KYW'
My apologies.
Do you have any non-linear distortion data, etc on the drive units that you used? I would be interested to see.
BTW, I also use sealed (Rythmik ServoSub) subwoofer below 35hz to limit the excursion of the XLS dipoles and keep distortion low.
Linesource
2 reasons. A) I'm not that smart. B) SL was kind enough to take the time to research/design one for me 🙂
A common misperception is that I did something radically diffent. I did not. Thats basically a clone of the Orion. The baffle is plexiglass, but the same exact size. The only reason I went with plexiglass was aesthetic. The only reason I could go with plexiglass, is because when I originally designed it, I thought I was going to have to spine mount both drivers due to the WG. So the baffle would just be an obstacle between the front/rear radiation of the drivers and be subject to very little force. You would not want to use such a material if you were mounting the bass driver to it.
The baffle width/shape requires the same eq contouring as the Orion. Thanks SL 😀
Cheers,
AJ
Oh, I can read, but sometimes I read too fast and pass right over things
My apologies.- I will try! Will be there within the next year.
He is very clear why he chose not to use a ribbon. Now the WG is a whole different matter. I refuse to believe that SL is not aware of their benefits. But perhaps he CHOSE to compromise slightly for the sake of simplicity. Building an Orion "enclosure" itself is fairly simple due to the OB design. He may have had this in mind. Perhap he wanted a design that could be built by anyone, including idiots like myself😉 . I can't speak for him, but that is my opinion of why.
Do you have any non-linear distortion data, etc on the drive units that you used? I would be interested to see.
BTW, I also use sealed (Rythmik ServoSub) subwoofer below 35hz to limit the excursion of the XLS dipoles and keep distortion low.
Linesource
2 reasons. A) I'm not that smart. B) SL was kind enough to take the time to research/design one for me 🙂
A common misperception is that I did something radically diffent. I did not. Thats basically a clone of the Orion. The baffle is plexiglass, but the same exact size. The only reason I went with plexiglass was aesthetic. The only reason I could go with plexiglass, is because when I originally designed it, I thought I was going to have to spine mount both drivers due to the WG. So the baffle would just be an obstacle between the front/rear radiation of the drivers and be subject to very little force. You would not want to use such a material if you were mounting the bass driver to it.
The baffle width/shape requires the same eq contouring as the Orion. Thanks SL 😀
Cheers,
AJ
Konnichiwa,
How quaint and antique! Surely direct nerve induction would be vastly superior.
Sayonara
Mr Evil said:
How quaint and antique! Surely direct nerve induction would be vastly superior.
Sayonara
That's only because film soundtracks aren't recorded binaurally. Nor is anything else. Even if it were it would be inadequate, be cause it would have been recorded using a generic HRTF, whereas to approach perfect reproduction it needs to be recorded using your HRTF.simon5 said:
Even if that were possible it would be unnecessarily complex. It would require measuring and reproducing the transfer function of the ear, whereas using earphones that is accomplished automatically by the ear itself.Kuei Yang Wang said:
It amazes me how quickly some threads take off, and how others in which I expect more response, the response is much less. I never can tell!
Thanks to all who have responded. Some very interesting discussion.
Some time ago I emailed Linkwitz about adding a waveguide to the tweeter, and his response was that the polar response in his Orion design was already well matched between the tweeter and mid, and that a waveguide would be a step backwards in that regard. If I understand correctly, the dispersion of his dipoles is fairly wide, however the off axis response is a lot closer to the goal of controlled directivity than conventional speakers with a dome tweeter.
Thanks to all who have responded. Some very interesting discussion.
Some time ago I emailed Linkwitz about adding a waveguide to the tweeter, and his response was that the polar response in his Orion design was already well matched between the tweeter and mid, and that a waveguide would be a step backwards in that regard. If I understand correctly, the dispersion of his dipoles is fairly wide, however the off axis response is a lot closer to the goal of controlled directivity than conventional speakers with a dome tweeter.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
What if your looking to create speakers with a wide sweet spot though? Is narrow dispertion better - NO.
Can a narrow dispertion design be made to have as wide a sweet spot as wide dispertion design? - NO, not without turning it into a wide dispertion design.
Can a narrow dispertion design be made to have less relections that a wide dispertion design - YES but factor in DRC & room treatment and you can have the whole hog for the wide dispertion design.
Narrow dispertion - Fine if you listen to music on your tod or don't both with HT.
😀
Don't think there was ever any evidence of mixing EQ and DRC in my post.
Many use EQ to smooth the response below 200hz, I really don't care what living room your in or how well you designed you speaker you will have problems there!
DRC is enitrely different to EQ from my point of view, EQ is about level's & response, DRC about captured impulse responses and convolution filters or at least that the way I think of it. Use decent FIR phase linear filters for your XO & EQ and its transparent. I'm guessing your using IIR which introduce phase distortions?
Pass a 1khz Sine wave through the speakers I use, its nearly perfect. Sound decay time with treatment and DRC, again very good.
Eitherway what you've got to remember is that you can't push your opinions down peoples throats, it generally leaves a sour taste. Do I have what I consider a reference system, yes, do you, again yes. Yet they are wildely different in execution. Which is more accurate? Well that's very difficult to say with out going into in depth testing but what matters is that we each enjoy the music our systems create. I'm sure we've both got strengths that the other doesn't.
Konnichiwa,
I think you are again largely mistaken. Simply draw out for arguments sake a speaker pair with a 40 degree nominal dispersion and a typhical 60 degrees triangle with speakers toed in by 45 degrees.
Then draw in several listeners to the left & right. You will find that if you draw in isophones the listening area where the left & right channel appeal equally loud is much wider than a wide dispersion speaker pair.
Using wide dispersion speakers invariably "pulls" the image off center.
So, again, regardless if for a single listener or a number of them, controlled and comparably narrow dispersion is a good thing.
The ONLY time where wide and uncontrolled dispersion (eg Omnis) are desirable is for mono reproduction, where the sound source localisation with the single speaker is something to be avoided.
For stereophonic reproduction via speakers wide dispersion is the biggest problem imaginable.
Wrong, in a typhical farfield scenario of speaker reproduced stereo the narrow dispersion design will not have a "sweet spot" as wide as the wide dispersion system, but a MUCH WIDER sweet spot.
Problems only become notable in the nearfield.
First, Room Correction cannot address reflections (claims to the contrary by makers of DRC devices to the contrary nonwithstanding).
Secondly, serious absorbing room treatment invariably makes the room less pleasant to be in outside music listening and few materials exist that absorb all frequencies evenly.
Room treatement is a poor second to actual competent speaker design. DRC cannot solve the fundamental problems.
No, I said you mides EQ/DRC and room treatment.
As said, DRC is actually only a fancy way of saying "EQ" and it tends to include a methode of m easuring in room response.
The 1980's methode of using 1/3rd octave analysers and 1/3rd octave EQ's plus parametrics to even out the response of studio monitors is fundamentally in terms of function not drastically different from modern DRC, except the latter has often better resolution in the frequency domain and operates largely automatic.
Nope, actually you will not believe it, but competent speaker design can almost completely eliminate the room mode issues you refer to. Design the speaker so it minimally excites the room modes if placed in the kind of place where speakers normally are and you do not have the problem. That requires either dipoles or cardiode LF radiators.
You do realise that frequency response and impulse response can be wholly converted into oneanother?
DRC is purely EQ using filters which alter the impluse response and the frequency response according to established principles.
All else is marketing bumpf from people who wish to make their equalisers appear to be something else.
Actually, if you WHERE to use pure FIR filters to correct the frequency response abverations of a speaker driver the result would be not phaselinear, as speakers are MINIMUM PHASE systems, not zero phase systems. In other words, use a IIR filter to correct the FR of a speaker and you correct also the phase, use a FIR filter and you do not correct phase.
I suspect the kind of pre-calculated EQ Filters used in stuff like Sig-Tech and TACt and neither pure FIR or IIR, but any of the companies are very tightlipped. That said, looking at the DSP calculation horesepower on board of these devices, anything much more complex as multiple IIR Filters seems reasonably unlikely.
If you have any hard evidence to the contray I'd like to know.
Where does that leave us?
Fixing problems before they occour (that is in the speaker design) is the much better solution than to attempt to correct it long after the event and is infinitly easier on eye and wallet and provides superior performance to boot....
