What happened to diyaudio?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#221
Cm'on Tom, the response was directed at a wide swath of the membership, not just you. And I liked your post a lot! You can't let one comment intimidate you. You have to be a bit tougher than that! 😀

I agree it's OK to make something that "sounds good to you " Yes, many here want to advance the state of the art, but others just want to enjoy some good music before they die.. 😱


ptwining said:
So, please accept my apologies for posting, and even after all this time I don't think I'll do it again.

G'nite and thanks.

Tom

[edit] I'm kinda bummed you chowed on me. I meant no harm and hurt no-one. No matter what you felt I didn't deserve such a mean-spirited response.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#222
Theo404 said:
When you use these words, what are you referring to? Phase response, group delay? Time alignment?
Click to expand...

To the musical sound as a space-time sequence.

Theo404 said:
You say that 'people' ignore the time domain when designing loudspeakers, have you used a piece of measurement software? I have yet to come across one that doesn't measure impulse response and derive frequency from that...
Click to expand...

I think so. I am not the designer. If you read the previous posts you will find answers. Anyway there is not great interest in deriving the frequency response.
 
Last edited:
#223
panomaniac said:
Teflon, you say all that and then I see a join date of July 2009. 😕
Is the date wrong, or has this place gone down hill that fast?

And if you don't like things like enabl, don't use them. The inventor has given away the info for free right here on the forum. So I don't see how profit has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Teflon appears to be a troll or a sock-puppet.. or a troll-sock-puppet
 
#224
Key said:
Well there are certain limitations with any stereophonic playback system no matter how "pure" you make the chain. Reflections from the back of the hall will appear in the front or at best at the sides of the soundstage and I believe there is an absence of proper cues to fool the listener.
Click to expand...

Yes and you have to make it the most congruent possible. There is nothing to fool.....
 
#228
45 said:
To the musical sound as a space-time sequence.



I think so. I am not the designer. If you read the previous posts you will find answers. Anyway there is not great interest in deriving the frequency response.
Click to expand...


I've read the whole damn thread! 😕 You use lots of words to say nothing....

"I think so" - You think so about what exactly? You think you have used some measuring software?

Yes and you have to make it the most congruent possible. There is nothing to fool.....
Click to expand...

There you go again...
 
#229
Theo404 said:
I've read the whole damn thread! 😕 You use lots of words to say nothing....

"I think so" - You think so about what exactly? You think you have used some measuring software?
Click to expand...

I think so = yes. But not me, I have bought the speakers. I don't have so much time so I don't waste it on something that works!
Do you spend your time measuring or listening?

Theo404 said:
There you go again...
Click to expand...

There you go again what? Some words have precise meaning. So if they cause some disturb or doubt have a look at the dictionary!
 
Last edited:
#233
45 said:
Yes and you have to make it the most congruent possible. There is nothing to fool.....
Click to expand...

Do you have to? Really? You just made a prerequisite for a realistic playback system to be the MOST accurate playback that is theoretically possible on the planet. Is that an accessible solution to home and studio sound reproduction?

I think all you need to do is avoid distracting incorrect cues and supply a few elementary correct cues. You can get to a certain point where you are only chasing abstract concepts and benchmarks which have little to no direct effect on the end sound imo. If we were to make a standard in which everyone of these measurable deficiencies and there solution is a requirement for accurate playback. Then we are only making accurate sound reproduction less accessible for the sake of blind perfectionism.
 
#239
Key said:
I think all you need to do is avoid distracting incorrect cues and supply a few elementary correct cues. You can get to a certain point where you are only chasing abstract concepts and benchmarks which have little to no direct effect on the end sound imo. If we were to make a standard in which everyone of these measurable deficiencies and there solution is a requirement for accurate playback. Then we are only making accurate sound reproduction less accessible for the sake of blind perfectionism.
Click to expand...

I think I have tried. Maybe I am not so good. Anyway, from the pictures you can see a lot. Also you may want to experiment something. You can do it with any speaker and in any room. Just to see what happens....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom