it isn't remarkably better , but it is better
Dolby A is horrible it breadths like Dragon in every song, Dolby B and C never ment for R2R and but u can use it.Dolby C on 15IPS is amazing.
HiSpeed cassette is better than 71/2 ips
You cannot carry R2R and it is expensive , if you can afford go for it , I own a Tascam 32 and 15IPS sounds best in Analog world but it is expensive
New productiom RTM911 tape are pricey
Dolby A is horrible it breadths like Dragon in every song, Dolby B and C never ment for R2R and but u can use it.Dolby C on 15IPS is amazing.
HiSpeed cassette is better than 71/2 ips
You cannot carry R2R and it is expensive , if you can afford go for it , I own a Tascam 32 and 15IPS sounds best in Analog world but it is expensive
New productiom RTM911 tape are pricey
My ears say recording in Dolby C and playing back without sounds best (when not using the deck the recording was made on).
I ditched tape for Minidisc in the early 90's though...
ATRAC was actaully good at the time.
I ditched tape for Minidisc in the early 90's though...
ATRAC was actaully good at the time.
VHS HiFi is awesome and blows away reel to reel and is better than CD or PCM.
It is purely analog with 2MHz bandwidth afforded by helical scan head and super wide tape. So better than vinyl or most digital except maybe DSD.
There are some beater VHS HiFi decks that can be bought used for less than $60 that sound great.
It is purely analog with 2MHz bandwidth afforded by helical scan head and super wide tape. So better than vinyl or most digital except maybe DSD.
There are some beater VHS HiFi decks that can be bought used for less than $60 that sound great.
Nice to know about the hi-fi track being analog (but isn't PWM analog by the same extension?)
60$ is too much IMHO.
I wouldn't pay more than 15$... Ideally, you find it by the curb on garbage day 😀
60$ is too much IMHO.
I wouldn't pay more than 15$... Ideally, you find it by the curb on garbage day 😀
Probably i will get one , VHS tape are far cheaper than R2R tape,
I am not complaining , I love my new toy aka Tascam 32
I am not complaining , I love my new toy aka Tascam 32
Hi X ,please can you tell more about the test setup?
Is this an indoor or an outdoor measurement?
What is the distance between speaker and microphone?
At what high?
Thanks in advance!
thimios.
Hi Thimios,
My measurements are always made on a stand (a 32in high stool) about 40in away from back wall in my lab. The mic is on stand 0.5m away. The back wall has some sound absorbing foam and pillows etc. the lab is full of old inactive speaker cabinets piled high on the corner walls and back. These sort of act to absorb sound. It’s not an ideal anechoic chamber of course so the bass measurements are room dependent but I have set it up so that bass from 40Hz and above is similar to an open air 4pi measurement that I have made outdoors on a ladder. I always use the same spot and height above floor is about 40in to 45in.
Here is photo of lab so you get the feel of the space.
Here is a closer up view of the speaker or device under test (DUT) on the stand where it is measured. You can see the test stand a bit closer here:
The microphone is on the tweeter axis 0.5m away.
Equipment is usually UMIK-1 microphone calibrated by Cross Spectrum Labs. DAC is usually a Focusrite or Khadas TB-1. I use a PC laptop with REW software. For impedance sweeps I use a DATS. Amp is normally LSA Warp-1 Class D. Preamp is usually LSA HyperDrive-2. Absolute SPL measured using basic SPL meter.
I have found that my in room measurements of bass extension translate well to other listening spaces. If people have room boundary enhancement, bass will be greater.
This thread shows some more details of the types of measurements I make to go about designing a XO.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...using-ptt6-5-and-rs28f-in-a-waveguide.354778/
If you don’t have a time synchronized microphone, you have to use the acoustic interferometer technique to determine the acoustic offset in the XO simulator. Once you have that, you can basically predict the XO close to 100% before even building it physically.
