I have not assumed it is significant. Yes, bi-wire is a nice step forward and cost effective improvement. What have you learned about bi-wiring?
However, Bi-amping with an excellent custom x-over to match, is an even further step forward. But not very cost effective.
I am still evaluating the M2 with dsp cross-over and bi-amped. It is sooooo F-ing good. And, I have QUAD ESL989 to compare (and several others). It is so much more Real sounding. Later, I will look into the Crown iT5000HD amps to locate the amp's input. Then come off that point to a pair of super-fine 2 channel analog amps. Thus, keeping the dsp cross-over. Then I will learn a thing or two.
[good thing I bought these when my lady was on vacation and could hide the expense. And, dont any of you guys tell her or she will stab me in the neck with a fork]
THx-RNMarsh
.
Last edited:
Right on, Scott, in those days, we had "schools" of sound, relatively easily recognized.
Only one thing confuses me - that you call the "West Coast" sound a British kind of sound. To me, the West Coast sound was what companies like JBL, Alzec and Cervin offered us, simply the best bass lines anywhere. The East Coast sound was what AR, KLH, even Bose, etc, sold, speakers which typically offered a well balanced, seamless top to bottom sound. At the time, Brits like B&W, KEF, Celestion, IMF, Spendor at al. gave us a well balanced sound overall, but generally in the lower efficiency class, going as low as 82 dB/2.83V/1m. The "odd" Brit out Tannoy, which had certain American leanings, such as a strong bass.
No idea how it goes these days.
Well served a purpose and once more enhanced my C/I.
Sounds like last 20 years for me. Hopefully only another 18 to go...
EDIT not even seen Snells before (although had heard of them). A lot is made in the reviews of the NRC link (and by association Toole). Anyone know if Dr Toole was credited with a 'canadian sound'?
Last edited:
Heaps to learn and figure out. Like how to deal with the internal grounding of a stereo 3 channel amp for active speakers, consisting of 7 amps per channel, most of them bridged (to get rid of most speaker return currents into ground), all supplied by signals from an on board analog crossover, 15 separate PCBs in all, whole caboodle serviced from one single psu. Electronic design straightforward. Grounding? It all seems to work like it should, but there will always be a question mark in my mind, because you get into topological conflicts that just can't be reconciled completely (with my present know how that is). It is like making a map with only three colours.
I have been running active cabinets for a good while now, and yep I ain't 'never going back' again.
Too many physics problems with passive XO....they can sound good/fun/nice, but they are not/can never be, the 'truth'.
Dan.
Mono wiring and biwiring do not deliver the same instantaneous power to the loads.
They do deliver identical integrated power.
This is a consequence of the wire dissipation.
John
Since as a very young kid learning motors and light bulbs etc battery powered electrics, and then electronics via school library magazines/books and then formally, I have always thought in terms of stage to stage energy transfer (Heyser says so also), which is always from some kind of transducer through whatever numbers and types of intermediate stages, and culminating in the final transduction.
Every intermediate stage is full of useful transducers of some kind....on overview, bulk conductors transduce EMF to electrical current energy transfer, resistance transduces electrical current to thermal energy, inductance transduces and stores electrical current as local electromagnetic field energy, capacitance transduces and stores EMF as local electric field energy.
So, it's all about energy control and energy direction, and in the case of audio (and other areas) accepting/understanding that every component/physical element in the chain adds it's own fourth parameter directional dependent 'spectral signature' to the final energy delivery.
Physical layout brings concern/awareness/control of the interactions of the above three standard physical parameters....understanding the generally unstated fourth parameter steps things up a whole new level.
Dan.
Last edited:
Spoken like a true convert.
Give it a few years, you may drift back to the darkside. Hyper-realism isn't "truth."
Actually i hope, that using "i think" makes clear it´s just an interpretation. But if it´s not sufficient, please propose another phrase.
I think again that your conclusion (i.e. if he meant not "on axis" than he must have meant "power response") does not meet his thoughts in the cited article.
He started on page 47 with descriptions of spherical response differences and that a lot of people did believe that most perceived differences were caused by different spherical response curves (i.e. power response).
He described an experiment done by the BBC but wrote:
"The conclusion therefore was that it is essentially the direct sound which determines the sound quality and not the spherical response."
