Hi,
IRT :: Home
It is a research organisation funded by the German Federal Radio & TV Services. Look under "Publikationen". Not everything the IRT has produced in on the site. And most if not all is only in german I'm afraid. Look for their design recommendations for lsitening rooms and monitor setups (includes surround sound of course).
Maybe because I never suggested not designing a flat response speaker?
Well, you are providing an alternative view so he can choose which view to follow, can he not?
The pseudo-objectivist mono-culture of HTG and AVSF is well suited to those who would like follow their peudo-objectivist Guru's.
Funny thing. The reviewer who reviewed my commercial speakers linked earlier had some Speakers made by Harman as his usual setup. You may guess which ones he thinks are better.
Ciao T
IRT :: Home
It is a research organisation funded by the German Federal Radio & TV Services. Look under "Publikationen". Not everything the IRT has produced in on the site. And most if not all is only in german I'm afraid. Look for their design recommendations for lsitening rooms and monitor setups (includes surround sound of course).
Maybe because I never suggested not designing a flat response speaker?
Well, you are providing an alternative view so he can choose which view to follow, can he not?
The pseudo-objectivist mono-culture of HTG and AVSF is well suited to those who would like follow their peudo-objectivist Guru's.
Funny thing. The reviewer who reviewed my commercial speakers linked earlier had some Speakers made by Harman as his usual setup. You may guess which ones he thinks are better.
Ciao T
Hi,
The Behringer ECM8000 has enough variation between samples to make it next to useless for serious speaker measurements, unless you have a calibration file for the exact Mike you buy.
Is the calibration file for the Dayton Mike a "generic" one or individual per Mike?
Ciao T
The Behringer ECM8000 has enough variation between samples to make it next to useless for serious speaker measurements, unless you have a calibration file for the exact Mike you buy.
Is the calibration file for the Dayton Mike a "generic" one or individual per Mike?
Ciao T
Correct, from all I have read it comes with its own individual cal file. I have not read two people comparing the cal files though.
I have the ECM8000 that is professionally calibrated.
If a calibration is needed then he just needs to ship it off to a guy on Hometheatershack.com who does calibrations for $50.....That ends up being a calibrated mic for < $100.
I will stick to english data.
I guess I misread your opinion on that because it seemed to suggest that you dislike flat speaker designs because of how room gain effects them. I do apologize for misreading your opinion.
What is with the labels??? The some of best speakers I have seen built are on HTG, AVS has been great for subwoofer and now there is a serious push towards waveguide builts. Subjectivity should never overrule science. He lives in the US, he should be aware of the local talent that exists.
Its obvious you have some hatred going on from your drywall comments, to "pseudo-objectivist mono-culture " of two great speaker building sites to posting something about disagreements with Toole's theories. Im not sure you noticed but the OP, myself and Loren all live in the US. Maybe they find this all okay but I find it rather self serving and void of professionalism.
You are pushing the "its your way or it sucks" mentality. The OP can not really choose, he has no alternatives nor does he have any reason to debate what you keep pushing on him.
I garuntee he will build again to fix the misakes from the path you led him down.
Hi,
Why?Because other data may fail to re-inforce your beliefs?
No, I suggested that speakers should offer a flat response under the conditions under which they are employed. So, I advocate a flat response in practice, while you advocate a response that is flat under ceratin conditions but not in reality.
They fit? Yes, I notice that these groups are finally getting hip with the kind of stuff the "Ultrafi Crowd" (e.g. my lot of reprobates with nothing but ton's of experience and empirical methodes) where messing about with (quite sucessfully) 20 Years go. That stuff is SO 90's... 😉
No, neither should science overrule subjectivity in an area where the subjective results are the final arbiter.
In Audio we deal with three independent but heavily overlapping Magisteria.
First is the issue of sound and electrical representations of sound, that are measured.
Second there is the way sound is perceived in general by the human auditory system.
Third is the personal reaction of sound as a result of upbringing and learning how to listen.
You want to reduce it to one magisteria only and the one I consider the one that is arguably best developed but least relevant of the three.
In some ways this reminds of the old joke of the drunk who was looking for his car keys under a streetlamp.
When a Bobby came over to see what was the matter the drunk explained. The Bobby, after admonishing the guy not to drive drunk, asked the guy where he had lost the keys.
The guy pointed somewhere to the side and said "over there, by my car".
The Bobby asked why he was looking under the streetlamp then.