Here is an example of acoustic interferometry method. Measure tweeter, woofer, and tweeter + woofer raw response without physically touching speaker or microphone. Then simulate the combined tweeter + woofer from the separate raw files. Adjust the acoustic offset little by little until you get a perfect match. Then you know that the simulator will predict your XO correctly. The yellow trace is the measured combined and the blue trace is the predicted combined. Notice how they overlap almost perfectly.
My measurements are always made on a stand (a 32in high stool) about 40in away from back wall in my lab. The mic is on stand 0.5m away. The back wall has some sound absorbing foam and pillows etc. the lab is full of old inactive speaker cabinets piled high on the corner walls and back. These sort of act to absorb sound. It’s not an ideal anechoic chamber of course so the bass measurements are room dependent but I have set it up so that bass from 40Hz and above is similar to an open air 4pi measurement that I have made outdoors on a ladder. I always use the same spot and height above floor is about 40in to 45in.
Here is photo of lab so you get the feel of the space.
Here is a closer up view of the speaker or device under test (DUT) on the stand where it is measured. You can see the test stand a bit closer here:
The microphone is on the tweeter axis 0.5m away.
Equipment is usually UMIK-1 microphone calibrated by Cross Spectrum Labs. DAC is usually a Focusrite or Khadas TB-1. I use a PC laptop with REW software. For impedance sweeps I use a DATS. Amp is normally LSA Warp-1 Class D. Preamp is usually LSA HyperDrive-2. Absolute SPL measured using basic SPL meter.
I have found that my in room measurements of bass extension translate well to other listening spaces. If people have room boundary enhancement, bass will be greater.
This thread shows some more details of the types of measurements I make to go about designing a XO.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...using-ptt6-5-and-rs28f-in-a-waveguide.354778/
If you don’t have a time synchronized microphone, you have to use the acoustic interferometer technique to determine the acoustic offset in the XO simulator. Once you have that, you can basically predict the XO close to 100% before even building it physically.
Here is an example of acoustic interferometry method. Measure tweeter, woofer, and tweeter + woofer raw response without physically touching speaker or microphone. Then simulate the combined tweeter + woofer from the separate raw files. Adjust the acoustic offset little by little until you get a perfect match. Then you know that the simulator will predict your XO correctly. The yellow trace is the measured combined and the blue trace is the predicted combined. Notice how they overlap almost perfectly.
Last edited:
I agree. I had one wayyyyyyyy back in the early 80's right after the technology was released - at least to consumer grade products. Compared to everything I had listened to, up to that point was inferior. I was a budding audio enthusiast at the time and thought it sounded great. Sadly, I lost in it my divorce. I than upgraded to a Sony portable DAT recorder/player. Now that sound was truly awesome. 🙂
Hi X,
It will indeed sound better as their is no HF ringing unlike PCM and in DSD it is too smoothed out due to 1bit Resolution.
PCM is still better than DSD in that regard , but sounds Digital where DSD sounds like Analog but HF is compromised.
Best is full analog recording
It will indeed sound better as their is no HF ringing unlike PCM and in DSD it is too smoothed out due to 1bit Resolution.
PCM is still better than DSD in that regard , but sounds Digital where DSD sounds like Analog but HF is compromised.
Best is full analog recording
F5 boards with 2SK1530 / 2SJ201 swapped in for the IRF9240 / IRFP240 and mounted to my spare heatsinks. I may test these out with my outboard power supply tomorrow. 😎
Attachments
Last edited:
The other day, Vunce said he has a nice set of W8-2314 coaxial drivers looking for a cabinet and a crossover. I had a hunch they would fit the TL made for the RS225-8 and looked at the data sheets. The Qts and Vas are close match, and furthermore, the cutout dia and bezel dia are a perfect (drop in) match. Even the screw holes lined up! The measured Qts was closer to 0.38 and not 0.31 so even better. Anyhow, I suspected it would sound great so Vunce dropped them into his XPS foam TL. They sounded great - amazing bass and very smooth.