Sayonara
ShinOBIWAN said:
I think you are again largely mistaken. Simply draw out for arguments sake a speaker pair with a 40 degree nominal dispersion and a typhical 60 degrees triangle with speakers toed in by 45 degrees.
Then draw in several listeners to the left & right. You will find that if you draw in isophones the listening area where the left & right channel appeal equally loud is much wider than a wide dispersion speaker pair.
Using wide dispersion speakers invariably "pulls" the image off center.
So, again, regardless if for a single listener or a number of them, controlled and comparably narrow dispersion is a good thing.
The ONLY time where wide and uncontrolled dispersion (eg Omnis) are desirable is for mono reproduction, where the sound source localisation with the single speaker is something to be avoided.
For stereophonic reproduction via speakers wide dispersion is the biggest problem imaginable.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Wrong, in a typhical farfield scenario of speaker reproduced stereo the narrow dispersion design will not have a "sweet spot" as wide as the wide dispersion system, but a MUCH WIDER sweet spot.
Problems only become notable in the nearfield.
ShinOBIWAN said:
First, Room Correction cannot address reflections (claims to the contrary by makers of DRC devices to the contrary nonwithstanding).
Secondly, serious absorbing room treatment invariably makes the room less pleasant to be in outside music listening and few materials exist that absorb all frequencies evenly.
Room treatement is a poor second to actual competent speaker design. DRC cannot solve the fundamental problems.
ShinOBIWAN said:
No, I said you mides EQ/DRC and room treatment.
As said, DRC is actually only a fancy way of saying "EQ" and it tends to include a methode of m easuring in room response.
The 1980's methode of using 1/3rd octave analysers and 1/3rd octave EQ's plus parametrics to even out the response of studio monitors is fundamentally in terms of function not drastically different from modern DRC, except the latter has often better resolution in the frequency domain and operates largely automatic.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Nope, actually you will not believe it, but competent speaker design can almost completely eliminate the room mode issues you refer to. Design the speaker so it minimally excites the room modes if placed in the kind of place where speakers normally are and you do not have the problem. That requires either dipoles or cardiode LF radiators.
ShinOBIWAN said:
You do realise that frequency response and impulse response can be wholly converted into oneanother?
DRC is purely EQ using filters which alter the impluse response and the frequency response according to established principles.
All else is marketing bumpf from people who wish to make their equalisers appear to be something else.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Actually, if you WHERE to use pure FIR filters to correct the frequency response abverations of a speaker driver the result would be not phaselinear, as speakers are MINIMUM PHASE systems, not zero phase systems. In other words, use a IIR filter to correct the FR of a speaker and you correct also the phase, use a FIR filter and you do not correct phase.
I suspect the kind of pre-calculated EQ Filters used in stuff like Sig-Tech and TACt and neither pure FIR or IIR, but any of the companies are very tightlipped. That said, looking at the DSP calculation horesepower on board of these devices, anything much more complex as multiple IIR Filters seems reasonably unlikely.
If you have any hard evidence to the contray I'd like to know.
Where does that leave us?
Fixing problems before they occour (that is in the speaker design) is the much better solution than to attempt to correct it long after the event and is infinitly easier on eye and wallet and provides superior performance to boot....
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
You missed my point. You changed the whole paradigm, which is nice enough, but not useful whatsoever to the current discussion or to the reproduction of 40 years+ worth of recorded musical history which was recorded for speaker stereophonic reproduction.
Hence my quip about nerve induction....
Sayonara
Mr Evil said:
You missed my point. You changed the whole paradigm, which is nice enough, but not useful whatsoever to the current discussion or to the reproduction of 40 years+ worth of recorded musical history which was recorded for speaker stereophonic reproduction.
Hence my quip about nerve induction....
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
You will be welcome. Drop me a line.
That is possible. But I still feel that it, together with more cardiode than dipole radiation of the midrange panel makes the dispersion by far too wide for best performance.
No, they are rather esotheric fieldcoil designs and sound good at moderate levels. I suspect they do not produce very high SPL with low distortion. But they sound rather good and most of natural, thanks to their papercones.
They are a compromise to please my wife....
Here Speaker and wife....
Sayonara
AJinFLA said:
You will be welcome. Drop me a line.
AJinFLA said:
That is possible. But I still feel that it, together with more cardiode than dipole radiation of the midrange panel makes the dispersion by far too wide for best performance.
