Re: RWTWR Open Baffles!
From my personal experience those ripoles should be toed in 45° or even more (mine are 60° now). This did wonders to attenuate my first longitudinal and lateral room modes.
measurements here
So just preserve the ability to rotate those ripoles and test for yourself.
chops said:
From my personal experience those ripoles should be toed in 45° or even more (mine are 60° now). This did wonders to attenuate my first longitudinal and lateral room modes.
measurements here
So just preserve the ability to rotate those ripoles and test for yourself.
Re: Re: RWTWR Open Baffles!
Thanks for the tip! My OB's are toed in quite a bit already, so that may not be a problem for me. Also, the room moded in my room always seem to favor bass in a good way. It's right around 20-30Hz.
The way my room is laid out, it's 13x17' with an 8' ceiling and pretty much sealed off from the rest of the house except for a 4x8' hallway that's roughly 30' long. That is in the right rear corner of the room, directly in front of my right speaker. I think that hallway acts as some sort of Helmholtz resonator for the room, which in turn results in fairly strong low-end support.
Rudolf said:
Thanks for the tip! My OB's are toed in quite a bit already, so that may not be a problem for me. Also, the room moded in my room always seem to favor bass in a good way. It's right around 20-30Hz.
The way my room is laid out, it's 13x17' with an 8' ceiling and pretty much sealed off from the rest of the house except for a 4x8' hallway that's roughly 30' long. That is in the right rear corner of the room, directly in front of my right speaker. I think that hallway acts as some sort of Helmholtz resonator for the room, which in turn results in fairly strong low-end support.
I'm in Lakeland.
Here's a little something I did today for my system. I bought some clear LED rope from my store and mounted them behind my loudspeakers just for some indirect lighting while just listening to music late at night. I'll get some better shots at night when it's actually dark in the room.
Here's a little something I did today for my system. I bought some clear LED rope from my store and mounted them behind my loudspeakers just for some indirect lighting while just listening to music late at night. I'll get some better shots at night when it's actually dark in the room.
Did you need to turn down the HF EQ?chops said:
Is that an RBX or Soundgear bass? I'm guessing the Ibby, but my monitor is shot.chops said:
Brett said:
What?!
5-string Soundgear SR305DX with RotoSound round-wound strings.
Anyway, I've got a couple updates...
1) I just ordered a Behringer DCX2496 digital xover which I will be using on the front three channels. At the same time, I ordered an AudioSource AMP100 which I will be using to bi-amp the center channel (one channel for the woofer, one channel for the horn).
2) Not that anyone cares (which is apparently quite obvious), I added one more rope light to the bottom of the couch and took a few new night shots.
Chops,
an appeal to reduce or eliminate all those pics that take so long to download and slow down the whole page wherever any of your posts appear.
an appeal to reduce or eliminate all those pics that take so long to download and slow down the whole page wherever any of your posts appear.
Hey chops, he has a point, a little image compression seriously would not hurt ... too much
Your original image was 172kB, the compressed version here is only 49kB
Your original image was 172kB, the compressed version here is only 49kB
It's not just the download, but how busy the host is and how fast it is prepared to upload.
post 143 has 9pics taking up 1.4MB.
Have some thought for those who have an even slower link than me.
post 143 has 9pics taking up 1.4MB.
Have some thought for those who have an even slower link than me.
chops said:
Hate to say it Chops, but that's just wrong.
<rant on> Get yourself a better imaging program, or learn to use what you have. There is no reason the photos you post should be over 70K, max. 45-50K is more in line. The 150K+ images are just a waste of bandwidth, fast connection or not. And not everyone in the world has the luxury of a high speed connection. My father lives in Florida and was only able to get high speed last year. He's been singing the dial-up blues since 1993.
The lack of knowledge in the area of imaging, from otherwise smart people, never ceases to amaze me. But I suppose I have an unfair advantage, as I work in the image biz and still remember 9600 baud modems as "fast".
For windows XP you could get a "Power Toy" from Microsoft that would allow right click image resizing & re-compression. Vista probably has it built in.
Sorry for the rant, but it's one of my pet peeves. <rant off>
I'm well aware of imaging myself, I've been dealing with it for quite a few years as well. I have Photoshop CS3, Lightroom, Neat Image and a couple others. For web hosting, I have Dreamweaver and FrontPage. I no longer host my own site and no matter where I look up my current site on other computers, everything always loads up fast.
Did you ever stop to think that it just might be the forum that's slowing things down?! Nooo... Of course not.
You all can rant and complain all you want, I'm not going to change my ways. Nobody else on other forums complain about the images, and even a few have asked me what I use because the images look great and load faster than most.
This thread is as good as dead anyway since no one ever keeps anything on topic. So, whatever...
Did you ever stop to think that it just might be the forum that's slowing things down?! Nooo... Of course not.
You all can rant and complain all you want, I'm not going to change my ways. Nobody else on other forums complain about the images, and even a few have asked me what I use because the images look great and load faster than most.
This thread is as good as dead anyway since no one ever keeps anything on topic. So, whatever...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.