Definitions and descriptions
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | In "audiophile class 101" it was suggested that there be a thread started that would provide help to those who are confused and intimidated by the jargon of audio. Well, here it is. This will be the thread for everyone who wants to ask a question of our panel of esteemed (and sometimes just steamed) authorities on the subject. You can ask "What does 'bright' mean in a speaker?" or "The guy at the store told me something was 'tight', wazzatmean?". Don't ask (on this thread at least) "What makes a speaker bright?" or "What did the guy at the store mean when he said I was tight?" Those are questions that will take far more explanation than this thread will want to answer. And you may not like the answer to the second question anyway. Keep it simple. I would suggest, when possible, you just type in the word you want a defined. ONE WORD AT A TIME! That way everybody can get an answer. We are not going to give an A to Z encyclopedia of audio. Any more than one word on a post and you will not get answered. And don't try to defeat this by putting twenty posts in a row. We're trying to be smarter than you so don't try to be smarter than us! When you've read your answer you can ask another question. Fair enough? Let's give this a try and see what happens. Who's first? |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 840 Registered: Dec-03 | "soundstage" |
|
Bronze Member Username: OknessadPost Number: 62 Registered: May-04 | Who is giving the anwsers? Can anyone answer? If so, i'll go for the first one... I feel like I could describe soundstage as the virtual "stage" of instruments you hear between your speakers. this is the sensation of some instruments coming right from the center while others are off to the side. Proper placement of speakers generally has alot to do with soundstage. If anyone wants to add obviously feel free to do so. My word is transient as in, a musical transient. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Soundstage is a reference to the apparent position of acoustic images in space that (hopefully) represent the locations of the various instruments on the stage when the performance was recorded. It is an enlargement of the concept of imaging in a system. You should be able to say this instrument occupies this space and that instrument is over there. In total all the images together become the soundstage. In a stereo system you can have a soundstage with width and depth but little heighth information. Still the "soundstage" should give a feeling of life sized performers in front of you, not a voice or instrument that is only as big as your speakers. In a modern stereo recording of a classical orchestra the soundstage is (again hopefully) what you would expect to see as you looked at the orchestra playing on a stage. The violins are to the left side of your percieved stage (what is actually stage right), the basses to the right (stage left). Both are in the front of the stage. The percussion is to the left and to the rear, the French Horns are at the back on the right. Chiors are typically set up behind the orchestra. Stage set up changes with certain pieces of music (check out Bernard Hermann's scores for "Psycho" and other films) but this is the traditional set up for Western classical orchestras. In a modern, mutitrack recording of Pop, Rock, country, jazz, etc. the performers may not have been in the same room when they were performing (possibly not even in the same country, try The Beatles "Let it Be") and certain tracks will be overlayed onto the mix at a later date. In this case the soundstage you percieve is entirely the manipulative skills of the producer/engineer to put together what appears to be a plausible recreation of what might have happened (try Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms"). On a recording such as "Dark Side of the Moon" the stereo version relies on phase sifting and panning to create images that appear disconnected and outside the percieved soundstage. On the multi channel version the producers have used the ability of a discrete five channel system to place the main portion of the soundstage in front of you but to also totally immerse you in the overall soundstage. In general, the better the system the wider, deeper and more defined the soundstage becomes so that sounds do not "stick" to the front of the speakers. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 276 Registered: Dec-03 | oknessaD, Transient response is the ability of a speaker to respond to any sudden change in the signal without blurring(smearing) the sound. A speaker that can react quickly to rapid changes has good transient response. |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 843 Registered: Dec-03 | "sibilance" |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 277 Registered: Dec-03 | Berny, The distortion of sibilants(high frequency sounds) by recording and playback systems incapable of handling the high frequencies present in such sounds. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 90 Registered: Dec-03 | Perhaps I'm wrong but my understanding of "soundstage" is the apparent width and depth of the sound field, like you've said, as it attempts to recreate an imaginary stage the performers are on. This is different than "imaging" which is the placement of the performers inside the soundstage. Some speakers miniaturize, or compress, the soundstage while others can give you a "life-size" soundstage. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 464 Registered: Dec-03 | berny. my definition of sibilance would be the same as ricks. but with a description of what i feel it does. basically when i say a speaker is to sibilant i mean the female voices the sssss'es are to pronounced they tend to linger and the same with cymbals you will hear them then when they should be done making sound you still hear a slight crashing that make them not sound like an instrument. so basically like rick said distorted but also emphasyzed high frequencies. i hope this thread gets people questioning and discussing the differences we may have in the terms and not people just arguing with one another. as it won't do anyone any good. good stuff so far guy's. thanks JAN! |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 849 Registered: Dec-03 | "muddy bass" couldn't put that into single word  |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 467 Registered: Dec-03 | muddy bass may have many desciptions. but the way i use the term would be. slow/sloppy and bacically not defined to just the bass region but flowing over to the midrange and kinda smearing or dulling the mid region. maybe even slighly bloated or exagerated so the other frequencies are lessened. that's about the best i can describe it. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 278 Registered: Dec-03 | Berny, Muddy is a sound that is poorly defined, sloppy, or vague. Muddy bass is often boomy with all the notes tending to run together. |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 850 Registered: Dec-03 | "port noise" hey, is it me or am I the only one posting words for definitions? I am sure you guys have used words that needed explaning to a neophyte  |
|
Bronze Member Username: EksinePost Number: 15 Registered: May-04 | Thank you for everyone who has contributed to this thread. I'm just going to sit back and observe until I can think up of a good question to ask. Thank you again for all your contributions .....and Berny since you asked for several definitions it would just be polite to say a simple thank you to those that helped you instead of asking one question after the next IMHO. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 470 Registered: Dec-03 | ek/esine appreciate the comments. and berny is a big contibutor on this board. so he's allright. and it gets the ball rolling. i can see where you could be concerned. but like i said he's a big contributor so i'ts fine with me. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 471 Registered: Dec-03 | "port noise" bass reflex speakers. they are speakers that have a box with a port in it that port is made a certain size "length and width" to produce sound from the cabinet insides at a certain frequency "called tuning the port" takes into account the internal demensions of the box and then size of the port will determine the tuning. port noise. if the port is not just right meaning mabye to small in diameter comparred to it's length. the sound waves travel to fast through the port and you can hear it. some will also call it chuffing. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 472 Registered: Dec-03 | "bright" i would like to see other peoples ideas on this one. the reason is, i use it to describe the tweeter in a speaker or highend and i've seen others use it describing midrange frequencies. now i know your tweeter will produce some midrange depending on where it is crossed over at. but do people use it more describing highend or midrange frequencies or some other definition. please! any and all on this one. thanks in advance guy's. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OknessadPost Number: 63 Registered: May-04 | I think bright is a good one and I was just going to suggest the combo of words that people sometimes get confused. These being just plain "bright" and then "detailed" or "clear". I think alot of people, myself included, are inclined to think that a "bright" sounding speaker is also detailed but I don't think thats the case. If someone with a bit more knowledge could elaborate that would be great. |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 852 Registered: Dec-03 | "soft clipping" now forgive me if I go on a tangent... Eksine, you are assuming too much. Look around and observe, there is a premise to this thread, go check it, before you start implying that I am an ungrateful cad. This exercise is for the benefit of everyone, maybe even yours, but it is not mine alone. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 280 Registered: Dec-03 | Kegger, Bright: as a listening term, usually refers to too much upper frequency energy. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Let me add my few cents worth here: Transient refers to the start (what is termed the attack)of a signal in a certain direction or moving the signal in a direction it was not previously moving towards. That sounds dificult to grasp so let me add the folllowing. As a note (the signal) from an instrument starts, the movement of that note/signal is in a direction that indicates a positive or a negative movement away from 0 degrees on a sine wave. (This will become important in later questions, trust me here.) What is called the "leading edge" of that signal represents the transient that is now in motion. All instruments, and for that matter all sounds, have a transient at their very leading edge. What we think of as having fast, dramatic transient "attack" (the fast rise of the signal in large proportions) are percussion instruments. Horns and woodwind instruments are percieved as slightly slower transients. Stringed instruments will have what would be considered fast transient attacks if they are plucked and slow transient attacks if they are bowed. If you look at the test results of an amplifier you will usually see what is referred to as a square wave test. The signal quickly rises at what should be a 90 degree angle and then it should square the top of the signal at another 90 degrees and head back down at 90 degrees. A square wave does not exist in nature, only in a laboratory but it is an example of a transient, the first part of the signal that is moving upward. If an amplifier has good transient response these square waves will be reproduced as I described. If the amplifier has poor transient response the signal wil not have three square (90 degree) corners. SILIBANCE is what made Terry Thomas as funny as he was! For those who don't know this English comic from the 60's and 70's he had a gap between his two front teeth that, when he would pronounthe thertain thounds, would give a dithtorted thound to hith "s" thoundth. It can also be described as a "splashy" sound to the leading edge of a transient. What that refers to is the inabilty of a component, be it an amplifier, speaker, phono cartridge or just the electronics themseleves not being able to reproduce those 90 degree corners on the leading edge of the signal. Go back to the square wave test. If the leading edge of the transient signal rises at a 90 degree angle but then overshoots the point where it should square off and make another 90 degree angle you get what is referred to as ringing. Ringing refers to the squiggly pattern you see at the top of a square wave as the signal tries to settle down and get headed in another direction. As this becomes more pronounced what you will hear is a silibant quality to the sound as if more air is being pushed out than is needed to reproduce the signal. This can be cause by many things such as a cartridge that is mistracking, a tweeter that is damaged or just the design of the amplifier. Class C amps have higher notch distortion and therefore higher silibance that make them unuseable for high fidelity preproduction. It can also just be a bad design that causes the problem. Muddy bass is also the result of poor transient response. If you have not listened to a really, really good high end audio system you should go to the best audio store you can find and ask to hear their best system. You will hear a distinct difference between the sound of a kick drum and the notes that come from a bass guitar. The drum will have a fast transient attack that will be mostly the same note (frequency) over and over again while the bass guitar will have a signal that has a slower attack and varies in frequency. If you can't hear this difference through your speakers YOU HAVE MUDDY BASS!!! The problem again lies in the square wave. If the leading edge is not perfectly straight up at 90 degrees and does not stop to make another 90 degree turn you have problems. In this case, instead of overshooting and ringing you will see a top to the signal that is rounded and makes a rather lazy path back to another direction. This component has poor transient response and will most likely SUFFER FROM MUDDY BASS!!! In a speaker this is common since many speakers have a lump in their mid bass response to make them "jump" off the showroom floor when you compare several speakers. This lump in the mid bass is made worse by the typical room that has a bit of a rise around 200 Hz and adds to the muddiness of signals arriving at your ear with great clarity. Other components that suffer from muddy bass are usually the result of poor power supply design and/or regulation. That is why you see high priced separates or CD/DVD players that have multiple stages of regulation. It allows the big transients of the bass to remain separate from, and have less effect on, the smaller signals. Hope that helps and doesn't just confuse the issue more than neccessary. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | OK, all these were aded as I typed my treatise on square waves: Port noise: As Kegger said a speaker with a hole in the cabinet will let air escape from the box. to relieve pressure on the woofer. This air escaping is accellerated by the compression of the air in the box by the movement of the driver, usually the woofer though a good sized midrange driver can also exhibit the same problem. This fast moving air will create a "chuffing" sound somewhat like putting a rag in the exhaust pipe of your car would make. A good designer will compute the necesary equations to eleiminate or alieviate the noise. A bad designer (Bad designer, bad!) will let the noise become additional bass become part of that muddy bass lump because most people don't know what a good speaker should not sound like and that extra bass sells in the showroom. Bright: Can refer to many parts of the audio bandwidth. Different people are sensitive to different sounds and therefore are not going to always ascribe the same meaning to each word. That should be part of this thread. In general bright would refer to a signal that has a rising nature to the upper frequencies. What upper frequencies? It depends. In an amplifier it will normally be the frequencies above 7 kHz while in a speaker the emphasis is a little lower and a speaker that has a few dB rise around 2 kHz will often give the impression of being bright since most people's ears are sensitive to the nature of the human voice. Bright can also refer to a room that has multiple hard, reflective surfaces that do not absorb the upper frequencies. Upper frequencies, because of their shorter wavelenghths are more prone to bouncing than are low frequencies. A bright room reflects these upper frequencies to be bounced around by another surface. The result is a brightness that is the over emphasis of the upper spectrum of the frequency band. Soft clipping: Go back to that square wave and look at its shape, all 90 degree corners. That is the shape that a signal takes on when it is "clipped". In other words the signal should represent the ideal of a curvaceous sine wave with a smooth transition from its upward movement to its downward path. When the signal is overdriven you are asking the electronics to produce a larger swing upward than they are capable of producing. They run out of juice (voltage). When you look at this overdriven signal on an oscilloscope you will see the signal stays clean and rounded up to a point that represents the maximum voltage the circuit can produce. As the signal has more voltage pushed into it at the front end (the volume control) the circuit cannot produce (swing) enough voltage to push beyond its limits. The signal then appears clipped at the top similar to what you see as a square wave. If the edges of the top of the waveform (sinewave) are clipped at very extreme angles (90 degrees) that is called hard clipping and almost always contains distortion products (odd order harmonics) that are unpleasasnt and will damage components (tweeters). When the sinewave is rounded at the top before it moves in another direction you will have soft clipping. This is different from the example of muddy bass where the signal takes its time getting to the top voltage level. In this case the signal can move in the required 90 degree upward movement but will simply round off the top of the waveform instead of a hard angle at the top. Soft cliping has the less objectionable components of even order harmonics as the majority of the distortion. In genreal tubes and FET transistors are likely to exhibit soft cliping while bipolar transistors are more likely to do hard time. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Let me clarify the remarks I made about muddy bass by saying my comments about the shape of the square wave are not limited to just a test of an amplifier. If you were to place a microphone in front of a speaker that had indistinct bass response, the feed from the microphone going to an oscilloscope would have the same appearance. It would not start and stop as a distinct shape but would have irregularities that would relate to what you were hearing. Often a speaker will have muddy bass becasue the woofer cannot start and stop fast enough to accurately follow the signal as it is fed to the driver. It, in essence, is ringing by continuing to oscillate after the signal has passed. This becomes an issue of mass, inertia and momentum. It may also be related to the amplifier not being able to control the moving motor of the woofer. Many people argue that higher damping factors in an amplifier will give tighter bass response and eliminate muddy bass. The other argument is that after a certain point damping factor cannot make up for inherent difficiencies in the speaker design. The port noise that was discussed can also be a contributor to muddy bass because it is a signal that at certain frequencies is out of phase with the signal the woofer is creating. Rather than being 180 degrees out of phase and cancelling the signal, instead the port noise is out of phase just enough that it muddies the signal you hear. In a basic description muddy bass is not tight, defined bass.Tight bass stops and starts quickly and accurately. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 281 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I was going for short, glossary type definitions for the "new guys", to keep things simple. As always, your definitions are wonderful and detailed, but I thought the purpose was to help them, not make their heads explode. LOL!!! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Yes, I know I can be windy. You, Kegger and others do a good job of answering with a short reply. Hopefully the thread will work out for everyone. There will be many short contributions that should make sense to the new guys. There should also be some explanations that give more detail. I think many answers will be tied together in one way or another and the knowledge will build as we go along. I suspect that readers will soon find who suits their needs and if they need a brief answer to a question they will know who's answer to read and who's will make their head spin. There are likely some who will have a little more knowledge already and they may be looking for more than a one sentence reply. I'd say let's see how things work out and let the forum find its own way for now. |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 855 Registered: Dec-03 | "frequency roll-off" |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Let me give my take on detail. As you listen to a piece of music you will become aware of the small sounds that give life to the music. These can be a variety of sounds that cover the entire frequency range. For those that enjoy classical music the reference was often Carnegie Hall. Reviewers would comment on the ability to hear the low rumble of a subway car passing underneath the hall during a recording. Further up the frequency range you might hear a performer tapping their foot or turning a page. These are details that have nothing to do with the music but add to the experience of being at the live performance. In pop/rock and so forth the details are often the ability to hear the very quiet notes as they start or fade away. In recordings such as "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Brothers in Arms" the sounds fade away into the background as other sounds emerge from another part of the soundstage. The ability to follow both notes at the same time is to hear the details that make a studio piece interesting. As I said each individual's hearing is sensitive to slightly different frequencies and some people like a slightly "bighter" sound that is emphasizing the higher frequencies. This is what gives detail to some people. But to make the short answer, detail is the ability to pick out the small pieces of "information" in a recording. Clear: Clarity is as clarity does. Clarity is more than detail. While detail involves the small sounds, clarity is the ability to hear all sounds. I would say, though, you can have clarity without all the details. The ability to hear all instruments and voices as separate sounds is enough for clarity without the sound of a subway car to add detail. By tilting the frequency response of a speaker or component you can also achieve detail (within a certain range) without having clarity overall. Given a choice between having one or the other, I would take clarity as the greater value. |
|
peach Unregistered guest | "forward sounding" |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Frequency roll off: A component should have flat frequency response. A visual representation of that flat response is a straight line. At some point the line begins to bend downward as the response (of a speaker let's say) begins to not be flat. If the curve downward is gradual it is referred to as a roll off. If the response just stops and drops straight downward it is called a "brick wall". Brick wall filters are used in digital signal paths were the signal is flat to 20kHz and drops off dramatically to -60 dB at 20,010 Hz. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Forward sounding: An emphasis to the midrange that places voices in front of the plane of the speakers. The plane of the speakers is a virtual line drawn between the front of the two speakers in a stereo pair. Vocal images that seem to be in front of that line are forward sounding. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 283 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, With all due sincere respect, I would never think of you as "windy". Just one old dog to another. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 284 Registered: Dec-03 | peach, Refer to "bright". |
|
Unregistered guest | "Muddy Bass" Muddy bass is sloppy bass sometimes generating from placement of speakers (in a corner) and sometimes from poor design. "Q" is the parameter that most effects the bass quality and quantity a speaker reproduces. "Q" simply stated, is the relationship between stored and dissapaited energy. Lets put a simple 100hz bass note into two hypothetical speakers. The note starts and stops from the bass guitar. The amplifier also starts and stops. Speaker "A" has infinite Q. That note will pretty much play forever....ie: sloppy bass. Speaker "B" has zero Q. This speaker will produce pretty much only silence. Obviously, neither of those things are desireable. High Q systems are your typical boom box car audio systems that rattle the ground. Ideal Q for a speaker is generally agreed to be around .707 Lower, bass will be attenuated. Higher, bass increases till it gets sloppy. Hope that helps. One other thing to note. In our first hypothetical speaker, the speaker played on even after the note stopped (like many car systems do) What do you call that note now that it has stopped from the instrument and the amplifier? Distortion. |
|
Unregistered guest | Bright: If the speaker sounds bright, walk away. Any tweeter that draws attention to itself is not a good tweeter. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1476 Registered: Dec-03 | Coloration (UK, Colouration): Any departure from flat frequency response introduced by the system itself, usually speakers (or headphones). Examples include, (frequency range of exaggerated response in brackets): Bright (upper midrange - high); sibilant (high - not necessarity distorted? q.v. J/V. above; see later); warm (midrange); rich (lower midrange plus high). Conversely, decreased amplitude produces the following examples (decreased response in frequency range): Dull (high); thin (low - e.g. small radios/computer speakers); disco (mid - the dancers absorb the mid). I disagree, I think, about "forward" - stereo gives no information about position in front or behind the stereo line (not "plane"), only along it. Therefore "Warm" and "Forward" are not the same. Room acoustics might change that. But I do not clearly understand "forward" or "recessed" (the opposite of "Forward"?). "Neutral" is the ideal, indicating absence of coloration, that is, indicating a flat frequency response. That is, if you want the sound of the original performance. If not, anything is as good as anything else, and all that matters is personal preference. "Sibilant" was familar to people listening to a tape recorded with Dolby "B" noise reduction but played back without it. Some dealers used to do that surrupticiously in demos of all sorts of equipment, since the effect is arresting, and sort of the opposite of "dull", being possible only with "hifi"-type equipment (with good high frequency response in the first place). "Hiss" was a continuous high-frequency noise (from tape) which Dolby "B" was designed to counteract, by increasing the level at which the high frequencies were put onto the tape, so that decreasing them again on playback would reduce the hiss without having reduced the effective playback level of the high frequencies in the original signal. This was an example of "Compression". Tone controls. Devices for introducing simple forms of coloration by controlling the amount of treble (usually just a bass cut) and bass (a treble cut). "Megabass" selectively amplifies upper bass, to try to compensated for the "thin" sound of certain speakers and headphones. Graphic equalizer. A more complex tone control: a device for introducing different sorts of coloration specific to particular combinations of frequency ranges. Tone controls and graphic equalizers can be used to compensate for coloration in other parts of the system or in the original recording, or to introduce coloration where there was none before. The fallacy persists that certain sorts of coloration help in the reproduction of certain sorts of music, e.g. iPod etc. have built-on "jazz", "rock", "classical" etc. settings for their built-in graphic equalizer. Capturing the full frequency range of the original performance was the job of the recording engineers, who were there. They either got it right, or they didn't. "Jazz" "rock" "classical" etc. are all examples of musical genre, but are all sound, the accurate reproduction of which is dependent on physics, not on anyone's preferences for one or other musical genre. Audio is full of other examples of the "subjectivist" fallacy that you can change the thing itself by changing the way in which you perceive it, as if the world, itself, becomes a nicer place when viewed through rose-colored spectacles. As regards sound coloration, it is odd that the "jazz" etc effects are designed resemble to distinctive coloration of the original, not compensate for it, rather as some people prefer to wear dark glasses at night, instead of in bright sunshine. Presumably they believe "shades" can heighten their experience of it being dark, or something. That was too long. Sorry. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 92 Registered: Dec-03 | Forward is equivalent to the impression you get when you've listened to speakers with a dip in the mid-range then switch to some with a flat mid-range. At first it seems the mids are over done. A forward speaker may have a bit more apparent mids. This, as opposed to "shouty" which is a large rise or distortion in the mid-range where to vocalist seems to be "shouting" at you. Equalizers are used by many to compensate for room problems, especially bass response (something that is minimized by open-baffle speakers BTW). As for the iPod and other MP3 players, you have to do something to cover up how bad MP3s sound. ;-) |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I think you might want to say more about open baffle speakers since there may be some who have never seen anything except box type speakers and may not know what a baffle is. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 93 Registered: Dec-03 | Ok. The baffle (actually front baffle) is the "front" of the speaker system where the drivers are mounted. A true open baffle system will consist of only the front baffle and a support system or stand. No wings, etc. Also known as OB, open baffle speakers are "dipole" that is, the sound wave eminating from the front is in opposite phase to the sound wave eminating to the rear. When the drivers cone pushes forward it's pulling in back, when it pulls in the front it's pushing to the back. This results in a cancellation effect at the sides of the baffle where the two sound waves meet. The sound field generated by an OB system is a sort of "figure 8" to the front and back. The initial sound wave reaches the listener long before any reflected waves bouncing off the walls reach the listener. This results in exceptional imaging and less room induced distortion. Also missing is the "box" sound common to standard speaker systems. The compromise is that it's difficult to get an OB system to produce very low frequencies without using very large drivers with stiff suspensions or equalization. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 94 Registered: Dec-03 | Shall I delve into "baffle step"? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 473 Registered: Dec-03 | to me baffle step is more of a speaker design term. but hey anything goes if you want to explain. by all means go ahead! |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 474 Registered: Dec-03 | jan i definately agree the combination of short and long awnsers should work well to give anyone the awnser they are looking for! hey look we agree on something! lol |
|
Bronze Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 95 Registered: Dec-03 | Before elaborating on baffle step I'd like to define "thin". This usually occurs with speakers that have an early low-end roll off or lack of bass response. re: baffle step The lines blur for me with design terms, sorry. Baffle step has become more of an issue with modern designs going for narrow front baffles. When a driver operates in open air it creates a spherical (4 pi) sound field. If you place a driver in a wall (ie infinite baffle) you're creating a sound field into a 1/2 sphere (2 pi) space. A standard loudspeaker driver operates into 2 pi until you start going lower in frequency and reach a particular frequency that begins to operate in 4 pi space. That frequency depends on the width of the baffle. When that occurs the listener will experience a drop in bass response at that frequency and below. This is baffle step. For example; a 24" wide baffle will have a baffle step at 190 Hz. The narrower the baffle the sooner (higher frequency) baffle step occurs. This impacts bass response considerably and is typically compensated for by limiting the upper frequency response. I guess I'm bringing this up to show that the early designers had it right with their wide boxes. Some modern designers still do this but the only people that will put up with their "ugly" boxes are audiophiles. If you hear a speaker that sounds "thin" chances are baffle step has something to do with it. |
|
New member Username: StunningPost Number: 1 Registered: Jun-04 | Tuning Frequency |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 476 Registered: Dec-03 | one thing to add to timn8ter's baffle step. what speaker engineers will do to compensate for this is build a curcuit in the crossover that brings down the rest of the frequencies except the bass region that they are trying to compensate for. and this basically does 2 things. makes the bass more prevalent."by lowering others" lowers the sensativity on the speaker. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 477 Registered: Dec-03 | david if you mean port tuning frequency? refer to my description of "port noise" |
|
peach Unregistered guest | resolution???--Someone told me once that I would need "bright" speakers to go with the "resolution" of my HK receiver |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 479 Registered: Dec-03 | peach this really isn't the place to make speaker recomendations or get into the sound of certain electronics. and i will let someone else explain resolution. but probably the main reason why i wanted this thread started was so that people understood what others are saying when they use these terms. and your delema will make a good example of what is most debated on these threads.and the reason why people need to understand these terms. ok hk recievers are regareded by many as being warm or slighly down in the highend so many will sugest brighter or more detailed speakers for use with the hk's to balance out both the speaker and reciever to get closer to neutrel. so many will try and pair bright speakers with warm electronics. and warm speakers with bright electronics. or mix and match for the sound you want. this is not my oppinion just stating what people do. i'm not looking for discussion on this, just felt the need to make an example of how these terms can be used by some. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1480 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree with Kegger. Peach, "bright" is the opposite of "dull". Resolution has nothing to do with it. Whoever gave you that advice is doing a modern version of the trick of playing a noise reduction-compressed recording but with the noise reduction switched off, for playback. The "Bright" sound you get, then, can be mistaken for increased resolution. But not for long. Maybe just long enough for many customers to make a decision on that basis. There might be some advantage of pairing a "dull" amp with a "bright" speaker, and vice versa, but it is better, and simpler, if they are both neutral, or uncoloured. In any case, it has nothing to do with resolution. Resolution. The extent to which things are resolved, or distinguished from each other. In audio, "resolution" is the accuracy of the fine detail in a waveform, a sound, and in music or speech. Resolution is like "neutrality" ; it is always, and everywhere, a good thing, and you cannot have too much of it. Though there is a law of diminishing returns in the cost, in any one format. Hi-fi (high fidelity, or faithfullness, to the original sound) is all about obtaining high-resolution, neutral sound reproduction. With digital sources, you get increasing resolution as you go from MP3/aac -> CD -> DVD-A. Though these are broad categories, and can overlap at their boundaries. "Streaming" audio is usually at the low end, because of limited bandwidth, and compression is usually introduced to try to get over that, causing other problems. That will change as bandwidth increases. Digital resolution has two components, the frequency at which the digital samples of the sound are taken (in kHz, a unit of frequency of one thousand per second), and the size of each digital sample (in bits of information). DVD-A and linear PCM (24 bit samples at frequencies up to 96 or 192 kHz) gives a definite, audible, and considerable improvement over CD (16 bit samples at 44 kHz), and so does SACD (less easy to find the comparable figures because of DSD compression). You notice increased resolution especially easily in transients, and at higher frequencies (which is why "bright" can briefly be mistaken for "high resolution"). With increased resolution, speech/song becomes clearer, and musical instruments are more easily distinguishable from each other. It is always worth remembering that sound itself is analogue: self-propagating waves of air pressure, with essentially unlimited resolution. We now may be at, or at least close to, the point where the resolution of digitally-encoded sound is indistinguishable from sound reproduced from analogue sources, and from the original, real sound. This was falsely claimed, and is still widely believed, for CD. Of course, other parts of a sound reproduction system can still get in the way. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Timn8ter - I would add that "thin" can refer to speakers that have a decent amount of bass extension but not the lump in the upper bass (60-90 Hz) or midbass (90-120 Hz) region that is added to so many speakers. There are a few designers that have approached speaker designs with the idea of saying my speaker has to be placed in this spot in a room and that gives them the advantage of knowing the space (1/2 pi, 2 pi, 4 pi) that the woofer will work into. Given the restrictions of showrooms, that speaker may not be placed in the best location and will not get the reinforcement the designer expected. This will alter the sound of the speaker and can make a speaker sound thin even though it has bass extension. I've sold speakers that stepped down the midbass a few dB so that in a room with a typical bump around 150-200 Hz the bass will smooth out. These speakers seldom show as well in a showroom as they do at home because against the competition they sound thin. For those interested in finding out more information about how a baffle affects the sound of a driver (and it really isn't as simple as you think) check out the current (July 2004) isue of "Stereophile". The discussion is on diffraction effects as the soundwave leaves the reinforcing area of the baffle. What happens at the mid and high frequencies is an amazing journey as the soundwave leaves what has been a smooth surface to the edge of the baffle and then is suddenly sent into an unpredictable trip when there is no longer a reinforcing baffle to bounce from. The article also touches on the effects of the baffle on the lower frequencies. Everyone generally has bad things to say about in wall speakers but if you understand how sound travels in space you begin to see that a wall mounted driver makes a lot of sense. Tuning frequency: I will also assume you want to know about the term as it applies to loudspeakers. In that case the answer is really out of the realm of this thread (even as long winded as I can be) as the answer is a very complex calculation of differing specifications. The parts of the equation will vary depending on the type of enclosure the designer is working with. If someone wants a difinitive answer to tuning frequency they should invest in a copy of "The Loudspeaker Cookbook", it should be available on Ebay or Amazon. In as short an answer as I can give to tuning frequency I would suggest you do look at the answers given to port noise since it is a result of tuning frquency in a ported box speaker. In the most basic terms the designer will work first with three factors when designing a new speaker. All three are interdependent and changing one will affect the other two. The three factors are box size, bass extension (different from bass amount) and efficiency. After these specifications are put into the equation the designer looks at the size of the woofer and the resonant frequency of the woofer in the box and out of the box. The "Q" of the system is decided (see above for info on "Q"). And then in a commercial design the cost of making the speaker is figured in. Part of the cost of manufacture is how difficult is it to build. A budget designer will be looking to make several sizes of speakers with the same woofer in a few different size boxes. If they take the first three factors and manipulate them, the designer can use the same woofer in a 3/4 cubic foot box, a 1 c.f.b., a 1 3/4 c.f.b. and even a 2 1/2 c.f.b. By increasing the box size the designer has gained bass extension and efficiency. If this is a sealed box (acoustic suspension) design that is the tuning frequency calculation. In other words the designer has now tuned the bass frequency cut off by selecting the driver and the size of the box. It's more complicated than that but if you need more buy the book. If this is a ported design the port will have to be a different diameter and length to make the speaker have a smooth bass response. Each larger speaker should go slightly lower than the smaller speakers to sell well. So by picking the tuning frequency the designer can work with the port to determine the bass cut off. The bigger the port size the more efficient the speaker will be because you are letting more air out of the box but the bass will not go as low because you are letting more air out of the box. The mathematics of Thiele/Small from the 60's thru the 70's make the equation a fairly easy to predict formula. Before these principles were applied to speaker manufacturing (by Ohm in the model C2 in 1974)a designer literally did what was called cut and try design. Resolution: When I sold equipment I used to cringe at statements like you need a to compensate for b. Balance is the key to a system that really works well for the money and that means finding components that compliment one another not act as a BandAid for one another. If I wanted to use the term resolution I would be speaking more about what I described in the idea of clarity. But as I said I value clarity (the ability to hear each piece of the music as an individual part of the whole performance) over just detail (the sound of a page turning during a performance). In a more strict sense, resolution is the ability the see/hear detail. Think of a 20" TV vs. a 65" projection TV. Both TV's have the same amount of pixels to make the picture (that's how most TV's work). With the same video feed the smaller TV will have better resolution than the big TV because the pixels that are making up the picture are closer together and it is easier for your eye to fill the gaps. In the big TV the pixels will be larger and proportionally farther apart and your eye has to work to reconstruct the picture and will sluff off detail for making sense. Anyone who uses a 35mm film camera knows the result of blowing up a negative that was done with 100ASA vs. 400ASA film. It's all about pixels. So resolution could mean detail and detail could mean a "bright" speaker to some people. Here I will tell you that terms, like words in the English language, can mean different things to different people. Bright, warm, detail or resolution will have different meanings that will vary with the person using them. This is one of the reasons some people see a description of a piece of gear and think it is bogus to use terms that are not concrete to describe a subjective experience. Those folks usually want a description that says the frequency response was up 3 dB at 12 kHz. Others would rather have a description that says the forwardness of the upper midrange was enough to make the detail of the female voice appear thin and almost sacharine. The idea of this thread is to present ideas about how language is used to define a subjective experience. And the key word is subjective. It probably cannot hapen on a forum like this but as you hear a person use a term over and over you begin to sense the meaning they have for that word. I had it with professors in college. I took classes from several that were very good and after awhile they made a referene to something and it clicked as to what they meant. Two people who live together finish each other's sentences. If you take one term and think there is only one meaning you will miss this thread's reason to be. As different voices join in the descriptions will vary from one to the next and it is up to the reader to take away what is worth remembering in their frame of reference. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1484 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Hmm.... Interesting. Yes, up to a point. Briefly. We have to distinguish between the word and the thing it represents. Words are "up for grabs", as you decribe. The things they represent are not. If we wish to communicate at all (that is the purpose of language) then we have to agree about the things that certain words represent. Otherwise we shall never understand each other. "Subjective experience" and "what is worth remembering" are not all there is to it. But, er, relevance to the topic. How long have we got? |
