes, you can sit and ponder all of the questions which might arise but ... why? The guitar manufacturer determines the same range of environmental factors they suggest for the owner's room. Yet, they make no great efforts to fret over a +/- 0.01% variance. Subjective belief systems are fraught with such silliness IMO. At some point, I feel, you have to realize when it is time to say, "OK! I've done what I can to improve the conditions/situation/enviroment, etc", and move on to bigger fish. And, really, the point I was making is not how to make a less expensive meter more reliably useful. It was that several of the people on the forum were making suggestions for a sling psychrometer, often costing ten times more than a basic hygrometer. Yet, any meter, regardless of cost or accuracy, would be facing the exact same issue of obtaining a reading only within a specific location. Similar to moving a calibrated microphone a few inches within a room, the sling psychrometer is only outputting data relative to that very specific small, discrete spot of in room environment. Move either the meter or the mic and you'll have a different reading. Depending on the conditions within the environment, the new reading may be quite a bit unlike the first. Therefore, the comparison between OCD "accuracy" in either case and the correlation between OCD time and money spent on an obviously "inaccurate" solution. Like my neighbor and his torque wrenched mirrors, that is my definition of OCD behavior. And my definition of realizing when moving on to other issues is of value. Which software based room correction system tests an "all speakers active" situation? None that I am aware of though I stopped paying attention to this years ago. What accuracy can be achieved by measuring only the output of one speaker in an array of multiple speakers and subwoofers? Yes, you can obtain an assessment of one speaker's contribution to the room sound. Yet, you never use the system with only that one speaker active. This is similar to placing your $150 sling psychrometer in this spot in your room to ensure your pre-war Martin is properly humidified yet ignoring the fact your new Taylor 800 series exists in an entirely unique and distinctly different environment even if they are only separated by a few feet. Once you add another speaker and another to the in room sound, then comb filtering is the single largest contributor to any problem with "accuracy" and time and acoustic phase errors multiply. That occurs even when time and distance are in the calculations of the processor. That only addresses the specific issues of one specific location within the room. Move your head ever so slightly and whatever sound you had experienced is gone. The old audio paradigm of "head in a vice" driver dispersion. I get it that some people are compelled to do these things. And that I am not going to change their way of doing things no matter how logical my arguments might become. If Bob cares to consider movable platforms and drapes, I would send him to Floyd Toole's articles on loudspeakers/subwoofers/room sound found with the search title "Harman Kardon white papers". I would also caution that these are papers presented to the Audio Engineering Society. Not that these are technically heavy lifts but rather to say, these are engineers writing and taking in this information. Audio - and video to some extent - has for decades been divided into subgroups. First, between objective engineering goals and subjective listening experiences. Secondly, between components deemed to be "accurate" and those found to be musically engaging. Toole and his fellow engineers at Harman fall decidely into one of those two groups. For the most part, while I firmly believe in the adage good engineering produces good sound, fall most definitely in the other. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 19 Registered: Feb-15 | Loved the post Jan. Totally makes sense in all directions. I guess I would have to audition a very good amp at the same spl, on the same signal source and then put the biamp modules on and repeat the listening with my ears to see if the sound gets BETTER. Leo your post screams standards. IMO sorry for copying you Jan no matter how accurate the electronics, speakers, room treatment, measurements and skill of the person doing the measurements, and how good there hearing is we are still at the mercy of the signal. I am beginning to think my problem is more of a control problem not ocd. If someday there could be a standard to follow in the recording process, it would probably get easier and more accurate in the playback process. It still is an art and to get everyone to agree on One way to do things probably will never happen. In my new upgrade I am as Jan would say excepting some trade offs. I am getting my third Nikko Alpha 440 next week in Connecticut. It is working and the person selling it owns a huge farm that grows hops and he brews beer. I took my broken amp I got on Ebay into a small shop in Cambridge MA. called Q Audio. The owner is a one man show. He sells gear and has been repairing it for over 30 years. He didn't laugh at me when I told him what I was trying to achieve, and assured me that he could fix the amp and tune up all the working ones too. I checked out a preamp processor made by Anthem to feed the signal. It is an 11.2 configuration. It isn't cheap but it is something I can upgrade around. It has the old rca outputs that I need now and balanced for the day I can afford to get better amps. It comes with it's own room correction program built in. It comes with a quality calibrated mic and a mic stand as well. The mic that came with my 80 watt AVR is plastic and not quality made. The program is called ARC I assume Anthem Room Correction. When I get to play with it I will post how it does. Gettin back to humidity, does anyone know what I mean when I say the system seems much more crystal clear on dry air days? I guess we are listening to sound waves traveling in air. The humidity must have a measurable affect. The ARC system is one that I will have to use my pc with. It does have graphics, and multiple tests with memory, pre and post results and I can have it memorize how many speakers to use for different sources. I can use the subs in stereo. In order to do that now I would have to change the connection out of the LFE output to a pre out on the AVR. As far as Widescreen Review goes on audio, the editor of the mag. has worked with Reference Recordings and plays an instrument too. They have sat down and interviewed alot of great audio people one on one and have stated that we have a long way to go to get audio to be focused on as much as video has been lately. I will probably puchase an outboard transformer to get the Anthem to accept my turntable. Been over 18 yrs since I played any vinyl. I have a bunch of records that I got off of a fellow worker back in the 90s. He put all his records on reel to reel and just gave them to me. They were all classical music. I have some Glenn Gould playing Bach that he told me was awesome, I couldn't hear what he was talking about but maybe I could recognise it now. I had some from Daniel Barenboim excuse the spelling, and I was like who the hell is this. I heard him play on a pbs special on a mono television and his dynamics control on the piano blew me away. I never appreciated dynamics that much untill that show. Now I can see what the piano can do in the right hands. All right too much coffee. Thanks for the info Jan and you too Leo. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3296 Registered: Oct-07 | Bob, I worked in an enviroment where I had and kept my OWN set of NIST traceable standards for my job. And NO, my post is just good practice for taking measurements. The REPEATABILITY of the instrument is far more important, IMO, than mere 'accuracy'. I did dozens of Gauge R+R Studies where I'd grab an operator, give him my IN HOUSE reference set and ask for 3 sets of measurements of ALL TEN PIECES. Repeate for a 2nd and 3rd operator. At NO TIME did I care that the tool read systematically higher or lower than my NIST stuff. I cared only for ANOVA�.Analysis of Variance. R+R is Repeatability and Reproduceability. Keeping my OWN set of reference materials gave me the opportunity to track changes in a given measurement machines performance over longer time periods. Like years, since I could compare THIS years results with LAST years results. Some measuring systems are Operator Sensitive and may even be deemed 'incapable' after a study such as a reference, above. Jan rightfully points out the difficulties in a practical system of measuring something you'd HOPE was as simple as room humidity. If I owned a sufficiently large and valueable collection of such instruments, I'd have a room with a RECORDING Hygrometer. Is the Anthem 'native' balanced or 'native' single ended? Many have tried to point out that the MAIN advantages of balanced can be found in an ALL BALANCED system and that repeated conversions back and forth to/from single ended may have sonic consequences. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18159 Registered: May-04 | . "If I owned a sufficiently large and valueable collection of such instruments, I'd have a room with a RECORDING Hygrometer." Then, IMO, leo, you'd qualify as OCD. A guitar doesn't give flip what the humidity was yesterday. Neither should the owner. "Is the Anthem 'native' balanced or 'native' single ended? Many have tried to point out that the MAIN advantages of balanced can be found in an ALL BALANCED system and that repeated conversions back and forth to/from single ended may have sonic consequences." The "MAIN" advantages of balanced? "Balanced" what? The advantages of balanced operation will be seen as different things depending on your perspective and your use. I think most pro sound users who have been familiar with balanced lines will see the vast majority of balanced consumer audio components as a bit of a joke. Certainly transformer related balanced circuits are largely laughable if you are familiar with pro audio. But that's because pro audio views balanced operation as a necessity while consumer audio views it as a curiosity and, at times, a nuisance. So, what do you see as the "MAIN" advantages of "balanced", leo? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3297 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, I just might be nuts. But I'm as unlikely to own a museum piece or Valuable guitar as a classic automobile. I've had similar chats with my brother. He's a car guy, and fairly knowledgable. He says that car 'x' is the right one and with the right stuff, THE car of that type to collect. 'Valuable'. I tell him, I'd take any nice older car as a DRIVER. Shoebox Nova? Ford Maverick? For a musical instrument? I'll take a good PLAYER any day of the week. It would be cased when not in use, never left in a hot car or the sun and generally Not abused. But that isn't extreme, is it? In the audio world, guys argue ad-nausium over cables, configurations, Silver plated wire and even Carbon in the insulation! I'm fairly indifferent to those arguements, though Balanced DOES have advantages which come to the fore with longer runs and general immunity from certain types of interference. I've never had the need, though I had a CD player with true balanced outs to a true balanced IN of a pre. And it WAS better than the Junk single ended that came with the player. I also didn't go nuts with regular cables, going a budget but not 'cheap' route. When I changed amps, I even used the SAME speaker cable again by cutting each run in HALF and reterminating the amplifier side of the wires. I didn't Agonize over choice of spades, either, and spent an hour at store that I bought the amps from, using their Industrial Strength crimper. Having basically a dedicated storage room would be for the Extreme Wealthy. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18160 Registered: May-04 | . "For a musical instrument? I'll take a good PLAYER any day of the week. It would be cased when not in use, never left in a hot car or the sun and generally Not abused. But that isn't extreme, is it?" "Extreme" is in the eye of the neighbor watching you check your front door five or six times to make sure you did lock it before you pull out only to drive around the block and come back to check again. (My neighbor with the torque wrench. ) I'm not here to judge what is extreme and what is not or to change anyone's approach to their hobbies. You do, however, seem to be missing the point about humidifying a guitar. It is not about the humidity in the air that we are concerned with. It is about the humidity/moisture content of the wood in the guitar. And the reaction within an organic material to the presence or lack of moisture. While we are told to use humidifiers and dehumdifiers (depending on the prevailing environmental conditions) to preserve the "ideal" condition of our more valuable guitars, yet, no one making such suggestions addresses the actual guitar. Quite honestly, I really don't care that much that the humidity in this spot in my room at this moment is "this" percentage humidity. I care about what is occurring in the my guitar. As I mentioned above, if the relative humidity drops below 40%, how long can I expect my guitar to remain stable when it is the actual moisture content of the wood of the guitar that is in question? Why am I measuring something that isn't what I'm concerned with using? Isn't that a bit like playing the stock market? I have this much "wealth" but "this" much of it is only a real value. The rest could change in short order and it wouldn't affect my real wealth at all. Am I not really only interested in what wealth I can actually use? Recording humidity over several day's time is immaterial to whether my guitar might be gaining or losing moisture right now. I need to know whether it is properly humidified right now. Not tomorrow or yesterday, just right now. If my guitar is at the high end of its moisture content, should I play it? What about at its low end? Is it more fragile at either end? What's the perfect moisture content of the wood for actually playing the guitar? For, just like Bob's observation of system sound vs environmental humidity, my guitar will certainly sound different when the woods are "this" humidity vs "that" humidity. My question then is, why concern myself with measuring this and that in the room when what I want to know about is not in the room itself? And, for the sake of this thread, how does that relate to striving for "accuracy" in a multi-speaker home theatre system? You do, however, paint with a very broad brush someone who, in my example, owns a Pre-War Martin and a Taylor 800. Someone can easily play two different guitars at two different times and justify the difference by switching to a different style/genre of music. I really can't think of anyone who would consider someone owning two guitars to be extreme. Indulgent in cost if it were those two guitars, maybe. But, extreme? I can't see that. After the few brief encounters I have had with your brother, I'd rather not discuss him at all. IMO the word "extreme" is not sufficient for describing your brother's approach to anything. But why not collect cars or guitars? They are both investments which are fairly sure things. IMO, and it's only my opinion, if you treat everything only as a monetary investment however, you are missing many of the pleasures of ownership. Cars and guitars are meant to be vehicles of pleasure, even a straight six 230 c.i.d. '66 Chevy II sedan painted sea foam green and with a PowerGlide transmission (maybe, but that does seem to be stretching the point to absurdity). There are, though, quite a few examples of either cars or guitars which are collected simply due to their history or their inherent beauty. You and I will never have the means to buy, say, one of Woody Guthrie's guitars or Segovia's last instrument but those aren't items you would purchase with the intent of taking them to the Wednesday night blues jam down at the local bar. There are cars and guitars you might own simply because you appreciate their beauty or technical achievement. If you had one, how many actual miles would you put on a 1932 Hudson Essex-Terraplane? The question is not whether you would want one. The question is about when you have one. How many miles per year? The concept of buying something only because it is useful, or creating something that is only useful, harkens back to the Americanized description of a Communistic Soviet Union approach to automobiles. It certainly was ideologically applied to Pat Nixon's infamous "Republican cloth coat" where even a puppy's value to a child could be questioned. Where would we be today if all Republicans wore only cloth coats and didn't own their own private 757's? And, if we think of the equally infamous "form follows function" architecture of the 20th century, what exactly do we have; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function#Origins_of_the_phrase Dadaism run amock, IMO. And, originally, Dadaists rejected the "bowing to popular culture" manifests of the Surrealists. Consider that for a moment. Where were the constructivists when we really needed them? Other than being shot and "disappeared" in the middle of the night by Stalin that is. It's a matter of those familiar "priorities", leo. And the idealistic view no one should get to impose their priorities on another person. "I've never had the need, though I had a CD player with true balanced outs to a true balanced IN of a pre. And it WAS better than the Junk single ended that came with the player. I also didn't go nuts with regular cables, going a budget but not 'cheap' route. " So, basically, you had not conducted a proper comparison before you made your decision as to "better"? But you feel balanced was "BETTER" than junk single ended? Sorry to repeat myself but this is what I had to say about "better" in an earlier post ... "Unfortunately, one of the most deceitful words in audio is "better". What exactly does "better" mean? Can we always make something that is better than the last thing we made which was better than the model prior to that? IMO, no, we can only make something that has different sets of trade offs in the end result." . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18161 Registered: May-04 | . "I am beginning to think my problem is more of a control problem not ocd." Ummmm, is that not the description of being OCD? You feel you are lacking control of the situation? If you follow the surround sound thread I linked to in a previous post, you will find that the quality of the recording was a point we all agreed upon. Though we, of course, could not agree on what qualities we would all enjoy. And it has been one of the consistent flaws in testing and judging components for over a half a century. I've often made the point in various audio oriented discussions that we are judging the wrong thing. This is no brilliant observation on my part. Many others have made the same point regarding how we judge audio equipment. I have pointed would be audiophiles to various articles which reflect the typical reviews you will read of; an audio component, a live musical event as experienced by a "reviewer" and how musicians discuss the works of other musicians. Each writer reflects a different viewpoint on the same object, the music. Or, they should be discussing the music IMO, though, often times, it is completely secondary in the review of the audio component. The very thing the component was designed to reproduce is no longer the issue of how well the component performs its function. I won't belabor this point here other than to say, it is a well known fact among the cognitive scientists that when we listen to judge A vs B, we listen in a totally different manner than when we listen purely for enjoyment. Different areas of the brain will show greater or lesser activity depending on the task we have set before us. If there are no ("repeatable") standards for testing the music, how can we say we have standards for testing the equipment which is tasked with reproducing the music? Yet, this is where most audio journalists and quite a few "audiophiles" exist in their thinking. I'm not for uber-control of the music or the reproduction of the music. But the "detail freak" and the "imaging freak" who listens for smacking lips and tapping shoe leather is very likely going to be very disappointed in the results of a producer/engineer who records what they feel is a "natural sound" of music being heard in an actual venue. "Gettin back to humidity, does anyone know what I mean when I say the system seems much more crystal clear on dry air days? I guess we are listening to sound waves traveling in air. The humidity must have a measurable affect." https://www.google.com/search?q=the+effect+of+humdity+on+sound+pressure+waves&rl z=1CAACAJ_enUS656US656&oq=the+effect+of+humdity+on+sound+pressure+waves&aqs=chro me..69i57.13282j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=the+effect+of+humidity+o n+sound+pressure+waves There's the technical issues of a sound pressure wave passing through a more or less humid environment. I would not, however, ignore the fact you are responding to your perceptions. As the idea goes, hearing does not exist in your ears, it exists within your mind - not even your brain but your "mind". We have difficulty assigning a strict definition to what we experience as our own mind and certainly so when it comes to another's mind. The existential argument is, how do I know you guys aren't really just my mind playing tricks on me? Every audiophile and every music lover understands there are days and nights when music is more enjoyable. Most though cannot pin point a reason for the differences. And there are times when nothing seems to be right. Audiophiles talk of the late night hours when noise on the electrical grid seems to be low and music has a different appeal than during the day. Some spend exorbitantly on devices intended to minimize these perceived "noises". Certainly, any musician knows there are good days and bad days for playing. Some audio enthusiasts/music lovers/players have certain rituals they will engage in as talismans which prepare their mental state for the activity of being involved in music. I had earlier mentioned the Schumann Resonance Generator I use in my room. It is a device which has a measured effect on the human perceptions. So, yes, there are measurable differences between sound pressure levels existing in this environment that will not be found in that environment. Supposedly, one reason the main Stereophile offices moved from Santa Fe to NYC was to remove the environmental differences between the original location and to place their reviewers in a more common reader's environment. To go from 7,000 feet to sea level did seem a bit extreme IMO. Do not, however, always go looking for what you can measure or what someone else has measured. You are engaging in a perceptual/cognitive experience. While we can link certain environmental conditions to specific brainwave activity, it is the human element of perception which we will follow. "I have some Glenn Gould playing Bach that he told me was awesome, I couldn't hear what he was talking about but maybe I could recognise it now. I had some from Daniel Barenboim excuse the spelling, and I was like who the hell is this. I heard him play on a pbs special on a mono television and his dynamics control on the piano blew me away. I never appreciated dynamics that much untill that show. Now I can see what the piano can do in the right hands." Gould is definitely an acquired taste. No one says you have to enjoy what they enjoy or, if they do, you should stop paying attention to what they say at all. If you wish to try the Gould again, read what the reviewers said about his recordings and his performances. Then read what other musicians said about him. Without leading yourself in any one direction, listen again with those thoughts in your mind. You still may not "get" Gould but you'll have given his music a more fair shot IMO. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 20 Registered: Feb-15 | I wish I knew enough about balanced in and outputs but I could never afford the gear that had them. The difference between the 2 you mentioned Leo I don't know. I went to the Anthem site and downloaded the pdf owners manual and the statement was true balanced. Whatever that means. I will have to ask the owner of the store and see if he can explain the difference between the 2 forms of balanced you mentioned. Where he is a tech also he should know. I have read in the past that balanced isolates the ground somehow and gives BETTER signal to noise. With me it is hearing is beleiveing. I am a skeptic about everything. I remember the first time I bought a Monster Cable interconnect to go between my CD player and my integrated amp. I had Yamaha equipment nothing special, the amp was a A1000 that had class A the first 10 watts then it kicked into AB. I did hear the difference with the interconnect but couldn't hear the difference between the class A and AB. It had a switch to engage the A and unengage it. I can see why Jan says "All that just to watch a movie". Repeatability on the measurements coming out the same would have to have CONTROL over a million variables. We have the temp of the air, the electronics, I used to wait 1/2 hour on my display device to get the temp to rise to a stable temp before making adjustments, and then the humidity in the air too. I was able to watch on youtube some people using the ARC system on the Anthem pre amp. Can either of you guys tell me what is an algorithm? When I read a pdf on the Anthem site about room correction, it actually gave the process they use step by step and it seems alot like the open source software from several other companies out there on the internet right now. One thing that I liked was the bass tests could be done at lower frequencies than the default. Once again it used algorithms and equalization, according to them not graphic or parametric to smooth out the response. Anyone know the third type of eq? And paragraphic can't be it. And Jan they do the multiple measurements and then accept an average to make everybody somewhat happy in the room. Once again TRADE OFFS. On my display device, a plasma, I have different memory settings for night and day but I only run the set in a linear setting. I have run the clipping patterns on the Spears and Munsil test disc and back off on the contrast or white level untill it isn't clipping anymore. I only run it with these settings so it will last longer. I settle for this TRADE OFF to preserve the set. I always run the volume on my audio system as loud as I can but as soon as the sound gets distorted I back off and remember that setting as the highest I can go with that amp. It could very well be room gain that is limiting the volume and not just the amp because most of the distortion I begin to hear is in the bass. After I go from 80 watts to 220 watts, if I still have the same problem I am going to be one p----d off person, not to mention frustrated. I never forgot what the old stereo system sounded like with 220 watts in the same environment, and the bass was heavy,deep,sustained and not boomy. Why I can't say for sure. Was it better damped? I want to print the statement ADS said about the advantages of Bi-Amplification. "In conventional full-range operation, the entire spectrum of audio frequencies are amplified by a single amplifier. A passive crossover in the