Large vibrator
The trick with a large motor causing 16 Hz vibrations is the motor would have to spin up and then spin down every time it made a note.
If you could rig a solenoid that would snap a rotating counterweight off balance when the note was required, and then snap it back into a balanced spot when the note stopped, well I think you get the idea.
It would be like a hyper strong tactile transducer.
There is an idea for an inventor/tinkerer.
I want one under my HT seat
Dave
The trick with a large motor causing 16 Hz vibrations is the motor would have to spin up and then spin down every time it made a note.
If you could rig a solenoid that would snap a rotating counterweight off balance when the note was required, and then snap it back into a balanced spot when the note stopped, well I think you get the idea.
It would be like a hyper strong tactile transducer.
There is an idea for an inventor/tinkerer.
I want one under my HT seat
Dave
just another guy,
Earlier discussion was all over the map. YOU and a couple of others were always for the ported enclosure. Some were recommending more woofers - ported or sealed. Some indicated that adding another woofer would increase the sound level. Now the consensus seems to be that a single speaker even in a ported enclosure will likely be inadequate for 16 hz. in our Sanctuary.
Nobody here asked for a budget. We have budgeted $30,000 for the entire project. This particular speaker is just one unit in a very complex mix. I have spent about $245 on the box so far. I had budgeted around $500.
You feel more ported boxes will be needed. Would adding another driver AND porting this box improve the situation at all?
I think I said we disagreed on how easy or difficult adding a port was. I seem to recall you said it was "easier than tripping over my shoelaces".
The space is adequate for eight Allen HC12s and this box, though it will be tight. There probably won't be space for much more.
Only the surrounds on those antique speakers needed replacement (they were originally installed on a $135,000 organ in 1984). It was discovered some years ago that a microbe that flourished in many speaker chambers caused the foam to deteriorate. Modern foam surrounds in organs are now pretreated with an antimicrobial - as were the ones I used. All the cones and other internals are in excellent shape. IMHO, since the repairs were done, they sound excellent.
I believe a review of my previous comments will reveal that I said one or two of the "antiques" would be used to handle upper frequencies of the pedals. They will not be able to - nor will they be expected to - reproduce frequencies below 32 hz. I had hoped that task could be performed by the homemade box.
We had even considered the following commercial products: But the costs were considered too high when compared with how often the organ would need to play below 32 hertz.
Allen Organ MIDI Products - Speakers
Rodgers Classical and Church Organs | SW6 Front Firing Dual Port Compact Subwoofer
SVS PB13-Ultra - 1000 Watt DSP Controlled, 13.5" Ported Subwoofer With Variable Tuning
VTF-3 MK5 HP Subwoofer
Bach On
Earlier discussion was all over the map. YOU and a couple of others were always for the ported enclosure. Some were recommending more woofers - ported or sealed. Some indicated that adding another woofer would increase the sound level. Now the consensus seems to be that a single speaker even in a ported enclosure will likely be inadequate for 16 hz. in our Sanctuary.
Nobody here asked for a budget. We have budgeted $30,000 for the entire project. This particular speaker is just one unit in a very complex mix. I have spent about $245 on the box so far. I had budgeted around $500.
You feel more ported boxes will be needed. Would adding another driver AND porting this box improve the situation at all?
I think I said we disagreed on how easy or difficult adding a port was. I seem to recall you said it was "easier than tripping over my shoelaces".
The space is adequate for eight Allen HC12s and this box, though it will be tight. There probably won't be space for much more.
Only the surrounds on those antique speakers needed replacement (they were originally installed on a $135,000 organ in 1984). It was discovered some years ago that a microbe that flourished in many speaker chambers caused the foam to deteriorate. Modern foam surrounds in organs are now pretreated with an antimicrobial - as were the ones I used. All the cones and other internals are in excellent shape. IMHO, since the repairs were done, they sound excellent.
