Oops user error on those first files - I am really tired sorry. Throw those away if you downloaded them they are garbage.
zSHARE - THE ROOTS - Y_All Know Who.flac
zSHARE - The Pharcyde - Officer.flac
zSHARE - Gnarls Barkley - Crazy.flac
Ogg
zSHARE - THE ROOTS - Y_All Know Who.ogg
zSHARE - The Pharcyde - Officer.ogg
zSHARE - Gnarls Barkley - Crazy.ogg
I think I can do AAC but I refuse to use Apple Lossless. Really FLAC is compatible with a mac just get a better player.
zSHARE - THE ROOTS - Y_All Know Who.flac
zSHARE - The Pharcyde - Officer.flac
zSHARE - Gnarls Barkley - Crazy.flac
Ogg
zSHARE - THE ROOTS - Y_All Know Who.ogg
zSHARE - The Pharcyde - Officer.ogg
zSHARE - Gnarls Barkley - Crazy.ogg
I think I can do AAC but I refuse to use Apple Lossless. Really FLAC is compatible with a mac just get a better player.
I dunno I messed up the SRC or something on those but really I am too tired to make some more. I will come back later or something I just need to take a nap or I will just keep making silly mistakes like that. For now those files still give you the general idea of how far you can push stereo. It's pretty surrounding but it's not without it's problems imo. Basically trying to suck an elephant through a straw. Quad is much more natural.
What's wrong with Apple Lossless? AAC would be nice because FLAC is not really supported under OS X.
Yeah apple are as bad as MS ever was with that" not invented here", protectionist **. I use an open source media player called VLC and set it to open everything instead of quicktime. It's not a replacement for itunes, but it will play pretty much any audio or video file you'll ever encounter.
VLC media player for Mac OS X
VLC media player for Mac OS X
another nice omni project: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/163986-2-way-omni-experiment.html
interesting is that the builder read Toole's book
seems that the reading didn't affect His hearing
BTW an extract from a review of similar project from "Klang+Ton":
Are they suggesting that this thing can have anything in common with good imaging? 😉
note that what they are talking about is actually a sonic disaster (according to book worshippers)
according to the books it cannot have nothing like good imaging
clearly something must be wrong with them...
with the guys from Klang+Tone of course 😉
best,
graaf
interesting is that the builder read Toole's book
seems that the reading didn't affect His hearing
BTW an extract from a review of similar project from "Klang+Ton":
Are they suggesting that this thing can have anything in common with good imaging? 😉
note that what they are talking about is actually a sonic disaster (according to book worshippers)
according to the books it cannot have nothing like good imaging
clearly something must be wrong with them...
with the guys from Klang+Tone of course 😉
best,
graaf
Last edited:
This review you are talking about is exactly a dozen years old. I take the freedom to cite another passage of the review:
"As an omnidirectional speaker the Fontana should under no circumstances be placed directly at a wall and by no means in a corner. Reasonable are at least 30 cm distance to the next wall - more is preferable."
In the same issue of "Klang+Ton" you find a test of "Home Cinema" woofers. 4 drivers out of 10 tested have the VISATON badge on the magnet 😉
Rudolf
yes indeed! thank You 🙂
the "at least 30 cm" recommendation is especially interesting
oh yes, but why should the reviewer exactly marvel at the imaging of the Fontanas?
supposedly their Achilles' heel?
I would accept that bias argument if He marvelled at other qualities and passed over the supposed problem of blurred imaging and so on
It would make sense then
Don't You think?
best,
graaf
ps.
Did they write more specifically how the position of Fontanas WRT the walls affected the sound, particularly imaging and soundstaging?
my guess is that they didn't
Last edited:
Sorry, there is nothing mentioned about the difference between at the walls and 30 cm away. They do emphazise that the Fontanas are "as well suited as front speakers in an HT as doing exceptional duty as surround speakers, where a very diffuse background soundfield is imperative".
And the resumee ends with "In combination with the slight, but balanced loudness characteristic we see a loudspeaker which is equally suited for demanding background sound reproduction as for the focused indulgence of music".
Rudolf
If you guys don't get back to the topic and stop the silly bickering, this thread will close. 1st warning. It's probably your speakers. They sound 3-D on my speakers. But yes this is definitely not the way I recommend listening to stereo and I believe it's generally the reason mastering engineers will keep everything to the front 60 - it's very unpredictable what is going to happen with different speakers with out of speaker tricks. But I have a feeling someone with some better speakers is hearing exactly what is going on in those files - on my system these files produce what wave synthesis will refer to as holograms I think.
Toole's book is probably the most well-grounded summary of domestic audio reproduction. He does not speak about omnidirectional speakers because there are none. It's all about the more basic concept of directivity which he discusses in detail. There's tons of other valuable information in the book that I consider basic knowledge for everybody that wants to talk about audio reproduction.
Yeah yeah you can quit the guessing anytime. Your speakers are most likely not tightly matched. You ever try to null cancel test them?