Hi Markus,
Yes that much is obvious, however you haven't really answered my question. Knowing the time base (period of time shown in the visualizer) would allow me to determine how much low frequency energy I was actually seeing over what period. As it is just tells me it is pretty loud and not a lot more.
The song is 9:30. As I pointed out in my post, this songs is not a good example why music sound reproduction needs to extend to 20 or 30 Hz. Look at samples from Bjork.
Best, Markus
Suspension limits (linearity, throw) and size. Fitting a big PR in compact sized two-way may be difficult.
WRONG
you can always use multiple small PRs.
you can build the entire cabinet out of PRs if you want.
linearity is irrelevant because the active driver also has suspension but 1/2 the area so is likely to be the bottleneck here.
PRs have NO practical limitations except cost.
No, Moran et al is not "conclusive". There was discussion on DIYaudio a year or two ago about it. Both equipment and methodology were questioned by non-fanatics. The best conclusion I could get from the paper and discussion is that the results were something to bear in mind.
I was really dubious about the speakers they used - they should have used something like you and I have, or better yet, earphones, and two of the three players they used were dubious quality. Could well be differences were masked by artifacts from those particular speakers.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/128488-aes-objective-subjective-forum.html
What Kunchur found is that measuring what is possible for us to hear in time domain is equipment dependent. Whether or not the thresholds he found (@ 6 microseconds) are applicable when evaluating our playback systems are up to us.
Why should they use earphones or special equipment? It's not about absolut detection thresholds it's about realistic listening conditions. Nobody was able to hear a difference. How long do we need to discuss this in consideration of the fact that recordings in higher qualities are already available? Why obsess about secondary issues while the whole speaker-room-system poses problems that are a magnitude severe than the difference in sample rates?
Best, Markus
The song is 9:30. As I pointed out in my post, this songs is not a good example why music sound reproduction needs to extend to 20 or 30 Hz. Look at samples from Bjork.
Best, Markus
I don't disagree, and I have usable output in my system to about 30Hz (f3 32Hz) or so but at the price of a very big system because I need rather high efficiency given the low power SE amplifiers I prefer.
I guess you didn't really understand what I was getting at, and perhaps the visualizer does not provide the answer I was seeking. I was interested in the time interval displayed by the visualizer which I am assuming is somewhere in the hundreds of milliseconds to second range, but I can't tell. So I really can't tell if there is any LF information in that recording based on your post.
Yes some Bjork material has very low frequency content as do several cuts on Sting's Brand New Day CD... Anything on the Violator CD by Depeche Mode should be illustrative as well.
SOCIAL AUDIO DISTORTION FORUM :: View topic - Geddes Summa Loudspeaker Kit
I only just came across this, and thought others may be interested too
I only just came across this, and thought others may be interested too
Why should they use earphones or special equipment? It's not about absolut detection thresholds it's about realistic listening conditions. Nobody was able to hear a difference. How long do we need to discuss this in consideration of the fact that recordings in higher qualities are already available? Why obsess about secondary issues while the whole speaker-room-system poses problems that are a magnitude severe than the difference in sample rates?
Best, Markus
Is it? The report makes a relatively blanket statement that the effects of inserting the additional 44K/16 bit A/D>D/A conversion into a high resolution audio path is inaudible. The path doesn't necessarily qualify in that sense. And why are headphones not a valid listening tool in such a situation - they entirely remove the issue of room acoustics, and speaker performance. I think the case would somewhat less impeachable if headphones had been used and the listeners were unable to discern a difference on a statistically reliable basis.
I think the fact that any studio that makes any pretense at audio quality has moved to higher sample rates and bit depths (or DSD/DXD) makes the assumption questionable at best.
Here's what some of the pros are using these days: Digital Audio Denmark, AX24 PCM, DSD and DXD Audio Converter and Mic. Preamplifier
I would love to own one of those BMW or Ferrari that you so glibby refer to as a rip off. The target markets are quite different between the Lexus or Infinity and the high end BMW or any Ferrari. Gadgets are fun, but have little to do with how the car feels when you are driving for the fun of it. Lexus are nice boring well built boxes on wheels. I'd rather have the BMW frankly. Low volume production and a great deal of exotic engineering and materials not to mention chassis design not found in the Lexus account for a great deal of the difference.
I know i was just trolling because i thought Markus lived in Germany. I drive BMW myself, but chassis design is already something of a vintage thing.
Its all about electronics in the AWD system now - all about how quickly and precisely can the car distribute torque to each wheel.
M5 is like a good passive hi-fi speakers with film capacitors and air core inductors. Nissan GTR is like a studio monitor with FIR crossovers and class D amps.
Ferrari is like a horn or full range driven by a vacuum tube amp. Nissan GTR beats ferraris on the track because it is 50 years ahead in engineering but Ferraris sell better and for much much more $$$ because that's the classic.