I believe a review of my previous comments will reveal that I said one or two of the "antiques" would be used to handle upper frequencies of the pedals. They will not be able to - nor will they be expected to - reproduce frequencies below 32 hz. I had hoped that task could be performed by the homemade box.
We had even considered the following commercial products: But the costs were considered too high when compared with how often the organ would need to play below 32 hertz.
Allen Organ MIDI Products - Speakers
Rodgers Classical and Church Organs | SW6 Front Firing Dual Port Compact Subwoofer
SVS PB13-Ultra - 1000 Watt DSP Controlled, 13.5" Ported Subwoofer With Variable Tuning
VTF-3 MK5 HP Subwoofer
Bach On
Last edited:
I know, that's why I was getting frustrated. The people advocating porting the box were showing real data and the ones pushing for sealed and adding more woofers to the sealed box were suggesting really expensive upgrades that would not improve your current situation at all.
This is a really important detail.
I'll give you some recommendations at the end.
Yes, that's what I said and I meant it. With a hole saw and abs pipe this really is very easy. If you are worried about it practice on a piece of scrap first.
I don't know anything about those antique woofer boxes but I'm guessing they are a big waste of space. Modern products will very likely have higher power handling, more excursion capabilities and work in smaller boxes. I'm guessing you could meet or exceed the output of ALL of them with a pair of modern speakers in a lot less volume. And it really makes no sense at all to have 8 big boxes for the higher bass and only 1 box for the 16 hz bass. This is completely backwards.
My recommendation is likely cheaper than any of those commercial units. Probably even the most expensive recommendation if you use value oriented products and materials.
I would not put another woofer in that box. You can if you need to for space considerations, but if you can find the space (and you can if you are serious about this) extra woofers should each have their own box for best results.
Recommendation 1 - just add a port to your existing box and see how it works.
Recommendation 2 - and this is where it starts getting serious - sell the woofer and replace it with one of these - HT18 18″ Subwoofer | Stereo Integrity
I don't like that company but I can't deny that they are the current value leader. This option will cost the same or maybe less than adding another woofer to your box. This might require a bit of redesign, basically just a different port, no problem.
Recommendation 3 - get two of the woofers in the link above and make another ported box. This is still well within your budget if you build the second box with OSB.
Recommendation 4 and 5 - just scaling the previous recommendations - buy 4 or 8 of the woofer linked above and make boxes for all of them. You'll need a bigger amp or more amps to run all that.
As you might have guessed I'm not a fan of your current antique speakers or your current woofer for this job. I didn't realize you had much of a budget or I would have recommended getting rid of that stuff right away. Your current woofer is pretty inadequate, if possible I recommend getting rid of it and building a system with much better stuff that you can build on.
Recommendation 5 is quite a bit past your $500 budget but you can start with #2 and work your way up if the system proves inadequate.
If funding is a problem there are many options. My parents church is looking into federal and provincial grants for tens of thousands of dollars. Not for a sound system but there's money in the strangest places if you look for it.
My parents church is also very active in the community, they make and sell handmade high quality quilts, host a weekly roast beef dinner for $10 or $15 a plate and have frequent yard sales where the patrons bring in their junk and donate it for sale.
It's also not unheard of for the church to come right out and ask for donations of time, money and materials and the wealthier congregants are known to be rather generous on occasion. Seriously, there are probably at least a dozen people that could fund this whole project without putting a dent in their wallet, and even the less wealthy people are often happy to help when asked.
And let's not forget that this type of organ is relatively uncommon and people will pay to see and hear it, not just in a religious context but for the organ and the music itself.
My parents church is in a town with a population of about 200 people and I'm pretty sure I could raise $1500 to $2500 for a church upgrade in about a month. The only problem is that the church doesn't have an organ and probably wouldn't want one, they are very old and it would probably scare the snot out of them.
Last edited:
Bach On, please post your pictures to the forum here rather than linking to another forum. Helps our members and helps to maintain some level of relevance to the thread when inevitably the pictures externally linked go away..As an aside I just found a thread at the end of that link with an administrator warning, and no pictures.
just a guy,
You've given me your opinion with all the bark on it at every step in my quest for assistance that I REQUESTED. And you've convinced me of the correctness of your view on the port.