The drunk answered "because the light is better here".
The technical measurements we can make are a light and it is good to have them. But the goal (car keys) is not necessary in the spotlight.
The comments about the general way houses are build in the US and the sonic consequences are an observation. If making an observation about something is "hatred" sure.
Would you like to propose a different label.
He has several different opinions in front of him. He can choose.
I am proposing something that I happen to know will get him a working system with a pretty decent level of quality in a comparably easy way. Because I had the impression that is what he desires.
In the end his original question was: "I have these drivers, I want to put them into a box and get great sound. Which off the shelf crossover should I buy."
I do not get the impression he wants to spend weeks and month measuring and fine-tuning complex crossovers, mess around with adjusting the dispersion of the speaker etc.
So I proposed to him a way that would likely get him there with a high chance of success and that while using much of his existing stuff.
Is such a system a compromise? Sure.
If he eventually gets to re-build the system fully active and with a more serious set of subwoofers he can easily re-tune the LF enclosure (tuning upwards simply means to shorten the port). He may indeed want to do this at some point (and you may remember that I did suggest a fully active system as well).
Hm. And these mistakes exactly are? Aiming for a more extended and less overblown bass response than one gets from minimally flat alignments and maximising the Sound Quality for a situation where no analog or digital bass management exists?
What I tell Leo is that he can get good results with his current drivers and how to do it. The best results in absolute terms? Maybe not. I also told him where he can take things at a later date and about the trade-offs involved in my suggestions.
What you are effectively telling him (if by the proxy of attacking my suggestions with quoting supposed authorities) is that unless he builds a 4-Way active system with loads of amplifiers and a digital crossover plus spends ages in testing and setting up the system and all that in custom build room and in 7.1 he is a fool. So I think it is you who is on the "Do it my way or it sucks" trip, if I may say so.
I can see why he be more inclined to walk down the path I offer, can you?
Ciao T
PS, just to be clear, I do not hate america or american people (or even american houses), nor do I AVSF or HTG. Not even surround sound.
Why?Because other data may fail to re-inforce your beliefs?
No, I suggested that speakers should offer a flat response under the conditions under which they are employed. So, I advocate a flat response in practice, while you advocate a response that is flat under ceratin conditions but not in reality.
They fit? Yes, I notice that these groups are finally getting hip with the kind of stuff the "Ultrafi Crowd" (e.g. my lot of reprobates with nothing but ton's of experience and empirical methodes) where messing about with (quite sucessfully) 20 Years go. That stuff is SO 90's... 😉
No, neither should science overrule subjectivity in an area where the subjective results are the final arbiter.
In Audio we deal with three independent but heavily overlapping Magisteria.
First is the issue of sound and electrical representations of sound, that are measured.
Second there is the way sound is perceived in general by the human auditory system.
Third is the personal reaction of sound as a result of upbringing and learning how to listen.
You want to reduce it to one magisteria only and the one I consider the one that is arguably best developed but least relevant of the three.
In some ways this reminds of the old joke of the drunk who was looking for his car keys under a streetlamp.
When a Bobby came over to see what was the matter the drunk explained. The Bobby, after admonishing the guy not to drive drunk, asked the guy where he had lost the keys.
The guy pointed somewhere to the side and said "over there, by my car".
The Bobby asked why he was looking under the streetlamp then.
The drunk answered "because the light is better here".
The technical measurements we can make are a light and it is good to have them. But the goal (car keys) is not necessary in the spotlight.
The comments about the general way houses are build in the US and the sonic consequences are an observation. If making an observation about something is "hatred" sure.
Would you like to propose a different label.
He has several different opinions in front of him. He can choose.
I am proposing something that I happen to know will get him a working system with a pretty decent level of quality in a comparably easy way. Because I had the impression that is what he desires.
In the end his original question was: "I have these drivers, I want to put them into a box and get great sound. Which off the shelf crossover should I buy."
I do not get the impression he wants to spend weeks and month measuring and fine-tuning complex crossovers, mess around with adjusting the dispersion of the speaker etc.
So I proposed to him a way that would likely get him there with a high chance of success and that while using much of his existing stuff.
Is such a system a compromise? Sure.
If he eventually gets to re-build the system fully active and with a more serious set of subwoofers he can easily re-tune the LF enclosure (tuning upwards simply means to shorten the port). He may indeed want to do this at some point (and you may remember that I did suggest a fully active system as well).
