I really do doubt this would apply to most of the people here, but I have a little theory about the 'usefulness' of using a test track to evaluate a system.
I often imagine some poor audiophool with a highly coloured 'individualistic' system. And he has a test track (or many, but you get the idea) that he uses to test and evaluate systems.
And on track four, 1:33 there is a 'glorious, majestic guitar note' that just magnificently 'fills the room'. And it is THIS that allows him to evaluate the quality or otherwise of a system.
And no other system he ever listens to does it as well as his. Conclusion? His is the best system.
Trouble is, that note was NEVER meant to stand out in glorious magnificence, it just happens to coincide with a particular anomaly of his own system, it's a 'false positive' if you will.
Same deal with some birds who are so used to a 10 db hump at 65 hz that when they hear accurate fast bass they wrinkle their nose at it..'hmm, this system is crap, it has no bass'.
As I say, I doubt that many here would be afflicted by that, but I have seen it in action.
It is that type of reasoning that makes me start to believe that (well, for those birds at least) they just need to hear a variety of well recorded music (unknown to them) to evaluate a system...a good system is a good system and will present that way no matter what is played. And there is no false standard being applied either knowingly or unknowingly.
I often imagine some poor audiophool with a highly coloured 'individualistic' system. And he has a test track (or many, but you get the idea) that he uses to test and evaluate systems.
And on track four, 1:33 there is a 'glorious, majestic guitar note' that just magnificently 'fills the room'. And it is THIS that allows him to evaluate the quality or otherwise of a system.
And no other system he ever listens to does it as well as his. Conclusion? His is the best system.
Trouble is, that note was NEVER meant to stand out in glorious magnificence, it just happens to coincide with a particular anomaly of his own system, it's a 'false positive' if you will.
Same deal with some birds who are so used to a 10 db hump at 65 hz that when they hear accurate fast bass they wrinkle their nose at it..'hmm, this system is crap, it has no bass'.
As I say, I doubt that many here would be afflicted by that, but I have seen it in action.
It is that type of reasoning that makes me start to believe that (well, for those birds at least) they just need to hear a variety of well recorded music (unknown to them) to evaluate a system...a good system is a good system and will present that way no matter what is played. And there is no false standard being applied either knowingly or unknowingly.
loopguru said:
No, I would not recommend that. I would feed the mains with a full bandwidth. If my mains were ported, then I'd be real tempted to seal the ports - I always do this with speakers that I buy that are ported. Porting only makes sense if you are going for LF extension. With multiple overlapping subs you don;t need extension so seal the ports and the added spring stiffness will help to control the drivers excursion.
Terry - I could not agree with you more. What you say is so true and I have seen it over and over again before. A stereophool will fixate on something unnatural that his system does and use this as a criteria to evaluate all others by. Very bad idea!!
I have also noticed a correlary. That people can ignore blatant problems in a system evaluating only one personal criteria that they are interested in. They miss the big forest looking fo the accorns.
I was aghast at one "show" that there were people who would walk in to the room with no CDs of their own and actually make judgements about the sound quality. How is this possible? They were making judgements about my musical choice NOT the speakers. Unless there was some remote chance that my tastes and theirs were somehow aligned - which is almost never going to happen because I listen to "bizare" music - they will not arrive at any useful conclusion.
I don't take anyone serious who does not arrive with thier own wide selection of source material AND INSIST that I play theirs.
At that same show I was listening to some "popular" speakers and I wasn't sure what I thought about them, but the source was unfamiliar. Then when I put on a source that I did know very well my opinion solidified almost instantly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: sources
The Shure earphones recommended by Linkwitz are also quite good IMO. The current model # is the SCL2. You can only get them from places that sell Pro Audio products. (The earphones in the current Shure consumer lineup are all tweaked to "sound better" and are not worth while.)
Russell Dawkins said:
The Shure earphones recommended by Linkwitz are also quite good IMO. The current model # is the SCL2. You can only get them from places that sell Pro Audio products. (The earphones in the current Shure consumer lineup are all tweaked to "sound better" and are not worth while.)
Re: Re: Re: sources
It was probably better that way.
I had the misfortune of once hearing a certain lead vocalist with a single monosyllabic name straight off the mixing console. He was singing flat by various amounts and seemed to have zero control over the volume of his voice.
gedlee said:
It was probably better that way.
I had the misfortune of once hearing a certain lead vocalist with a single monosyllabic name straight off the mixing console. He was singing flat by various amounts and seemed to have zero control over the volume of his voice.
Re: Clay?
I've used the PVC stuff and the childs clay, they both work, but the grey "modelers" clay is a little firmer and tends to work better, but is harder to install unles you kneed it well in your hands to soften it up. The childs clay tends to be a little too soft.
Etienne88 said:Hi all,
What kind of clay did you use between the driver and the WG?
I know that there are natural clay and synthetic clay. The latter being PVC based and harden in boiling water or in the oven.
Or is it the stuff children play with...?
Does somebody know?
Regards,
Etienne
I've used the PVC stuff and the childs clay, they both work, but the grey "modelers" clay is a little firmer and tends to work better, but is harder to install unles you kneed it well in your hands to soften it up. The childs clay tends to be a little too soft.
Having worked in engineering for close to two decades, I have a cynical view of the whole process. In particular, I notice that people that do good work are often punished for it. Basically this is because good engineering requires taking risks, but corporations are very risk averse. So you end up with homogenous design. (Just look at all the bland cars that came out of Detroit, until the threat of bankruptcy shook things up.)
I was listening to the Adam Carolla podcast today, and his guest mentioned owning a "one off" Ford GT40. And while reading about the designer of the car, it sounds like his career went something like this:
1) Works at Ford for close to twenty years, and contributed to production cars like the Ford Thunderbird
2) Had a chance to work on an iconic car, the Ford GT40, which was well received
3) After making a name for himself with the Ford GT40, was banished to work on boring stuff like side view mirrors
4) After a couple of years of this was either fired or quit
In other words, "no good deed goes unpunished."
Report: Rock Star Car Designer Camilo Pardo, Ford To Split Ways
John
I think that it can be complicated. Good engineering does not always sell, that's hardly the companies fault. I think that there is likely more to the story above. Mercedes, Honda, etc. are well engineered cars, but completely different markets. Mercedes fell on its face when it tried to sell into Honda's market and Honda has not done well in Mercedes market. Toyota did however.
Everyone knows that "taking risks" can pay-off, but it can also be a total bust. My "risk taking" adventure was a bust, but the far more conservative one was much more successful. But of course the low risk venture had less rewards. It's all a gamble, a game if you will. Sometimes you get the cards and sometimes you don't. How well you play poker is a secondary issue.
I think that it can be complicated. Good engineering does not always sell, that's hardly the companies fault. I think that there is likely more to the story above. Mercedes, Honda, etc. are well engineered cars, but completely different markets. Mercedes fell on its face when it tried to sell into Honda's market and Honda has not done well in Mercedes market. Toyota did however.
Everyone knows that "taking risks" can pay-off, but it can also be a total bust. My "risk taking" adventure was a bust, but the far more conservative one was much more successful. But of course the low risk venture had less rewards. It's all a gamble, a game if you will. Sometimes you get the cards and sometimes you don't. How well you play poker is a secondary issue.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.