Your disdain for the Allen HC12s is clear. And you are certainly entitled to your view. But you haven't heard these speakers. I have. We are going to use them. Sometimes you don't have science to use as a tool. Sometimes things get down to a matter of personal taste.
Six of them - in 3 stereo pairs will serve for different sounds coming from six channels off our digital sound module. They work at suitable volume with our 3 Crown amps.
The goal here is to blend the sounds from the speakers with the sounds from the pipes. I don't want people to be able to tell the difference between the pipes and the digitally sampled sounds coming from our sound module. We aren't just trying to make the organ louder, though the addition of some highs and lows will give a fuller and more complex true organ sound. We're also adding some solo stops that will give the organ a little more variety. Adding the very low pipes was simply an afterthought. As I said, I don't think we'll use them more than six or seven times a year. And if we do, they don't have to sound huge.
Using two of the HC12s for one channel of the pedal stops may not seem wise to you. I get that. But 12 of these were used with no sub-woofer for the previous organ. They will do the job we need done. HiFi speakers are usually unsuitable because of the continuous nature of organ sounds. PA speakers have the power handling capability, but distortion numbers are generally higher. But these speakers are a good balance between the two. The newer Allen and Rodgers speakers have higher SPL. They are more efficient by far. But they won't blend as well with our pipes. Too, some of this is driven by cost. We got speakers that are adequate for the job. We can get more extras in the sound engine as a result. And right much cost is involved in preparing our organ console for this addition.
I'm the guy who is going to be playing this thing week after week. And I'm the guy who has a sense of what the people in my congregation will like and appreciate.
Thanks for all your informed counsel.
Bach On
You've given me your opinion with all the bark on it at every step in my quest for assistance that I REQUESTED. And you've convinced me of the correctness of your view on the port.
Your disdain for the Allen HC12s is clear. And you are certainly entitled to your view. But you haven't heard these speakers. I have. We are going to use them. Sometimes you don't have science to use as a tool. Sometimes things get down to a matter of personal taste.
Six of them - in 3 stereo pairs will serve for different sounds coming from six channels off our digital sound module. They work at suitable volume with our 3 Crown amps.
The goal here is to blend the sounds from the speakers with the sounds from the pipes. I don't want people to be able to tell the difference between the pipes and the digitally sampled sounds coming from our sound module. We aren't just trying to make the organ louder, though the addition of some highs and lows will give a fuller and more complex true organ sound. We're also adding some solo stops that will give the organ a little more variety. Adding the very low pipes was simply an afterthought. As I said, I don't think we'll use them more than six or seven times a year. And if we do, they don't have to sound huge.
Using two of the HC12s for one channel of the pedal stops may not seem wise to you. I get that. But 12 of these were used with no sub-woofer for the previous organ. They will do the job we need done. HiFi speakers are usually unsuitable because of the continuous nature of organ sounds. PA speakers have the power handling capability, but distortion numbers are generally higher. But these speakers are a good balance between the two. The newer Allen and Rodgers speakers have higher SPL. They are more efficient by far. But they won't blend as well with our pipes. Too, some of this is driven by cost. We got speakers that are adequate for the job. We can get more extras in the sound engine as a result. And right much cost is involved in preparing our organ console for this addition.
I'm the guy who is going to be playing this thing week after week. And I'm the guy who has a sense of what the people in my congregation will like and appreciate.
Thanks for all your informed counsel.
Bach On
As an aside I just found a thread at the end of that link with an administrator warning, and no pictures.
Yes,sir. Sorry about that. I've since created a link from which I could post them. If there is a way to upload them from my computer, I couldn't seem to locate it.
I'll try to do better.
Bach On
I have no disdain for them, they are just the wrong tool for the job and clearly work against your other goals. If space is limited, you give that space to the lower frequencies, not the higher frequencies. Always. You are going about this completely backwards.