Hm. And these mistakes exactly are? Aiming for a more extended and less overblown bass response than one gets from minimally flat alignments and maximising the Sound Quality for a situation where no analog or digital bass management exists?
What I tell Leo is that he can get good results with his current drivers and how to do it. The best results in absolute terms? Maybe not. I also told him where he can take things at a later date and about the trade-offs involved in my suggestions.
What you are effectively telling him (if by the proxy of attacking my suggestions with quoting supposed authorities) is that unless he builds a 4-Way active system with loads of amplifiers and a digital crossover plus spends ages in testing and setting up the system and all that in custom build room and in 7.1 he is a fool. So I think it is you who is on the "Do it my way or it sucks" trip, if I may say so.
I can see why he be more inclined to walk down the path I offer, can you?
Ciao T
PS, just to be clear, I do not hate america or american people (or even american houses), nor do I AVSF or HTG. Not even surround sound.
IF he didnt want to learn how to build then there are many kits that offer great high sensitivity options from Pi speakers to Zilch's econowaveguide builds. Nothing of what you posted has been remotely easy so you are not taking him down the easy path at all.
I never suggested what you have posted so this is the point where we can just agree to disagree....no more from me because its the OP that matters.
I never suggested what you have posted so this is the point where we can just agree to disagree....no more from me because its the OP that matters.
Last edited:
Yes please, this thread is becoming a little TOO full of non-concerning discussion.
Lets please stay focused.
I will post the answers to the questions you asked Thorsten in a little bit.
As for what I will do, I understand everybodies input and willingness to help and I also understand that you guys are very knowledgeable in the field. But you have to remember that I am not and for the same reason, a system that for you guys sounds 70% right, for me it will be 95% right, because you love to do a million measurements and fine tune the drivers to perfection, I would love to have the time to do that but I can not. I will do my best to learn as much as possible and maybe buy some of the cheap equipment you are pointing out but speakers are not the only hobby I have and not the most important ( even though while I am building them it is awesome 🙂
So, I know that even though the Peaveys are not the perfect speaker for the use I propose, they will still make a pretty decent system because I alwayshave done that, take what most people dont use or find too hard to use and make it work. Normally I do it with cars, computers and some other stuff but speakers is not different.
So far it seems that the 3 way is going to be the way to go. If the proposed way Thorsten is advocating will not damage the speakers in the low range ( and I dont have to be an audio engineer to know that these Peaveys have the build quality and ruggedness to handle some peaks or exceeding the Xmax without blowing up of course all that if it happens very rarely and not all day) then it is ok by me.
Second, the way of extra amplifiers will not be possible now so it will have to be something without them and of course without the Active crossover for now. In the future I can upgrade.
Next, the subwoofer I have will have to do for now and I would like to keep it separate form the mains if possible so that I can turn it off if need be. As I said, the receiver I have now doesnt have a dedicated Sub out but I wll buy a newer Receiver soon and that one will have it ( if it is needed for this? ).
So PLEASE lets all work in trying to achieve this in the best way without attacking each other or writing any Labels or throwing any punches.
I am learning from this and will like to keep learning.
Thank you all.
Leo
Lets please stay focused.
I will post the answers to the questions you asked Thorsten in a little bit.
As for what I will do, I understand everybodies input and willingness to help and I also understand that you guys are very knowledgeable in the field. But you have to remember that I am not and for the same reason, a system that for you guys sounds 70% right, for me it will be 95% right, because you love to do a million measurements and fine tune the drivers to perfection, I would love to have the time to do that but I can not. I will do my best to learn as much as possible and maybe buy some of the cheap equipment you are pointing out but speakers are not the only hobby I have and not the most important ( even though while I am building them it is awesome 🙂
So, I know that even though the Peaveys are not the perfect speaker for the use I propose, they will still make a pretty decent system because I alwayshave done that, take what most people dont use or find too hard to use and make it work. Normally I do it with cars, computers and some other stuff but speakers is not different.
So far it seems that the 3 way is going to be the way to go. If the proposed way Thorsten is advocating will not damage the speakers in the low range ( and I dont have to be an audio engineer to know that these Peaveys have the build quality and ruggedness to handle some peaks or exceeding the Xmax without blowing up of course all that if it happens very rarely and not all day) then it is ok by me.
Second, the way of extra amplifiers will not be possible now so it will have to be something without them and of course without the Active crossover for now. In the future I can upgrade.