|
peach Unregistered guest | Kegger, I was not asking for a recommendation. I merely stated the word and gave an example of how people use these words just to show how abstract the jargon has become. John A. The sentence I gave came from Hawk, whose advice I treasure as much as I do yours. Great minds sometimes differ an perspective. So what is a relative novice to do. And I think you are definitely right---words are of tantamount importance. If we don't use them with some "resolution" they cease to have real meaning and we ourselves become "dull". Thanks. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 484 Registered: Dec-03 | peach i have no problem with what you did. i just wanted to make it clear "for everyone else" what this this thread is for.and decided to use your question as an example. that's all sir. it's all good. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1487 Registered: Dec-03 | peach, Thanks. Hawk, eh....? A great guy. I certainly think he would not be playing a trick, of any sort. This is serious! You must have decided to edit out the quote, but failed to delete before posting, the first time. But I agree completely. "A tale, told by an idiot..." Help, Kegger! This is supposed to be definitions, and people are starting to quote Hamlet.... I think peach could have written "brand x" and his point would still be made. Wouldn't it be good to discourage trade names on this thread...? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1489 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry, it is "Macbeth", not "Hamlet". "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace, from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time..." peach's quote is great because the thing is about how life is not much different from a play, and just as pointless if people don't understand each other. He says it better than that, of course.... Kegger, peach, I apologise. I will write it out 100 times. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | This is mostly to John A. but anyone can, and I hope will, respond. It is long winded and has no definitions or descriptions that pertain to audio, so those wishing to get through this thread quickly can move on. "The things they (words) represent are not." Too black and white , my friend. What I fear the most is a black and white world view that is creeping into society more and more every day. I'm going to give an opinion here (everything else I have ever put on this forum is complete, unadulterested, you can check it out, take it to the bank factual, more or less). Words are no more than tools to be used. How a tool is used is relative to the person using it. Surely a match used by a family to start a fire for cooking a meal is being used differently than a match used by a arsonist to burn down a building or an an-archist (I sometimes can't believe the words you can't use on this forum and what you have to do to express an idea) to light a Molotof cocktail. The function is the same but the meaning is not. A match used to start a fire is different from a match made in heaven. Context is what makes the difference and the context of a word's usage will change with everyone's reference. I think the point was missed when, in another thread, I asked what a baby crying sounded like in response to a remark that a speaker should replicate the original sound as a judgement of accuracy. My point is accuracy is relative also. Relative to your reference. I think we can all agree what the word "table" means, more or less, in reference to "kitchen table". It is a pretty easy thing to get into your head, though how big, what color or how many legs it has (pedestal or four legs?) will change with each individual. Now if anyone would like to take the challenge, tell me what "blue" means. As an example, I have a slight amount of color blindness in the red/green pigments. What I percieve as green is not what others see as green. So what does "blue" represent to you? How about "love"? "Nigg-r"? Anyone? Words are being used to fight a social war that divides people. I don't know what the situation is like in your part of the globe but in the U.S. we have talk radio and a 24 hour news cycle that is cranking out word after word after word. And they are all meant to signify an idea and push a button. "Tax and spend", "tax relief", "Liberal", "Republican", "welfare", "conservation", "evil- doers", "crusade", "insurgents", "Clinton", "Bush", etc.. The one that is driving me crazy right now is the word "Elitist". I am assuming this is meant to imply, to a certain group, those who have an education and can put a sentence together without using "misunderestimated" or "put food on your family" are people who should be denigrated. "Those people" (another push the buttons word) should not, cannot be trusted with anything. It is also meant to imply "the rich folks". As if all those in power are not rich already. It is a word! That's all it is, but, it has been turned into something else. Sorry to get on a rant here, but, the words we use can mean so many things and to look at the words as only this or that belittles the thought process of so many. It is, in my opinion, why the majority in the world I see can no longer think for themselves. They cannot find an answer until they are fed the answer by ... SOMEONE. If only we could and would take the time to reason for ourselves. I'm not arguing with you, John, just stating my opinion. Just over reacting some today. Where would Hamlet "be" if "to be, or, not to be" was just a black or white proposal? In my college days of getting degrees in Theatre Arts I heard so many arguments over what Shakespeare's words meant. Today we are fighting for what do the words in the religious texts mean. Creationists are battling evolutionists. Extremists are battling extremists. Words mean what they mean! That's all! Why is Shakespeare so poorly understood in the U.S.? Not because his words mean one thing. Precisely because they mean a multitude of things and each person brings to the "table" what they have experienced beforehand. They make you think and if well done make you question. So let's not try to tie a word down to "a" meaning. Let's "put on the table" what everyone has to say about the word and spark a few discussions that may enlighten everyone. Let's not "table" the discussion. PLEEEEASE???!!! Thank you, and good day. Anyone for a description of an audio term? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I just saw an ad for a new book entitled, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves". Hmmmm, I wonder what those words mean? |
|
Bronze Member Username: PalPune, Maharashtra India Post Number: 31 Registered: Apr-04 | Timbre ? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 96 Registered: Dec-03 | What the lumberjack says when....nevermind. Timbre and tonality have to do with the overall sound quality. Despite all the measurements, charts and parameters this is something that can only be recognized by the human ear. Timbre matching comes into play when attempting to match drivers in a multiple driver system or when trying to match a center channel speaker to the others in your system, for example. All the terms we've been talking about brought together will combine to produce the timbre or tonality of the speaker. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 289 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I'm guessing a cookbook for vegetarians......... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1492 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, "Words are no more than tools to be used. How a tool is used is relative to the person using it. " No, to the people using it. They either understand each other, what they each intend it to refer to, or they do not. Language is communication, and therefore two-way (giver and receiver; they should be able to swap places). Without agreement about what we mean, we are all just "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The external point of reference is the real world. We figure out what people mean by the way they describe it, and by whether what we understand by what they say agrees with what we experience ourselves. It's out there. Solipsism will not do, any more than absolutism, e.g. "there is only one way" (it usually works out to be the one way the powerful will allow). Hence Stalin and Shostakovich. The alibi is usually that poor, ordinary people will only get confused if they have to make up their own minds. A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation: "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves." "Eats, shoots and leaves: the zero-tolerance approach to punctuation" by Lynn Truss. Haven't read it yet, but wish to, and will. A best-seller in UK, so I am told. There is still hope! Other posters, no time, will be back. All the best. |
|
peach Unregistered guest | Maybe we need to start a "Philosophy, Semantics, and Damn Fine Jokes and Quotes" thread. This train is out of control. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 399 Registered: Feb-04 | "Keep it simple. I would suggest, when possible, you just type in the word you want a defined. ONE WORD AT A TIME!" Well, just look at how many ways these words have been interpreted! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Timbre: All sounds in nature are a complex arrangement of a fundamental frequency and a series of harmonics. As with square waves, a simple sine wave exists only in a laboratory. The fundamental is the frequency we ascribe to the sound. If we say the bass player hit (a note at) 60 Hz the fundamental is 60 Hz. That 60 Hz is accompanied by a series of frequencies that are all related to the multiples of 60. These points of multiplication are the harmonics. It is most often stated as the points that relate to an octave above (60 X 2 = 120) and an octave above that (120 X 2 = 240) and so on out into infinity. If you remember your high school mathematics class a line can be divided in two an infinite number of times. So the harmonics become 60 to the 1k power plus some more. In reality, the harmonic structure is more complex than that but the simple explanation will suffice for this example. We, as humans are mostly interested in the frequencies between 20 - 20kHz. So we take a piano and a cello that can both produce a 100 Hz fundamental signal. The harmonics on both follow the same path of multiples. Both have harmonics that fall at 200, 400, 800 Hz and so on. It is the amplitude of those harmonics in relation to one another that will let us hear a piano as being different from a cello. As an example, if the piano has harmonics at 800, 3,200 and 12,800 kHz that are higher in amplitude (louder) than the harmonics at 400, 1600 and 6,400 Hz we have learned that is the sound of a piano. If the cello, on the other hand, has harmonics that are louder at 400, 3.2 kHz, 6.4 kHz and 12.8 kHz we associate that set of frequencies with a cello. In total it is this unique structure of harmonics that make for the timbre of a sound. The term timbre is used then to describe the timbre of an instrument as being recognizable as a piano or violin or Fender Stratocaster. Timbre can also refer to the lack of a full sounding voice, be it human or instrumental. A freshman in voice at the university probably has not yet developed a full timbre. A poorly made instrument has bad timbre if it is harsh compared to its peers. There was even a knob on audio components of the past that said "Timbre" that referred to a tone control action. In the timbre matching referrence made by Timn8ter the word refers to two speakers having a similar tonal balance. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 292 Registered: Dec-03 | Timbre: the quality of a sound related to it's harmonic structure. Timbre is what gives a voice or instrument it's sonic signature-why a trumpet and a saxophone sound different when they play the same note. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1495 Registered: Dec-03 | No, Rick, they sound different because... A saxophone (named after Adolph Sax) is a tapered tube with a fixed, single reed at one end, which is closed, and a hole at the other. In between are holes drilled into the tube, closed off in various combinations by mechanical keys, with felt pads, all operated by a system of levers. In contrast, a trumpet is a long, thin, metal cylinder, open at both ends; one with a flared bell, the other with a cup-shaped mouthpiece into which the player blows controlled raspberries. That is why they sound different. A sax is basically a bent clarinet (but it is only incidental that it is bent). Mr Sax was into marketing, mostly. The closed end is important to the sound because it gives difference harmonics (see below) to an open tube, as in e.g. an oboe. Nowadays, most trumpets are wound cylinders (they do not have to be) and have a system of three valves in the middle, to add extra lengths of tubing "on the fly", but these are not are not part of what makes them trumpets. I like natural trumpets, myself; valves are a passing fad. There never was a natural saxophone. Jan, Now, peach's advice is good, and I meant to take it, but you've got it wrong again, friend, and it is the same mistake, plus not getting harmonics right. The same mistake is "a simple sine wave exists only in a laboratory". Not at all, it is out there, in the world. All you can usually do extra in a laboratory (which is also part of the world not something else) is call up a sign wave to order, like a kitchen is to food. Also (same mistake) "The fundamental is the frequency we ascribe to the sound." No, it is the frequency of the sound. What we ascribe makes no difference. Re harmonics, it is more complicated, and interesting, than that. We really need a new thread. You are right about doubling the frequency of the fundamental, but only for the first harmonic. The next doubling is the third harmonic; the one after that, the seventh. The sixth is really interesting. I write as a long-lapsed trumpet player. We shall be on to such matters as Pythagoras, and the well-tempered clavier, in no time. Might I suggest "timbre" has no useful meaning, and it one of those warning words to look out for in critics' reviews? I could be wrong. I shall look it up, first. I am going to follow peach's and My Rantz's advice. But it could make things worse. More threads like this one, please! Most threads move on to "what exactly were we talking about?" and "Off-topic!"; "no it isn't!". We should not be surprised, or annoyed, if this one leads quickly, by that route, to philosophy. This one is going to annoy people, but I already promised to do it, on another thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1496 Registered: Dec-03 | Classical. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 402 Registered: Feb-04 | A term Mrs A uses when Mr A attempts a simulation of a burst from a baritone sax! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1498 Registered: Dec-03 | My Rantz, Rich! Like audio gear, you should always try out musical instruments. Miss S nearly decided not to become Mrs A when she heard me shamelessly put a cornett (a sort of wooden trumpet with finger-holes) through its paces, in a shop, based only on understanding a bit of the physics and once having played the trumpet. The problem was with me, of course. Guys who play those well (some are astonishing) must have lungs like an Olympic athlete's. I never bought one. And am still happily married. There could be a connection. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1499 Registered: Dec-03 | Classical. I am not being facetious. I do not understand what people mean by this. In this audio context (I am not trying to divert the thread) I do not understand how some sorts of speakers can be "Best for classical", yet one reads this all the time. I thought someone's definition might help. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 404 Registered: Feb-04 | Well, see - that's classical! I was going to mention "Classical Gas" but thought better of it. But, classical is a broad term - belonging to the classes, but which class? All of them surely? Of course there's 'classical music' and music classics - to be determined by whom? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 493 Registered: Dec-03 | to me clasical music would be older intrumental pieces by famous composers that are done by an orchestra where just about any instrument is then used except electric guitar.and very little if any of todays traditional "rock&roll type" drums. that would be how i percieve classical music. plenty of horned and brass instuments playing mainly slower moving pieces. i'm not saying this is classical music! just what comes to my mind when i think of it. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1500 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, My Rantz! Thanks especially, Kegger. "What comes to mind" is the best thing to say here. You speak for common sense, as always. The problem is, I can maybe think of an example contrary most of those things, maybe all. I can post back (not much time). But then, the problem comes, what is left? I am not trying to score points, or prove anything. I am not "trying to be clever". I just don't get what "classical" means. Really. I will think about what you wrote. It is the real thing. "Classical" one of those words like "liberal" or "conservative" (don't let's follow that): the more I try to figure it out, the less it seems to mean. So how can people build speakers for it? You see the problem? BTW I still laugh out loud sometimes over your definition of Country and Western... Thanks again, guys. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 293 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., RE: timbre.......No Rick??????????? I read Both our posts as saying the same thing. Yes? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1501 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thanks. If "timbre" means just "distinctive sound" of any instrument, yes, I think we say the same thing. But then we hardly need the word, it is not different from "sound". You would always have to say "timbre" of somthing, and may as well say "sound" of something. I got stuck on "Timbre is ... why a trumpet and a saxophone sound different when they play the same note". That is quite different, it seems to me, and thus I disagree. Words are labels; they don't explain why. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John A. - Yes, Im know harmonics are not just octave to octave points but this was an example where I thought simple mutilples would be easier to follow as an example. But you are right on that point. If I remember correctly the numbers would be 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, etc. Correct? Now give me an example of a simple sine wave with no harmaonics that exist in nature in audio. I realize a snake in the grass is a simple sine wave but I am unaware of any in terms of sound. Kegger - Your description leaves out too many types of music that might be considered "classical". Chamber music and liturgical music are examples. These do not require an orchestra. Nor do the traditional types of music such as madrigals that many would type as classical simply because they don't fit into our contemporary music styles. And there are many "classical music" composers that aren't famous or even well remembered. To John's question, I don't think there are speakers that are designed for classical music. I know you are trying to get to the point that all components should exhibit flat frequency response. And that is a benefit of a speaker that does well with classical music. Not so much that there is a design principle for that type of speaker, i.e. a classical music speaker. Instead there are so many speakers that do NOT exhibit flat response that when someone who has no desire for flat response hears rock or newer music styles played on that "unflat" speaker they're response is, "that's a great rock speaker". It's a great rock speaker because it makes no attempt to have flat response and instead plays up the bass, mids and highs on a roller coaster frequency response that appeals to the banger because it jumps off the shelf. By comparison a flat response speaker will appear to be too "polite". By extension, polite society listens to classical music. Since people are always trying to come up with a way to denigrate what ever they are against, the idea of a classical speaker grew not out of classical music listeners, who are too polite to do such a thing, but from the rocker who wanted to hang a label on a speaker they didn't care to see do well. This is a simplification again but not too far from the truth. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Here is more information on harmonics than you'll probably ever need. www.harmony-central.com/Guitar/harmonics.html |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 498 Registered: Dec-03 | jan i know my definiton of classical is not correct! i just wanted to get something out their for john. i have no idea what classical is nor what an orchestra is for that matter. that was just what comes to mind when i hear "classical" that's all. and i'm not going to say i disagree or a agree with jans take on classical/rock or whatever speaker. in my oppinion. some speakers have certain attributes that lend themselves to produce different kinds of music better than others. a good hard rock/heavy metal speaker neads to be able to take more of a beating "generally" than others. so they will have larger drivers that can handle more power/distortion than others and the tweeters can sometimes be a different type that again would handle more power but might not be quite as articulate as one someone would want to reproduce the subtle notes."as generally the rocker will play his music louder" so the speaker doesn't need to play the subtle sounds that easy because they will allready be louder from shear volume. so i am one that feels their can be bettter speakers for certain music than others "within reason" this is actually one of the issues that has taken me so long to get my final xover and driver choice down. i listen to many forms of music including heavy matel and i wanted a loud but also articulate speaker and it took a lot of work to get what i was looking for.and i had to make a design change in the middle of my project because the music i was playing "mostly pop" sounded great but when i put in the good old stand by ac/dc/megadeath/maiden that had screaming guitars and more demanding bass licks the midbass driver i was using didn't cut it.it was just to thin and not gritty enough. i was using a 6.5 kevlar midbass driver but had to go to an 8" paper cone to get those electric guitars to zing just right not to mention the traditional rocker has a different voice that also plays better on the 8" paper driver.but after i had changed that driver then the speaker didn't sound right "to me" when i went back to other music until i did some more xover tweaking. now to me i had to make a slight compromise to be able to get more music to sound good to me on those speakers. but if i didn't want to listen to hard rock or heavy metal on those speakers then they would have been fine the way they were. so "my" awnser to your question. is their such a thing as a classical speaker? yes their can be some that produce classical better than another speaker but that same speaker trying to play some grunge may not fair as well as the speaker that didn't play classical very well. so in my oppinion some speakers "weather it be by design" lend themselves to play certain types of music better than others. great speakers can play anything very good. but to me a speaker that tries to play everything might not sound better than a speaker that was designed for a cetrtain purpose when they are both playing the same music as what the one was designed to do! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | One of the threads where we have been bashing back and forth was started by John A. as a response to my statement, "I feel so old". Here are two other examples of when I realized I was getting old. 1) When I was selling audio I always wanted to know what types of music the customer's listened to and would like as demos. "So, do you listen to classical music at all?" "Oh yeah, the Beatles and Rolling Stones. I play that sort of stuff every now and then." 2) The first time I saw a young lady in a centerfold that was born in a different decade than I was. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PalPuneIndia Post Number: 36 Registered: Apr-04 | Requesting the experts.....please....no one is answering to this https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/61457.html |
|
Unregistered guest | J. Vigne, ANY speaker with a crossover of MORE than 6db/octave will be OUT OF PHASE! Absolutely no way around it. Only 1st order x-overs can be time/phase aligned. If the crossover is messing up the phase of the music, makes no difference how good the amp is. Still gonna smear the image. I applaud you for all your time and patience on this thread. This forum needs more guys like you. Wish I had more time to respond. Keep up the good work |
|
Bronze Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 100 Registered: Dec-03 | Manish Pal, I'll add my opinion to the other thread. I don't think that question should be addressed here. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 500 Registered: Dec-03 | sorry maui but a 4th order xover puts you right back in phase. 1st order 90 degrees "not in phase" (close) 2nd order 180 degrees "reverse tweeter in phase" 3rd order 270 degrees 4th order 360 degrees "back in phase" so i'm not sure what you mean. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1511 Registered: Dec-03 | Going back a bit. Quality. "Quality (or, in French, timbre) defines the difference in tone colour between a note played on different instruments or sung by different voices. Thus the 'colour' of a note enables us to distinguish between various instruments playing the same tune. But why? Here we come to one of the most fascinating of acoustic phenomena, the overtones. the characteristic frequency of a note is only the fundamental of a series of other notes which are simultaneously present over the basic one. These notes are called overtones (or partials, or harmonics). The reason why the overtones are not distinctly audible is that their intensity is less than that of the fundamental. But they are important because they determine the quality of a note...." From: Otto Karolyi Introducing Music Penguin Excellent book. Recommended. ISBN 0 14 02.0659 0 Jan, A sine wave is a mathematical function, of course. We get deeply into philosophy if we ask if they really exist. But to answer your question, the graph of pressure versus time (or distance) for the sound of a tuning fork is pretty darned close to a sign wave, and it has almost no overtones: it is a "pure" pitch, which makes it a good reference. Even if you generate a pure sine wave electronically, the "real" sound you get by amplification and a loudspeaker, is also not a perfect sine wave, but that is also darned close. That is what I intended by "it is out there, in the world". A sine wave is, I suppose, a Platonic "form", and has about the same status as a square, or a triangle. We usually have no problem with squares or triangles "existing". Harmonics Harmonics (aka overtones) give quality (aka timbre) when sounding at the same time as their fundamental. But you can also separate them out. String players, including guitarists, can easily isolate harmonics by lightly touching the open string, instead of stopping it. Harmonics follow the fundamental frequency of a vibrating column of air (organ pipe; wind and brass instruments) or of a plucked, stretched string, when the length of the column or string is decreased by; 1/2 (first harmonic); 1/3 (second); 1/4 (third); 1/5 (fourth); 1/6 (fifth); 1/7 (sixth); 1/8 (seventh); etc. So you get successive octaves (doubling of frequency) from the first, third, seventh, etc. harmonics. |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 901 Registered: Dec-03 | since we are in the subject of "phase" "phase -alignment" |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John A. - No need to go into a protracted discussion over semantics when there are other things that should be dicussed here. I would say the tuning fork is an example of a vibrating structure, as is the speaker cone, and therefore may be close to a sine wave but by simple physics cannot represent one simple frequency. Once a sine wave leaves the domain of transmission within a circuit it can no longer be a pure tone. As Kegger points out, the fourth order X-over puts things back in phase ELECTRICALLY. I assume you were making a referrence to my comments about tuning a port and there I was speaking about acoustic phase. The two are different beasts that breath the same air. Just as I have said before the concept of phase and time are similar and nearly interchangeable in certain applications but they are not the same thing and can be distinctly different from each other. The issue becomes muddied as you start to realize that in a single driver, whether it be a woofer, midrange or tweeter, the signal going into the voice coil is electrically in phase at all frequencies. It is smeared in time as it traverses the radius of the driver's surface and, therefore smeared in the phase relationship acoustically as the driver reproduces the signal. The problem is exacerbated as the driver is asked to reproduce more than one frequency simultaneously which it has to do since it cannot reproduce a pure sine wave. This is a problem inherent to dynamic drivers that is partially addressed by panel and ribbon type drivers. So all dynamic speakers will, by their nature, be in phase and out of phase with themselves as a complex signal such as music is reproduced. Once a crossover is introduced with its inherent time and phase problems the situation only gets worse. One of the best examples of first order X-overs is the Theil line of speakers. The X-over is first order all the way and Jim Theil admits the drivers are out of phase at certain points. His X-over design attempts to minimize the problem but in doing so, along with an attempt to compensate for small variations in frequency response, the X-over becomes so complex that it requires a massive amplifier to slug its way through the network of capacitors, resistors and inductors. The drivers are asked to work to the very limits (and some think beyond) of their frequency cut offs because of the shallow roll offs in the first order design (a midrange crossed at 2,500 Hz with a first order X-over will only be down 6 dB at 1,250 Hz and the woofer will still be making a significant contribution at 5,000 Hz))and this has been an explanation of the hardness of the Theils that many hear in those designs. Now add a port to the equation and the design problems escalate to enormous proportions. Unfortunately, phase is not as phase does. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Phase alignment: A marketing term used to ascribe certain qualities usually deemed desirable to the audiophile to a product (normally a speaker system) that hopes to set itself apart from the competition. That is a glib answer to a complex response. In its simplest form phase alignment means no more than using X-overs that will allow the electrical phase of multiple drivers within one circuit to be similar. That, by itself is not a difficult task. The problem becomes more difficult when the phase aligned speaker also tries to be a time aligned system.I'm not certain I'm ready to tackle that subject right now. There are other things to do today. Would anyone else care to give their take on "Time Aligned"? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 507 Registered: Dec-03 | Timn8ter could probably do time aligned justice! but basically for me time aligned is when you make an attempt to get all drivers of a given speaker to have their frequencies reach the listener at the same time. every driver has a different acoustical center point basically means the center of that drivers movement. so by tilting the cabinet back at the top is one way of linning up these centers to try and have the frequences reach the same point at the same time. now that is just one example of time alignment but gives you a general example of what is trying to be done. because if you think about the front of a speaker cabinet and both a woofer and tweeter are on the front with the same recess the tweeters center will stick out much farther than the woofer so if tilt the speaker back you can line them up. like i said that is just one example it can also be done with the xover. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 103 Registered: Dec-03 | That's a pretty good summation. Unfortunately, the acoustic centers change with frequency. Too much chasing after time alignment can introduce problems much worse. Having a slight tilt back of the baffle can be the most effective solution in many cases. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | COHERENT |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1517 Registered: Dec-03 | Of waveforms, e.g. sound, "coherent" means in-phase. A laser produces coherent light. There, the beams of light are in-phase and, also, all travel in the same direction. With speakers, etc, "coherent" means two or more sources producing components of the same sound wave (e.g. drivers on one speaker; speakers in a stereo set-up) do so at precisely the same time. I am not clear about this however. There is a distinction sometimes drawn here between "phase coherent" and "time coherent". I cannot see how they are different. Waves that are in-phase must travel at the same velocity and arrive at the same time. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 510 Registered: Dec-03 | john maybe that coincides with my explanation of time aligned. if their in phase but not time aligned, than the wave forms can arive at different times. seems to make sense to me. could be wrong though! . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1521 Registered: Dec-03 | Kegger, Thanks. I think I get it, now. A real sound wave wave is a complicated thing. In-phase on its own is probably OK with sine waves and other simple test tones. But, in real sound, the one-off, intial transient needs to arrive at the same time, too. So maybe we could say that "Coherent" sound consists of pressure waves that are "synchronous" and as well as "in-phase". |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 104 Registered: Dec-03 | The terms "phase coherent" and "time coherent" are ususally applied to crossover filters. All crossover filters induce phase shift and as a result, time delay. For example; in a 6db XO (1st order)the high and low pass signals are 90 degrees out of phase at all frequencies so it is "phase coherent" however at the crossover frequency the high pass section will be leading so the low pass is "time delayed". |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1526 Registered: Dec-03 | Reference for the very studious. I never finished it, but might give it a go, now. It goes way beyond Jan's link "Understanding Harmonics". This is an excellent book, not too heavy on the mathematics, plenty of diagrams. It does not mention "coherence" in the index. Roederer, Juan G. (1973, 1975...) "Introduction to the Physics and Psychophysics of Music". Springer Verlag, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg. ISBN 0-387-90116-7 and ISBN 3-540-90116-7 Jan, Kegger, Wanting a speaker that jumps out at you off the wall is wanting it to do something else besides reproduce sound. It would be better get buy a jack-in-the-box or something. If you are into Grunge, don't you want the actual Grunge? Not the sound of Speakers? Jan, June 23, 2004 - 12:16 am, item 2. You old rogue. You will get us closed down. Few people would think immediately of the lady's date of birth. That would be rather like listening to Beethoven, and thinking of phase coherence. Music is something quite else, imho; and resembles the more beguiling, and interesting, of the lady's attributes. Take heart. The moral of all this is that you are as old as you feel. All the best. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Henny Youngman claimed you are only as old as the girls you feel. Very rude, but amusing when he said it. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1527 Registered: Dec-03 | I think it was said of Catherine Zeta-Jones or somebody, what is she doing marrying someone who is old enough to be her husband. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1528 Registered: Dec-03 | Timn8ter, Thanks! But I am still struggling with all this. In my way of looking at it, if the high-pass and low pass components of the same sound are +90º out of phase, they are still out of phase, and, therefore, the sound is not coherent at all. I understand from Roederer that this makes no difference to a perceived single sound. I understand you to say that a +90º phase delay can flip to -90º as you pass the crossover. I still can't focus on "time coherence", wondering what other sort there is. Thanks again. Sorry to pick at this. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 105 Registered: Dec-03 | Yep, it's confusing. Somebody decided that "phase coherence" means the same phase variance exists at all frequencies even though the low pass and high pass are actually out of phase. What makes it even harder to understand is that if this filter is fed a steady state signal the high pass will emerge 45 degrees ahead of the input. Impossible? For practical purposes, phase delay and time delay are inexorably intertwined. We've only just touched on time delay caused by driver offset :-o Probably not something related to this thread, in fact, this may already be out of scope. |
|
New member Username: DranrebPost Number: 1 Registered: Jun-04 | "flat sound" |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 106 Registered: Dec-03 | Hmmmm....flat as in flat frequency response or flat as in lifeless? One would be good, usually, the other not. Flat frequency response in the ultimate sense would be no difference in output across the measured sound spectrum, typically, 20-20,000 Hz. Most equipment is considered to have flat response if it is + or - 3 decibels as 3db is perceived as a sound change to our hearing. Flat sound may be describing a lack of dynamics (defined earlier) or details (also defined earlier). A speaker may sound flat when it doesn't exhibit good response at the high and low end of the spectrum, kinda like old AM radio. |
|
peach Unregistered guest | Do most sound engineers shoot for a flat frequency? |
|