Not sure why you think modern pro woofers have higher distortion than antique organ woofers. I don't have any info on those old drivers but I seriously doubt this is the case.
Speakers are speakers. If they are well designed, played within their limits, have the same dispersion patterns and eq'ed to the same response you shouldn't be able to tell which is which in a blind test. When you turn them up louder the modern pro drivers are going to win though.
Anyway, I'm sure this leaves a bitter taste, you've already spent half the budget on inadequate parts and are very reluctant to change direction now so it's likely pointless to try to convince you otherwise.
So I'll leave you with this thought. You ALWAYS have science to use as a tool. If you don't understand the science all you have to do is ask. It helps to ask the right people too.
Good luck.
Last edited:
They've been used in thousands of organs for millions of hours of music but they're "the wrong tool for the job"?
You're kidding, right?
They do the job. They have a long history of doing the job. There is no reason for them not to continue doing the job when used as the OP intends . . . which, from what I read, makes sense and will work fine . . . the singular exception being the box he originally asked about, which will work a lot better for its intended purpose if ported. These are instrument speakers, not hi fi speakers. They don't produce, or reproduce, the whole organ sound. Each speaker will produce at any given time only a few notes, even if octave coupled within the rank. If cross coupled it will be augmented by either different speakers or wind pipes (or both), none necessarily playing the same note.
There is a "bigger picture", and context, to what is being built that a lot of commenters in this thread (still) seem to be missing . . .
I have a distant recollection of a patent for a speaker with multiple tunings/resonances. Sort of like an organ, eh.
I tend to be disdainful of just buying the usual commercial stuff. Maybe wrong to characterize all electric organ speakers as junk, but when you sell stuff, you have to meet multiple requirements and not all these requirements help an individual application (of which business profit is one and ability to warehouse, wrap, and ship the box is another).
Which brings me to a suggestion (not surprisingly along the lines I've been thinking earlier). You are trying to add ommmph to a band just an octave or so wide. Perhaps using a few enclosures (two or three) with resonances straddling that band. Possibly all driven by the same amp signal.
Leaky boxes likely still your best bet when you get down to the design details. Simply a matter of buying drivers with a ladder of resonances. You already have an 18 Hz driver. The higher resonance drivers can be from the more durable "musical instrument" lines (although these are typically shunned by us HiFi people).
Going this route may result in an instrument which really does sound like a pipe organ.
Pity you can't feasibly make a folded horn go that low. That would get you the volume in one easy step.
Ben
I tend to be disdainful of just buying the usual commercial stuff. Maybe wrong to characterize all electric organ speakers as junk, but when you sell stuff, you have to meet multiple requirements and not all these requirements help an individual application (of which business profit is one and ability to warehouse, wrap, and ship the box is another).
Which brings me to a suggestion (not surprisingly along the lines I've been thinking earlier). You are trying to add ommmph to a band just an octave or so wide. Perhaps using a few enclosures (two or three) with resonances straddling that band. Possibly all driven by the same amp signal.
Leaky boxes likely still your best bet when you get down to the design details. Simply a matter of buying drivers with a ladder of resonances. You already have an 18 Hz driver. The higher resonance drivers can be from the more durable "musical instrument" lines (although these are typically shunned by us HiFi people).
Going this route may result in an instrument which really does sound like a pipe organ.
Pity you can't feasibly make a folded horn go that low. That would get you the volume in one easy step.
Ben
Last edited:
Earing is a complex thing. I'm pretty sure that playing below 30hz with those speakers (the old 12"), you almost ear only distortion. It's not a "bad" thing, since distortion means harmonics, with mean higher frequencies easier to ear, that your brain can analyse and you can feel that you ear 30hz. If that is so, and if you feel happy with that, it ok. Just a guy is only advising you the only real way to hear real low frequencies, instead of harmonics.
Typically, guitar speakers got from a scientific point of view very low capability (in excursion). But this problem reveal itself as a quality since the resultant hamonics are pleasant.
