Aengus said:
Actually the "margin" between the waveguide edge and the woofer edge IS the same as the bottom, but this is not apparent in the picture. But a little more on the bottom would be a help. There is a reason why the woofer can't go up at all and thats because I need a minimum clamping distance around the waveguide when it is cast. What is there is the minimum. The bottom could be extended, thats no problem, and I now think that it should be rounded. I think that this would alleviate your concerns, which I definitely agree with. These changes will have to wait until the next order of Nathan parts from John as the current supply are already cut.
.
Agreed, aside from weight.
Could also build a frame of (say) 1 1/2" or 2" plywood "boards" (with the face of the plywood showing) secured to the bottom. If you were going to round the bottom, the frame would have to be thick enough to support whatever degree of rounding you wanted.
Go on, Markus, how much work can it be to tack a bit on the bottom and refinish them?
P.S. Markus, my apologies for misspelling your name in a previous post.
Could also build a frame of (say) 1 1/2" or 2" plywood "boards" (with the face of the plywood showing) secured to the bottom. If you were going to round the bottom, the frame would have to be thick enough to support whatever degree of rounding you wanted.
Go on, Markus, how much work can it be to tack a bit on the bottom and refinish them?
P.S. Markus, my apologies for misspelling your name in a previous post.
Why is it that important "what music source Markus used"? More important is to know what recording and mixing techniques were used in a specific recording. So I use a couple of own recordings and recordings from others to test for parameters like intelligibility, phantom source acuity, tonality, dynamic.
If you want to evaluate a speaker it really doesn't make any sense to listen to a recording from that you don't know how it was made. Because you simply don't know what to listen for. This only leads to listening for something you expect to hear. For example Pink Floyds "Final Cut" is recommended by "Stereophiles" for listening tests. It uses Holophonics which can sound impressive but is just an effect and therefore unsuitable for critical listening.
Best, Markus
P.S. And never forget to close your eyes while listening - you'll be overwhelmed what your hearing will "see"! Of course you need to have the right speakers/room...
If you want to evaluate a speaker it really doesn't make any sense to listen to a recording from that you don't know how it was made. Because you simply don't know what to listen for. This only leads to listening for something you expect to hear. For example Pink Floyds "Final Cut" is recommended by "Stereophiles" for listening tests. It uses Holophonics which can sound impressive but is just an effect and therefore unsuitable for critical listening.
Best, Markus
P.S. And never forget to close your eyes while listening - you'll be overwhelmed what your hearing will "see"! Of course you need to have the right speakers/room...
I was recently interviewed by a magazine about my advice for buying a set of speakers. Now obviously for the general public I can't recommend my usual approach, which is to look at polar response etc. it just isn't appropriate. So I sugested that the source material was critical to evaluation. I said to use several different types of songs, all very familiar to the point of being boring. You must know the song so well that you can listen past the song to the reproduction. If you can't get past "liking" the music then the cut is probably not a good one. Among several things I suggested listening to normal talking - record your wife talking (or yelling) as normal. Also use white noise. The reporter didn't know what white noise was so I said that I would post a wav file on my web site. She said she would write how a reader could download this white noise piece to listen to. She was quite surprised and thrilled by my responses because none of them were what she expected.
The only way to really know what the engineers intended on a recording (assuming the engineers achieved their intentions in the first place) would be to hear the recording played back on the same playback chain and in the same rooms as were used in mixing and mastering in the first place.
Since this is unlikely, we are left with what Earl suggests as the best option.
I think it can be a good option, though, in that the more different systems a particular recording is heard through, the more easily an unknown system is characterized by auditioning that recording - almost regardless of the intrinsic quality of the recording.
In a related way, I think, a modest loudspeaker can serve as a trustworthy reference if a sufficient variety of material has been auditioned through them. I am thinking here of Jack L. Renner of Telarc and his powered Philips speakers that he took on location with him.
Since this is unlikely, we are left with what Earl suggests as the best option.
I think it can be a good option, though, in that the more different systems a particular recording is heard through, the more easily an unknown system is characterized by auditioning that recording - almost regardless of the intrinsic quality of the recording.
In a related way, I think, a modest loudspeaker can serve as a trustworthy reference if a sufficient variety of material has been auditioned through them. I am thinking here of Jack L. Renner of Telarc and his powered Philips speakers that he took on location with him.
Re: sources
Well, I'd like to find the same thing to play if it's not what I already have. Normally I also see what other people comments are using the same source on different systems. Ideally if people providing comments can point out specifics in certain passages or tracks and also comment on instrument specifics, it would be more useful.auplater said:
Re: Re: sources
An option that I like is good headphones, in particular Etymotic insert types (whatever you can afford). These tell you exactly whats on the recording and are very nuetral. That then becomes a reference.
And what if there are flaws in these tracks or passages - how do you deal with that?
I was recently fooled by a reference song that I was listening to. I tried to find what in the speakers was causing a harshness that I didn't like. After months of searching I was loathe to discover that my "reference" song was actually clipping (who'd have thought that a well produced modern CD would have clipping on it). It was this clipping that I didn't like. When I removed it from the song the problem went away.
I was once agast to see the wave file of a Police song. It was clipping about 50% of the time - unique sound, I guess.
Russell Dawkins said:
An option that I like is good headphones, in particular Etymotic insert types (whatever you can afford). These tell you exactly whats on the recording and are very nuetral. That then becomes a reference.
soongsc said:
And what if there are flaws in these tracks or passages - how do you deal with that?