Next, the subwoofer I have will have to do for now and I would like to keep it separate form the mains if possible so that I can turn it off if need be. As I said, the receiver I have now doesnt have a dedicated Sub out but I wll buy a newer Receiver soon and that one will have it ( if it is needed for this? ).
So PLEASE lets all work in trying to achieve this in the best way without attacking each other or writing any Labels or throwing any punches.
I am learning from this and will like to keep learning.
Thank you all.
Leo
Ok answering the questions:
The room is on a first floor so the floor is concrete underneath with office grade (short hair thick) carpet.
The walls are drywall with wood frames. The roof is pretty much the same. Actually I loose a lot of vibrations thru the roof because when I have the system going and not even at full power, if you are on the second floor yo can hear everything shaking.
Maybe I have to put some kind of insulation on the roof? Would that help?
And yes Loren 🙂 the room shrunk 😉 the original measurements were just calculations by eye.
Leo
The room is on a first floor so the floor is concrete underneath with office grade (short hair thick) carpet.
The walls are drywall with wood frames. The roof is pretty much the same. Actually I loose a lot of vibrations thru the roof because when I have the system going and not even at full power, if you are on the second floor yo can hear everything shaking.
Maybe I have to put some kind of insulation on the roof? Would that help?
And yes Loren 🙂 the room shrunk 😉 the original measurements were just calculations by eye.
Leo
Hi Leo,
Okay, I will try to do a quick summary of my suggestion, with reasoning.
The Box, as said 150 Liters tuned to 40Hz, dimensions posted earlier. Audax in a larger than average apperiodically vented seperate chamber. When combined with the crossover the speaker will have a -3dB point at around 45Hz and a reasonable bit of power handling down to 35Hz, so bass management is not mandatory.
Now to the crossover.
First, use simple 'textbook' first order crossovers. They have the advantage that they are very forgiving to small errors and work pretty reliably if they are placed in a region where the FR of both drivers extends significantly past the crossover point.
The downside is that power handling is somewhat compromised over steeper crossovers, but the steeper crossover take a lot more work.
On the positive side, some of the best sounding speakers I have encountered used first order crossovers. This included several US designed speakers, including the highly regarded Dunlavy's.
Second, in order to be able to use a first order textbook passive crossover we need to make the impedance of the Midrange across the full bandwidth and of the woofer at higher frequencies as close to resistive as possible.
So both the Peavey and the Audax Driver need each an RC series element across the voice coil. An on-line calculator for these is here:
mh-audio.nl - Calculations
Happily both Peavey and Audax give a spec for the voice coil inductance, at 0.32mH and 0.73mH respectively.
The results are 8.2 Ohm in series with 6.8uF for Peavey and 8.2 Ohm in series with 12uF for the Audax.
At low freqencies the Audax friver will have a substantial impedance peak, we would like to reduce. One option is to add a LCR series circuit, which needs big parts and is expensive, the other option is to do it mechanically, by strongly damping the cavity into which the Audax driver is mounted and by using aperiodic damping (basically damped vents).
Then we use a simple set of components in series with the drivers to create the crossover.
The Peavey driver needs a 3.9mH Inductor. You can tolerate up to 1Ohm DCR for this inductor, make it Aircore.
For the Audax Driver I would suggest a 47uF (Film) Capacitor and 0.15mH (Aircore) Inductors, giving 400Hz & 8KHz as crossover points.
The Fostex FT17H needs a 2.2uF series capacitor.
The woofer likely must be connected in inverted polarity, the other two drivers (Audax & Fostex) go in positive polarity.
The resulting speaker may not have the most flat frequency response in the world, but it should be free from any major problems and give a balanced sound.
Once you got the system set up I suggest keeping initially the crossover outside the box, so you can fine-tune things.
One other recommendation. Finish (surface) the speakers before you get them in position, you will be unlikely to move them later to finish them.
I would suggest you take time to try a tube amp before you buy a new Amp. As little as 30W per channel will go a long way with these speakers.
Anyway, my suggestions and reasoning. Other opinions exist.
Ciao T
Okay, I will try to do a quick summary of my suggestion, with reasoning.
The Box, as said 150 Liters tuned to 40Hz, dimensions posted earlier. Audax in a larger than average apperiodically vented seperate chamber. When combined with the crossover the speaker will have a -3dB point at around 45Hz and a reasonable bit of power handling down to 35Hz, so bass management is not mandatory.