Therefore i think he meant a different impression due to a dip in the direct sound on the listening axis but not caused by the different sound power.
But of course it might be that it is nevertheless more related to the variation in the horizontal plane.
Thanks for the links and i stand corrected.
As said before, i believe you simply overboasts the meaning. Me and maybe the world just use the term "BBC dip" as descriptor for a certain departure of the frequency response. No one thinks (i believe) that "you all" listen to "polite speakers" while drinking tea.
To restate it, "german taunus sound" does neither mean that every loudspeaker originating from that region followed that design rule nor that every german (or most) liked/likes this variant.
According to Harwood´s description of BBC experiments even when listening in the reverberant field, the direct sound impression dominates.
But as more and newer experiments imho have shown, that depends on the room size (and response) music styles and individual listener preferences and so on. (but i have to dig deeper in my archives)
Btw, i planned to offer sending the Harwood article as pdf to interested, but i´ve seen that the american radio archive provides downloads for Wireless World and o lot of other mags.
American Radio History: Documenting the History of Radio TV and FM broadcasting
Lol.Spoken like a true convert.
Give it a few years, you may drift back to the darkside. Hyper-realism isn't "truth."
No 'hyper realism' happening here, I do have very nicely/happily/groovingly close to the 'truth'.
I do have an advantage in that I know the directly spoken and also the performed/reinforced voices of a bunch of particular musos (famous in Oz !, OS performers also) so I am able to differentiate system modifications wrt my memorised recollection of their actual sounds.
The typical passive crossover disjointed sound can get tiresome.
The problem with passive crossovers is that each of the bands gets spectrally different current noise modifications....this destroys coherency between the drivers and consequent L/R and depth imaging resolution.
Dan.
Currently I am running a WiFi wireless link to my A system.
This means at my fingertips I can A system listen to anything that I have on my HD, or can Google or YouTube...I can also Wav capture any of such streaming feeds for later listening - Use your telephone to listen to what's happening on your PC.
Very interestingly, one can 'listen through' the Camcorder/GoPro/iPhone/etc mics and gain a very good idea of how various systems and gear sounds.
Some Hi-End gear sounds quite good, some sounds atrocious....ie rudely ear bleeding/deafening.
Hi-End is full of all sorts of 'more show than go' ideas, but not all is like this.
Dan.
This means at my fingertips I can A system listen to anything that I have on my HD, or can Google or YouTube...I can also Wav capture any of such streaming feeds for later listening - Use your telephone to listen to what's happening on your PC.
Very interestingly, one can 'listen through' the Camcorder/GoPro/iPhone/etc mics and gain a very good idea of how various systems and gear sounds.
Some Hi-End gear sounds quite good, some sounds atrocious....ie rudely ear bleeding/deafening.
Hi-End is full of all sorts of 'more show than go' ideas, but not all is like this.
Dan.
Last edited:
Speakers/rooms mainly permeate through the distribution process....BUT the line level and amplifier gear is distinctly audible also.
Dan.
It's a matter of taste, and of implementation, I suppose. And I have not heard your system. Perhaps you've overcome the problems I hear with active setups. When I first heard very good active crossovers, I was mesmerized. So clean, so pure, so much detail and nuance. I was a convinced it was the only way to go. A superior sonic path that I followed for years.
But then I heard some very good systems with simple, but excellent, passive crossovers. I was dismayed that they were not using the superior active crossovers along amplifiers suited to each bandwidth. Dismayed until I listened to them. They sounded more like real music than any active system I'd ever heard. No, they didn't have all the super detail and whiz bang of active, just a more realistic sound. And yes, I worked in the music biz, too, and attended acoustic concerts and rehearsals every day. The passive crossovers sounded like the real thing to me. The actives sounded like top-end, expensive Hi-Fi, and were loved by Audiophiles. I liked them too, but didn't find them as natural as good passive crossovers.
That happened to me again decades later in my home system. I went active with DSP based crossovers. Amazing! Listened that way for years. Then I went back to my old passive crossovers and slapped my forehead. They were way more natural sounding than my super tweaked DSP. I had wasted a few years of better listening just following a "technically superior" path.
Of course there should be no real difference, as long as the filter function is the same, but it rarely is the same. Active filtering is much faster and easier to get right than passive, which is it's main advantage. I do not find it more natural or truthful than passive crossovers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.