AJinFLA said:
No, they are rather esotheric fieldcoil designs and sound good at moderate levels. I suspect they do not produce very high SPL with low distortion. But they sound rather good and most of natural, thanks to their papercones.
They are a compromise to please my wife....
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here Speaker and wife....
Sayonara
Hi Paul,
I was asked something similar in another post, why not just use a waveguide on the Millennium. SL provided the answer. If only it was as simple as can you add this to that. You must understand (hopefully Clc reads this) that each small change affects the entire system. Its a loudspeaker "system". You can't just add this or exchange that without changing the overall picture. I see that type of question repeatedly on these forums. Why not just use this woofer instead or that tweeter,etc.
I used a WG precisely because I did not use a millennium. Apples and oranges.
KYW, your speakers look nice, your wife look's beautiful. No contest there.
Cheers,
AJ
Yes he is absolutely correct (suprise,suprise).
I was asked something similar in another post, why not just use a waveguide on the Millennium. SL provided the answer. If only it was as simple as can you add this to that. You must understand (hopefully Clc reads this) that each small change affects the entire system. Its a loudspeaker "system". You can't just add this or exchange that without changing the overall picture. I see that type of question repeatedly on these forums. Why not just use this woofer instead or that tweeter,etc.
I used a WG precisely because I did not use a millennium. Apples and oranges.
KYW, your speakers look nice, your wife look's beautiful. No contest there.
Cheers,
AJ
Equally loud, come on!
Who are you trying to fool? Consider all cases and not just your perfect distributed loudness throughout the dispertion angle example, fine as it is.
Try sitting anything like a reasonable distance to the speakers and see which has the largest sweet spot.
Ever heard a system where you've moved off axis to find the treble rapidly drops off? I have and its not good for those that aren't in that sweet spot.
To twist it any otherway is a disservice to others on here.
And what if its nearfield your doing?
Where you a politician at some point? Another blantent example of twisting the truth to uphold you almost bible like opinions on audio. It may fool others but not me.
Regardless of how far back you listen, most wide dispersion systems WILL have a larger sweet spot.
And narrow dispertion doesn't and cannot address all reflections. You think that narrow dispertion is better? Controlled directivity still reflects off your walls and still distorts the sound. Is it less than a wide dispersion speaker? That depends on the room and the distance from the speakers.
Just because someone takes that route doesn't mean to say that ther design is compentent any more competant than any other design.
Rubbish. That's like saying don't mix speakers cables for the high and low pass sections because the sound will change!
They are mutually agreable and used correctly DRC can lessen or eliminate the need for physical treatments and vice versa.
I think you should be careful not to mislead people here proper DRC isn't classic EQ, unless you grossly generalise EQ.
You said 'almost', your compentent design is still not perfect so why say I'm wrong, do you often contradict yourself? EQ still brings benefits no? Your competent soltution also has other downfalls compared to the same driver in an enclosure based bass solution, you and I both know what these are - extension @ decent SPL for one.
One is time based the other frequency.
Just use competant driver alignment and then frequency specific delays to get a phase response that respectable. Currently I have +/- 20 degree's using this solution and I've not finished yet.
Again this is possible because of digtal XO. Yet another way to achieve results. Is it wrong? I'm guessing it will be in your book. I'd love to compare systems, I'm sure we'd both be surprised.
I don't use TACT, DEQX or anything else like that. Instead I use a PC based solution using mastering grade filters from Waves, I assure these are pure FIR. Same goes for the EQ. These are the stuff they use to master some of those CD's you listen to on your system.
I've just explained, that I use mastering filters that are 100% FIR, whether TACT et al are different I don't know.
And I say nail a very good design and improve it further with all the tools at your disposal. Just because one uses these doesn't mean his design is weak, quite the contrary. My opinion but I've heard many systems and I'm glad my investment beats them all, its why I do this.
Like I told you before its the end results that really count, for me what I use now sound very good without the treatments add them in and it takes the whole thing a little higher.
There's far more to a speaker than dispertion, distortion, SPL, response, XO design, phase, cabinet design are just a few.
Budget is an entirely different matter, I'm heavily into PC's and have quite a system to start with so all this DRC cost me next to nothing. But I will say that the Waves FIR filters and EQ I'm using cost around $1500 from the manufacturer. I didn't pay that though.