Now to the crossover.
First, use simple 'textbook' first order crossovers. They have the advantage that they are very forgiving to small errors and work pretty reliably if they are placed in a region where the FR of both drivers extends significantly past the crossover point.
The downside is that power handling is somewhat compromised over steeper crossovers, but the steeper crossover take a lot more work.
On the positive side, some of the best sounding speakers I have encountered used first order crossovers. This included several US designed speakers, including the highly regarded Dunlavy's.
Second, in order to be able to use a first order textbook passive crossover we need to make the impedance of the Midrange across the full bandwidth and of the woofer at higher frequencies as close to resistive as possible.
So both the Peavey and the Audax Driver need each an RC series element across the voice coil. An on-line calculator for these is here:
mh-audio.nl - Calculations
Happily both Peavey and Audax give a spec for the voice coil inductance, at 0.32mH and 0.73mH respectively.
The results are 8.2 Ohm in series with 6.8uF for Peavey and 8.2 Ohm in series with 12uF for the Audax.
At low freqencies the Audax friver will have a substantial impedance peak, we would like to reduce. One option is to add a LCR series circuit, which needs big parts and is expensive, the other option is to do it mechanically, by strongly damping the cavity into which the Audax driver is mounted and by using aperiodic damping (basically damped vents).
Then we use a simple set of components in series with the drivers to create the crossover.
The Peavey driver needs a 3.9mH Inductor. You can tolerate up to 1Ohm DCR for this inductor, make it Aircore.
For the Audax Driver I would suggest a 47uF (Film) Capacitor and 0.15mH (Aircore) Inductors, giving 400Hz & 8KHz as crossover points.
The Fostex FT17H needs a 2.2uF series capacitor.
The woofer likely must be connected in inverted polarity, the other two drivers (Audax & Fostex) go in positive polarity.
The resulting speaker may not have the most flat frequency response in the world, but it should be free from any major problems and give a balanced sound.
Once you got the system set up I suggest keeping initially the crossover outside the box, so you can fine-tune things.
One other recommendation. Finish (surface) the speakers before you get them in position, you will be unlikely to move them later to finish them.
I would suggest you take time to try a tube amp before you buy a new Amp. As little as 30W per channel will go a long way with these speakers.
Anyway, my suggestions and reasoning. Other opinions exist.
Ciao T
Hi,
Pretty good. If you can add underlay to the carpet (unless it already has it) it would be better.
No so good, because it means a lot of your Bass will escape.
You need to make the walls and ceiling more solid to contain low frequencies, insulation may absorb some of the bass and help to avoid annoying the neighbours, but it will not contain the bass. But with a solid floor you are already in a 2PI environment, which is what I used as basis for my (arguably quick & dirty) calculations.
Ciao T
Pretty good. If you can add underlay to the carpet (unless it already has it) it would be better.
No so good, because it means a lot of your Bass will escape.
You need to make the walls and ceiling more solid to contain low frequencies, insulation may absorb some of the bass and help to avoid annoying the neighbours, but it will not contain the bass. But with a solid floor you are already in a 2PI environment, which is what I used as basis for my (arguably quick & dirty) calculations.
Ciao T
Ok cool, thanks Thorsten. Now a couple questions, why is it that the Audax will have a crossover point that high? 8KHz so close to the end of his response? Is it better to have the Audax reach that high than the Fostex to reach lower?
Also, why do I see that sometimes like here, the woofers get connected with the polarity reversed?
And last, you said "Finish (surface) the speakers before you get them in position" do you mean the cabinets?
Now, Loren and Doug, if you guys see something that could be improved or you have a question or suggestion regarding this, please chime in. Remember we are going 3 way and passive crossovers for now 🙂
Thanks...
Leo
Also, why do I see that sometimes like here, the woofers get connected with the polarity reversed?
And last, you said "Finish (surface) the speakers before you get them in position" do you mean the cabinets?
Now, Loren and Doug, if you guys see something that could be improved or you have a question or suggestion regarding this, please chime in. Remember we are going 3 way and passive crossovers for now 🙂
Thanks...
Leo
And by the way if you guys want to read on a website in another language (ie German) if you use Google Chrome as a browser, it has a translator built in that is pretty amazing.
You may have known that but just in case 🙂
Leo
You may have known that but just in case 🙂
Leo
Hi,
It sounds better that way.
Yes, it is better. The match of the off axis reponse will be better and the tweeter will not be as stressed at high volume.