BMW is doing a mindbending balancing act between latest technology like hybrid and i-drive and classic approaches like wood trim and rear wheel drive. That's why BMW is the number 1.
Last edited:
Because the Geddes speakers are designed for multiple subwoofers.
Best, Markus
yes i know.
but i wonder if people who buy them know it ?
Kevin. The spectrograph show the whole song. So the time scale is 9 minutes and some. It's useful that way so that you can see all the content at once.
I can see that it as the typical bass energies. ~125Hz and ~75Hz. That's were most of the bass lives in most music.
I can see that it as the typical bass energies. ~125Hz and ~75Hz. That's were most of the bass lives in most music.
Kevin. The spectrograph show the whole song. So the time scale is 9 minutes and some. It's useful that way so that you can see all the content at once.
I can see that it as the typical bass energies. ~125Hz and ~75Hz. That's were most of the bass lives in most music.
no.
bass likes to live around 40 hz in much of the music.
100 hz is just propaganda spread by folks who sell speakers that can't hit 40 hz properly.
there is a pervasive BASS DENIAL SYNDROME in the audiophile scene.
Because the Geddes speakers are designed for multiple subwoofers.
Best, Markus
In my opinion this is a good example of a difference between large professional driver systems and smaller hi-fi ones - that difference being application. For near-field monitoring, the Mackie's would be my choice. It would seem in this application smooth on-axis frequency response, extended bandwidth, and low distortion content are the requirements, and I still suspect a system like the Mackie's would hold the advantage. I'm sure there are very clean, low distortion prosound based systems, with very even response, but in an application which targets these requirements, I just don't see how such a system could be the best option. You don't use a hammer to turn a screw.
JF
Look again at the graph Borat. And take a look at an RTA some time. You might get a surprise.
i already went through this on AVS Forum. Lady GAGA goes all the way down to 2 hz ( thats 2, not 20 ). obivously if you're listening to flutes and piccolos you will claim that there is no significant energy at 40 hz.
In my opinion this is a good example of a difference between large professional driver systems and smaller hi-fi ones - that difference being application. For near-field monitoring, the Mackie's would be my choice. It would seem in this application smooth on-axis frequency response, extended bandwidth, and low distortion content are the requirements, and I still suspect a system like the Mackie's would hold the advantage. I'm sure there are very clean, low distortion prosound based systems, with very even response, but in an application which targets these requirements, I just don't see how such a system could be the best option. You don't use a hammer to turn a screw.
JF
well mackies do use cheap drivers.
i wish they used scan-speak instead of vifa.
i am sure many prosound woofers have lower distortion than that mackies vifa which doesn't sound particularly clean. however i also wouldn't trade the 1" dome for a compression driver there by any means.
no.
bass likes to live around 40 hz in much of the music.
The fundamentals of an electric bass normally range from 40Hz to 400Hz, so you're both right.
At least 50% of the recordings I listen to make use of frequencies below 40Hz.
Best, Markus
but i wonder if people who buy them know it ?
If they can read, yes. See Loudspeakers
But I agree that his website could be more specific about the fact.
Best, Markus
no.
bass likes to live around 40 hz in much of the music.
100 hz is just propaganda spread by folks who sell speakers that can't hit 40 hz properly.
there is a pervasive BASS DENIAL SYNDROME in the audiophile scene.
Borat,
I could be off-base here but I think Panomaniac was referring to a more musical range of bass, the area of the spectrum where a bass guitar melody might live. 40 Hz and under is starting to get into the territory of visceral bass expression, so the thud of a kick drum and that sort of thing.
Lady GAGA goes all the way down to 2 hz
😱 yuck! It would take a hell of a system to recreate the splendor that is the masterpiece Poker Face. If only she could go all the way down to 0 Hz and stay there! 😀
Panomaniac was referring to a more musical range of bass, the area of the spectrum where a bass guitar melody might live. 40 Hz and under is starting to get into the territory of visceral bass expression, so the thud of a kick drum and that sort of thing.
Yes. First 55s of Natural Born Hippies "Am I not sweet" - the red parts is the bassline:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Best, Markus
SOCIAL AUDIO DISTORTION FORUM :: View topic - Geddes Summa Loudspeaker Kit
I only just came across this, and thought others may be interested too
Hmm, well I haven't had a chance to read much of it but the first bit doesn't seem at all fair. There's someone complaining that they couldn't buy a sub-set of a kit from Mr. Geddes. I don't blame him for not wanting to sell little bits and pieces to the public, that would just be a big hassle for little return.
Anyway, I am not convinced that professional drivers are the best fit for every application, but it is undeniable that Mr. Geddes knows his stuff, and has put together a well respected product line. 'Seems like a bit of a witch-hunt going on over there (social audio dist.).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- Pro vs hifi drivers - pros and cons?