New member Username: BanjoPost Number: 1 Registered: Jun-04 | "pink noise" |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 519 Registered: Dec-03 | "pink noise" is when your with a girl and you ........... no wait, sorry wrong forum! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 107 Registered: Dec-03 | "Do most sound engineers shoot for a flat frequency?" I don't think sound engineers care about frequency response, they just listen to thier monitors and adjust accordingly. If you mean audio designers I would say that some variations at certain frequencies may be desirable, to help offset baffle step (defined earlier) for example. Pink noise is a variant of white noise. Pink noise is white noise that has been filtered to reduce the volume at each octave. This is done to compensate for the increase in the number of frequencies per octave. Each octave is reduced by 6 decibels, resulting in a noise sound wave that has equal energy at every octave. White noise is a sound that contains every frequency within the range of human hearing (generally from 20 to 20,000 Hz) in equal amounts. Most people perceive this sound as having more high-frequency content than low, but this is not the case. This perception occurs because each successive octave has twice as many frequencies as the one preceding it. For example, from 100 Hz to 200 Hz, there are one hundred discrete frequencies. In the next octave (from 200 Hz to 400 Hz), there are two hundred frequencies. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Whether a sound engineer tries to achieve flat response is dependent upon the desired result. In other words, we would hope that most recording engineers are trying to achieve a frequency response that is not tilted or accentuated in any way. But that engineer will more than likely use frequency alterations of several dB that accentuate or deemphasize areas that need attention put in a particular region, such as voices, or attention taken away such as a "hot" microphone on the cymbals. That is one reason for the adjustability of a mixing board. For the most part an engineer will likely stay within a few dB of flat for most work. On the other hand an acoustic engineer may intentionally deviate from flat response to achieve audibilty in a hall or studio or office/conference room. By deemphasizing certain frequencies the audublity factor can be dramatically increased. Pink noise: Pink noise is a variation on white noise. White noise consists of all frequencies within a given bandwidth (usually the 20-20kHz of human hearing) where all frequencies have the same amount of energy (volume). By having as much energy between 15kHz - 20kHz as there is between 150 Hz - 200 Hz the white noise is, to our ears, rather bright and not reflective of the energy in most musical instruments. Pink noise (and there are other colors also, such as orange and green noise) is useful for audio work as the frequencies are lowered in energy by approximately 3 dB per octave as the frequency rises. As such the amount of volume at 15kHz - 20kHz will be less than at 150 Hz - 200 Hz. This is similar to the energy/volume we associate with musical instruments. Try: www.embedded.com/2000/0003/0003spectra.htm |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 307 Registered: Dec-03 | Pink Noise: Test tone featuring equal amount of energy per Hz of bandwidth. It is a common test signal to adjust equalizers for a flat frequency response. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 108 Registered: Dec-03 | Brown noise: (sorry couldn't resist) |
|
Peach Unregistered guest | Flat frequency---- If a sound engineer "listens to his monitors and makes adjustments accordingly, would not the type of monitor he uses make a big difference in how he adjusts. I have heard, read, etc. that a majority of recording studios use "Brand X" speakers which are reputed to be warm. If the sound mixer hears too much warmth, would he not increase the brightenss--to compensate for the warmth. Now, when old John Q. Public is using bright speakers would this not make the sound of this particular recording even brighter? I may be totally off base here. It's just something I have wondered about. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 520 Registered: Dec-03 | "brown noise" is when your behind your boss and put your nose... no wait,darnit wrong forum again sorry! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 109 Registered: Dec-03 | Peach, here's a quote concerning studio monitors that may help. The most fascinating use of loudspeakers is the near field monitor. Near field monitors are now almost universally used in the recording studio for general monitoring purposes and for mixing. This would seem odd because twenty-five years ago anyone in the recording industry would have said that studio monitors have to be as good as possible so that the engineer can hear the mix better than anyone else ever will. That way, all the detail in the sound can be assessed properly and any faults or deficiencies picked up. Mixes were also assessed on tiny Auratone loudspeakers just to make sure they would sound good on cheap domestic systems, radios or portables. That was until the arrival of the Yamaha NS10 - a small domestic loudspeaker with a dreadful sound. It must have found its way into the studio as cheap domestic reference. A slightly upmarket Auratone if you like. However, someone must have used it as a primary reference for a mix, and found that by some magical and indefinable means, the NS10 made it easier to get a great mix - and not only that but a mix that would 'travel well' and sound good on any system. The NS10 and later NS10M are now no longer in production, but every manufacturer has a nearfield monitor in their range. Some actually now sound very good, although their bass response is lacking due to their small size. The success of nearfield monitoring is something of a mystery. It shouldn't work, but the fact is that it does. And since so little is quantifiable, the best recommendation for a nearfield monitor is that it has been used by many engineers to mix lots of big-selling records. That would be the Yamaha NS10 then! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1534 Registered: Dec-03 | Excellent and informative points, Timn8ter and Jan, and you agree as far as I can see. Tim, Jan made some similar points recently about the Yamaha NS10, on June 18, on Teaching an old dog new tricks.... The idea that a bad, coloured, speaker makes a good monitor for recording engineers strike me as totally bananas. Peach is surely correct; it can only make the eventual sound worse, whatever the user plays it through. All he could reasonably do it use an anti-NS10, to correct the colouration. Or else hack it with an equalizer. Perhaps Yamaha also sell equalizers, to fix the problem their speakers caused in the first place....? |
|
Peach Unregistered guest | Now, could the variances in studio monitors account for why some recordings sound great and others sound average and below. If our home systems do not match the studio, this could be part of the problem, at least with some recordings??? There are numerous studios out there using different monitors. Can we assume that a particular studio or recording company always uses the same equipment? Tim, are you saying that most studios use the Yamaha monitor? I had heard or read or maybe dreamed that most used B&W monitors. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 522 Registered: Dec-03 | supposably their are or were many that did use the yamaha. i know many "john" classical studios use the B&W 801. (i want those) |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 523 Registered: Dec-03 | B&W 801 NAUTILUS (that is) i love the sound of these speakers! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 110 Registered: Dec-03 | Keep in mind that the NS-10 arrived at a time when using studio monitors for record engineering was a new idea and was not originally designed for that purpose. Ideally, a speaker that can deliver all the frequencies at moderate levels at close range without boosting any frequency group will make a good monitor. For some reason, even though it was a bad speaker, it did allow the engineers to hear what they needed to hear on the recording to satisfy the majority of record buyers. It's a known fact that just because something is popular (especially in music buying circles) doesn't necessarily mean it's good. When designers make speakers for someone's home they try to consider small room acoustics and what they think their target consumer is going to like. That's different criteria than a studio monitor. The tricky part is making sure the recording sounds good on a Nautilus or a boom box. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Here's the post I made on the other forum: Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:42 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Her's a little piece that made me laugh out loud. It is from a list of the top five studio monitors and explains much about what we have discussed here. I first started selling the NS10M in 1977. It was a lousy speaker that personified everything that was bad about minmonitors. It took what the revered LS3/5a had done so well and turned all of it into mush. Bright, hard, agressive all those things and no bass beneath about 100 Hz. But with about a +10 db lump at 120 Hz it sounded like pounded dog p**p. At the time it was the personification of the Japanese abilty to copy something poorly. But for years I saw them on the consoles of almost every studio. 2) Yamaha NS10M Yamaha retired the popular NS10M this year and will only sell them until they run out of parts to make them. This monitor has dominated the console tops of pro studios for many years. They don't sound great and that's their charm. If you can make your mix sound good on NS10s, the mix will translate well into other systems. It's this fact of life that has kept them selling like hotcakes. The are unpowered and sell for $478 a pair. Too bad so many couldn't make their mix sound good on the NS10M's and just gave up trying. ================================================ Unfortunately my experience in studios, which is fairly small potatoes compared to the big selling record companies, has indicated that sound "quality" is seldom the driving force behind too many enigineers/producers. The over abundance of the NS10M is one more example of how the people who make the records (sorry, old dog speak) and the people who buy the music, particularly the "audiophile" community are at odds with their desired results. This issue has been addressed through the years in the "audiophile press" that some are so willing to disparage. But the points they made were quickly dismissed as that segment of the music buying public is so small. The NS10M, as I said above, took the idea of the mini monitor that was established by the LS3/5a and distorted the concept beyond recognition in some instances. The little BBC speaker is what it is because it was meant for mobile monitoring situations and therefore space was at a premium. The small speaker had limited bass extension, even in a mobile van location, but, if you mixed to bump up the bass to sound "good" on a small speaker it would knock the woofers out of a "normal" speaker. The story goes that, having heard music mixed in this fashion on a small monitor, Mick Jagger took a 6" X 9" car speaker and, with no box on the speaker, mixed "Sticky Fingers". The resulting lack of bass response from the mix speaker meant the songs from that album sold based on how they sounded on car stereos and cheap systems of the day. I'm afraid very few studios use a speaker the quality of a B&W or KEF monitor. If you would pick up a magazine aimed at the studio folks you will generally be appalled at what they use and the results they claim they are seeking in the final mix. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1542 Registered: Dec-03 | The last thing the recording engineer needs is speakers resembling those of the eventual listener to his recording. Even if he could know what they were going to be, the logic is all wrong. In the few recordings/broadcasts I have seen, the engineer sits behind glass panels, so he can see the performance, in a small, sound-proof room adjacent to the actual venue. He needs to be able to switch between "live feed" and "tape monitor" (more old dog speak) in order to be able to compare the real sound of the performance, with what he is deciding to put onto the tape/disc/ transmission-feed. Therefore he needs a totally uncoloured studio monitor, as a reference, to hear the original, as well as to hear the effect of the various settings for the mixing console, and adjust them accordingly. If he is trying to capture the original sound (isn't this his job?) he will aim to decrease the disparity between the live feed and the sound from the signal from the tape monitor as much as possible. The balance is the reponsibility of the performers, not the recording engineer. Even if the engineer has delusions of grandeur, or is a compulsive, interfering busy-body, he still has to hear how it sounds "in there" in order to make the mixing decisions. Give him coloured studio monitors, and he will be compensating for that colouration when deciding on the mix. Therefore, a bass-heavy monitor will tend to make him record a bass-light master. If you wanted to fool the engineer in order to get the sound of an NS10M on the master tape, you would have to invert its colouration for the studio monitor; i.e. make it bass-light, so he compensated for that in the mix, and made the master bass-heavy. Surely any recording/broadcast engineer, even the sort who thinks he knows better than the musicians how their performance should sound, would choose an uncoloured studio monitor every time. Otherwise he could never know what he was actually doing. And no, it doesn't make any difference what sort of music he is recording, or whether it is music at all. So a studio monitor just has to be uncoloured. That is also the goal of listeners who have thought about what they are trying to do. That is partly why the BBC LS3/5a studio monitor was such a brilliant domestic loudspeaker, too. Even if you prefer a home speaker with some sort of colouration, you will still want the engineer to have produced a neutral mix in order for your daft speakers to do what you want, even if that is to jump off their stands. Am I missing something, here? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 528 Registered: Dec-03 | john to start i'm not trying to back the idea of using colored speakers as monitors. when i think of studio and studio monitors i am not envisioning a live recording at an event. where yes you would need uncolored speakers to recreate the live setting. i am thinking of a studio recording where you are mixing the sources to produce the end result. i use to work for a tape manufacturing plant and we had a small studio.now that studio was designed to play as flat as it could.when we make a new master we would make 5 tapes and 5 people would take them home listen to them and give feedback on how they sounded on our home systems.when we first started doing this, some would come back with advice of how the recording could use some eq.after awhile we all agread to make adjustments in the eq of the studio so everything we made souded the same. usually once we were done in the studio the tapes sounded good to everyone after that. so my point is, flat is not nesacerally the most pleasing eq. and a monitor producing a certain coloration could possably produce a more pleasing studio recording for more people. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1544 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Kegger. All your posts make me think. I have written a load of stuff and saved the file, I can maybe post it later. But I read you post again, and it seems to me you have gone from common sense to big problems, clearly and simply. And I can't work out where! I worry we are using words differently. Can I just try to understand clearly. "when i think of studio and studio monitors i am not envisioning a live recording at an event." What else is there, except an event? There has to be an event. It does not matter what we call where it happens. Sometimes the studio moves to some performance location. Sometimes the performance moves to the studio, to make it easy to record. If there was no event, it seems nothing is being recorded at all, too me. I am not trying to lay a trap, I am just trying to stop myself going round in circles. " am thinking of a studio recording where you are mixing the sources to produce the end result. " But where do the sources come from? Don't they have to come from some sort of event? My saved file is all about how I think we need a reference sound, whatever we are trying to do. The best reference is the event we are trying to record. If we are not trying to record an event, but create one, we still need to be able to make comparisons, to see if the end result corresponds with our intentions. To be able to compare anything with anything, we need to be able to correct for any "colouration" introduced by the comparison itself. So we need "neutral" This is much shorter than my original response, which rambles a bit. But I hope it is still clear. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 531 Registered: Dec-03 | john what i mean is a studio album. a studio album does not necessarily involve the whole band playing at once."and rarely does" parts can be played individualy then mixed later to form the end result. as most do it this way and lay down individual tracks. so their is no performance so to speak to recreate. it is up to the engineer's and producers to decide how it all goes together. |
|
Unregistered guest | Kegger, WRONG. A very common misconception, but WRONG. Again, I repeat: Only a 1st order crossover can be time/phase aligned. Period. 4th order is worse than 2nd, which is worse than 1st. Why? 4th-order rolloffs keep the drivers protected really well from low frequencies- the upper-range cones/domes don't even wiggle on a bass drum. You say: " sorry maui but a 4th order xover puts you right back in phase" Yes they are in phase, which is a benefit, but THEY DID NOT START AT THE SAME MOMENT, NOR WILL THEY STOP AT THE SAME MOMENT. THEY ARE NOT TIME COHERENT. With a tone generator, feed that woofer and mid a steady sine wave at the frequency where the crossover occurs. Put a mic out front- look at the combined single sine wave from the woofer and mid on a `scope. You cannot see the beginning or end of this steady tone- it's just a sine wave going up and down. Then unhook the mid- look at just the woofer. Then look at just the mid. THEIR WAVE'S PEAKS AND VALLEYS LINE UP- they are in phase. But if you could see the beginning or the end, one starts A FULL CYCLE LATER THAN THE OTHER. And when they stop, ONE STOPS A FULL CYCLE LATER THAN THE OTHER. You could even say their combined output rings at that crossover frequency. ALL of that is in any second or third-year electrical engineering "Filter Theory" book in plain English- that is the behaviour of the 4th-order filter. In phase, yes, but 360 degrees out of step. Can you hear this? Yes. Just listen to a speaker (or headphone) without that time delay. How much time delay was imposed? Exactly one full period of the crossover frequency. If that was 400Hz, then the time delay between the two drivers is 1/400th second, or 2.5 milliseconds, which is ~32 inches for time of travel, acoustically. You just smeared the guitar spatially by ~32 inches, front-to-rear, and transiently by 2.5ms, across its 400Hz range (just above middle C). It sounds like the upper strings of the guitar are "leading" the lower strings, or that there is more pick on the string. It also changes the wave envelope, which means a loss of clarity. And all that means it changes the musical message. But how would you know unless you've heard the real thing? All you really know is that there are many "poor recordings" you can't play, can't enjoy. Many performances "you just don't get". Why? Because that phase distortion is distorting everything that comes into it- including any recorded distortions- so you hear distorted distortion- which is multiplicative, not additive. You are being presented a speaker that warps not only the image of the guitar, and its dynamic attack, but mis-aligns the individual tones that go into shaping its harmonic envelope, which is its timbre- the very nature of why it sounds like a guitar. |
|
Unregistered guest | Here's a decent site that might help you understand what I just wrote better http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/TimeAligned1.html |
|