But crossover components at these crossover points are quite inexpensive, so you can experiment with a lower crossover.
Crossovers alter the phase response of the drivers. Once you have enough of this phaseshift one driver will be "out of phase" at the crossover point and the result is that drivers do not integrate well. Reversing woofers polarity will restore the correct bahaviour.
Yes.
Ciao T
It sounds better that way.
Yes, it is better. The match of the off axis reponse will be better and the tweeter will not be as stressed at high volume.
But crossover components at these crossover points are quite inexpensive, so you can experiment with a lower crossover.
Crossovers alter the phase response of the drivers. Once you have enough of this phaseshift one driver will be "out of phase" at the crossover point and the result is that drivers do not integrate well. Reversing woofers polarity will restore the correct bahaviour.
Yes.
Ciao T
Thorsten a slight correction on the conversion of the measurements, it should be: 8.23m length 7.62 without the window bay. Then 34 sq/meters and 83 cubic meters.
Leo
Crap! I screwed up the post, I embedded some of my writin into the quote!
I will repost correctly.
Leo
I will repost correctly.
Leo
Thorsten a slight correction on the conversion of the measurements, it should be: 8.23m length 7.62 without the window bay. Then 34 sq/meters and 83 cubic meters.
Also the golden area for the placement of the couch seems to be kinda impossible in my room since there are other things behind, the entrance door, etc. that make that position pretty hard to achieve.
For now I will move it from the ~12 feet that it is in to about 10 to see if it makes any notable difference.
Later with the new speakers I will have to play around until I can find the right spot I guess. Also for now I have a 27" TV so if I go to 18' back, I will not see the TV 🙂
Leo
I don't understand why you are connecting the woofer out of phase for a first order filter, which has minimal phase shift.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Hi,
The combined phaseshift of drivers and crossovers at the acoustic crossover comes to around 140 degrees based on initial sims in winisd. This tells me that most likely we need to invert the woofer.
As you already have nice models for the peavey woofer and test data for the Audax, could you export both as text files, frequency vs. SPL and frequency vs. Impdance? I can then run a few quick sims and finalise that area.
Ciao T
The combined phaseshift of drivers and crossovers at the acoustic crossover comes to around 140 degrees based on initial sims in winisd. This tells me that most likely we need to invert the woofer.
As you already have nice models for the peavey woofer and test data for the Audax, could you export both as text files, frequency vs. SPL and frequency vs. Impdance? I can then run a few quick sims and finalise that area.
Ciao T
Hi,
I though 1' = 30.5cm? Maybe I miscalculated, sorry.
See what you can do. Try playing around a little with your current setup in Mr.Hueneckes software. I find it very good.
Yes, again, start with Mr. Hueneckes software and work from that.
Awshucks.
Go and buy something bigger. For goodness sake man, a 27" TV is not just un-american, it is un-european too.
Try to find a nice Plasma TV, at least 42", to my eyes they still outdo any of the LCD ones and now they are pretty cheap. I prefer a projector myself, but I am of course a hopeless and incorrigble reprobate and curmudgeon. 🙂
You might find a low cost rear projection TV, I owned a Sony model for a good while that had automatic convergence adjustment (a must with rear projection TV's) and still used old cathode Ray tubes. Again, being lil old me, I felt this gave a more natural picture than modern digital alternatives (must be the tubes). Nowadays people are blowing these kind of TV's out for next to nothing, might be worth to look at grabbing one cheap.
Ciao T
I though 1' = 30.5cm? Maybe I miscalculated, sorry.
See what you can do. Try playing around a little with your current setup in Mr.Hueneckes software. I find it very good.
Yes, again, start with Mr. Hueneckes software and work from that.
Awshucks.
Go and buy something bigger. For goodness sake man, a 27" TV is not just un-american, it is un-european too.
Try to find a nice Plasma TV, at least 42", to my eyes they still outdo any of the LCD ones and now they are pretty cheap. I prefer a projector myself, but I am of course a hopeless and incorrigble reprobate and curmudgeon. 🙂
You might find a low cost rear projection TV, I owned a Sony model for a good while that had automatic convergence adjustment (a must with rear projection TV's) and still used old cathode Ray tubes. Again, being lil old me, I felt this gave a more natural picture than modern digital alternatives (must be the tubes). Nowadays people are blowing these kind of TV's out for next to nothing, might be worth to look at grabbing one cheap.
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.