This is one area in audio reproduction where Thorsten is just plain wrong (at least universally). (and there aren't many..) But I think it unlikely that you'll disuade him, especially considering that his idea of room treatment is "quaint" wallpaper and non-shag shag crapet that gives you a rug-burn just looking at it.😱
(additionally, with respect to his room and the location of his speakers vs. his listening position - his preference is in all likelyhood better.. its just that he neglects to represent this with his "thesis" of how speakers should be designed.. routinely.)
In any event..
Anyone who has heard a good biradial horn as freq.s extend higher will, (all else equal), invariably prefer the horn with the wider horizontal dispersion so long as there isn't significant correlation, (where direct sound and reflected sound become largely indistinguishable), with boundries (like side walls).
(additionally, with respect to his room and the location of his speakers vs. his listening position - his preference is in all likelyhood better.. its just that he neglects to represent this with his "thesis" of how speakers should be designed.. routinely.)
In any event..
Anyone who has heard a good biradial horn as freq.s extend higher will, (all else equal), invariably prefer the horn with the wider horizontal dispersion so long as there isn't significant correlation, (where direct sound and reflected sound become largely indistinguishable), with boundries (like side walls).
Konnichiwa,
Are you really that ignorant of basic acoustics? There are many nice charts in the usual sources that illustrate the required difference in time vs. difference in level to get a subjective dispacement of a phantom centered sound source. Sitting notably off center invariably changes the loudness balance for both speakers such that the image moves off center. Using suitable dispersion allows this to actually be largely compensated for.
Excuse me, unless the above loudness balance is present you get no reasonable stereo image.
As mentioned, the pair with suitable controlled dispersion (6db DI rising to 10db). I had many occasions to test that. CD Monitors are standard in studios. CD Monitors have a wider area where imaging is retained reasonably well.
Such systems have too narrow a dispersion. I have not encountered any such systems outside badly designed ESL Panels. I did mention the general parameter outline for dispersion quite clearly.
Then you have to choose speaker systems suited for near field listening or even better, given that you obviously care nothing imaging if you listen nearfield, why not go for headphones?
No twisting the truth, simple, straightforward statements including suitable qualifications.
It should be obvious that nearfield (< 1m Distance to speakers) and far field listening (> 2m Distance to speaker) within acoustically small spaces is a fundamentally different situation and has different requirements.
It seems you define "sweet spot" strictly on the basis of treble response, I define it on the basis of broadly retained imaging and tonality.
You will find that with wide dispersion systems correct imaging is present only in the Apex position, using suitably controlled dispersion systems suitably set up (toed in) a range of positions to the left and right of the apex position retain correct imaging.
Correct. What it does do is to lower the SPL of such reflections and to reduce the early reflections. If sound has been reflected around the room a few times before it reaches the listener the level will be much lower and it fall outside the Haas window.
Let us be quite clear, you are free to listen any way you like, but recordings are usually made in a way that requires far field listening with a certain arrangement of speakers with certain parameters to allow accurate reproduction of these recordings.
Anything will change the sound, my point is that EQ/DRC (which are basically the same) and acoustic room treatment address very different acoiustic issues and should thusly be considered seperatly, not just lumped into "just use DRC and room treatment and any speaker sounds perfect" mishmush.
No, EQ/DRC cannot treat reflections or reverb (the dreaded RT60), room tretment generally cannot treat standing waves or frequency response aberation caused otherwise by the speaker.
They are complementary but one cannot replace the other, both can be largely obsoleted by speaker designs that make acoustic sense.
I am NOT misleading people. DRC IS EQ, in the strict sense of the word. A suitable combination of parametric EQ's can be used to achieve results sufficiently similar that differences are academic.
Nothing is ever perfect, also note, I do not claim my own design s as particular competent. They are designed to achieve certain ends in what I consider the most expedient and pragmatic way. These ends are not always what is the "right thing".
I do not contradict myself, you may note that I usually qualify my statements quite clearly. If you read them without the qualifications they may seem contradictory, equally if do not understand the basics of subject they may seem contradictory, as I assume that people writing authoritively actually know what they write about.
EQ is a tool that can be used to address a number of issues. Where these issues do not exist EQ brings no benefit.
Extension is a design issue. Decent SPL - ask my neigbours.
Yet they convert one into the other freely.
I don't use TACT, DEQX or anything else like that. Instead I use a PC based solution using mastering grade filters from Waves, I assure these are pure FIR. Same goes for the EQ. These are the stuff they use to master some of those CD's you listen to on your system.
You do. I thought you used Waves? Their Filters are not FIR in many of the modules, I have one of the waves bundles installed on my Laptop which I use for occasional DJ'ing, karaoke etc. (I usually use the EQ, Compressor and MaxxBass) . And no, I did not pay retail either.
Sayonara
ShinOBIWAN said:
Are you really that ignorant of basic acoustics? There are many nice charts in the usual sources that illustrate the required difference in time vs. difference in level to get a subjective dispacement of a phantom centered sound source. Sitting notably off center invariably changes the loudness balance for both speakers such that the image moves off center. Using suitable dispersion allows this to actually be largely compensated for.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Excuse me, unless the above loudness balance is present you get no reasonable stereo image.
ShinOBIWAN said:
As mentioned, the pair with suitable controlled dispersion (6db DI rising to 10db). I had many occasions to test that. CD Monitors are standard in studios. CD Monitors have a wider area where imaging is retained reasonably well.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Such systems have too narrow a dispersion. I have not encountered any such systems outside badly designed ESL Panels. I did mention the general parameter outline for dispersion quite clearly.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Then you have to choose speaker systems suited for near field listening or even better, given that you obviously care nothing imaging if you listen nearfield, why not go for headphones?
ShinOBIWAN said:
No twisting the truth, simple, straightforward statements including suitable qualifications.
It should be obvious that nearfield (< 1m Distance to speakers) and far field listening (> 2m Distance to speaker) within acoustically small spaces is a fundamentally different situation and has different requirements.
ShinOBIWAN said:
It seems you define "sweet spot" strictly on the basis of treble response, I define it on the basis of broadly retained imaging and tonality.
You will find that with wide dispersion systems correct imaging is present only in the Apex position, using suitably controlled dispersion systems suitably set up (toed in) a range of positions to the left and right of the apex position retain correct imaging.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Correct. What it does do is to lower the SPL of such reflections and to reduce the early reflections. If sound has been reflected around the room a few times before it reaches the listener the level will be much lower and it fall outside the Haas window.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Let us be quite clear, you are free to listen any way you like, but recordings are usually made in a way that requires far field listening with a certain arrangement of speakers with certain parameters to allow accurate reproduction of these recordings.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Anything will change the sound, my point is that EQ/DRC (which are basically the same) and acoustic room treatment address very different acoiustic issues and should thusly be considered seperatly, not just lumped into "just use DRC and room treatment and any speaker sounds perfect" mishmush.
ShinOBIWAN said:
No, EQ/DRC cannot treat reflections or reverb (the dreaded RT60), room tretment generally cannot treat standing waves or frequency response aberation caused otherwise by the speaker.
They are complementary but one cannot replace the other, both can be largely obsoleted by speaker designs that make acoustic sense.
ShinOBIWAN said:
I am NOT misleading people. DRC IS EQ, in the strict sense of the word. A suitable combination of parametric EQ's can be used to achieve results sufficiently similar that differences are academic.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Nothing is ever perfect, also note, I do not claim my own design s as particular competent. They are designed to achieve certain ends in what I consider the most expedient and pragmatic way. These ends are not always what is the "right thing".
ShinOBIWAN said:
I do not contradict myself, you may note that I usually qualify my statements quite clearly. If you read them without the qualifications they may seem contradictory, equally if do not understand the basics of subject they may seem contradictory, as I assume that people writing authoritively actually know what they write about.
ShinOBIWAN said:
EQ is a tool that can be used to address a number of issues. Where these issues do not exist EQ brings no benefit.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Extension is a design issue. Decent SPL - ask my neigbours.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Yet they convert one into the other freely.
I don't use TACT, DEQX or anything else like that. Instead I use a PC based solution using mastering grade filters from Waves, I assure these are pure FIR. Same goes for the EQ. These are the stuff they use to master some of those CD's you listen to on your system.
