Well...I think there might have been an ulterior-motive there. So we could have continued the thread after invoking Quirk's Exception.
From wikipedia:
"There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception")
Drivers are Audax HM170Z18, HM100Z0 and HD3P. I know they are slightly modified but don't know precisely.
The XO points are around 7-800 Hz and 5-6KHz. Ideally Bessel alignment however the fine tuning is made in the field (listening) in order to get the best coherence and above all congruence.
It's passive. The HM100 can be x-overed at 500Hz but the sonic result is not better. Until now this has proven to be the best configuration.
You also have other ways for integrating the drivers: the felt and the disposition of the drivers. The felt has great influence on the overall emission of the drivers.
Trying to get the perfect impulse response, step response or any other known measurement doesn't seem to be necessary. Maybe there is some threshold as for distortion.
The target remains to maintain the original musical sequence. It has to be as congruent as it can be with the "real event" in order to avoid our mind to be forced in a selection of the information where you have higher loss.
It's like when you look at a painting. Assume that you know the perfect colour composition (the spectral balance). If you change the order and/or the disposition of the colours you will get another picture. The new picture will be very different and you have to make a greater effort to accept it and wasting some pleasure in its contemplation.....
Last edited:
With stereo sound reproduction, the real event can never be the original event. Simply because the soundfield at your ears will be different. The real event (original) in stereo reproduction is what was heard by the mixing/mastering engineer. We're shooting at a moving target.
Best, Markus
Yes it is what was heard by the engineer. And so?
Live music is usually created by someone, played by someone else and listened by all! However there is a common language to share it.....
As long as the soundfield at your ears is different from the one in a live music situation, you're just obsessing over something that is only part of good loudspeaker construction. If you're really looking for reproduction as close as possible to what was heard live, then techniques that are capable of recreating the original soundfield are required, e.g. binaural recordings or Ambisonics (Ambisonic.Net - where surround-sound comes to life)
Best, Markus
Have you ever listened to a sound field like mine? Speak for yourself, please.
The problem of recording is important however it doesn't bump into the high fidelity concept. In the worst case you can always re-tune your system.
"Reproduction like real event" is a kind of metaphor otherwise it is quite impossible to communicate through a computer!
Management may be about enabling, but when you have moderators selling it, irrespective of whoever originally enabled them by granting rights to it, it is a conflict of interest. Evidenced by the first person here to support the banality of it was the moderator selling it. If you guys can't address that much of a problem in your own ranks there's no hope at all.
Particularly when dissenting technical views are barred from the faith based discussion or just get deleted and vanish without cause or explanation, then yes it ruins the site completely. It's not the only example, just one of the more glaring ones.
Don't post anything that paints V in a negative light or it gets deleted, where V is any marketer who's full of lies, yes it ruined the forum.
It seems every effort to improve this place has been an attempt at commercializing it further, making it fibber friendly for sales at the cost of the diyers who fed off factual truths. When those at the helm are out for profit, then commercial capture is inevitable.
Now you're at the all time low of selling forum functionality based on who gives you money, so contributions of a technical nature are without worth unless you yourselves cash in on it. You've also consistently failed in protecting the rights of any designers when faced with those boldly ripping them off unless they're ripping off NP, because business is good for everybody?
Imagine how far it had to slide downhill before anybody noticed, let alone anyone around here agreeing on it, but there's no problem, just natural devolution, stay the course.
People that can't be replaced are gone and no amount of pings will bring them back, there's less and less worth advertising for as a result. We've sailed halfway passed critical mass anyway, but how long can you feed off yesterday's table scraps? I guess we'll find out, but painful attempts like ego votes won't be what renews interest here.
I'll be screenprinting the Enable pattern on my Pirellis this evenning, smoother ride and of course lower road noise.
Particularly when dissenting technical views are barred from the faith based discussion or just get deleted and vanish without cause or explanation, then yes it ruins the site completely. It's not the only example, just one of the more glaring ones.
Don't post anything that paints V in a negative light or it gets deleted, where V is any marketer who's full of lies, yes it ruined the forum.
It seems every effort to improve this place has been an attempt at commercializing it further, making it fibber friendly for sales at the cost of the diyers who fed off factual truths. When those at the helm are out for profit, then commercial capture is inevitable.
Now you're at the all time low of selling forum functionality based on who gives you money, so contributions of a technical nature are without worth unless you yourselves cash in on it. You've also consistently failed in protecting the rights of any designers when faced with those boldly ripping them off unless they're ripping off NP, because business is good for everybody?
Imagine how far it had to slide downhill before anybody noticed, let alone anyone around here agreeing on it, but there's no problem, just natural devolution, stay the course.
People that can't be replaced are gone and no amount of pings will bring them back, there's less and less worth advertising for as a result. We've sailed halfway passed critical mass anyway, but how long can you feed off yesterday's table scraps? I guess we'll find out, but painful attempts like ego votes won't be what renews interest here.
I'll be screenprinting the Enable pattern on my Pirellis this evenning, smoother ride and of course lower road noise.
I spoke about the soundfield at the ear - that's something completely different.
As long as you're reluctant to discuss the matter based on science, we probably will never be able to communicate at all. I try to talk about reference, you talk about preference.
If you're looking for a speaker that is linear phase: http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-h...onitoring_studio-monitors_main-monitors_O500C
You should read more. Looks like you stopped doing just that a long time ago.
Best, Markus
When you use these words, what are you referring to? Phase response, group delay? Time alignment?
You say that 'people' ignore the time domain when designing loudspeakers, have you used a piece of measurement software? I have yet to come across one that doesn't measure impulse response and derive frequency from that...
Well there are certain limitations with any stereophonic playback system no matter how "pure" you make the chain. Reflections from the back of the hall will appear in the front or at best at the sides of the soundstage and I believe there is an absence of proper cues to fool the listener.
I do think concept of audiophilia as it applies to most listeners is at odds when there is a deviation from the target 1:1 playback for the engineer and listener.
For an easy example lets say that in theory the entire playback chain is exactly the same on both sides (listener and engineer). Now the audiophile on the playback end of this chain decides to swap out one piece of the chain, let's say a cable, because it gives an extended reverb tail when he is listening to the new cable vs the reference one which was used during the mixing of the program material. The new cable may sound subjectively better yes but you can easily prove that you have sacrificed accuracy for this subjective improvement.
Mr 45 may have forgotten his is time-variant.
Besides I doubt that a simple stereo recording would reproduce what any person in the live audience actually heard, beeing engineer or not.
/Erling
Besides I doubt that a simple stereo recording would reproduce what any person in the live audience actually heard, beeing engineer or not.
/Erling
Teflon, you say all that and then I see a join date of July 2009. 😕
Is the date wrong, or has this place gone down hill that fast?
And if you don't like things like enabl, don't use them. The inventor has given away the info for free right here on the forum. So I don't see how profit has anything to do with it.
Is the date wrong, or has this place gone down hill that fast?
And if you don't like things like enabl, don't use them. The inventor has given away the info for free right here on the forum. So I don't see how profit has anything to do with it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.