Unregistered guest | Kegger, you say " 1st order 90 degrees "not in phase" Everyone seems to forget that the drivers must acoustically sum (low and high add together) somewhere in front of the speakers in the acoustic environment. With out of phase drivers that summing point starts down (midrange below the tweeter with applied signal of midrange lagging tweeter signal) and then moves up relative to the axis of the speaker depending on frequency. If you do this in a circuit, the summing is literally a point and so no such physical axis even exist. Speakers are not points and are not circuits though. A 6dB/octave crossover has a phase of plus 45 degrees for the tweeter and minus 45 degrees for the midrange at the crossover point. This is why the crossover is -3dB. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1551 Registered: Dec-03 | mauimusicman Your 06:57 am is excellent, clears a lot of things up, and I had never understood this before. Many thanks! Instead of "time coherent", why do we not just say "synchronous"? Is that not what is meant? Having read and, I think, understood, I cannot imagine why we are even discussing getting all frequencies in a sound to start and stop synchronously. From a physical and musical point of view, it would seem to be essential. So, why does anyone even bother with crossovers that are not first-order? Are they massively difficult to make, or do they have some trade-off in terms of slope or whatever? This is not an academic question. A typical cross-over for a two-driver speaker is 3 kHz. The wavelength of sound at that frequency is about 4 inches, and its period is around a third of a millisecond. Can you hear phase delays above and below that? Sure you can. Then we get to stereo imaging; not having "time coherence" must be a disaster, that is right in the middle of the audible spectrum where we are acutely sensitive to phase, we is where we get all our information about the position of the source of sound. Having half of the single sound of a plucked guitar string coming from one place, and the other from another, is surely another case for a zero-tolerance approach. Furthermore, the initial transient, over in milliseconds, is where we get most of our auditory clues about which instrument is being played. The quality (timbre) of a sustained note helps, but it is very difficult to distinguish some totally different instruments purely from from overtones on the sustained sound. BTW this consideration is undoubtedly one of the big improvements offered by high-resolution formats. I can vouch for DVD-A. It is just so much more effortlessly obvious which instrument is being played than it is with even the best CD. This is another area where oversampling will not help; that transient attack is essentially a one-off pulse of a very complex waveform. In any case, even with medium-resolution formats such as CD, you surely need "time coherence" ("synchronicity across the frequency spectrum"...?) in sound reproduction, for a number of reasons. Are there any real speakers with first-order crossovers? Kegger, "parts can be played individualy then mixed later to form the end result. " Sure, but you need an uncoloured reference to be able to hear the component sounds, and decide on the mix, as well as to hear difference between different mixes. If not, it would be like trying to putting together a composite photograph from components photographed under different lighting conditions. You could introduce coloured filters, but what a tedious and pointless job, and you could be sure you would never get it right. Show me a painter/decorator/photographer who prefers to work under fluorescent strips (yellow-blue) or incandescent tungsten filament bulbs (red) instead of daylight! BTW, I now back off my previous criticism of EMI for putting "monitored with B&W loudspeakers". That says a lot for EMI, and B&W, in my view, no matter whether there is bribery involved. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 532 Registered: Dec-03 | john. if you remember i started my post with. " john to start i'm not trying to back the idea of using colored speakers as monitors." so like i said i'm not trying to codone the use of colored monitors. but you asked "Am I missing something, here?" so i was just trying to point out what they might have been trying to do. and if they believed this monitor resembled the opposite of someones home sound than i understand the theory. meaning that if this was designed, that after the music sounded flat in the studio the recording would sound more pleasing in the home envirionment. i understand it, just don't by into it! like said john i don't believe this but i can understand it. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 533 Registered: Dec-03 | maui all i wrote was how the different xovers phases are all out until you get back to fourth. which was a response to yours saying only first order xovers were in phase. and asked what you meant dude. settle down we can all be civilized hear. i will read the theory you buy into on speakers. but their are many well respected authorities on speaker design that would never consider 1st order xovers and swear by 4th or higher. so you and many others feel that 1st order xovers are the only way to go. while many others believe this is not the case. and both sides can produce plenty of fact to back their designs. you choose to only like first order xovers. that is fine. but again that is your choice.others can and will make their own choices. and base it on what they believe has better benefits. some people like yourself come accross sounding like "do it my way or your wrong" you have to understand many people believe otherwise and for you to be taken seriously you can't try to jam your ideas down their throats.and expect them to listen! peace! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1561 Registered: Dec-03 | Kegger, It seems from Jan's Yamaha quote that they either did not know what they were talking about, or were trying to pull the wool. "If you can make your mix sound good on NS10s, the mix will translate well into other systems." That's like saying to an artist "If you can make your painting look good under sodium lights, it will look good in other lights, too". What garbage. Maui's link is very good. I see from it that all my KEFs are flat baffle speakers. Their colouration is small and their imaging is excellent. I shall try to find out what sort of crossovers they have. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 534 Registered: Dec-03 | hear is a little more about xovers. and as you can see all xovers have their advantages and disadvantages. it just depends on what you put more emphasys on. 1st-order Filters Advantages: Can produce minimum phase response (Butterworth only) and a maximally flat amplitude response. Requires the fewest components. Disadvantages: Its 6 dB/octave slope is often too shallow to prevent modulation distortion, especially at a tweeter's resonance frequency. Achieving minimum phase and a maximally flat amplitude response requires very careful driver alignment and only occurs when the listener is located at exactly the same distance from each driver. It has a 90 degree phase shift which can result in lobing and tilting of the coverage pattern. Two-Way 1st-order Butterworth: Produces a -3 dB crossover point to achieve a maximally flat amplitude response, minimum phase response and flat power response that qualifies it as both an APC and CPC network. The 90 degree phase shift results in a -15degree tilt in the vertical coverage pattern if the tweeter and woofer are vertically separated by no more than one wavelength at the crossover frequency and if the acoustical depth of the tweeter and woofer are carefully aligned at the crossover frequency. The tilt will increase and lobing can become severe if the drivers are separated by a greater distance or are misaligned. These problems appear as a ripple in the amplitude response. Filter Q = 0.707. Two-Way & Three-Way 1st-order Solen Split -6 dB: A custom version of the 1st-order Butterworth filter (twoway crossovers) or 1st-order APC filter (three-way crossovers) that uses a -6 dB crossover point to minimize the disadvantages of a crossover network with standard 1st-order Butterworth or APC filters. Three-Way Note. 1st-order filters are usually not recommended for three-way crossover networks because their shallow 6 dB/octave slopes do not provide adequate separation. 1st-order APC: Produces -3 dB crossover points to achieve a flat amplitude response. 1st-order CPC: (Seldom used.) Produces -3 dB crossover points to achieve a flat power response. 2nd-order Filters Advantages: Can produce a maximally flat amplitude response. Requires relatively few components. Has a 180 degree phase shift which can often be accommodated by reversing the polarity of the tweeter and which produces minimal or no lobing or tilt in the coverage pattern. Is less sensitive to driver misalignment than 1st-order filters. Disadvantages: Although the 12 dB/octave slope is better than a 1st-order filter, it may still be too shallow to minimize the modulation distortion of many drivers. Two-Way 2nd-order Bessel: Produces a -5 dB crossover point to achieve a nearly flat (+1 dB) amplitude response. The summed group delay is flat. It has a low sensitivity to driver misalignment and resonance peaks. Filter Q = 0.58. 2nd-order Butterworth: Produces a -3 dB crossover point that sums to a +3 dB amplitude response and a flat power response that qualifies it as a CPC network. It has a medium sensitivity to driver misalignment and resonance peaks. Filter Q = 0.707. 2nd-order Chebychev: (Seldom used.) Produces a 0 dB crossover point to achieve a +6 dB amplitude response with about ±2 dB of ripple. The summed group delay has a significant peak just below the crossover frequency. It has a medium sensitivity to driver misalignment and resonance peaks. Filter Q = 1 .0. 2nd-order Linkwitz-Riley: (Very popular.) Produces a -6 dB crossover point to achieve a maximally flat amplitude response that qualifies it as an APC network. It has a -3 dB dip in the power response. The summed group delay is flat. It has a medium sensitivity to driver misalignment and resonance peaks. Filter Q = 0.49. Three-Way 2nd-order APC: Produces -6 dB crossover points to achieve a flat amplitude response but the power response will have approximately 3 dB of ripple. 2nd-order CPC: (Seldom used.) Produces -3 dB crossover points to achieve a flat power response but the amplitude response will have approximately 3 dB of ripple. 3rd-order Filters Advantages: Can produce nearly flat amplitude response. With an 18 dB/octave slope, it is better able to minimize modulation distortion. Less sensitive to driver misalignment. Disadvantages: Requires more components. Has a 270 degree phase shift which can result in lobing and tilting of the coverage pattern. Two-Way 3rd-order Butterworth: (Popular for some D'Appolito mid-tweeter-mid designs.) Produces a -3 dB crossover point to achieve a maximally flat amplitude response and flat power response that qualifies it as both an APC and CPC network. A 270 degree phase shift results in a + 15 degree tilt in the vertical coverage pattern if the tweeter is wired with normal polarity and a -15 degree tilt if the tweeter is wired with reverse polarity. (D'Appolito mid-tweeter-mid designs overcome much of this tilt problem and produce a more symmetrical coverage pattern.) It has better group delay than a 1st- and 2nd-order Butterworth network. Filter Q = 0.707. Three-Way 3rd-order APC: Produces -3 dB crossover points to achieve a flat amplitude response but the power response will have a modest ripple (usually less then 1 dB) that increases slowly as the spread between the two crossover frequencies increases. 3rd-order CPC: (Seldom used.) Produces -3 dB crossover points to achieve a flat power response but the amplitude response will have a varying amount of ripple (typically 1 to 3 dB) depending on the spread between the two crossover frequencies. 4th-order Filters Advantages: Can produce a maximally flat amplitude response. With a 24 dB/octave slope it provides the best isolation between drivers resulting in the least modulation distortion. Has a 360 degree phase shift which results in "in-phase" response and which promotes minimal or no lobing or tilt in the coverage pattern. Is the least sensitive to driver misalignment. Disadvantages: Requires the most components. The increased number of inductors can result in substantial insertion loss because of inductor DCR. Two-Way 4th-order Bessel: Produces a -7 ½ dB crossover point to achieve a nearly flat (-1 ½ dB) amplitude response. The summed group delay produces a moderate bump just below the crossover frequency. Filter Q = 0.58. 4th-order Butterworth: Produces a -3 dB crossover point that sums to a +3 dB amplitude response and flat power response that qualifies it as a CPC network. The summed group delay has a significant peak just below the crossover frequency. Filter Q = 0.707. 4th-order Gaussian: (A seldom used filter that is constructed with an asymmetrical filter topology.) Produces a -6 dB crossover point to achieve a nearly flat amplitude response with moderate ripple. The summed group delay produces a moderate bump just below the crossover frequency. 4th-order Legendre: (A seldom used filter that is constructed with an asymmetrical filter topology.) Produces a -1 dB crossover point that sums to a +5 dB amplitude response with minor ripple. The summed group delay has a significant peak just below the crossover frequency. 4th-order Linear-Phase: (A seldom used filter that is constructed with an asymmetrical filter topology.) Produces a -6 dB crossover point to achieve a nearly flat amplitude response with moderate ripple. The summed group delay produces a moderate bump just below the crossover frequency. 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley: (Very popular. Sometimes called a "squared Butterworth" filter. Also used for some D'Appolito mid-tweeter-mid designs.) Produces a -6 dB crossover point to achieve a maximally flat amplitude response that qualifies it as an APC network. It has a -3 dB dip in the power response. The summed group delay produces a moderate bump just below the crossover frequency. Filter Q = 0.49. Three-Way 4th-order APC: Produces -6 dB crossover points to achieve a flat amplitude response but the power response will have approximately 3 dB of ripple. 4th-order CPC: (Seldom used.) Produces -3 dB crossover points to achieve a flat power response but the amplitude response will have approximately 3 dB of ripple. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Never heard of Gaussian or Legendre. It may be coincidence but I always seemed to like the sound of speakers that used a 1st order low pass, and let the woofer roll itself off naturally, with a 4th order high pass. They always seemed the smoothest to me. But I always thought I would buy a speaker if they named it after the X-over - Chebychev. "You fool, of course your speakers are inferior! I have Chebychev 101A's." Kegger - CPC? APC? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 535 Registered: Dec-03 | Filter Types The filters in three-way crossover networks (and some two-way networks) are often identified as either "APC" or "CPC" depending on the way they combine. APC stands for "All-Pass Crossover" and it refers to those crossover networks whose filters sum to create a flat voltage output. APC networks are generally considered the best choice because they make it possible for the speaker to have a flat on-axis amplitude response. Common APC networks include 1st- and 3rd-order Butterworth filters and 2nd- and 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley filters. CPC stands for "Constant-Power Crossover" and it refers to those crossovers whose filters sum to provide a flat power response. The power response of a speaker is the total of both its off-axis and on-axis amplitude response. In other words, it is the total acoustical power that is radiated into a space. CPC networks can be beneficial in reverberant environments where the off-axis response is important. The difference between APC and CPC networks can be understood electrically by a comparison of their input to output voltages. APC networks satisfy the following expression: [VI] = [VL + VM + VH] This means the absolute value of the input voltage will equal the absolute value of the sum of the output voltages of each filter at all frequencies. CPC networks satisfy the following: VI^2 = VL^2 + VM^2 + VH^2 This means that the square of the input voltage will equal the sum of the squares of the output voltages of each filter at all frequencies. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 536 Registered: Dec-03 | jan in a 2-way speaker i would agree with you on the first order low pass and 4th high pass. the woofer is just about giving up at the xover frequency and a 1st should generally take it down enough. and the tweeter will be well protected from extreme volumes with a 4th order xover. it's in multi driver speakers that get difficult to use low order xovers as the drivers bleed over to much into the others. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1564 Registered: Dec-03 | Any one wishing to know more on crossovers etc., Kegger's source is Loudspeakers Filter Types & Crossovers on Audioholics, Audio Product Reviews for the Masses. That, in turn, says "Source : Xover Pro Harris Technologies". |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | That is why I have also almost always preferred two way speakers. I have seldom heard a "traditional" three way that I didn't think had some problems until you were spending unreasonable amounts of cash. About the only three ways I have liked at reasonable cost are more similar to a subwoofer in the same box as a small mini monitor. Get the woofer out of the way by about 200 Hz or your going to mess things up. Go LS3/5a's!!! I'm going to break my own rule and have several items that need description. I have noticed there are still the recurring questions about basic audio stuff on the forum. This is one of the things I thought this thread might address. And though I enjoy the discussion of X-overs and would like to see more, I would also like to get back to basic stuff that we can refer others to when needed. As such, I would like it if one person would take one each of the following terms and give a brief desicription/definition: Tuner Phono amp Pre amp/Control amp Active/Passive pre amp Power amp Integrated amp Reciever |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Add: Wattage Distortion |
|
Unregistered guest | Kegger, I'm simply stating facts. No hard feelings. You say "but their are many well respected authorities on speaker design that would never consider 1st order xovers and swear by 4th or higher". I'm sure thats true. Big problem here lies in the math thats required to do a simple 1st order x-ver right. Only a handfull of designers have that knowledge. Many rely on the sine wave data, sadly. Most have to compensate for the drivers( or their own) shortcomings using the crossover. Try to find a Green Mountain Audio dealer in your neck of the woods. Give a listen to the entry level "Europa" at $880.00/pair. They will astound you. Not with their bass or high end response, but with their cohesiveness. I'm a musician, so perhaps my ears are more sensitive to speaker problems, but I can hear the crossover in every speaker I listen to thats not 1st order. Instruments, and especially voices have a realism that defies description. I'm not saying it's not ok to like a 4th order x-over, just that they lack time/phase alignment. And when you smear the time/phase of the music, you lose the musical intent. I spent 10 years selling high end audio. Took me another 15 or so to realise that phase is the brains biggest enemy. Looking back, every audio product I recall HATING the sound of had phase problems. They include: 1) The original 44K CD players with those nasty brick wall filters at 22.05khz. 2) Japanese amps/recievers with huge global feedback loops. 3) Almost all multi-way speakers. Just trying to make my fellow audiophiles and music lovers aware, thats all. |
|
Peach Unregistered guest | J. Vigne--Thank you? I was beginning to think the xover discussion was going to go on forever. I think you given a good list of terms to be defined for an "Audio 101" thread spinoff. After all 101 in college suggests the first course in a particular area. Maybe someone needs to write a book or start a thread called "Audio for Dummies and People who Know Just Enough to be Curious and Dangerous". I for one would buy it. I probably fit into both categories. For discussion--I for one would like a definition of "passive/active preamp. And is a power amp the same as just an amp? Again, thanks J. for redirecting this to the 101 level. I hope people follow. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 111 Registered: Dec-03 | Tuner: essentially a radio with no amplifier. Many will include a preamp section also. Phono amp: Voltage outputs of phono cartridges are very low. Moving coil cartridges can have outputs at .4 mV. Power amplifiers typically are expecting a voltage input around 1 V. A preamp that will take the low level output of a phono cartridge and increase it to match the input sensitivity of a power amplifier. Active Pre amp: A preamp that will increase the signal from a source by about 6db and will include controls; volume, input selection, etc.. Requires additional power source. Passive preamp: Does not increase the signal from a source. Full volume equals unity. Generally includes an input selector and a volume control. Requires no additional power source. Control amp: see integrated amp Power amp: A "bare bones" amplifier with no preamp section. Inputs and a power switch are generally all you'll see on the outside. Some have gain controls but technically the gain control is a preamp. Integrated amp: Combination of a preamp and power amp in one unit. Receiver: Combination of a preamp, power amp and tuner in one unit. Many modern receivers include digital signal processors for movie sound. These are known as AV receivers. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1569 Registered: Dec-03 | The discussion of cross-overs and phasing follow naturally from the invitations to define/describe "coloration" and "coherence". I learned some things there, and particularly thank Mauimusicman. BTW I have a nice solution to two-way phasing without sacrificing bass extension. It is a small bookshelf on a stand, with a passive sub, on the floor, some way away, the latter designed and made specifically to go with the "bookshelf". Can't understand why that never caught on. There is a sub companion to the LS3/5a, too, I read. Perhaps this is where they got the idea. Jan? But this is off-topic... I suspect the thing to do, if anyone feels things are getting too technical, is start a more specialist thread. However, Jan started the thread, so we should listen if he thinks things are getting off-topic. He will be the last to abuse this position of power, if I judge correctly! But, Jan, you did say "one word at a time". This thread wil tend to go in nine different directions after your last two posts! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 112 Registered: Dec-03 | Wattage: The watt is used to specify the rate at which electrical energy is dissipated, or the rate at which electromagnetic energy is radiated, absorbed, or dissipated usually in the form of heat. It's typically used in reference to electrical circuits. When it comes to speakers this is almost a useless term. A speaker will have a "wattage" rating that includes a nominal and a maximum number. Many confuse a high maximum wattage rating with quality and believe you can't put a 100W amplifier on a 15W rated speaker which is incorrect although you wouldn't want to apply 35 watts of amplifier power to a speaker that can only dissipate 4 watts (remember the heat?). At best this a guideline to assist in getting an amplifier that can drive the speaker effectively but the better specification to use is the efficiency rating. Distortion: Any difference between the input signal and the output. All audio systems induce distortion. The amount and type of distortion can vary greatly. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 113 Registered: Dec-03 | Geez, I just re-read my pre-amp description and realized I didn't say that preamps will include input selection, volume controls and perhaps (shudder) tone controls, and balance control. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 114 Registered: Dec-03 | As for my wattage definition I kept it rather short on purpose as I didn't think this was the place to get into Ohm's Law or other circuit descriptions. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1571 Registered: Dec-03 | Timn8ter, I did intend to interrupt. Those definitions are all clear, concise, and just what is required here, I think. I cannot see room for argument on any point. I would only add the a Watt is a unit of power. Any sort - not just electrical. A car engine can be rated in Watts. Partly to forestall political digression, let me add that "power", in this sense, is the rate of doing work. Energy is the capacity to do work. Therefore power is also the rate of consumption of energy. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 537 Registered: Dec-03 | the last quick thing on xovers. yes a 1st order is an excelent sounding xover and may be the best at that. but as we said multi way speakers and speakers that do not have the most expensive drivers can't use them the drivers just don't permit.that's why many diy profects don't use them.the drivers that are generally used are from a special or buyout that you got a deal on and now you want to make a project with them. i have no issue with making a system using first order xovers if you spend the extra money to get drivers that can tolerate that. the main problem i have with them is multi way systems/driver selection/power handling. as i am an avid diy i make projects with the drivers i find.i also play my music quite loud at times and play some music metal/thrash/grunge that need "generally" a higher order xover to handle more power. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I don't think we will go too far astray. All the terms are interrelated and can be described in a few sentences. What I hoped to see was everyone pitching in to give a few descriptions and then compare what we have in total. I would think we will still have some variations that are worth hashing out. For example, I would add to the tuner description that, obviously, a tuner with a pre amp in the same package will be called a tuner pre amp. Phono amp: Also provides the inverse RIAA equalization curve to compenstae for deficiencies in the recording process. Active pe amp: By additional power source, I would assume you mean it has to be plugged into the wall outlet. Whether it has an outboard power supply unit is not a determining factor as to whether it is an active pre amp. It simply means the pre amp utilizes circuits that must be powered, either by AC or battery, to function. Pasive pre amp: requires no electrical connection to operate. Can be as simple as a volume control between the source and the amplifier. Control amp: Were the controls are located. Not an integrated amp though it may be part of an integraed amp. Normally when a pre amp contains no phono pre amplifier section, it will be termed a control amp since it give you control over sources and volume. Power amp: Literally where the wattage (power) is produced. Takes the small voltages from the sources, normally through the pre amp or control amp, and steps up the voltage and current to levels suffucient to drive most loudspeakers. I have three amplifiers that have no power switch. Just inputs and speaker connectors. I would say volume controls on an amplifier are just that, volume controls not a pre amp. In this instance I would say a pre amp steps up the voltage from the sources. A volume control only steps down the voltage from the incoming source. Integrated amplifier: The equivalent of a reciever without a tuner. A power amp and pre amp combined in one box. Because it is a more specialized product, an integrated amp often has slightly better design and build qualities, sometimes, slightly. Anyone care to add or dispute any of what has been said? Let's not argue philosophy but more just what you see as the function or simple description of the terms. How about some more on wattage and distortion. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 540 Registered: Dec-03 | these next 2 posts are from another thread that jan and i were on. an integrated amp is basicaly the same thing as a reciever meaning it does other things besides amplify the signal. it will have, say a tuner in it plus inputs for other devices.but the integrated amp won't have a tuner. where just a basic 2 channel amp has nothing but 2 inputs and 2 outputs.this would be what you use for external amplification. basically an amplifier just takes the signal you give it and amplifies it. amplifiers come in many different sizes and shapes. you have 1 channel amps (mono block) 2 channel amps.(like what we are talking about) and other various channels maybe as many as 12 or so. but they are just called amplifiers. your reciever has amplifiers in it but also does other things simular to an inegrated amplifier. and may have preamp outputs. a preamp with no amplifiers in it is what you would connect like tape decks or dvd players and such to then connect the amplifier to the preamp outputs. it is simular to a reciever and integrated amp but has no amplifier built in. just an adjustable signal that comes out the preamp outputs a very low signal that goes up and down with the volume control than that very low signal that comes out the preamp outputs connects to an amp that increases the output (amplify). |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 541 Registered: Dec-03 | "jans" A reciever is made of three components put into one box. A tuner, whose function should be obvious by its name. A pre amplifier, whose function is to do two things; step up and give frequency shaping (RIAA and other curves) to low level signals from the various source components (with buffering between inputs and outputs) such as phono, tuner, tape, etc. and to give you the control over these sources that will send signals in the desired direction (selector switch), give you volume adjustment and whatever other control functions you might need (bass, treble, balance, etc.). In the early days of audio, before turntables (with magnetic cartridges) and tape decks, the function of stepping up signal levels was not part of a "pre amp" and the unit was simply called a control amp. In today's market many preamplifiers, whether in a reciever or separate, do not contain a phono pre amplifier, only high level, line level inputs, and can rightfully be called a control amplifier once again. The last piece of a reciever is the power amplifier which is where wattage is developed. By placing all three in one box a designer has to make certain concessions to the layout which may seriously affect the sound. By separating each component of a "reciever" you achieve (ideally) better performance and the ability to pick which piece actually suits your needs the best. Recievers are meant (usually) to sell for less money than separates and unless you have a good sized budget you will probably need to look at a reciever or used separates. By removing just the tuner from a "reciever" you create an integrated amplifier. It still contains a pre amplifier and a power amplifier. Because this is a somewhat specialized market niche (particularly in the US, much more common in the European market designs) this is often a better built component than a reciever and you can, if you desire, add a separate outboard tuner at any time. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 115 Registered: Dec-03 | I think the term "control amp" is passe. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Dipole/bipole Don't forget dipole antennas. |
|
Peach Unregistered guest | Stereo? 2 ch. stereo? Is stereo always 2 ch? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 116 Registered: Dec-03 | A dipole antenna is a straight electrical conductor measuring 1/2 wavelength from end to end and connected at the center to a radio-frequency (RF) feed line. This antenna, also called a doublet, is one of the simplest types of antenna, and constitutes the main RF radiating and receiving element in various sophisticated types of antennas. The dipole is inherently a balanced antenna, because it is bilaterally symmetrical. In a dipole speaker, two sound fields eminating from the speaker are out of phase. While one side is pushing, the other side is pulling. This can be done with a single driver on an open baffle or with two sets of drivers in a box. The result is that there is a "null" or dead zone of sound in the area along the 90 degress axis of the speaker. Open baffle speakers, which are dipole, were defined by me earlier in this thread. In bipole speakers, two drivers or sets of drivers are in phase with each other, both sides push at the same time. A bipole speaker will not have the same null spot as a dipole. Depending on which direction the drivers are firing and how the speakers are placed you could end up with highly reflective sounds which would be desirable for surround speakers in a home theater. Another advantage of bipole speakers is the absence of baffle step which was also addressed earlier. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 117 Registered: Dec-03 | Strictly speaking, stereo is two-channel audio reproduction. This has been convoluded by electronic manufacturers including DSP options known as "4 channel stereo" and "5 channel stereo". |
|
Peach Unregistered guest | So what is the difference between 3, 4, 5 channel stereo and 5 ch surround? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 118 Registered: Dec-03 | The biggest difference is that there is no audio engineering standard for 3,4, or 5 channel stereo as there is for 5 channel surround. If you play a surround sound recording through a 5 channel processor it should sound essentially the same as the engineer intended and it would do so through any 5 channel processor. Playing a 2 channel stereo recording through a processor that distributes the signal as decided by a particular manufacturer (3,4,5 channel stereo) will not sound anything like what the engineer intended and will be very different than surround sound and would likely vary by brand. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 119 Registered: Dec-03 | Addtionally, my experience is that 5 channel stereo is not stereo at all but closer to 5 identical mono signals. There is no imaging or ambience to speak of. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1590 Registered: Dec-03 | Timn8ter, Thank you for "dipole" and "bipole". So clear, and concise. Peach, "Is stereo always 2 ch?" By a strict definition, stereo does not have to be obtained from only two channels. The roots "stereo" and "phono" are from the Greek for "solid" and "sound", respectively. There is also, for example, stereoscopy (literally "solid sight") which gives 3-D visual images. You need at least two channels to obtain stereophony; you do not need more. Actually, they jumped the gun in the 50s or whenever "stereophony" was coined, it is not literally "solid sound", but, of course, words acquire new and unintended meanings through usage. So, in that sense, Timn8ter is correct, and "stereo" has come to imply two channels, but having two channels is not sufficient for stereo. Stereophony; stereophonic sound Two channels are necessary, but not sufficient, for stereophony. In order to obtain stereophony, at least two channels must carry different signals. You can have as many speakers as you like, but, if they all play the same sound, recorded/transmitted from a single mirophone, you still have monophony. You only get stereophony if the speakers are each given a different signal of the original sound, recorded or transmitted from microphones separated in space. The separation in space means the same sound arrives at the two microphones at different times. This produces difference in phase. If the speakers can reproduce the sounds whilst retaining the phase differences between the microphones, then the difference in position of the two (or more) original microphones can give a stereophonic image of the relative positions of the various sound sources in the original recording or broadcast. To do that, the speakers have to be separated, as the microphones were, and the stereophonic "image" is obtained only from a restricted range of listening positions, usually when the two speakers are equally distant from the listener. This is "definitions and descrptions". I have been searching for a word that conveys something more precise than "surround sound". "Surround sound" is a fairly useless term; it is vague. Sound can be coming from all around, but still be in mono, or stereo. We need a word that distinguishes between the quality of the image of the sound and the number of channels (speakers) used, just as one may distinguish "stereo" from "two-channel". So I propose, here and now:- Holophony; holophonic sound reproduction. From the Greek "holos", meaning "whole", and "phonos", meaning "sound". The creation of a complete image of sound from all directions parallel to a plane. Virtual, holophonic sound gives an impression of the direction of different sources of sound, without restriction. This, in turn, gives the direction of reflections of the original sounds, which also give an indication of their distance from the listener. Holophony requires four speakers, each reproducing the original sound as detected by a microphone. Each microphone is separated in space from the other three in such as way as to retain a separate signal with respect to the phase of the original sounds. The four speakers are arranged around the listener, who therefore experiences a "whole sound", as regards distance and direction of sources, comparable to the experience of the original. In contrast to holophony, stereophony (q.v.) gives only relative direction of sound, within an angle of less than 180º. Holophony gives relative direction from sources anywhere from 0º to 360º around the listener. Holophony is also capable of giving the distances of the sound sources. These distances are perceived as the delays of reflections from within the original performance venue, the size and character of which can also be apprehended. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1591 Registered: Dec-03 | In support of the adoption of "holophony" and "holophonic". We can then easily refer to the important distinction between true holophony and other forms of "surround sound" (prologic etc), in the same way we could distinguish true "stereophony" from "electronically reprocessed mono giving stereo effect etc..", and from the same source relayed through mutiple speakers (background music, ambient sound, etc). Note also, not all "surround sound" recordings are holophonic. Dolby Digital AC-3, DTS 5.1, DVD-A 5.1, SACD can be, but are not necessarily, "holo" recording formats. Holophony is also exploited to good effect in movie soundtracks etc., as stereo was exploited in early Lp recordings. It does not have to be capture of an original event - but the potential to create the impression of one should be there, so the original, even if "virtual" is still an important point of reference. If still sceptical, consider the useful words and distinction "stereograph" ("solid") and "holograph" ("whole"). "Holophony" is the obvious word for the audio equivalent of "holography". Surely I am not the first to suggest these terms? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 120 Registered: Dec-03 | ..nor the first to contemplate the theory. http://www.sound-ideas.com/holophonic.html |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1593 Registered: Dec-03 | Timn8ter, Many thanks. I will read that link and the links there. My first reaction is they are talking about something else, and I am not sure what. "Holophonic Sound is not ready for your home theatre system yet" (mine is!) and "Holophonic Sound is produced by recording the interference pattern generated when the original recorded signal is combined with an inaudible digital reference signal." You don't "record" an interference pattern. That is something you get out, afterwards, from the phase relationships between the different channels. Stereophony already reproduces an interference pattern by combining the two channels with their preserved phase differences, that is where the imaging comes from. Holophony (in my sense) does, too, just like holography, but everything is still audible. My first reaction is to reach for the the shotgun at "combined with an inaudible digital reference signal" - how do you know it is there....? Holographs do not contain invisible images! However, I shall read some more. Thanks, again. |
|
peach Unregistered guest | What led to my question is this. In this month's "Absolute Sound" there was a "multichannel/surround sound" discussion/interview article among 4 men who are reputed experts in the field of music, recording, and reproduction design. I am paraphrasing the discussion as I understood it and remember it, as I read it in Barnes and NOble and do not have the article in front of me now. All four men seemed to agree that there is much more to multi channel than many audiophiles will admit. They agree that many high end audiophiles are reluctant to embrace anything new because many of them have 10's of thousands of dollars tied up in 2 channel. One of the panelists, the music critic for the Washington Post, even admitted that he was quite enamored by multichannel and that it reproduced the live music experience as closely as anything he had heard--this coming from a man who probably hears hundreds of live concerts a year. The other men seemed to agree more than disagree. The critic did say that he had become an advocate of 4 channel because to his ears the center channel somehow adulterated the sound. He said that he had tried the center, given up and now listened without it. Again,several of the others admitted likwise. (Don't get me wrong, none or the men advocated abandoning 2 channel for multi, only that we need to be taking a serious look, or should I say listen, to the multichannel.) Now to another question---If a recording is done in 5 channel and one leaves out the center channel, what happens to the music that was engineered to go there? If any of you read this magazine I would be interested in what you think. John A. I think it was the music critic who had kind words for the DVD A format. I thought it refreshing to see that there are people who are open minded about it. Afterall, if someone had had have been open to a new idea, we would not have recorded music period. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1594 Registered: Dec-03 | Peach, I have that issue of TAS and have read the article. I agree with your summary, they mostly did not get it. It began with how much better the bass sounds and incidental things of that kind. In reply to "If a recording is done in 5 channel and one leaves out the center channel, what happens to the music that was engineered to go there?" You lose it. If it is recorded in 5 channel, you should play it back that way, in my opinion. But, if the recording engineers decided 4 channel was enough, then it is enough. There is no harm in having a center channel switched on, playing silence. The problem with the center channel is that the engineers often do not know what to do with it. It can carry an important component of the sound, but only if that is what they decided, even though there was no need. I have some fantastic DVD-A discs in 4.0, and some in 4.1 even thought the label says "5.1". |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Mine also,too. (see what'd I tell you) Do we want to enter into this on this thread or move to a more comfortable spot? |
|