I was recently fooled by a reference song that I was listening to. I tried to find what in the speakers was causing a harshness that I didn't like. After months of searching I was loathe to discover that my "reference" song was actually clipping (who'd have thought that a well produced modern CD would have clipping on it). It was this clipping that I didn't like. When I removed it from the song the problem went away.
I was once agast to see the wave file of a Police song. It was clipping about 50% of the time - unique sound, I guess.
Re: Re: sources
That's what I like to do as well, after reading a post, trying to understand the technical aspects, and then confirm the reviewers' observations and/or technical comments regarding specific qualities they attributed to the DUT, I then attempt to duplicate the same tests/listening with my setup (or theirs if I can track it down) and see if I can confirm or make improvements as needed.
It's pretty hard to assess what someone means when they say something is "awesome", "analytic", "accurate" etc. w/o a frame of reference with actual recordings. hence my earlier post which went unanswered..
When you've listened to and performed both live and recorded music for 4 decades, it's not too difficult to ascertain when music is distorted be it clipping, harmonic, intermodulation, etc. I find piano music to be especially revealing, both live and recorded.
I'm NEVER amazed at the poor quality of recorded CD's. It's as if some schlock-jock is at the helm of most recording consoles, going for the highest crest factor they can get away with...
John L.
soongsc said:
That's what I like to do as well, after reading a post, trying to understand the technical aspects, and then confirm the reviewers' observations and/or technical comments regarding specific qualities they attributed to the DUT, I then attempt to duplicate the same tests/listening with my setup (or theirs if I can track it down) and see if I can confirm or make improvements as needed.
It's pretty hard to assess what someone means when they say something is "awesome", "analytic", "accurate" etc. w/o a frame of reference with actual recordings. hence my earlier post which went unanswered..
When you've listened to and performed both live and recorded music for 4 decades, it's not too difficult to ascertain when music is distorted be it clipping, harmonic, intermodulation, etc. I find piano music to be especially revealing, both live and recorded.
I'm NEVER amazed at the poor quality of recorded CD's. It's as if some schlock-jock is at the helm of most recording consoles, going for the highest crest factor they can get away with...
John L.
auplater, how can one be more objective when already using words that are very well defined in psychoacoustics? That's my reference. It's up to you to fill those definitions with experience. I recommend "Critical Listening Skills for Audio Professionals" from Everest.
Best, Markus
P.S. I know you would like to but please don't comment on me using the word "awesome". You won't find it in any paper either
Best, Markus
P.S. I know you would like to but please don't comment on me using the word "awesome". You won't find it in any paper either
listening... or not
Since I'm not an audio professional, only a musician and stereo nut from the "old" school, I'll just take yoiur word for it...
Too late on the awesome thing, though...
John L.
markus76 said:auplater, how can one be more objective when already using words that are very well defined in psychoacoustics? That's my reference. It's up to you to fill those definitions with experience. I recommend "Critical Listening Skills for Audio Professionals" from Everest.
Best, Markus
P.S. I know you would like to but please don't comment on me using the word "awesome". You won't find it in any paper either
Since I'm not an audio professional, only a musician and stereo nut from the "old" school, I'll just take yoiur word for it...
Too late on the awesome thing, though...
John L.
Re: Re: Re: sources
I have used a pair of Etymotic ER4Ss for 10 years now in my location recording work. Amazing, refined sound, and have proven neutral over the years.
I use a pair under a set of Howard Leight ear muffs (29dB attenuation) to set mics in an orchestra while they're playing. With the combined attenuation of around 64dB about all I hear is the mic!
gedlee said:
I have used a pair of Etymotic ER4Ss for 10 years now in my location recording work. Amazing, refined sound, and have proven neutral over the years.
I use a pair under a set of Howard Leight ear muffs (29dB attenuation) to set mics in an orchestra while they're playing. With the combined attenuation of around 64dB about all I hear is the mic!
gedlee said:
A very reasonable 10" 100W subwoofer is on sale at MCM till Nov 15.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/50-7660
is $69.95 using coupon code WA809
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It is a heck of a deal.
-David
It doesn't have variable phase control (just 0/180 switch), but it says on both the webpage and in the users manual that it has a variable low pass filter (though it doesn't say what slope and the webpage and manual do not agree on the frequency range).
Even still, I would (and do) use a DCX2496 for bass management due to the sheer flexibility that unit provides.
And yes, they probably are too cheap to be taken seriously. If I didn't already have 6x 12" subs that I haven't finished yet (not all for the same room!) I might be tempted to buy a few.
-David
Even still, I would (and do) use a DCX2496 for bass management due to the sheer flexibility that unit provides.
And yes, they probably are too cheap to be taken seriously. If I didn't already have 6x 12" subs that I haven't finished yet (not all for the same room!) I might be tempted to buy a few.
-David
So Dr. Geddes, I gather then you're not a fan of the idea of taking a LR line out of the preamp, and into the subwoofer amp, then feeding a crossover filtered line out of the sub amp, into the main amp, which I've read, makes the amp and main speakers more efficient.
That school of thought goes, if your main speakers reach into the 40's, do that crossover business described above at 50Hz.
You're saying 'no', if I understand correctly. 'Give the mains a full range signal.' I've been going at this from the other way, looking for a cheap sub amp that has filtered line outs, like the NHTs. (used)
That school of thought goes, if your main speakers reach into the 40's, do that crossover business described above at 50Hz.
You're saying 'no', if I understand correctly. 'Give the mains a full range signal.' I've been going at this from the other way, looking for a cheap sub amp that has filtered line outs, like the NHTs. (used)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.