I do not agree.. I own a partial digital setup (CD + DAC) and a non-horn speaker-system (including a CB SUB). I can a sure you that your experience is not exclusive for horn systems.. nor for analog equipment.
Further the detail "grinding of horse's hear against the string" is not limited to the lower frequencies only... also higher harmonics are involved.
Let's agree to disagree. Every January I go to Las Vegas to the annual CES Show to hear the latest and the best (?) and yes, sometimes I get to hear some good (and bad) equipment costing tens and hundreds thousands of dollars. And then I come home and that Edgarhorn inspired system still sounds the best. Personal bias? Maybe.
Very nice.
Thanks.
I bet only the folks who don't need this message (those who believe in testing and objective evaluation) will get my point.
Ben
Yes, there IS room for testing and objective (whatever the hell that means - do my speakers have to please everybody?) evaluation - especially if you work on a commercial project. But on a one-off DIY project - why should I care all that much for objectivity? If the system measures really well but I perceive the sound to be too bright I will roll off that tweeter until I'm happy. Again, in the final analysis, if there is a discrepancy between the measurements and my ears, my ears will prevail.
I agree with you about if the sound is too bright then you should be allowed to make it how you like it. I think that Ben is pointing out how valuable measurement tests are to hobbyists so that we have a REFERENCE point to go off of. The closer to that reference we get our systems, the more things we play on our systems (movies, music, etc.) will end up sounding good without the need for tweaks.
The production houses for movies and studios for music spend a lot of time and money to get their systems tuned as flat as possible to accurately hear how they are mixing our source material so they can get the headroom right. Our jobs on the other end then as I see it is to set up our systems close to theirs to hear what was intended from the mixing engineer.
That's my take anyway. I understand if you want to do it by ear, you can do what you want to. Maybe some day you'll feel like trying out some measurement stuff, (mics are pretty cheap these days) as a DIY'er I gotta say it's pretty fun to see the sound. It makes it way faster to set up a system the way you want it to sound too.
If nothing else, it'll help to even-out room modes.
I use a pair of sealed 12"s in an opposed arrangement. Does the job nicely, but does need a pile of EQ (and power) behind it to get low.
Chris
Very important and often overlooked. But 4 is the number of subs where the stats kick in optimally. Best is heterogeneity in all respects possible. But lies in the face of the anal need for engineering symmetry and neatness.
Ben
BTW according to a research paper I read about using matlab to find the placement with the flattest response in a rectangular room, a sub in the front center and rear center of the room was optimal, of course you could always put a pair center front and a pair center rear but it performed flatter than 1 in each corner! Food for thought.
Right.
Actually, all kinds of placement theories (and correspondingly, theories about automatic room electronic adjustment) not to mention the irregularities of doing measurements (and having the same measurements the next morning). But real rooms and real spouses (and even real weather changes) confound the purity of such theories.
I find the most exotic theory uses speakers in certain positions to obliterate the room standing waves caused by other speakers.
However, sticking with heterogeneity (poorly defined as it is) and a belief in statistical truth will keep you facing in the right direction (and help your investments in the stock market too). In my case, large dipole panel speakers, a famous folded corner horn, and a mid-wall OB (with more overlap among my speakers than my signature below suggests).
Ben
Last edited:
FWIIW, I got the biggest improvement out of my DEQX 2.6 by equalizing the room. The difference between equalized and non-equalized sound was nothing short of striking. The problem with that gizmo was that it's required an expert to operate it properly and I'm a computer neophyte. But once its all set up, it is really good.
My experience with a Behringer manual EQ adjustment also quite favourable.
My problem is with (a) theories which do not (can not?) anticipate the irregularities of rooms and (b) automatic room equalization (the Behringer auto system will give your very different results each time). BTW, yesterday I was checking out a dissertation, yup, on this very topic. Of course, the good (new) doctor thought he found the solution to both using a permanently mid-wall mounted mic array.
Footnote: if you have a system with complex geometry, just try reversing polarity to one driver. Anybody think that one polarity will be better in all and obvious respects than the reverse in a complex layout?
Ben
Last edited:
Frequency Response 30 Hz – 200 Hz
This is what I saw in the specs. That probably means 3dB down at 30. Not too great for a sub channel. I think the wattage is a total lie as well judging by that anemic looking power supply.
If you already have 2 of these, then whatever but if you haven't bought them yet I have a few other suggestions for amps.
This is what I saw in the specs. That probably means 3dB down at 30. Not too great for a sub channel. I think the wattage is a total lie as well judging by that anemic looking power supply.
If you already have 2 of these, then whatever but if you haven't bought them yet I have a few other suggestions for amps.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.