speaker, consisting of inductors, capacitors, and resistors, seperates the audio signal into low, middle, and high frequency portions to drive the woofer, midrange, and tweeter respectively. In a bi-amplified system the signal from the preamp goes first to an electronic crossover containing active electronic filters which split the signal into low-frequency and mid-high-frequency portions. These signals then go to SEPERATE power amplifiers wich amplify the low and mid-high bands independently; the output signals are then fed directly to the woofer and the midrange and tweeter combination. This procedure yields several benefits. In full- range operation the passive crossover absorbs a SIGNIFICANT fraction of the incoming amplifier power. So by coupling the drivers directly to their own amplifiers, rather than force-feeding the current to the drivers through a network of resistors and coils, an immediate improvement in efficiency may be had. Typically a bi-amplified system employing an economical 60- watt woofer amplifier and a 60- watt tweeter amplifier may equal or exceed the performance of a 150-watt full-range amplifier driving a passive crossover. In the case of the woofer, direct-coupling to the amplifier yields a clearly audible tightening and extension of deep bass response. The series inductor used to crossover the woofer in the passive crossover has a residual resistance of 0.3 ohms, meaning that regardless of how high the damping factor of your amplifier is, the effective damping factor applied to the woofers is below 15. In bi-amplification the crossover inductor is bypassed; with the woofer connected directly to the power amplifier, the amplifier's full damping factor can be applied directly to controlling the transient response of the woofers. As an allied benefit the "Q" of the woofers is reduced so that, instead of rolling off at 12dB per octave below their 40 Hz system resonance, the woofers roll off more slowly below resonance and thus have a stronger output in the region below about 32 Hz. A bi-amplified system has an additional advantage in the reduction of audible distortion at high loudness levels. This is attributed in part to the elimination of "intermodulation distortion" occurring when low-and high-frequency signals are amplified together; in the bi-amplified system the low and high frequencies are amplified seperately, so no intermodulation can occur. An even more important reason for the audible improvement has to do with the "clipping" behavior of the system. The power ratings of amplifiers are obtained with sine-wave test tones. But music, unlike sine waves, has a high crest factor; i.e. in a musical signal the high-frequency overtones ride on top of the low-frequency waveforms and increase the peak voltage relative to the average signal level. Moreover, on a dynamic basis, music contains short-term peaks, typically lasting only a few thousandths of a second, demanding a power level five to ten times higher than the average signal level. These comprise the ATTACK transients of many sounds such as piano chords and plucked guitar and harp notes as well as the more obvious drum beats and cymbal impacts. So if you are playing the music loud and are running the amplifier at one-third of its rated power with the average signal level, the brief transient peaks will overdrive the amplifier past its maximum capacity. In this case the amplifier clips off the signal peaks. This clipping has two effects. First, the loss of the signal peaks tends to diminish the subjective dynamic impact of the musical sound as well as its "openness" and clarity of detail. Second, and usually more important, the peak clipping adds momentary bursts of false high-frequency energy (harmonic distortion) to the audio signal coming out of the amplifier. In full-range operation the loudspeaker receiving this signal from the amplifier cannot distinguish the distortion from the genuine high-frequency musical overtones; all high-frequency portions of the signal, both normal and spurious, go through the passive crossover and are reproduced. So the listener hears a gritty, fatiguing, or in severe cases, a harsh edge to the sound; this edginess is the usual symptom that the system is being overdriven. In a bi-amplified system the situation is different. First, the low-and high-frequency halves of the signal spectrum are seperated by the electronic crossover before being amplified. Since the high frequencies are no longer riding on top of the low frequency waveforms, the crest factor of the signal is reduced. The peak signal levels are lower, which means either that peak clipping is less likely to occur or that lower-powered amplifiers can be used with the same incidence of clipping. Even when peak clipping does occur, it is usually less audible in a bi-amplified system. In many musical passages the largest power demands are at low and middle frequencies, so that when clipping occurs it is likely to be mainly in the woofer amplifier. The resulting spurious energy is fed only to the woofer- which simply absorbs high-frequency energy without reproducing it. Meanwhile, the genuine high-frequency portion of the musical signal is amplified cleanly by the tweeter amplifier and reproduced by the high-frequency drivers. Thus a bi-amplified speaker can have clarity, detail, and impact at high sound levels even when medium powered amplifiers are used." This certainly makes it a little clearer to me of the advantages of bi-amplification or tri-amplification in case of a three way. Once again cost cost cost. I want to post the specs of the PA1 bi-amp module for the L1290 amd L1590 speakers. I got them from a person on Ebay selling a pair of L1290/2s with the modules attached. He was the original owner and had the manual. He scanned it for me so here it is.  |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18162 Registered: May-04 | . https://www.google.com/search?q=algothythm&rlz=1CAACAJ_enUS656US656&oq=algothyth m&aqs=chrome..69i57.4829j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=algorithm+defin ition The alternative to either analog parametric or graphic equalization would be through digital circuits, which use algorithms. Algorithms are "rules", confinements in one sense or assumptions in another which, for the most part are of the "if A, then B" type, and which must be adhered to in the application of the assumptions/calculations. Digital circuits apply multiple alogrithms to operate. Mpegs and Jpegs are good examples of how algorithms are applied in a consumer based electronics product. At their worst, such "rules" will result in a final product which is the realization of someone's calculations, not necessarily the user's desires. This tends to give digital products created by the use of algorithms a "sameness" that can be somewhat aggravating, bland, uninteresting, etc. to certain users since the equation always dictates "if A, then B" in all cases. That's hardly how the world operates and not at all how music works. This sort of "application of rules" has meant digital circuits can be faster and more compact in their construction which is a benefit to many users. As you probably know, your present smartphone probably has more computational power than the processors used to send a man to the moon in the late 1960's. Like any other tool, it is the implementation of the rule(s) which makes it subjectively good or bad for the final product for the final user. Priorities suggest whether you might or might not find the use of algorithms bothersome or acceptable. "After I go from 80 watts to 220 watts, if I still have the same problem I am going to be one p----d off person, not to mention frustrated." The long accepted numbers tell you that going from 80 watts to 160 watts gains the potential headroom (on peaks only) of +3dB. You would need to go from that 160 watts to 320 watts to gain yet another +3dB of headroom. As I commonly told clients, eventually, it's not the amplifier that will be distorting. Those are, however, only on paper calculations. An amplifier is a reactive device operating into yet another reactive device. Together they form a circuit. A very common issue with higher powered amplifiers in the affordable price ranges is their limited power supplies. As I mentioned above, if the amplifier can produce an adequately correct square wave at "X" power output into a purely resistive load, that only tells us minimal amounts about the amplifier. If the squarewave then indicates ringing, the amp is not in control of the signal. If it is not in control of the signal, it isn't likely to be in control of a driver. That's not an ideal situation. The squarewave test in no way approximates music other than it is not so simple as a sinewave test. Music is dynamic and continuous, a squarewave is not. And that only addresses the purely electrical demands made upon the equipment, not the emotional content of the music. Very often, in too many amplifiers spec'd as producing "XXX" watts, the power supply's storage capacity is not up to maintaining the full power output of the amplifier under sustained high power situations or as the next signal approaches. Therefore, it is not uncommon for a high wattage amplifier to produce an ... "adequate" first attack yet, when, say, the next big drum thwack or guitar chord comes along right afterwards, there's no more "juice" left in the supply caps. It's then that the amp falls flat. There's a mighty lot of words in ADS's justification of bi-amplification. Most of them are true, as far as they can be stated in a marketing blurb. Also, most of them are less than completely truthful. Since doubling the available wattage of any "equals to equals" amplifier only provides that +3dB of headroom, and doesn't say a thing about actually dealing with music - let along video sources, IMO the best way to minimize the possibility of "clipping" the amplifier is to increase the overall efficiency of the loudspeaker load. Loudspeaker manufacturers do not, though, post the system efficiency of their products. Mostly, that is because the vast majority of consumer loudspeaker systems fall well under 5% efficiency. Some as low as 1% efficiency. If you could increase that 5% value to, say, 10% efficiency, with all else remaining equal, you would have few problems with amplifier clipping induced distortions. While efficiency and electrical sensitivity are not the same value, manufacturers post sensitivity specs. They are not all equally honest in their specs but they do post something. Do the math, Bob, if you take a loudspeaker with a specification of 82dB with 1 watt input (2.83 Volts) and you replace it with a speaker system spec'd at 104dB with 1 watt input, how much less power would you need to drive the more sensitive system (the more "efficient" system) to that original 82dB level? Remember, every time you increase (on paper) wattage by twice the amount (doubling the wattage), you increase the potential peak level by +3dB. Therefore, every time you increase the loudspeaker sensitivity by +3dB, you have effectively done the same thing as doubling your wattage. Take that information, work backwards and calculate the mount of "watts" required to bring a 104dB speaker up to only 82dB. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 21 Registered: Feb-15 | Thanks for the info Jan Didn't know you were a guitarist. Just thought I would post something a little more directed towards ADS. I know these amps can drive my speakers fairly well because they did a good job back when I just had stereo. I'm sure that if I was happy with the volume and clarity with just two pushing 5 of them at the same time as well as the 4 minis on the ceiling, should give me the volume I'm looking for with control. I'm sorry but I forgot to tell you that they are 4 ohms not 8. These are not Brystons so I only get a little more power around 240 according to the owners manual. If I'm lucky I will be satisfied, if not I will just save for around 5 yrs. and get some newer beefier amps with high current capabilities. As usual I am trying to get away with not paying for performance too much, using gear I already have and keeping everything balanced in sound and behaviour by keeping components similar by model and wattage. Some day I will stop trying to improve the system and just enjoy it. It really is fun to make changes and try to move forward. Not too far from retirement so I need my sanctuary to be built little by little to get ready. I can see why some guys build a man cave. I just hope I can get practical and not get too carried away as time goes bye. And really hope my ears don't start to fail, never mind the electronics. How much do you know about horn speakers like the klipsh design. And after reading the articles from John Allen I can see why people added ferrofluid to cool down the heat in the voice coils. Tell me if you play a 12 string, and how do you like bowing the strings or using the slide. I really love the way Steve Howe used the steel pedal on the song and you and I. He did use an echoplex I think. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18163 Registered: May-04 | . I've sold Klipsch - the original line - and I've sold against Klipsch. I've read many of Paul Klipsch's papers so I'd say I know about horns and Klipsch well enough to answer most questions though I'm far from an expert on either. I play a six string when I play Spanish guitar. I haven't played a twelve string since I was young. I almost talked myself into buying a Martin 12 string but remembered there are really only about three songs that really sound good on a 12 string, so I passed on the buy. Besides, if I want that sound, Nashville Tuning comes very close with a lot less hassle. When I was young I played classical guitar but it is a very technique (and attitude) oriented style. I didn't want to be a performer and eventually moved on to other styles though I still play my classical guitar on occasion. I do play slide on my guitars and I also play a squareneck resonator and the lap steel. Every style/genre has its points of interest though I play more acoustic blues than anything else. Right now, I'm not playing much. My left hand was injured a while back and I haven't regained the strength required to really dig in. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3298 Registered: Oct-07 | I've worked at the JC woodshop. We have a sawmill as well as several wood kilns for drying to a specified moisture content. Loading the kilns is an art-form unto itself. Wood improperly stacked will warp like crazy. My only suggestion would be to say that in very damp conditions, your wooden instruments are gaining moisture while in a dry desert they will LOOSE moisture. A guitar should be happiest with the moisture content AS DRIED and SAWN. Slow changes would be best while even in a case, a guitar in the trunk of a car in 120f weather (Think Palm Springs) would destroy it or drastically shorten its lifespan. I think they key is to make any changes as gradually as possible. This will naturlly occur in your house, unless you store the guitar where you shower. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 22 Registered: Feb-15 | I work in printing, and of course with paper. Moisture is not a friend of paper. I have seen web press jobs gain a 1/6" in legnth in 24 hours. The paper really absorbs moisture in the cells and gets bigger. And talk about warping, and curling. Alot has to do with the direction of the grain in either paper or wood. When it looses moisture it shrinks and warps or curls up in the grain direction. I am sure it has an affect on wooden instruments. I don't think MDF is as easily affected talking about speaker enclosures. Alot of glue to stop the absorption I would guess but not sure. Jan what do you think of the 7 and 9 string spanish guitars? I remember fooling around with an electric 6 string but when I wanted to buy an acoustic I got the ocd thing and started researching and bumped into those. I was reading how some players used the extra strings in rock music just to make it sound heavier. Tuning the 1st two strings to the same note. Flamenco guitar players must go crazy with the extra strings. I actually love Andreas Vollenwieder and excuse my spelling, he plays the harp and is a recording engineer. Stringed instruments really sound good on speakers and going from the low end to the high end is like going through all the drivers in the speaker as well as right through the crossover. The notes can be really be sustained and all the harmonics and overtones sound so good. I have been thinking of getting the Bach pieces done by Yo Yo Ma. I think it is a cello and it should really give the bass a workout and have enough range to be able to focus on any flaws. My favorite acoustic blues player is Son House. You can hear some of his stuff on youtube. We did a book in work about 2 years ago for some music festival, it was in some mountains and was annual with all kinds of folk, blue grass, and blues too. I read alot of the books we make and in this one the producer said he found Son House living in New York. What an amazing thing to read that day. Check him out, quite a one man show. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18164 Registered: May-04 | . FYI: "True Balanced" is not an exact description of any circuit. It's a bit of a shame that manufacturers have to resort to non-descript gobbledegook to not say what the other fellow accuses them of being. But that's where we are in the state of modern electronic designs. You would assume that True Balanced means the signal is carried on balanced lines through the system/circuit and fed to "differential" circuitry. That's hardly the case though in most systems which claim "balanced operation" or sport other than RCA connectors. Leo's use of the word "native" is also somewhat less than helpful in making a determination of operation that tells the buyer just what they are getting for their money. A component can be both "native" balanced and "native" single ended if those lines are maintained independently throughout the signal path for those individual circuits. If, however, a component allows both single ended (RCA's) inputs/outputs and "balanced" (XLR's and TRS's) ins/outs, then you have to ask just what occurs inside the components circuits. A truly "balanced" signal path throughout the component would imply the exclusion of single ended inputs and outputs. "Single ended" meaning there are only two conductors in a connecting cable and the neutral line is sharing a signal path with the true ground circuit. The most common connector type for this single ended application in home audio is the lowly RCA. I won't bore you with too many details but the RCA connector was created to use scrap materials which would otherwise have been discarded in the manufacture of more sophisticated connectors. Other than lowest possible cost, there are very few points where an RCA is the most desired connector and quite a few which make it the absolute least desirable way to put together a system. I've commented before on this forum how the high end consumer audio market has made claims for "wiping windows clean" and achieving great advancements in transparency to the source. Yet, by only using single ended interconnects and circuits which rely on RCA connectors on even the most outrageously expensive components, the entire thing is, IMO, a fraud. It is dressing a pig in a frilly tutu and calling it the queen of hearts. While you can have a balanced line and not have it feed into a "differential" circuit, the two normally go together to create a "true balanced" operation. You can simply insert "differential circuit" into a search engine for details regarding how such circuit construction benefits the user. Briefly, the inclusion of a differential circuit reduces common signal "noise" by -6dB. If you remember the numbers for wattage, a differential circuit would be equivalent to raising the signal level by a power factor similar to quadrupling (X4) the signal wattage while leaving noise alone. Therefore, the implementation of balanced lines and differential circuits lowers the "quiescent" noise floor by -6dB, which is substantial. This configuration also implies a lower impedance for the circuit from input to output. For a pro audio user running, say, 200' microphone cables, that too is significant. For the home audio user with maybe 2 meter long interconnects, the impedance issue is similar to your amplifier running into a lower impedance loudspeaker load. More current is required from the source to drive a low impedance load but, since "Voltage" is the potential for work and "Amperage" is the force to perform work, higher currents, when they are supported by "better" quality power supplies, also can mean high dynamic range expressed as less signal is lost in the noise floor and more signal "work" can occur at the top end. Hope that makes sense. Basically, it boils down to consumer audio retaining the least desirable traits of an ancient and outmoded methodology which inhibits the very progress they purport to have achieved through expensive utilization of exotic circuitry and materials and a good deal of mumbo-jumbo voodoo double speak. Many consumer audio components though must still deal with this reliance on outdated circuits and connectors which means most components you will see on a high end audio dealers shelves are using some RCA's which can ONLY be single ended operation. And the presence of XLR's or 1/4" jacks does not automatically infer anything other than you have different types of jacks to contend with. The inclusion of other proprietary jacks means you could have difficulty stepping outside of the one single manufacturer's systems. Those manufacturers who do employ "balanced" operation (whatever that means in their lexicon) must make allowances for those components which do not, as it's rather difficult to find a turntable or a CD player with real world "balanced" lines and connectors. Too bad because phono cartridges present the lowest Voltage signals to the system and are essentially balanced in their operation until they arrive at the outputs of the tonearm where they are coupled to the ground network of the table/arm. Since it is commonly accepted wisdom that the system can perform only as well as the source allows and lowering the noise floor of the cartridge inputs would be extremely beneficial, this is one very glaring point where home audio is a bunch of absurd BS. Home video use is now turning to HDMI which cannot be balanced in its own audio operation yet HDMI says it will take care of your audio lines and you are rather stuck with that "unbalanced" configuration in most systems. To make their components more adaptable to the silliness of the marketplace, a component designer who wishes to implement "true balanced" circuitry must be able to convert single ended (in other words; "unbalanced") lines into balanced circuits. Again, without boring you with details, this is almost always achieved by way of passing the signal through a transformer. This can create a "pseudo-balanced" signal that splits the neutral line away from the true ground. On the way out of the component, another transformer can convert a balanced line to a single ended line if needed for some systems or it can simply turn the "somewhat" balanced signal back to a single ended signal. I'll refer you back to the words spent describing the time and phase shifts inherent in any inductor to begin your consideration of this "transformer coupled" signal manipulation. Coils, inductors and transformers all share commonalities which means they all also share common flaws and benefits. One of the most common flaws found in cheap transformers is core saturation. (Use a search engine.) Good transformers are not cheap transformers and vice versa. What this translates into for the consumer is truly balanced operation is more costly than simple single ended circuitry. The use of differential" circuits implies the designer actually doubled up on the number of components within the circuit. "Dual Differential" means even more circuitry and even higher cost. With the signal travelling through more active circuit components comes the potential for greater signal degradation. Trade offs. In too many cases, the additional cost of more circuits means the designer/manufacturer has selected less expensive passive parts. That means there is no magic bullet in "balanced" components. And using balanced components in your system is no simple answer to improving your system. The "benefit" of balanced lines and differential circuits exists primarily at the noise floor level. Somewhat like the doubling of wattage only really benefits the momentary bursts of power required to execute a higher dynamic range without clipping distortion so too does the lowering of the noise floor depend on other factors for its benefits. All that adds up to, you need to ask about the real world meaning and benefits of the "True Balanced" marketing words. If your system is not truly balanced from first input to final output, they may mean little to nothing. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18165 Registered: May-04 | . Those are the general recommendations for care of an all solid wood guitar, Bob. "Solid wood" is the accepted ideal due to its responsive nature to a player's input though, as with audio, marketing speak jumbles up what it is the buyer is getting for their money. More than a few people find the term "select woods" to mean (in reality) you are buying a "laminated" (plywood) guitar. Not exactly what comes to mind when you think someone has carefully "selected" the woods being used rather than they simply selected the next piece of plywood on the stack. But ply's and laminates and MDF's (particle board) are "environmentally stable" which means they don't much care what the surrounding environment is as long as you don't physically dunk the guitar in a bucket of water or move it from a hot car trunk directly into your freezer. They make for "cheap" guitars which are then used as "beaters" to be taken out into the extremes of a camping trip or to the beach. So, cheaper isn't always lower quality when it means you are not taking your $3500 Martin out where it can easily be damaged. Since guitars and cameras are best when they are what you have with you, beaters have their place. Son House is often credited with actually teaching Robert Johnson how to play the guitar and how to write a blues song. Johnson overshadows House and is considered by many to be the ultimate in acoustic blues theology. One thing you'll likely find as you study the various guitarists of the 20th century is, to succeed most felt they needed a unique sound all their own. This accounts in large part for the multiple influences found in the styles of music as they progressed through the decades. As I mentioned to one forum member on a guitar forum, players were seldom content with being told what they should play and how they should play it. Thus, "blues" morphed into jazz which turned into swing and which became bebop and so on. Muddy Waters said, "Blues had a child and they called it rock and roll". Sister Rosetta Tharpe played a mean Gospel style on electric guitar which probably had some influence on Elvis. The answer to your question about the various types of guitars comes down to finding a new sound. "Rock music" as typified by the early electric blues players is about adding a weight to the sound of the old acoustic blues of House and Johnson. To achieve this end product, particularly in smaller groups such as The Cream and The Who, the rhythm guitarist (who often was also the lead guitarist) played "power chords". Rather than playing the full "triad" of a traditional chord, the first, third and fifth degrees of the scale, they would play only the root (the "first") and the fifth degree. Typically, power chords are played on the lowest tuned strings of the instrument. If there were a lead line appearing, this would also minimize the interaction between guitar sounds and make the overall group sound "heavier" as they would be playing notes similar to what the bass player would add. Adding strings to the lowest registers of the guitar (or tuning down the lowest strings) is one way to find this type of sound. Other players use seven strings to simply explore the tonal ranges found in other instruments. It really comes down to what the player is looking for. For any instrument, there is always someone looking to find a new way to play it and to create their own unique sound which identifies them and no one else. Here's one example of a player who has taken an instrument seldom seen in rock and jazz and applied his own take on how to create music; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt5BVuIv4t8 . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 23 Registered: Feb-15 | Really informative for me on the balanced stuff. Thanks Jan. Wild Hendrix. I want to ask you alot about differnt guitarists but not on this forum. I just had one of those ocd thoughts. These room correction programs that are now in use in most newer gear, why don't they Listen to a person like yourself, playing an acoustic instrument in the room to be measured, monitored on the calibrated mic that came with the unit and all the parameters stored in the device. Then play the recorded acoustic signal back through the speakers and compare all the parameters to the original. Of course all the electronics in the store and play back of the signal be the same and of same tolerances. Adjust the spl to be the same too. That sounds like a pretty good way to compare live to playback. All the same room reflections and decay rates and room gain similar. The speakers would be really compared to a signal of music not just test tones. Same room, same mic, same humidity in the air, same electronics to record and playback, just the speakers and say a huge harp with as many octaves you can get to use all drivers and crossover components. Even if it was a custom instrument, as long as it was acoustic and not amplified. What do you think? And don't laugh I am serious about a simplistic method of comparison, for acoustically generated signals to be compared to speaker generated signals, having only exactly same electronics to record measure and playback and measure and adjust till playback is as close to the original as possible. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3299 Registered: Oct-07 | In the early days, that is EXACTLY what one manufacturer did. Was it Klipsch? Have a piano player AND the speakers. Which is playing? More to it than that, but the 'Is is Live, or is it Memorex?' idea is still with us. For better or worse, their is a LOT more to audio reproduction than just amplitude response. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 24 Registered: Feb-15 | You are right Leo. I think you might have misunderstood my spl statement. I mean get the playback level to the same spl as the original before the tests begin for decay, frequency analysis with equalization, room gain in the bass region, phase or time arrival and use of dsp to delay or speed up certain frequencies. Any Ideas on what other tests would be beneficial? And just to make you laugh. How about we make the system wireless with moving platforms so all the speakers can move about the room like those little vacum cleaners I Robot, to find the best placement in the room, including the subs. You would have to sit in your sweetspot while they move around to get the right interference or reflections off your body. Like a Disney movie where the brooms were going all over the place. Like I said before, have motorized acoustic panels on the walls that can absorb reflections and bass traps that can move remotely too. It would be an audio chess game, every move might affect another measurement untill the check mate of the best it can possibly get move. I wonder how long it would take? And could it be done in say a virtual reality realm on a strong computer. Then we could have Jan come over to watch a movie when it's done. LOL. You have to have a sense of humor. I'm sure a trained acoustical expert would add to the list of tests to be performed. I think I'm going to explore all the other post subjects, so I can learn some more. Thanks for putting up with some wild Ideas guys. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18167 Registered: May-04 | . "These room correction programs that are now in use in most newer gear, why don't they Listen to a person like yourself, playing an acoustic instrument in the room to be measured, monitored on the calibrated mic that came with the unit and all the parameters stored in the device. Then play the recorded acoustic signal back through the speakers and compare all the parameters to the original. Of course all the electronics in the store and play back of the signal be the same and of same tolerances. Adjust the spl to be the same too. That sounds like a pretty good way to compare live to playback. All the same room reflections and decay rates and room gain similar. The speakers would be really compared to a signal of music not just test tones. Same room, same mic, same humidity in the air, same electronics to record and playback, just the speakers and say a huge harp with as many octaves you can get to use all drivers and crossover components. Even if it was a custom instrument, as long as it was acoustic and not amplified. What do you think?" "In the early days, that is EXACTLY what one manufacturer did. Was it Klipsch? Have a piano player AND the speakers. Which is playing? More to it than that, but the 'Is is Live, or is it Memorex?' idea is still with us. For better or worse, their is a LOT more to audio reproduction than just amplitude response." Well, in fact, this is NOT what anyone has ever done - or is likely to ever do. We do not have the capacity to measure music as you suggest. That is the failure of objective/objectivist thinking. That all you have to do is measure "this" and, if "this-that" can be made to look similar to "this-this" without actually being "this", then you need nothing more - or less. As they say at the end of the home fix it show, "And it's just that simple!" Except no project they show on those demonstrations is ever that simple or has it ever been accomplished in 22 minutes plus commercial breaks. If it were that simple, Bob, why wouldn't we be doing that right now? This is not a new idea you've come up with. PWK did his demonstration in the 1950's using tubed amplifiers and recorders. Wouldn't that solve all of our problems when it comes to what is "accurate" in audio reproduction? No more objectivist/subjectivist debates and name calling flame wars. A simple check of the data and we'd be done! But here we are, some 140 years on in the science of audio reproduction systems, some 70 years after the Klipsch demonstration, and we are not using those "simple as pie" techniques you describe. There must be a reason. And let me stop here and say most of what you advocate has nothing to do with measuring "music". Or an audio component. Or a room. You have put your head inside a bucket full of buzzwords and stats and specs that are all irrelevant to what a music reproduction system is all about. OK, you want to set your goals on video where there are so few things that are "real" as to largely be meaningless when it comes to accuracy. However, you are now asking about music and there are standards we can detect and even agree upon regarding that. It is though, very much like reading the commentator's viewpoint regarding an audio component reproducing music, a music reviewer's review of a performance and another musician's view of the identical performance of music. They will not agree on much. Leo's "Klipsch" demonstration has been carried out numerous times by various manufacturers. Have a live violinist standing on stage playing a short musical selection on their instrument. Then switch to a recording of that performance - or switch back and forth between the live and the amplified - and ask the audience if they could detect a "difference" between the two sounds. Sounds simple when you first look at it just like the idea of throwing a knuckle ball sounds quite easy until you try it. Such demonstrations no longer get performed nowdays because, as the cognitive sciences have shown us, they are first and foremost a game of three card monte. I've touched on the perceptual differences between listening for a judgement vs listening for pleasure but that is where the failures begin in such a demonstration. From there we simply continue to compound issues. Saying we could do nothing more than measure music and its output misses the point entirely. While music is based on mathematics and we use mathematics to define the existence and behavior of the physical world and beyond, it is only the most "rabbit hole-ish" observer who thinks mathematics is the physical world itself. Looking at the "ideal" transducer as defined by its physical properties, for example, no musical instrument shares the real world limitations of such a device. In a perfect world, the "ideal" loudspeaker/transducer would be so infinitely small as to have no mass what so ever and it would radiate its full frequency range in an omni-directional dispersion pattern identical to how the vast majority of musical instruments perform. That ideal transducer will remain forever out of reach for the real world. It may someday exist within a virtual reality but, then, just as music itself, it will not exist outside of our own perceptions. We will not be able to reproduce its output a second time and we will not be capable of sharing its output with anyone else. Simply because it will have existed solely in our experience for the first moment it came into existence at all. If you have not the means to create the reproduction device, how can you say you have successfully created an identical product to the original? No woofer we can create, or are we ever likely to create, can demonstrate the type of output we find in a large bass drum or a set of chimes. No high frequency transducer we can even imagine can reproduce a pressure wave identical to that which comes from the least expensive violin producing the simplest of sounds. When it come to electronics, no device man can create - or is ever likely to create - does not have serious limitations when compared to even a five note Native America flute. Or, for that matter, a hollow log being struck by a stick. So we stick to our sinewaves and our squarewaves and we measure the equipment and not the music. Actually, Bob, your suggestion is so unrealistic as to say, you really don't have a good idea of what music is or how it operates. Your suggestions say you feel standing in front of a mirror looking at your own reflection you can see someone on the inside of the mirror that is another you only in reverse. That the "person" within the mirror has a heartbeat and a mind which is capable of carrying on without your input but yet is only limited to your input. What you are asking us to do is to measure an idea. To quantify an emotion. To reproduce without the slightest bit of variation how a human being operates in sequence and in time. Any bio-mechanics scientist understands that is impossible. And they've known this for well over a century. Yet, golfers keep falling for the same ads which promise to give them the perfect swing every time. There will always be someone waiting for the person with the shells and a ball to come along promising the impossible. Depending upon their intent, they are either called magicians or hucksters. We have instruments which can supposedly reproduce the sound of a performance by, say, Gould without the physical or mental presence of a Gould. Yet, at their best, they are merely reproducing the numeric equivalents to what Gould did mechanically during one recording session. Since we cannot create, and never will be capable of creating, a mathematical description of an event without finite limitations, we cannot truly say we have recreated the original thing at all. These reproductions are, at their most basic level, not expressing Gould's thoughts and emotions, his many trial and error starts and stops and they are certainly not placing the audience in the presence of a "motivated" human being. At best, such experiments show us just how disconcerting it can be to hear the purely mechanical reproduction of human output when no human is present. When our expectations are met with a shell lacking a ball underneath. And that is what you are asking about, Bob, the mechanical functions of an automaton. Yet we can never re-create a moment in music any more than we can reproduce the first time you read this sentence. You are asking us to recreate time and to wipe the slate clean that we ever experienced a moment in time. That's impossible. You are asking that we define the physical constructs of music by measurements we cannot use to define an idea. Music is a language, it's one of the first lessons a student musicians should receive. We can say what language is and how language varies from one group to another. We can set rules for how various languages came into being and how we are to use language. We can create a binary language yet it is only a language that expresses those values which can be defined by a finite language of numeric values. No matter