So it depend of what you want. Do you want your speaker to be a effect, or a true speaker ?
I've worked recently on a extrem bass cab, with a very good subwoofer. While doing burn-in, i gived him 20hz sine waves at around 250w. When looking /tweaking the waveform generator level and oscilloscope, i though i got a problem, but moving the head in the direction of the speaker, i realized that cone was moving hard...i just didn't heared it since it was really clean (and due to earing loudness effects...)
If you look at speaker "fs" parameter, of for example PA woofer, or bass speaker, you'll see that their resonnance frequency is often around 60hz...that mean (i generalize) they'll handle frequencies below that hardly. But note that 5 string bass lower tone is around 30hz. But don't forget, that it is only fundamental. Here a 43hz bass tone, at pickup output. Most of the energy is not at fundamental...And a F#0 on a special bass...And finaly, look at earing sensitivity... I let you rework on you perception of sound, and instrument sound reproduction. X-hz pipe organ are not only X-hz tone, it would sound really bad if so. Even with fundamental totally missing, it can sound really good. It have been tested and showed with online mp3 maybe on this forum or on talkbass, i can't remember. There's even processor/effect that let you perceive more bass than your system can really provide using this effect. And with low frequencies, signal is make a lot of reflexion before 1 full period come to you, so reflexion count a lot...
Personnaly, I feel that what adviced just a guy should make your system attain a level that you don't even suspect.
Typically, guitar speakers got from a scientific point of view very low capability (in excursion). But this problem reveal itself as a quality since the resultant hamonics are pleasant.
So it depend of what you want. Do you want your speaker to be a effect, or a true speaker ?
I've worked recently on a extrem bass cab, with a very good subwoofer. While doing burn-in, i gived him 20hz sine waves at around 250w. When looking /tweaking the waveform generator level and oscilloscope, i though i got a problem, but moving the head in the direction of the speaker, i realized that cone was moving hard...i just didn't heared it since it was really clean (and due to earing loudness effects...)
If you look at speaker "fs" parameter, of for example PA woofer, or bass speaker, you'll see that their resonnance frequency is often around 60hz...that mean (i generalize) they'll handle frequencies below that hardly. But note that 5 string bass lower tone is around 30hz. But don't forget, that it is only fundamental. Here a 43hz bass tone, at pickup output. Most of the energy is not at fundamental...And a F#0 on a special bass...And finaly, look at earing sensitivity... I let you rework on you perception of sound, and instrument sound reproduction. X-hz pipe organ are not only X-hz tone, it would sound really bad if so. Even with fundamental totally missing, it can sound really good. It have been tested and showed with online mp3 maybe on this forum or on talkbass, i can't remember. There's even processor/effect that let you perceive more bass than your system can really provide using this effect. And with low frequencies, signal is make a lot of reflexion before 1 full period come to you, so reflexion count a lot...
Personnaly, I feel that what adviced just a guy should make your system attain a level that you don't even suspect.
Attachments
Last edited:
No I'm not kidding. Those speakers were never meant to play anywhere near 16 hz and they are totally at odds with the new goal. I'm sure 50 years ago or whenever they were new they were probably state of the art and went as low as any speaker of the time could be reasonably tuned to go.
BUT the new goal is 16 hz. He's got 8 (IIRC) really big boxes with a combined total volume MUCH larger than the real subwoofer and all they do is higher frequencies. The actual subwoofer is asked to dig down to 16 hz and it's capable of playing upwards to 120, in fact it could probably go right up to the point that the cone starts breaking up, probably a few hundred hz.
So what is the point of all those huge antique boxes? They can't go loud, they can't (and don't need to) go low and they are huge. Space is at a premium.
Read what I actually posted. These were a great option decades ago for a system that didn't need to get down to 16 hz. They are not a great solution for playing only midbass and up in a system that has limited space to work with.