ShinOBIWAN said:
You do. I thought you used Waves? Their Filters are not FIR in many of the modules, I have one of the waves bundles installed on my Laptop which I use for occasional DJ'ing, karaoke etc. (I usually use the EQ, Compressor and MaxxBass) . And no, I did not pay retail either.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Well, that is me, the manufacturer of any serious far field studio monitor, the IRT and the vast m ajority of recording engineers, but of course, what would any of the above know about reproducing music.
Sayonara
ScottG said:
Well, that is me, the manufacturer of any serious far field studio monitor, the IRT and the vast m ajority of recording engineers, but of course, what would any of the above know about reproducing music.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Grouping yourself with others is positivly contrarian for you..
😀
Moreover that is quite an advertisement (in that is lacks substantiality) you've given yourself. (see: "glittering generality" & "bandwagon".)
Besides, as you have often represented to others - just because others say-so does not mean that it is so.
Konnichiwa,
But at times neccesary. Just as binaural recordings require a suitable setup for replay and just as these sound singulary unnatural via speakers, so recordings made with replay via loudspeakers in mind are made in certain ways with certain features that mean that correct (or accurate) replay requires certain charateristics of the replay system.
While (in some ways sadly) nowhere near as rigid and strict as movie theater sound these constraints exist.
I repeat, accurate reproduction of the recording or indeed any degree of accuracy or faithfulness to the recording may be the desired outcome, but that should be clear from the outset and a distinct design goal and made clear to the user, rather than being an accident happening while following others.
Anyway, my take. If you want to know what is required to correctlt replay modern (and many old) loudspeaker stereo recordings, read the IRT recommendations for studio and doemstic reproduction of recorded material (not just music).
If these conditions are not substantially met any other meddeling or concern is secondary, IMHO, unless "beautification" oor whatever other alterations to the recording are the goal.
Sayonara
ScottG said:
But at times neccesary. Just as binaural recordings require a suitable setup for replay and just as these sound singulary unnatural via speakers, so recordings made with replay via loudspeakers in mind are made in certain ways with certain features that mean that correct (or accurate) replay requires certain charateristics of the replay system.
While (in some ways sadly) nowhere near as rigid and strict as movie theater sound these constraints exist.
I repeat, accurate reproduction of the recording or indeed any degree of accuracy or faithfulness to the recording may be the desired outcome, but that should be clear from the outset and a distinct design goal and made clear to the user, rather than being an accident happening while following others.
Anyway, my take. If you want to know what is required to correctlt replay modern (and many old) loudspeaker stereo recordings, read the IRT recommendations for studio and doemstic reproduction of recorded material (not just music).
If these conditions are not substantially met any other meddeling or concern is secondary, IMHO, unless "beautification" oor whatever other alterations to the recording are the goal.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
/sigh/ This isn't working, we're both wasting our time.
Clearly your better at karaoke than you are with anything approaching a viable PC based XO over. Otherwise your short sightedness wouldn't blind you from Waves' phase linear range of plugins, rather than the free stuff you use. Play it down all you want, I thought you'd be a bit more of a man than that personally, religion is a funny thing, someone challanges what's considered doctrine and they take it personal, obviously I offended in someway - sorry.
Which leads me on to: Are you going to stop spouting utter rubbish about narrow dispersion is the way to audio nirvana and anyone who takes a different route is wrong? Like with your dome HF dig.
Read that last question back then re-read your posts. You come across as if you are some authority on the subject. Sorry to dissappoint but they are just opinions, just as mine are. If your mind is set into state where you only consider your approach good then fine.
I've got one here for you:
Why do you use that cd spinner, you need lossless, bit perfect, jitter free playback using a PC and a £900 DAC - not your laptop mind, the DAC's are naff for sure but they did you karoake proud. Any other way is wrong!
Not nice is it? The above is what I do but I see nothing wrong with your method nor anyone else's. I'm not asking you to keel over and agree with everyone just keep your mind open.
I've too little time to be embroiled in pointless tit-for-tat ego boosting. Believe it or not I actually do this for fun and not to try to push people down who don't agree with my finding, opinions or anything else.
One thing I really hate its self absorbed and blinkered individuals.
One question:
If there was 20 different paths and there was clearly one that looked the easier route, would you take it and miss out on potentially wonderful experiences on those other roads?[/B][/QUOTE]
AJinFLA said:
I wouldn't classify a ring radiator as a relation to a dome.... more like a vibrating toroid segment
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.