Anyhow, Vunce will send me the drivers and I’ll do a complete measurement and develop a crossover for them (No 10F). Hopefully we can come up with a time aligned, quasi transient perfect point source speaker with nice deep bass.
This will be a new public DIY project for all to use. The plans for the TL are already out there and simply delete the full range tweeter. Or you can drop this into your existing 10F/RS225 TL project and enjoy another type of speaker.
Btw, hope everyone has a good Mother’s Day celebration with their moms.
Anyhow, Vunce will send me the drivers and I’ll do a complete measurement and develop a crossover for them (No 10F). Hopefully we can come up with a time aligned, quasi transient perfect point source speaker with nice deep bass.
This will be a new public DIY project for all to use. The plans for the TL are already out there and simply delete the full range tweeter. Or you can drop this into your existing 10F/RS225 TL project and enjoy another type of speaker.
Btw, hope everyone has a good Mother’s Day celebration with their moms.
Interesting series crossover. I have never designed a series crossover before. The tweeter goes through the woofer to get to ground.
Yeah, I have been playing with series XO when the drivers are suited for them.
Fun to wire up too.
that XO has a gentle -5dB slope.
Fun to wire up too.
that XO has a gentle -5dB slope.
Thank you for this detailed answer.Hi Thimios,
My measurements are always made on a stand (a 32in high stool) about 40in away from back wall in my lab. The mic is on stand 0.5m away. The back wall has some sound absorbing foam and pillows etc. the lab is full of old inactive speaker cabinets piled high on the corner walls and back. These sort of act to absorb sound. It’s not an ideal anechoic chamber of course so the bass measurements are room dependent but I have set it up so that bass from 40Hz and above is similar to an open air 4pi measurement that I have made outdoors on a ladder. I always use the same spot and height above floor is about 40in to 45in.
Here is photo of lab so you get the feel of the space.
View attachment 1170800
Here is a closer up view of the speaker or device under test (DUT) on the stand where it is measured. You can see the test stand a bit closer here:
View attachment 1170801
The microphone is on the tweeter axis 0.5m away.
Equipment is usually UMIK-1 microphone calibrated by Cross Spectrum Labs. DAC is usually a Focusrite or Khadas TB-1. I use a PC laptop with REW software. For impedance sweeps I use a DATS. Amp is normally LSA Warp-1 Class D. Preamp is usually LSA HyperDrive-2. Absolute SPL measured using basic SPL meter.
I have found that my in room measurements of bass extension translate well to other listening spaces. If people have room boundary enhancement, bass will be greater.
This thread shows some more details of the types of measurements I make to go about designing a XO.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...using-ptt6-5-and-rs28f-in-a-waveguide.354778/
If you don’t have a time synchronized microphone, you have to use the acoustic interferometer technique to determine the acoustic offset in the XO simulator. Once you have that, you can basically predict the XO close to 100% before even building it physically.
Here is an example of acoustic interferometry method. Measure tweeter, woofer, and tweeter + woofer raw response without physically touching speaker or microphone. Then simulate the combined tweeter + woofer from the separate raw files. Adjust the acoustic offset little by little until you get a perfect match. Then you know that the simulator will predict your XO correctly. The yellow trace is the measured combined and the blue trace is the predicted combined. Notice how they overlap almost perfectly.
You are very helpful!
I will come back for more help in the future!😉
On the bench tonight is TB W8-2314 coaxial being measured for a new crossover. This is a development for Vunce but is going to be an open DIY project for others to try (if you can get your hands one this driver).
Still listening and tweaking. So far it’s sounding really promising. XO has only 6 components and looks like it will be a passive Harsch at about 4kHz. Step response looks very close to a right triangle.
Still listening and tweaking. So far it’s sounding really promising. XO has only 6 components and looks like it will be a passive Harsch at about 4kHz. Step response looks very close to a right triangle.