Giving the midbass several times more space and drivers than the low bass is backwards. Read post #1. The sub plays from 16 hz to 177 hz. Those huge antique speakers, all 8 of them are only being used for midbass. And combined they are several times larger than the subwoofer. This system is never going to work as intended, and this is what you get when you have people that have no idea what they are doing acting as acoustic engineers.
I've had my eye firmly on the "bigger picture" from the beginning. It started out answering a very specific question but it has evolved into a system issue, and the system is using the wrong parts and it's completely lopsided, the available space is being plugged up by a monster sized antique midbass system and the subwoofer (where all the space and money should be devoted) is a sad little single 15 with very low xmax by today's standards.
Last edited:
Really? Still on sealed boxes? He can't hear the box at full tilt unless he's standing in front of it and puts his hand on it. Are you proposing this is the new spot for the congregation, all huddled around the subwoofer with their hands on it? Maybe the preacher can stand on it and deliver the sermon from there. Seriously, please back up your recommendation with some form of science or physics that can show how this box that CLEARLY is not working is going to magically start working when you add a small leak and some stuffing to it.
I can easily design and make plans for a horn that will go down to 16 hz or much lower. This is easy stuff for those who know what they are doing. The problem is space. The other problem, judging by the look of OP's box and his rating of the difficulty level of adding a port to the box, is he's not going to be able to make a horn.
This stuff has all been addressed already, this is devolving the conversation unless you bring some proof that your ideas have any chance of actually working to satisfy the goals. Your last recommendation was going to cost $1000 or so and wasn't going to be any louder than what OP already has at 16 hz, mainly because it WAS what he already had but with a small leak and some stuffing added to the current box which isn't going to do anything but change the box q.
Last edited:
If the 32" "Subbass" register C - G (32 pedal keys) are to be reproduced by the subwoofer, it must cover the 16.346 Hz to 98 Hz frequency range.
You're STILL not "getting it" . . . "those speakers" are not and never were (in this application) intended to cover the 16-32 Hz. octave. They will be used for 16' and 8' stops, and maybe the upper octave of the 32' stop (and that probably only if it's coupled). They are, in concept and effect, different sets of pipes. The box which you and others persist in calling a "subwoofer" is the 32' rank. It sounds only when that stop is selected, and only the pipes in that rank.
I'm getting it just fine. Those boxes are only playing 180 hz and up, as per the description of the crossover setting in the first post. YES they are capable of doing that job just fine.
The problem is that a couple of modern drivers could do the SAME job in 1/10 of the space.
The other problem is that the set of midrange boxes are at least 5x larger than the sub. Subwoofers are supposed to be at least 4x larger than the midbasses, not the other way around.
Do you get it? This is not proper engineering in any sense of the word.
If you would take a few seconds to read what I actually posted, I never said these midrange boxes were supposed to play 16 hz, I would never say that, it's so obvious it's ludicrous to even suggest I meant anything like that. You even quoted me saying they can't do it and I never suggested they should be able to do it.
The only reason I even mentioned that they were never intended to do 16 hz is to point out that these boxes were never intended to be used in a system like the OP wants to build. They are not the right tool for the job. They can't do the low notes and they are not the right tool for the high notes either. YES they can do the high notes, but those boxes are way too big when space is at a premium and they intrude on space that the subwoofer should have. They were designed to do 32 hz and this system doesn't need 32 hz tuned boxes if the crossover point is 180 hz. It's a waste of space and there are much better drivers for this job.
The problem is that a couple of modern drivers could do the SAME job in 1/10 of the space.
The other problem is that the set of midrange boxes are at least 5x larger than the sub. Subwoofers are supposed to be at least 4x larger than the midbasses, not the other way around.
Do you get it? This is not proper engineering in any sense of the word.
If you would take a few seconds to read what I actually posted, I never said these midrange boxes were supposed to play 16 hz, I would never say that, it's so obvious it's ludicrous to even suggest I meant anything like that. You even quoted me saying they can't do it and I never suggested they should be able to do it.