how far we travel with artificial intelligence, it will always be the product of the human who created the language and it will reflect the limitations of the human intellect. We cannot define the ideas we express with language. Because you and I and leo probably all have a slightly different comprehension of what it is I just said and why I said it. And, no matter how hard you try, you cannot "re-speak" the exact same words of a language in exactly the same manner once you have spoken them the first time. That would require the Aristotelian concept of an "audience". In other words, another human being who can comprehend the language and mentally translate it to a thought. Not even the most forward thinking cognitive scientist believes that is possible. The best we can do is describe what surrounds the creation of the thought but we cannot create the free will do do the creating. I'd rather not spend a lot of "time" hashing this out. I'd rather you spend your time thinking about what is is you are actually considering. Then finding answers for yourself. They are not to be found in "measurements". And, as long as you think they might be, you are digging yet another rabbit hole for you to jump into at some point. As long as you feel there can be no difference between the (present time limited) measurement of, say, a single note being struck on a single instrument and a human being playing even the simplest melody on that instrument, then you are operating out of some objectivist dream world that I am completely unfamiliar with. Why we don't do as you suggest has been diced out any number of times by thinkers far more capable of thought than am I. Why we continue to measure the things we measure and not the things we are wanting to experience, is roughly the same thing as why we measure the relative humidity in a location outside of the guitar when it is the moisture content of the woods from which the guitar has been constructed with which we should concern ourself. We want one thing, but we measure another. For example, Bob, please describe "blue" to me as if I were blind from birth and had never experienced "blue" and could not experience "blue" by my perception of light. That is where modern science exists and, when it comes to music reproduction, there is far more to our experience of music than "room gain". I'll leave the rest to you and leo to hash out. I will add there is often a very distinct difference between those audio designers who have familiarized themself with music, and all that accompanies it, and those who have not. Doesn't mean anyone will prefer either but there is generally a noticeable difference. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 25 Registered: Feb-15 | Alright Jan enough is enough to quote Bernie. I unlike you listen to sound. Yes I love all kinds of music, but don't forget I am listening also to movies with special effects. Basically it is in my world all vibrations created by whatever. Acoustic electronic or computer I really don't care. My ears can hear faster notes than my fingers can play. To tell you the truth I want to explore sequencial music. You may find it an abomination of performance, but I don't want to spend too much time practicing my scales and studying theory to the point where I can sight read. I am lazy and want machines to paint the picture in my ears. My fingers can't go fast enough to amuse my brain. Yes I love acoustic instruments and the masters that I have heard exhibit total control over their particular instrument, but sometimes I want more. My all around master is Wendy Carlos. Here is a man trapped in a body that doesn't quite fit. Ouch. But in spite of that she perceveirved and did wonderful things in the music world. Totally off the charts, the BEST synthesist I have ever heard. An impecable keyboard player and someone who knows electronics inside and out. AS far as a musician goes never satisfied with the norm. Did all kinds of weird tuninings to me but to her fully understood. Created firsts in all directions. I remember Sonic Seasons on LP. I was listening to IBM computer music back when I bumped into her stuff I learned she went to an electronic music school and studied under the person who created the envelope control on the Moog. Helped Bob Moog in his designs and had custom modules built just for her. Had full control over all the modules and created some of the best sounds my system ever reproduced and my ears ever had the pleasure of listening to. A fine composer of original music as well. Knows more about tape recording preservation than most people alive, and even developed expressive touch sensitive keyboards and footpedals that are not acoustic. Some of the Scarlatti sonatas that were done are outrageous. They can tickle the tweeters and stress them out and come all the way down and explode out of the woofers. All done on a monophonic moog. Jan you should read what she said about tube electronics. Trust me she knows. I get what you mean about music though. If the music is good, I can listen to it in mono on an AM radio. I started listening to music on a mono console that had a radio and a turntable. It had tone and vibrosonic that sounded like some sort of coil and gave the sound an echo. I guess that was supposed to duplicate some sort of ambience. I started out with the Beatles. The first album was Meet The Beatles. When I first heard Led Zeppelin on AM radio I thought I was listening to a black man sing. My first recollection of heavy metal was the Kinks. You Really Got Me. My first stereo was a sony reciever, bang and olufsen turntable, and a pair of Large Advents. I was blown away. The tweeters were quickly blown away as well. I pushed it till the receiver clipped and fried my first tweeters. I was 16 yrs old and it was my older sisters stereo that her boy friend bought her. He was a saxaphone player. Her next boy friend was a drummer and he stored his kit in my cellar. Yes he told me not to touch them and I did. That was the time I fell in love with Bonham. After Zep 3 I bumped into Zep 1. I was floored with the guitar on that album. Now flash to old man. I started exploring all kinds of music to learn. I started with classical by instrument. I bought cds that contained certain instruments. Harpsichord, organ, piano, flute, harp, trumpet, violin, oboe, french horn, cello, and so on and so on. Then I started to explore symphonys, concertos, oratorios, string quartets, operas, and any thing different. I bumped into the Academy of Ancient Music and thought the sound was soooo good. I love New Age stuff too. I particularly like sequential music. It is cheating when you use computers to create the music but it is still a creation and it is still an art form. I wonder if you ever heard Jazz From Hell by Frank Zappa. He was one hell of a guitarist. He went to a Synclaviar in the end. And Jan I have to ask you. Like Glenn Gould when I was younge I couldn't hear the big thing about his playing. I could never hear the big thing with Van Halen. All I heard was super fast and playing patterns that were flashy but not any inticate phrases or melodys. I don't remember hearing any acoustic from him either. Jimmy Page I always thought was a little sloppy but like on Since I've Been Lovin You the notes he plays and the changes in the pick up switches gets soooo heavy it screams emotion. He kicks but. How bout Paul Gilbert? How bout Buckethead? And Al Demiola. I love execution and flawless fingering but it comes down to the right notes too. Heard Jeff Beck on the tube, in 5.1 dolby digital, his band is AWESOME. Sound was incredible. And to top all of this. I saw Neil Young solo. He had small amps I think they were old tube amps and the sound was IMPECABLE. I have no idea what the heck he was using but it was scary clear. I read about the pono system he is promoting and there is one digital company related to it and you guys have to check this company out, cuz it is exceptional in it's sound. I am on the fence now about the pre amp processor. Balanced or not. I want DTS X and AURO 3 D built in and none of them have it all. Still have to learn about room measurements. Sorry Jan but only I can hear if it helps or not and what parameter is going to get me to the point where it is right for me. I know distortion and I know when something isn't quite right. What it is I don't know. I do know that in order to make something BETTER you have to change it. Yes you can make it worse but it is fun to play with the possibilities. I have resolved alot of issues by accident in my many years and I am sure alot of other people have as well. The journey is half the fun as well as half the frustration. Sometimes a little wisdom mixed with a lot of expierementation and some luck can yield satisfaction in the end. I know I can gain control over the components. The room is going to take some time and practice and luck. All I know is I am crazy enough, and I love Sound enough to go the distance till I get where I want to go. If it is a rabbit hole I promise you I will find my way out in the end. But I want your help along the way. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18168 Registered: May-04 | . And, what is it you want me to do for you? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3302 Registered: Oct-07 | No 'hashing' from me. I've seen a collection of 'golf swing aids' which belong in a museum. And have no wish to go down that rabbit hole. Even the few Audio Shows I've attended make little or NO use of room correction which you'd think would be a NATURAL for such a situation. And that is 2 adjacent hotels, 4 or 5 floors EACH along with many of the downstairs conference rooms for the Really Big Setups. It takes 3 days of WALKING to see the whole thing. Best Bet is to Cherry Pick. If / When i buy my MiniDSP to replace my speaker crossovers, i'll simply duplicate the original as closely as possible and go for it. I expect to only have to do MINOR level tweaking to balance the drivers and be done. Fully 10% of the bass panels resistance is from an inductor which will be going away. I MAY have to turn down the level of the bass part of the panel around 1db. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 26 Registered: Feb-15 | Please post your results for all to read when you get your DSP. I just bumped into a book written in 1923 about room acoustics. Sabine, Wallace Clement. 1923. I was researching pre/amp/ processors and room correction built in, and ended up on Wiki Pedia reading all about speakers and different types. A great source for horn explanation. Also about amplification for the speakers. I guess this guy Sabine was a physicist at Harvard and was hired to make sure a new building had good sound. Being a smart person armed with mathematics, he started to experiment with measureing sound and started archetecural acoustics. I only got up to page 23 and from reading his book I am beginning to think the problem in my hometheater room isn't just the damping factor or a too small amp, but more of a lack of absorption on reflections. The last sentence I just read was that all the coefficients depend on the volume or amplitude of the original signal in the room. That to me tells me why I can have the volume only at a certain maximum amount untill the reflections saturate the room and cause the boomy bass. I think room treatment may just get me better results than algorithms electronically adjusting for the room. I really wish I knew math alot better than I do. This book is very dated like the information from John Allen about horn speakers but I think it is one of those physics laws that just are what they are and we have to live with it. A great and simple explanation of modes and nodes was given in this old book by using an example of a basin of water and the palm of your hand in the center pushing down and making the waves travel to the edges and bounce off and return to the palm of the hand. And a very interesting experiment with a pipe from an organ, in an empty room, the pipe was excited by air and a person sitting down could stand up and hear the note from the pipe a whole octave higher at a different height. I believe it was a fundamental of the original note. Jan here is where you can help out being a musician that understands theory. A book from 1923 and I'm fascinated with the information. The entire book is available as a pdf page by page. Another thing that is interesting is that I can visit the building since it is nearby. I think my wife is going to castrate me or divorce me when she sees the panels I want to put on the walls, and the bass traps that do work, that I can put in the corners. Yesterday I bumped into a company that sells absorption panels of different materials that have different absorption levels and different sizes and prices, but it is beautiful art. Very expensive though. This is the book. http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/library/data/lit39364/index_html?pn=35&ws=2 You can start at page one and keep going. This guy had to be pretty intelligent since alot of the work he was doing was new. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 27 Registered: Feb-15 | Leo check this tool out. http://www.parts-express.com/behringer-dcx2496-ultradrive-pro-digital-24-bit-96- khz-loudspeaker-management-system-cros--248-669 Found out about it on Basspigs website. I don't know what your Mini DSP costs but this might do what you need and more. Let me know what DSP you are talking about so I can read about it. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 28 Registered: Feb-15 | http://www.acoustimac.com/akc/Home-Theater-Acoustics-DeWayne-iverson/ Wanted to post this url. I hope it gives ideas on the posibilities. The products look wife friendly as well. And Jan check out this Gizmo thing. Sounds like a way to sound the strings and give your injured left hand a break. https://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/namm-2016-day-2-tidbits/ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18169 Registered: May-04 | . "You can start at page one and keep going. This guy had to be pretty intelligent since alot of the work he was doing was new." Are you asking me to read an entire book on acoustics, Bob? And then explain it to you? Either way, it's not going to happen. First, your link leads me to pages that are unreadbale; blurred and unclear and, quite honestly, filled with graphs I have no interest in. Second, my days of reading such books and articles on acoustics are largely over and done with. I did my serious reading decades ago to the point I was designing systems for local theatres while working with certified acousticians. My MFA thesis was on such designs. Back then, it was my job and I was being paid to gain and utilize knowledge. The last decade or so has turned up very little in the way of new data I must acquire - none really - to assist in setting up domestic rooms for music or video use. What has changed in my approach to this subject is the cognitive sciences. And that information is not to be found in a book from 1923. Therefore, I really am not interested in more reading at this point when it comes to only acoustics. The theories and the mathematics of acoustics haven't changed in the last few years from my personal perspective - the last few centuries actually. The only significant change I've noticed has come in the number of individuals offering to sell products and services which will transform the buyer's room into a sonic Utopia. LOL! The products these on line merchants peddle are all the same thing, only the promises seem to change from, "I can do this smaller than the last guy", to, "I can do this with even less than he can". Or some other sales BS. Often involving spousal acceptance factors. But only minimally. And they can't do anything the real guys can do. They can only do it for less cash - or so they say. If you sell the same materials, you get the same results. To get the same results, your products must be largely identical to achieve those results. You can dress it up to look different but the results are the same when you use the same materials and place them in the identical locations. And the rules say, all rooms have the same basic problems solved by treating the same basic locations. You can make it look like a paining but, to be most effective, side wall absorption panels are hung at ear level for a seated position. That would normally be approximately 36" from the floor. Go look at your wall and decide just who would hang a painting - which should be placed at eye level for a standing position, say, 56" high - at only 36" above the floor. Cut a piece of cardboard and tape it to the side wall with a 36" center from the floor. See what you think is possible. Then go ask your wife. Most of the sites you'll find on line are guys - always seems to be "guys" - who have been self taught ... as was I, I admit. This isn't exactly rocket science for a simple domestic room. And, IMO, unless you intend to make this your profession and seriously are actually in the process of exploring a degree in acoustics, all the books with all the graphs are a waste of time. You aren't designing a symphony hall from the ground up. In fact, you aren't designing anything from the ground up and that is most often your first most serious problem with room acoustics. You want a simple one room home theatre that has decent sound quality. And you are starting with an already existing domestic multi-use room as your baseline. You don't need graphs. You need articulate voices and instruments which appear to have some real world basis. Or, at least IMO, that's what you should want. Even if what you listen to exists solely inside a computer on a hard drive, that is, IMO, where you start. It is, after all, computer "music". Just as I play guitar "music". Forget the computer part, it is only the device. Work with the music part of it all. If, though, you actually want "the real world science" of room acoustics, go to the ASC site and use them and their products. They are the real deal. And their products are not cheap for a reason. They will, for a fee, design a system of treatments for your specific room and your specific audio system. And the problem will almost always be that the OCD user will not leave the design as is. I've seen this from folks in the same situation you are dealing with and they want to fiddle and change things. They go OCD and can't stand the idea someone can design an effective room from a distance. So they begin changing things. Pretty soon, they no longer have the ASC design and they honestly can't figure out why things aren't sounding the way they want. And, for some reason, the idea of simply returning to the ASC design never occurs to them. No, you are not the first, Bob. The answer is always very basic; you wanted the impossible and you aren't satisfied that someone told it was impossible. So you changed it and now you have pretty close to nothing but a lot of panels and traps in the wrong places. OCD. Bob, I really personally don't "get" what you are going through, it makes no sense to me. But you are hardly the first I've seen go through this. My real world answer is always the same; you don't have to understand this, you only need to enjoy the results. And realize your wife is not going to be happy with your obsession. And, unless you decide to either shoot your wife or she decides to divorce you, you aren't going to get what you want in full. So you need to make up your mind to a useful compromise before you even begin. The most recent room I assisted with worked out very well since it was a true man cave. I could do anything I wanted and most of my time was spent undoing what the user had moved or added since the last time I was there. That room took several months and often involved a few hours of minimal adjustments to positions and an awful lot of just listening. And getting feedback from the system's owner. Then leaving for a few weeks while he just listened. That's generally how I do this. It's not all done in one afternoon and there you go - bingo-bango - and you have a new room. IMO that's a bit ridiculous. And it was all done by ear, no math. The math of this is very basic and ultimately entirely repeatable. It is the application that matters. You have to listen and you have to have a concept of what will change when you do "this" and "that". That's not math based in application. That's simply listening with a clear concept of what is possible and what is desired in your mind as a final result. And eventually reaching the point where diminishing returns dictate waaaaay more money in is only going to gain very small improvements overall. You have to have an idea of what you want and that is definitely not found in any math or any book or article I have ever read on acoustics. That type of knowledge is acquired in small restaurants and various live music venues and large symphony halls and theatres and out in the park when the band plays and the dogs bark. It is a knowledge of how live music and real world activity "sounds". Then you can recognize what assists that concept and what destroys that concept. None of that is found in a textbook. I always stayed away from the acoustic engineers who thought it did. Personally, I don't set up "home theatres" for 16Hz bass response. It's a waste of time and effort unless you live an an airplane hanger. Even then, you are not going to hear 16Hz, I can assure you of that. I set up listening rooms that, IMO, allow the music to sound as natural and as involving as possible. Math and calculations are saved for the actual spaces where performances occur. And I haven't done that in well over a decade. It's kinda boring actually. And always ultimately about budget and not the music. If your OCD says you have to read all this stuff, have at it, Bob. IMO it's a waste of time. You aren't designing a symphony hall, nor a theatre nor a performance space. You're not even designing a sound reinforcement system for simple voice overs. And you are not building a new room from scratch. If you want a "good example" of how rooms work, use a tub with tightly squared corners and parallel surfaces. Something like a real room, not just a basin of water. Put a lid on it and then begin dropping objects of different sizes into the liquid from different locations. Imagine a single seating location and observe how the waves pass over and around that location. And back again. And back once more. Observe the reflections, their paths and their reflected paths as they collide into room structures and one another. And think about how you would go about calming them if you took an entire bucket full of different sized objects and you poured them into the container all at once. And then again. And then again. And then again. Because, until you begin to think of how sound, and particularly music, operates in real life, you won't "get" what the math is telling you about rooms. Mostly, because every book and every article I've ever encountered doesn't discuss music and how it is constructed - of fundamentals and an infinite variety of ordered harmonics - and that it is a continuous flow of pressure waves and not just some simple, single frequency drawn on paper as one single line bouncing around a two dimensional drawing. We want this one thing and, since we can't measure that thing, we measure something unlike that thing. And then we devise mathematical rules which define that which we have no interest in. And the OCD among us spend outrageous amounts to have meters which are uber-accurate to the 0.01 percentile to tell them about something that has nothing to do with what they actually want to know. Until you begin to see the real world as more than a single straight line or a single mathematical graph, you won't "get" room acoustics IMO. Until you can define what it is you want from your music, not in terms of an equation or a single frequency response plot, you won't get room acoustics IMO. I could go on here but you should be getting some idea of what I'm saying, Bob. No doubt, "this guy" who wrote that book was pretty smart. Unfortunately, you need to understand what he was developing was not new. The study of sound and acoustics goes back to the Greeks. Every design of every great cathedral or symphony hall over the centuries has recognized the basic rules of acoustics. They didn't even have the advantage of a slide ruler though. They did it by understanding they were designing for the music and the human voice, not for some graph in a book. My advice to you regarding Iverson is to run away. All I see on his pages is absorption materials. Room acoustics are more than absorption. If anyone tells you they can treat your room with only one technique, they are either a fool or a liar. If you wish to have a "good sounding" room, spend your time and money with ASC. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3303 Registered: Oct-07 | Bob, I'm a 'set and forget' kind of guy. I have TONE CONTROLS on my preamp which are preset for bass boost and treble boost. I engage the tone controls LATE at night as kind of a poor-mans 'loudness' contour. An old-school control to be sure. As for the Behringer? Too many lights and buttons for me. The MiniDSP product is useful as a line-level crossover. As you go upline, you can get into the DIRAC room measureing system. The Mini also can be had with a calibrated mic, which I'm probably going to skip. The Edge the Mini has for me is balanced ins and outs as well as complete computer programming. You connect the Mini TO the computer and make your adjustments. My goal is to simply reproduce the speaker crossover at line level. And since my speakers are 2-way, CONCEPTUALLY, at least, it is a finite task. Some of the Mini line will hold 3 sets of presets so you don't have to connect to the computer to make changes. One other function of the upline MiniDSP product is that they support the FIR filter type. This is a filter which exhibits NO phase shift thru the bandpass. For me? An incredible can of worms and maybe the Ultimate Rabbithole. Not to mention daunting to make work. I'll skip that until my Engineering Degree comes in the mail. It is an AXIOM of Audio that a GREAT system in a Crumby room sounds bad while an OK system in a great room sounds much better. Most serious audiophiles eventually fight the 'battle of the room'. Agree with Jan. Rooms are a COMBINATION of Absorption, Reflection, Diffusion. The only bit of gibberish to which I subscribe is the idea of RT60. How long it takes a given sound (impulse?) to drop by 60db. In a very 'live' room this could be 'quite a while'. Reading the FIRST 2 PARAGRAPHS of the 'Reverberation' WIKI is all you need to know. Any more and you'll just get bogged down. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18170 Registered: May-04 | . And I would amend the idea to state "RT 60'ish". Kinda. But not really. Not at all in most cases. Hard and fast rules like RT60 simply do not work for music. Please read that sentence over and over until it sinks in. Music is "contextual" and "perceptual" and not fixed. Music doesn't give a crap about architectural rules. Or meters. Or graphs. Read that one again until it sinks in. Meters and graphs are the greasy oil taken from the snake and sold by the unscrupulous - or, at best, misguided - salesmen IMO. You can't measure music with a simple meter or a graph. Period! Video makes those "somewhat" rules of spatial design even less important since there are no fixed "scenes" for how the environment surrounds any sound. Get that idea and you then need to throw away most of your books and articles. Knowledge is great but, as I said earlier, you don't need to know everything. Why spend time "learning" about something that has nothing it can do to affect or in anyway change your life? You HAVE a room. You are not designing another room. Learning how to design a room is therefore outside of anything that will affect your present room. In this case, yes, it's just that simple. In this case, yes, it's just that simple. Read it again! You will, IMO, learn much more about acoustics by dropping those objects in a rectangular bucket of water than by reading for the next twenty years about acoustics and architectural design. Here's the situation as I see it: You claim to be lazy and you don't want to learn about music theory or play scales. But music is the "thing" you are interested in. You will though read about designing a room for the next ten years despite the fact you will never build another room. You want one thing but you are going learn how to measure another. That makes no sense what so ever. Put your efforts into learning what will be of consequence and not just some forum topic which has no function in the real world. Vocal articulation within a space depends on rules different from those which provide a "strong" bass response or a non-fatiguing upper midrange. So there will always be a complicated dance between desired goals and achievable ends when setting up a room. One reason your books and graphs are less than useful will be the person for whom those books and graphs are intended knows their final product - a space designed and built from the ground up - has only one true purpose. This is even more true as sound engineers rely more and more heavily on electronic means of sound reinforcement. Venues can be more and more micro-engineered to perform well, with, say, a full symphony yet not so well with a small swing band and even less so with a single human voice speaking aloud. Acoustic engineers would laugh you out of the room if you said your requirements were both hearing the intimate sounds of two lovers and the impact of a thermo-nuclear device in outer space. Or, at the least, ask for a verifiable financial statement. That is why modern movie houses have sound systems. And why very few movie house sound systems succeed at those two extreme values in equal measure. RT60 is, IMO, only useful as a thought against which you apply the needs of the design. Kind of like knowing the internal temperature of a steak to kill bacteria has little to do with the way you like your steak cooked. RT60 has only to do with a ground up design. I don't know if leo uses a stop watch to determine his room's RT value, I doubt it. If he should, he really should have some idea of what the RT values of the recorded venue are - for each recording he plays - before he begins applying such architectural rules to his room. Go back to my comments regarding Bose 901's for why that is. You cannot overlay the acoustic thumbprint of a symphony hall on your 12'x24' room and then put into that room the recorded acoustic space of a symphony hall. If you try, you end up with mush. Soggy mush at that! I hope that makes sense on its face. If not, you are bound to fail with all of your reading about acoustics. RT60 as an idea also begins to disintegrate as humidity and temperature and elevation above sea level changes. Why did Stereophile move their offices? Why does your system sound "different" on different days? It is also an inconsistent rule for various frequencies. I would actually tell you to toss RT60 into the same can of "I don't really need to know this" data as the rest of what you will find in your acoustics articles, Bob. Leo may disagree. You are not designing anything from the ground up. Until you face that fact, you will spin your wheels endlessly. You are trying to work with a room that was not designed for acoustics and that you have further modified to have possibly even worse acoustics by creating a space with equally divisible dimensions. You don't need to know where your room's main or secondary resonance falls because you cannot easily control any single frequency adjustment to that resonance. Passive room treatments are broadband. Just keep reading that sentence until you are repeating it in your sleep. And, while we've said the three main elements of room treatments are absorption, reflection and diffusion, there is one other element which can be applied to a room. Though, if you looked at bass traps which claimed an effect down to, say, 80Hz and thought they were intrusive, then you'll find the next step to be back to implementation only when you originally lay out and construct the room. ASC created the first real world "acoustic treatments" that could be placed in a cardboard box and shipped across the nation. Before that, room issues were well known but less able to be controlled. Many audiophiles simply applied the basic LEDE treatment found in some studios. The basic problem remained that studios are studios and they are best when they are purpose built from the ground up. Overlaying even the simplest concepts of LEDE on a listening room often ran afoul of domestic bliss. More serious treatments were accomplished (prior to ASC) by the use of multiple Helmholtz Resonators which can be tuned to very specific frequencies to deal with large peaks in bass resonance within a room. The problem is, a HR tuned to be effective at, say, 80Hz would still take up an enormous amount of space and wasn't easily disguised as anything other than a large pipe (or a series of pipes) within the room. But, it could and was done by those with the resources and the space to accomplish this treatment. And that is an idea as old as the Greek Amphitheaters. Bob, what you need is very simple. Throw away the books and stop researching the articles. You are not going to achieve 16Hz response in your small room. No amount of reading is going to change that fact. Concentrate on how a bass trap operates. That's the most important issue in achieving articulate bass response rather than sloppy all over the place bass response. And, while you're at it, look at the difference between a simple rockwool or fibreglass panel or wedge placed in a corner and the ASC bass traps. There is a significant difference in how each operates and its effect on overall sound quality. Controlling bass is the most serious issue in a domestic listening space and the value which will take up both the largest foot print and the greatest amount of your budget. This is even more true when the room dimensions are equally divisible lengths. Come to an agreement with your wife just what is possible in this room. With only 12'x 24' of space, filling each corner of the room with even an 18" stack of traps is not going to be invisible. Placing yet another stack of traps behind your video screen in the center of the wall means you will need to pull your screen and your front/center speakers further out into the living space. The sub may or may not need to be pulled out into the room also. Just recognize this fact; it will virtually always be the case that placing any speaker or sub where it "fits" will be the absolute worst place for its sound quality. Put your initial money and effort into controlling the bass in this room. Then you begin dealing with first reflections which are the most destructive to articulation of voices and those sounds which occur within the broadly described bandwidth of the midrange. This is where the human ear/mental perception mechanism is most attuned to what we hear and observe in our day to day life. Any problems here will ultimately result in decreased life in the music (and soundtrack) or early on set of listener fatigue. There are multiple ways to deal with first reflections though, in most HT systems, they are very difficult to really control because you have multiple seating locations combined with multiple speaker locations. Therefore, most HT systems are a compromise and not a hard and fast rule. And RT60 has nothing to do with either. The recording engineer has provided the decay time of the assumed space. If you can get your wife to agree to what it will require for those two issues of room sound, you are about as good as it gets for most HT systems. Just get rid of the idea of all these fricking 4x8 panels lining your walls and traps straddling the corners and the joint between your walls and the ceiling. Those advertisements for what some fool allowed the guy with the rock wool sheets to put in his room were taken just prior to anyone actually listening to a music CD in that room. And just prior to the guy who paid for all that crap to start taking out most of it. I promise you, if you do what those guys suggest, you will take out most of what you've paid for within a month's time. If you had a man cave, that would be different. You don't. Think of the most effective treatments first - bass and first reflections - and then decide less is really more for many reasons. That's all you need to know, Bob. Put down the books and get to the point you can simply enjoy a soundtrack or a recorded performance without constantly thinking about whether you could better control that 84Hz room resonance. You are completely missing the point if you are listening to the room and not the performance. You are not building from the ground up and, even if you were, the rules are still very simple. You don't need to know much to build a good sounding room from scratch. Just realize no room where life occurs is also a good room for sound quality. So you must compromise. It really is that simple, Bob. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 29 Registered: Feb-15 | Makes alot of sense to me Leo. I think Jan may be right about ocd. I just can't help but search for the holy grail. I am never satisfied. Always tinkering till I lose the last satisfiying setting, then fight to get it back. The whole time with my room the problem has been limited volume, and a buildup of pressure till the bass sounds muddy. I may have mistaken the cause simply to be poor damping from too small an amount of amplification. The more I have read, I am thinking it is the room gain thing and the room can't take the pressure above my volume setting, becomes saturated and overloaded and BOOM. I also thought of standing waves, so there is the desire for 2 subs. What it comes down to is there is several possibilities for the problem. The good old variables. I can't help but to go ocd over any short comings I can hear. I then can't help but try to address them untill it is solved. I am just both probably crazy and ocd, but if at first you don't succeed try and try again. It is frustrating to fight against the issues in the system, but over the course of a long time and the acumulation of information, observation and experimintation the last scientific result is solution. I am just a fanatic when it comes to audio. I have a limited budget and a wife, so I have to work a little harder to get to the point where the system will satisfy me. I thoroughly enjoy all the music, and movies I put through it, but it probably will always be a work in progress. I didn't expect anyone to read the entire book on acoustics from 1923, I just was blown away to discover the issue has been around that long and no one ever focused on the room untill recently. I have been reading the audio magazines for a long time and maybe because the room isn't an advertiser it doesn't get that much attention. It is hopeful to me to see the manufacturers trying to address the issue with Audessy and now a whole slew of there own programs too. I will try with simple room treatment to tame the boom and get the ability to play louder till I am satisfied. And I will get there, and will be able to spend my money on signal scource after that. And not to leave out the ocd, the signal source I learned a long time ago I have to live with. I learned that mostly on the video end. I am a control freak I guess and there is some things that I recognize there is no way to control. It is a hobby and having a good system well calibrated and as close to accurate as it can be, is all I can hope for. I am getting very close to that point but still have more things to learn, and with the new knowledge more adjustments to make. I may never get there, but untill I go over all the possibilities I have to try. I think in the end I will have a good system. One last thing I would like to point to is a good description about balanced ins and outs, Jan gave a great description and this info just adds to it. There are several articles here so scroll down to the ones on balanced connections. And good luck on your mini DSP. https://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com/technical-articles/ |
|
Bronze Member Username: AlkaloidMedford, MA. U.S. Post Number: 30 Registered: Feb-15 | Just a shout out to anyone that is looking for some help with room treatment. I found a link to a company that makes microphones used in acoustic measurements and the mic I liked was a mere 700$. Don't think so for my budget. But not a totall waist of ocd time though. It does have videos showing how to use the mics that they make and for what purposes. The sound power basics 1 and 2 are pretty informative. I then linked to a Sound and Vibration Magazine that had info on manufacturers of treatment panels. I of course checked out the one near my home in Cambridge MA. and it has made the worlds quietest room for Microsoft. They sell room treatment panels and I believe they are the real thing. Also they have a chart to guide the non engineer among us to how much is good in absorption for specific rooms, like a music room. I will leave this link. http://www.eckelusa.com/products/acoustic-panels/-eckoustic-functional-panels.ht ml |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics