Bg Neo 10 and Neo 8 - Page 5 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Planars & Exotics

Planars & Exotics ESL's, planars, and alternative technologies

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th February 2012, 02:27 AM   #41
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando, FLA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remlab View Post
Lenta, I agree with you completely. That's why we use drivers that only have raw anechoic(hobby Hifi and manufacture's) or at least raw quasi-anechoic (Zaph) data used along with active as apposed to passive electronics. If you don't have control of those variables, you are, for all intents and purposes, ******* in the wind. In fact, if you don't have this type of raw data at your disposal, it doesn't matter what type of room you have. If you still think I'm wrong, go to Sigfried Linkwitz's website and look at his testing room...At least I'm in good company.
Yes, but Linkwitz seems to be biased towards reproduction of acoustic music recorded with minimal micing techniques. I too feel that these types of recording CAN sound good in a very live room, but much music that I listen to is studio produced and to my ears clearly sounds wrong played back in a setting that is too live and reverberant. I get to hear music in a well treated professional studio, a world class mastering studio and many other environments on a regular basis. I also get to hear quite a bit of live, unamplified music in both large and small venues. A live sounding listening room stamps a certain signature on a playback system regardless of a loudspeakers design. I personally do not like the sound or effect this provides.

No doubt, Linkwitz is a master at what he does and far smarter than most of us posting on here, but I certainly don't agree with everything he says.

Greg
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 02:53 AM   #42
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotech View Post
Well, to be fair many people have rooms that look like this, but yeah it must be a pretty "live" sound. Seth, you might want to experiment with some good absorption material like the Bonded Logic stuff placed directly behind the Neo10/3 combo. My house is all tile and when I first moved in and had no window treatment, area rugs or acoustical treatments on the walls, I almost cried the first night I had the system all set up. It was an echo, reverb nightmare.

Listen with some good quality open back headphones like AKG or Sennheisers and then compare the "room sound" you get from your system.

Greg
Greg & Lenta, I have used Etymotic Er4p's for years. These are what I use as a reference. I added a picture of my basic test setup (excluding the usual floor treatment) I also used these for critical listening sessions with my dunlavy's before going dipole.http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php...=album;id=8214
Seth
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 03:10 AM   #43
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotech View Post
Yes, but Linkwitz seems to be biased towards reproduction of acoustic music recorded with minimal micing techniques. I too feel that these types of recording CAN sound good in a very live room, but much music that I listen to is studio produced and to my ears clearly sounds wrong played back in a setting that is too live and reverberant. I get to hear music in a well treated professional studio, a world class mastering studio and many other environments on a regular basis. I also get to hear quite a bit of live, unamplified music in both large and small venues. A live sounding listening room stamps a certain signature on a playback system regardless of a loudspeakers design. I personally do not like the sound or effect this provides.

No doubt, Linkwitz is a master at what he does and far smarter than most of us posting on here, but I certainly don't agree with everything he says.

Greg
Greg
Once again, I have to completely agree with you. All I listen to is that type of music, so it is right up my alley. To give you an example, my favorite recording is Dunedin Consort's performance of Bach's St. Matthew passion (Linn records). Studio recordings, while sounding good on my system, don't sound as magical.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 03:58 AM   #44
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotech View Post
Seth, now that I see how thick that aluminum is, have you measured any diffraction effects for either driver compared to a more flush approach to mounting?

Greg
To be perfectly frank, these dipole baffles are still in the prototype phase. Ultimately, they are going to be cnc'd with all rounded edges except the base, then painted with high gloss automotive to match my Yugo(Kidding! My Yugo is actually low gloss.) Unlike domes, or cones with phase plugs, planars do a pretty good job of canceling themselves out at extreme off axis angles. Maybe not as much as I would like at my tweeter's low crossover point, but enough to get the job done in the mean time. An example of a company that uses the neo 3 in this way(kind of);Burmester Audiosysteme GmbH ::: Produkte

Last edited by Remlab; 13th February 2012 at 04:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 08:29 AM   #45
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotech View Post
Yes, but Linkwitz seems to be biased towards reproduction of acoustic music recorded with minimal micing techniques. I too feel that these types of recording CAN sound good in a very live room, but much music that I listen to is studio produced and to my ears clearly sounds wrong played back in a setting that is too live and reverberant. I get to hear music in a well treated professional studio, a world class mastering studio and many other environments on a regular basis. I also get to hear quite a bit of live, unamplified music in both large and small venues. A live sounding listening room stamps a certain signature on a playback system regardless of a loudspeakers design. I personally do not like the sound or effect this provides.

No doubt, Linkwitz is a master at what he does and far smarter than most of us posting on here, but I certainly don't agree with everything he says.

Greg
The way things are done in a studio are at the purely subjective whim of the technician. He can do anything he wants( and that's O.K.). But the end result is a reality that is purely subjective. I can play 100 different studio recordings that have electric bass parts and every recording of the bass parts will sound different. Why? Because each was created by a different technician in a different studio each dealing with an astonishing amount of variables. (I don't even want to use any more examples for fear of trivializing the infinite complexities involved). There is a reason we use minimally mic'd recordings of un-amplified acoustic music in real acoustic spaces. Because this is as close to reality as we can get for testing the accuracy of our systems. To say that Sigfried Linkwitz's system and room theory works only with purist recordings is, in a way, the ultimate complement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 09:27 AM   #46
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotech View Post
Not a big deal at all. I appreciate your nice remarks and really I was glad you were posting some new sets of data on the drivers. I just noticed the pictures you posted of the aluminum channel for the mid/tweet. That is a great use of a "found" object. I'm assuming it is some type of building construction material?

Greg
I found this material here .Online Metal Store | Small Quantity Metal Orders | Metal Cutting, Sales & Shipping | Buy Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Brass, Stainless | Metal Product Guides at OnlineMetals.com Some of their Aluminum channels are massive. The biggest channel they have is 12" x 5" and as long as you want. Would make an interesting pure open baffle design. When it comes to potential speaker design ideas that you could create using materials from this website, your pretty much limited only by your own imagination.
Seth
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 11:22 AM   #47
lenta is offline lenta  Norway
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
What is your room dimensions in meters?Is it rectangular with doors or open to some other rooms?
I guess you have huge lack of bass?Its becouse of large glass doors and windows, low frequencies goes trough if they were open.This fireplace doesnt help either, its hole!
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 10:00 PM   #48
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Lenta, My Room is 5 wide x 8 long x 3. The end of the room is open to the left and right. The bass situation is solved by having each octave from 20hz and up covered by seperate bass units, each optimized for their own octave. This gives a huge amount of flexibility for handling problems without putting undo stress on any one single unit. At the listening position, bass is +-2db from 20hz to 160hz while using a relatively small amount of dsp equalization.
As for the earlier comment about about all the hard surfaces? The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Treat those relevant surfaces while listening critically and everything is fine. Perfect? Never..
Seth

Last edited by Remlab; 13th February 2012 at 10:14 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2012, 11:25 PM   #49
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando, FLA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remlab View Post
The way things are done in a studio are at the purely subjective whim of the technician. He can do anything he wants( and that's O.K.). But the end result is a reality that is purely subjective. I can play 100 different studio recordings that have electric bass parts and every recording of the bass parts will sound different. Why? Because each was created by a different technician in a different studio each dealing with an astonishing amount of variables. (I don't even want to use any more examples for fear of trivializing the infinite complexities involved). There is a reason we use minimally mic'd recordings of un-amplified acoustic music in real acoustic spaces. Because this is as close to reality as we can get for testing the accuracy of our systems. To say that Sigfried Linkwitz's system and room theory works only with purist recordings is, in a way, the ultimate complement.
It is true that minimally mic'd recording are about as accurate as it gets for capturing an actual acoustic space, but even those tend to cheat sometimes. I work with Bob Katz of former Chesky records fame. If you only knew some of the tricks he used to make the recording sound MORE real. Sure, 80% of the sound of say the famous Rebecca Pidgeon disk is a single point Blumlein setup, but there are other spot mics and tricks to add more hall sound into the recording because no mics hear the same as our ears.

Now, lets take this perfectly captured acoustic space and try to reproduce it in your living room. Unless your speakers have a laser beam, cardioid type polar response, you are going to be superimposing the sound of your environment on top of all those delicately recorded location cues. Its the finest little details and reverb tails that really bring a space alive in a recording and adding extraneous ones into the mix is only going to blur or cloud the recorded space.

Now, as far as studio produced recordings goes, even though they are completely made up whims of the engineers imagination, the same rules apply IMHO. Every time I buy a new CD that sounds even remotely good, I take it to the studio for a listen to compare it to my room. Even though I prefer my speakers to those at the studio, I invariably hear more "into" the recording because I don't have a ton of strong, early reflections hitting me before or too close in time to the direct sound. The studio is a very evenly balanced environment. Ours is not too dead as to sound like an anechoic chamber, but has a proper balance of absorption and diffusion.

The other choice if room treatment is not a realistic option is to sit in the nearfield where direct to reflected energy is maximized. Kind of the opposite as to what Bose preaches. Bob's room is the perfect example. Some excellent treatments, but also the listening position is close to the speakers relative to their distance to nearby boundaries. In his mastering room, I consistently hear the most amazing sense of space and ambiance. I want his room set-up with my speakers.

Not trying to be a pest, but I just wonder if listen critically to your favs and then try absorbing SOME of the rear and side wall waves if you like the result better. You might not and to each his own, but it seems like less living room sound will equal better reproduced space from the recording. Remember though, as Linkwitz says, it cannot be that acoustic foam crap that just removes everything about 5KHZ, but something more broadband like 4" of rigid fiberglass or Bonded Logic. You want even absorption, not just highs.

Greg
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2012, 01:33 AM   #50
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiotech View Post
It is true that minimally mic'd recording are about as accurate as it gets for capturing an actual acoustic space, but even those tend to cheat sometimes. I work with Bob Katz of former Chesky records fame. If you only knew some of the tricks he used to make the recording sound MORE real. Sure, 80% of the sound of say the famous Rebecca Pidgeon disk is a single point Blumlein setup, but there are other spot mics and tricks to add more hall sound into the recording because no mics hear the same as our ears.

Now, lets take this perfectly captured acoustic space and try to reproduce it in your living room. Unless your speakers have a laser beam, cardioid type polar response, you are going to be superimposing the sound of your environment on top of all those delicately recorded location cues. Its the finest little details and reverb tails that really bring a space alive in a recording and adding extraneous ones into the mix is only going to blur or cloud the recorded space.

Now, as far as studio produced recordings goes, even though they are completely made up whims of the engineers imagination, the same rules apply IMHO. Every time I buy a new CD that sounds even remotely good, I take it to the studio for a listen to compare it to my room. Even though I prefer my speakers to those at the studio, I invariably hear more "into" the recording because I don't have a ton of strong, early reflections hitting me before or too close in time to the direct sound. The studio is a very evenly balanced environment. Ours is not too dead as to sound like an anechoic chamber, but has a proper balance of absorption and diffusion.

The other choice if room treatment is not a realistic option is to sit in the nearfield where direct to reflected energy is maximized. Kind of the opposite as to what Bose preaches. Bob's room is the perfect example. Some excellent treatments, but also the listening position is close to the speakers relative to their distance to nearby boundaries. In his mastering room, I consistently hear the most amazing sense of space and ambiance. I want his room set-up with my speakers.

Not trying to be a pest, but I just wonder if listen critically to your favs and then try absorbing SOME of the rear and side wall waves if you like the result better. You might not and to each his own, but it seems like less living room sound will equal better reproduced space from the recording. Remember though, as Linkwitz says, it cannot be that acoustic foam crap that just removes everything about 5KHZ, but something more broadband like 4" of rigid fiberglass or Bonded Logic. You want even absorption, not just highs.

Greg
Greg
I can tell that you teach as a profession. You must have a very good re pore with your students!
Due not only to national and international pressures but a wife that wants a new fireplace(That's also not blocked by speakers) I have moved my rig to the only other place in the living room that I can. Glass coffee table removal is a negotiable. The room treatments have to be mobile because Laura( My wife) would never allow permanent placement. I'll show her the ones you have. Maybe she'll change her mind. Anyway, tell me what you think..http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php...=album;id=8333
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
F/S (3) BG NEO:10 Planar Magnetic Panels rubicon Vendor's Bazaar 1 31st December 2011 05:39 PM
BG Neo 10 (Neo10) vs. Alcons RB401, SA8535, ESS AMT, or Beyma's TPL-150 tiefbassuebertr Multi-Way 1 6th December 2011 12:54 AM
BG NEO 10 pair as new inertial Swap Meet 20 31st January 2009 06:20 PM
Bg neo 10 measured inertial Multi-Way 12 7th October 2008 05:42 PM
BG neo 10 measured inertial Planars & Exotics 0 30th September 2008 09:00 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:50 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2