The only reason I even mentioned that they were never intended to do 16 hz is to point out that these boxes were never intended to be used in a system like the OP wants to build. They are not the right tool for the job. They can't do the low notes and they are not the right tool for the high notes either. YES they can do the high notes, but those boxes are way too big when space is at a premium and they intrude on space that the subwoofer should have. They were designed to do 32 hz and this system doesn't need 32 hz tuned boxes if the crossover point is 180 hz. It's a waste of space and there are much better drivers for this job.
Last edited:
Yes, and quite a lot higher, since higher harmonics of those pipes will also be coming from that box . . . harmonics, "chiff" or wind noise included in the sample, etc.
Last edited:
Which would be great if pipes produced sine waves, which fortunately, isn't the case.
Regardless, I wouldn't get too emotionally invested in this. The OP seems attached to the speakers and probably won't replace them, as evidenced by several sternly worded posts about how satisfactory they are, so we should probably leave those be.
Would 8 SH-46 and 8 DTS-10s and a stack of Lab Gruppens be superior? Absolutely, with 100% certainty, vastly superior. Would it be closer to being able to cope with the output power and realism of a full rank pipe organ? Again, 100% certainty, yes. Is the OP going to make an order? Probably not.
The only logical suggestion based on the constraints that were rigidly set up over the course of several pages, indicates the only suggestion that's going to be entertained is a minor modification of the subwoofer, of which the simplest is tuning it lower, using a port, or a very slim chance of upgrading the driver as well, which a great driver at a great price has already been suggested, which can't really be reasonably argued against.
There's your 16 hz playback, at the same quantity and quality that's been expressed is sufficient / desired.
At this point this thread is such a mess of garbage, terrible recommendations, almost no acoustic science presented except for a couple of people, people not actually reading or understanding what has been posted I don't blame OP for being utterly confused.
My new recommendation is to delete this entire abomination of a thread and pay Sine143 whatever it takes to design and install a proper system. He knows what he's doing, he's familiar with prosound applications and equipment, he's local and from what I've seen he charges reasonable prices.
There's no way a beginner that doesn't understand these concepts can wade through this muck and figure out what's going on.
Pick one person that knows what they are doing and take their recommendations. Opening the discussion up to a bunch of people that don't understand pro sound and want to approach this from a audiophile perspective is only going to cost you a lot of money (audiophiles generally don't understand the science either). And clearly a lot of these people aren't even interested enough to read what has been posted, some don't seem to understand the physics involved at all.
My new recommendation is to delete this entire abomination of a thread and pay Sine143 whatever it takes to design and install a proper system. He knows what he's doing, he's familiar with prosound applications and equipment, he's local and from what I've seen he charges reasonable prices.
There's no way a beginner that doesn't understand these concepts can wade through this muck and figure out what's going on.
Pick one person that knows what they are doing and take their recommendations. Opening the discussion up to a bunch of people that don't understand pro sound and want to approach this from a audiophile perspective is only going to cost you a lot of money (audiophiles generally don't understand the science either). And clearly a lot of these people aren't even interested enough to read what has been posted, some don't seem to understand the physics involved at all.
Last edited:
Him? Me? Him Him? Me? Him? Me Me?
I mean, who, specifically is giving garbage advice? I've tried really hard not to go too far out of scope, except for a couple of tongue-in-cheek comments about things like induction motors and purposely exaggerated equipment examples, but please, if the opinion is that terrible advice has been given, please finger it - especially if it's anything I've said. Admittedly, I don't know a lot about the electronics associated with organs, but if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that if I was in the OP's position, I'd have absolutely no problem learning what's doing what in about 60 seconds, and then choosing what to purchase (or modify), based on measurements, which have not been provided - or even entertained as a possibility.
So far, I've happily played along with the speculation game (even humourously), and even entertained ad-hominem discussion about my own system, so feel sure that the the 80% fluff that comprises this thread is the direct result of what happens when there's 20 cooks in the kitchen, and nobody has an ingredients list, or knows what we're cooking.
This is starting to feel very confrontational on a few different fronts.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.