peach Unregistered guest | John A. I did not read the article itself, only the discussion that followed. It made me think that I need to invest some time and probably some money into some surrounds and a universal player. J. -- I'm afraid I don't have much to contribute when compared to you, John, Kegger, Tim, and others. I have quite a learning curve TO overcome. Right now I am just trying to learn from you guys. I am a good student, who tries not to ask dumb questions, and am always asking a sincere question. As far as starting a new thread---where you guys lead I will follow. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Let me break my own rule once more. Ohm Impedance Current Anyone for a quick summary of the various types of speakers and enclosures? Let's see if we can give a description and a benefit and drawback to each design. Kind of a if you do this, you will get this. Dynamic Electrostatic Planar magnetic Infinite Baffle Transmission line Acoustic suspension Etc., etc., etc. Don't get greedy, everyone can play. Remember some of us were the kid that was never picked first for the team. (Don't read too much into that, John A.) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1609 Registered: Dec-03 | Ohm. A unit of electrical resistance, that is, the resistance a conductor offers to the flow of charge. Impedance. Another word for electrical resistance (or is there some subtle difference?), measured in Ohms. Impedance is the extent to which a conductor resists, or impedes, a flow of charge, the rate of which is called.... Current. The rate of flow of electrons through a conductor, and, therefore, the rate of flow of electrical charge (every electron has the same charge). Current is measured in Amps. So an Amp is constant number of electrons per second. I think Ohm's Law would do some good on this forum. It is not rocket science, and you can hardly define these terms without it. The relation between Ohms, Volts and Amps is a simple as the relation between speed, distance and time, which everyone calculates easily. R = V/A Where "R" is resistance (to a current) measured in Ohms. "V" is difference in potential (which causes the current to flow), measured in Volts. "A" is the current itself, measure in Amps. So, to get the same current to flow (A) , you have to increase the potential (V) in proportion to the resistance (R) to the current. And a conductor with one Ohm of resistance has a current of one Amp, when driven by a potential of one Volt. [Miss, Miss, pick me, pick me. Sorry about this. Long ago, I fell for my physics teacher. I keep hoping she'd still be pleased I remember. Doubt if she reads this forum. She left. Tragic. Don't read too much into this, Jan V.] |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | How can I not! I was taught by nuns and priests. The subtle difference between resistance and impedance is resistance is a portion of the calculation of impedance. Where resistance is merely the amount of resistance to current flow, impedance is the sum of resistance, inductance and capacitance. Both are expressed in Ohms as a measurement of their value. However, a microphone or speaker as well as a piece of equipment will be specified as to its input and/or output impedance for matching purposes with other equipment or cables. High impedance microphones or pre amps with high output impedance (above 600 Ohms) will not be able to drive long cables (more than a few meters in length) without rolling off the high frequencies and ultimately losing voltage. Since impedance is more than mere resistance it is partly the reason an amplifier may drive a certain voltage through a load resistor (purely resistance) on a test bench but has difficulty when it is hooked to a speaker which represents summed impedance. In this case impedance is the sum of the resistors (used in the X-over to pad down the level of a driver [usually mid and tweeter in relationship to the woofer]), the capacitors (used to keep low frequencies from the mid and tweeter) and the inductors (used to roll off the upper frequencies of a driver's frequency range). There is also impedance within the individual driver's moving mechanism but that is too far to go here. There are, in professional audio, tables to calculate the impedance from output to input that are available online or in text books that are also beyond this current discussion. Can anyone do a better job with capacitance and inductance? |
|
Bronze Member Username: InviernoPost Number: 62 Registered: Feb-04 | Damping Factor? (on an amplifier) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1616 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Jan. I think it was "Mad" Magazine that described "resistor" as what you should do with a loose pick-up. |
|
peach Unregistered guest | John A. "insistor" if one likes loose pick-ups? nominal impedance versus minimun impedance when given on speaker specs. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Nominal impedance is what the manufacturer would like you to believe is the impedance of the speaker. Nominal in this case means a broad average. A speaker wanders around in its overall impedance for reasons stated above and then some. The manufacturer will state the "average" impedance as 8 Ohms. Over a broad portion of its frequency range the speaker will stay at or around 8 Ohms. Maybe a little above, matbe a little below. But many wander downward into the 3 Ohm range. This is not too dangerous until you use an amp that is test bench only 4 Ohm capable. Then all the things that go into impedance begin to cook the outputs. This speaker is also dangerous if you combine it with another speaker in parallel. The combined impedance is 3 Ohms in parallel with ? that may give the amp fits. Most ported speakers will have an impedance spike at the port resonance that can drive amplifiers crazy. Infinity used to build a series of speakers that had impedance ranges from 1.5 Ohms to 65 Ohms. Some of these were meant for use with small recievers. Not many recievers survived that combination. Damping is the ability to control oscillation, in this case in the drivers, specifically the woofer, of the speakers attached to the amplifier. It is partially a function of output impedance of the amplifier, the lower the output impedance the higher the damping factor can be. Most manufacturers feel that anything between 50 - 100 is sufficient to control most speakers. Some amps (Phase Linear) have been given damping factors of 1000 to 1. Essentially, once the amplifier starts the driver in motion the driver will try to stay in motion for a moment. This is ringing, where the speaker's cone (or surface) is moving not in relation to a signal but to a signal that has passed. The amplifier must stop the uncontrolled movement and damping factor is what is used to accomplish this feat. Let's take this a step further and discuss EMF, electromotive force as it relates to a woofer's magnet structure. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1618 Registered: Dec-03 | Awesome. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | All in a day's work. I'd leave behind a silver bullet, but that silly Indian companion of mine keeps loosing them. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | That last reference may be too "American" for some of you. I'd hate to get John more confused about pop culture than Kegger already has him. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 669 Registered: Dec-03 | capacitance a capacitor/condenser has the ability to hold a charge of electrons. The number of electrons it can hold under a given electrical pressure (voltage) is called its capacitance or capacity. Two metallic plates separated by a non-conducting substance between them make a simple capacitor hear is a little speaker math. Impedance = The rated impedance of the speaker Pi=3.14.... Frequency = The desired 3dB down (crossover) point Capacitor = Value of proper capacitor - value given in farads (multiply by 1,000,000 to convert to microfarads) For this example, let's choose 4 ohms as the speaker's rated impedance. We will use 1200hz as the desired crossover point. Value of the capacitor=1/(2*3.14*1200*4) Value of the capacitor=33 microfarads The capacitor has lower impedance for high frequencies. It acts to block low frequencies and let high frequencies through. so basically if you put a capacitor in series with your speaker it will block/stepdown the lower frequencies. "according to it's capacitance" and let the higher freqencies on through to the speaker. if you put the capacitor in parralell the higher freqencies will go to ground and not through the speaker. where an inductor/coil does the opposite it has a high resistance to higher frequencies and therefore. when placed in series with a driver will let the lower frequencies through but block/stepdown the higher frequencies. and when placed in parralell with the driver the lower frequencies will pass to ground. each time you use one of these components in a xover curcuit you create a 6db filter. the more you put in the xover for a given driver, steps an additional 6db. and are respectivly called first order xover 6db 2nd order xover 12db and so on. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 438 Registered: Feb-04 | "That last reference may be too "American" for some of you. I'd hate to get John more confused about pop culture than Kegger already has him." Nah, we all know Tonto was really a werewolf! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1626 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, You greatly underestimate the power and reach of American popular culture. No Brit of my generation can possibly hear Rossini's William Tell Overture without crying out "Heigh-ho, Silver, and away!" Sounds likes it reached Oz, too. I think we should resist the considerable temptation to get into "Lone Ranger and Tonto" jokes. I have recalled a few ancient nun jokes, hoping they might be belated therapy for damage inflicted long ago, but not a single one is fit to post. 10-4. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1629 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, There is a thread here somewhere where I have just defined the milliHelen (mH). AM rates about 5 mH. Discoveries Be quick, admin will surely have to pull the plug on that thread before the day is up. |
|
Bronze Member Username: InviernoPost Number: 63 Registered: Feb-04 | Slew Rate? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Nobody is going to tackle slew rate? OK, here goes. Think back to the discussions of transients and square waves. To reproduce a transient with a fast attack (a drum beat) the amplifier will create a signal that, on an oscilloscope, will look very much like the first portion of a sqaure wave. In other words the leading edge of the signal will have to move very rapidly in time across a very large amount of voltage. If the amplifier cannot move, or slew, the appropriate amount of voltage fast enough the leading edge of the signal will begin to tilt as opposed to moving (essentially) straight upward. (For our purpose an oscilloscope screen is divided into a grid with the horizontal divsions representing voltage/degrees and the vertical divisions representing time.) Slew rate is the potential for change in a circuit or device relative to the amount of voltage that can be moved over a period of time. As such the expression of slew rate is always given as volts/seconds (V/S). The particulars may change as the signal varies and you might see microvolts/microseconds but the basic equation stays the same. The usage of slew rate will vary depending on whether the dicussion is theoretical or real world. In theory an amplifier must be able to move voltage up to at least 20kHz for audio purposes and the amount of voltage required to achieve that shift will need a headroom factor of five times. This implies that designing for the widest possible bandwidth is desirable up to at least 100kHz. In reality the amount of slew rate is the amount of voltage the circuit or device can actually move over a stated period of time. This can then be interpolated to represent the amount of current driven across a specified load. The amount of voltage will change as the capacitance of the circuit or device changes. This is one reason most amplifiers do not like highly capacitive loads such as cables or loudspeakers such as elctrostatics (which are, by loose description, large capacitors). The amplifier also has to be able to replicate the harmonic srtucture of the signal and therefore a simple sinewave will not truly represent the complexity of a true music signal. For this we lean toward the square wave which is rich in harmonic contant. All of this combines to suggest that a well designed audio amplifier should have a wide bandwidth (100kHz), high voltage/current capability that will have minimal tilt to its square wave performance at all frequencies. To do this an amplifier must have a hefty, well regulated power supply with enough reserve voltage to handle the demands of dynamic transients or else the power supply will "sag" and the slew rate will suffer. If that happens, the amplifier will have high T.I.M. or Transient Intermodulation Distortion. For more information, calculations and possibly a clearer explanation go to: www.ken-gilbert.com/techstuff/slew_rate_explained.htm |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Anyone care to do a quick description/defintion of harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1653 Registered: Dec-03 | No-one could follow that, Jan. Wonderful stuff. Come on, let's have more! You should write "Electronics for Dummies"! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - The load is large. I can't give you a loadful all at once. |
|
Bronze Member Username: InviernoPost Number: 64 Registered: Feb-04 | Thanks for the description of slew rate, Jan. That was a great explanation for a non-electronics person, which I certainly am! Anyone have suggestions on what sorts of values would be acceptable/good/great for slew rates of current amps? |
|
Bronze Member Username: SymformPost Number: 13 Registered: May-04 | Floor Noise? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1659 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, We should all club together and give you a medal. Any size of load is OK by me. Just, please, keep it coming, when you have time! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | There are no set figures for slew rate since the design of the amp and the total output power will be determining factors in the final number. You can say that a company that is willing to discuss slew rate should probably be taken more seriously than a company that only wishes to discuss their new YaDa YaDa circuit. Most companies avoid the issue since they have little if anything to contribute. Research Harman Kardon and the work they did with Matti Ottalla back in the 70's and 80's on bandwidth, squarewave performance, slew rate and T.I.M. to get more info. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Anyone going to do harmonic and intermodulation distortion? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Sorry, the correct spelling is Matti Otalla with one "T" in the last name. Give this a try: www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/wazoo_e.html Look towards the bottom of the page at the footnote. Give it a try in Italian. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 321 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Does harmonic distortion tie in with odd order harmonics? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Yes and no in that harmonic distortion as a general description merely refers to the content of all harmonics in the output of a circuit that were not present at the input. So, generically speaking, distortion is anything that is present at the output that was not present in the original signal as presented to the input of a circuit. This includes noise and extraneous signal content. To further distinguish what is being added by the circuit and what is a natural consequence of the circuit in operation (the noise), distortion is broken down into variuos types of content. As I said harmonic distortion is the addition of spurious signals that are related to the harmonic content of the original signal. I'll try to get my numbers right this time and say if there is an initial signal of 100 Hz the harmonics will be at 200,300,400,500 and so on. If the amplifier adds its own content at any of these frequencies it is harmonic distortion. For this discussion, by adding it is generally considered that the amplifier will not, unless it is in oscillation, add anything that was not present in the original signal but will emphasize the harmonics at certain points in the whole of the harmonic structure of a signal. So with a 100 Hz signal input the amplitude, or distortion product, may be higher on the third, fifth and ninth harmonic than were present in the original signal. This would be consistent with a bipolar transistor circuit that is generally going to emphasize the odd order harmonics. In a vacuum tube or FET circuit the even order harmonics are emphasized just as they often are in a musical signal. This is one reason given for the "sweetness" and listenability of a tube or FET over a bipolar. (This has more to do with circuit design than the inherent quality of tubes or FETs.) Total harmonic distortion is abbreviated as THD in spec sheets. Intermodulation distortion is the result of two signals being introduced into the circuit simultaneously. This is an occurence more similar to music than simple THD which is one simple frequency, which, if you have paid attention is only possible within a circuit. Once it leaves the electronic domain it will contain harmonic content. (OK, with that, John?) By introducing two signals with unrelated harmonic structure we come closer to the concept of one or two musical instruments playing two notes at the same time. Now we have a fundamental at 100 Hz and another at 125Hz. The first part of the IM distrotion is the frequency which falls between the two fundamentals, 112.5Hz The IM continues up the harmonic structure and the difference signals that are created by the circuit are the IM distortion product. So the second harmonic of each fundamental is 200Hz and 250Hz with the intermediate "added" frequency of 225Hz. This continues up the scale and in severe cases of IM distortion spurious signals are created wherever there are sums and differences of frequency content. Make sense? Since these IM products have no reallationship to what occurs in nature we will normally find them more bothersome than THD. But IM specs are played down in spec sheets since it is harder to design out of an amplifier. Transient IM is the distortion product that is generated when two large scale transients at different frequencies are introduced simultaneously and the amplifier has to swing enough voltage to reproduce both signals accurately. This is a good test of power supply induced distortion as the capacitors can be drained very quickly under these dynamic conditions. Either way, for purposes of high end audio reproduction, the smaller the distortion product, expressed as a percentage at a given wattage, the better. Modern specs will favor the transistor amp over the tube amp but there is a consistent inabiltiy to percieve any distortion content below 1%. (Particularly since most speakers will have distortion content in the 10% plus range over a wide portion of their frequency range.) The nature of the harmonic distortion product (even vs. odd) will also affect the perception of harmonic distortion. So, is anyone ready to give it a go at harmonic dist ... ? Wait a minute ... What just happened? Awwww, jeez! I told you the answer. I WAS TRICKED!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 323 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you, Kemosabe! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1667 Registered: Dec-03 | Say, who was that man in the mask? Da, daddle-da, daddle-da-da-da-di-da-da-da-di-da.... Jan, that is so good. Merci beaucoup. Where does "clipping" fit in to that scheme of things, or is it something else? I know what it sounds like. It is a sound from hell. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1668 Registered: Dec-03 | Clipping. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 324 Registered: Dec-03 | Clipping is a distortion caused by cutting off the peaks of audio signals. It usually occurs when an amp input signal is too high and tries to put out too much current, which results in direct current being sent to the speakers. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1671 Registered: Dec-03 | In parenthesis. On another thread, goldenarrow provides a link to this excellent "FAQ" on surround sound, formats, bass management, and much else. Frequently Asked Questions About Surround Sound. Sorry. Clipping. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1673 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thank you. I had not seen your post before I posted that last one. I have read somewhere that some amps clip more "gracefully" than others, and I also seem to recall, perhaps from Jan and Gregory, here, that valve/tube and transistor amps behave quite differently when driven into clipping distortion. I was rude about that, and said "you don't buy a car because of the way it crashes". However, I suspect that Jan is correct, as usual, that distortion is inherent; we just find some more acceptable than others. From reading Jan's wise words, my guess is this applies to harmomic distortion, and does not apply either to intermodulation distortion or to "clipping", which are always unacceptable. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rick - Sorry, but, unless there is a problem with the amplifier, clipping will not result in DC being output. DC operates within the circuitry of the amplifier, there is little AC voltage as the signal traverses the resitors, capacitors etc. that make up a circuit. A capacitor is used to block this DC voltage from "escaping" through the outputs to your speakers. Therefore we have the term blocking capacitor. Passing DC became a problem when, in the 70's, manufacturers, primarily the Japanese, started to push DC to 100kHz specs. DC often leaked through and sepakers don't do well with DC at theri input terminals. (Passing DC meant your speakers f*rted, once!) As amplifiers age the value of a cap will change and DC may be pesent at the output. A well designed amp will not let DC through to the output. Clipping enters into the equation as the amp runs out of voltage, current is another matter. It is a simple matter to see where in its power/voltage delivery it runs out of steam. Hook the amp back up to the oscilloscope and run a sine wave through the circuit. (I'll give you the classic way to determine clipping and what is required by the FCC to determine power. They are the same operation.) A sine wave will be represented on the oscilloscope as a continuous smooth transition from 0 degrees to 180 degrees + back through 0 to 180 degrees - and back to 0 degrees. Any small signal, a signal within the amp's power curve, should be easily recognizable as a sine wave. Since the 'scope is divided into horizontal segments that measure voltage it is simply a matter of increasing the volume/output voltage until we begin to see the shape of the waveform change. As the amplifier can no longer produce higher amounts of voltage, due to limitatons of the power supply and circuitry, the waveform will begin to flatten at the top. This represents the physical limits of the outputs. If we continue to increase the voltage demands made of the amp the top of the waveform will continue to flatten out more and more, eventually taking on the general appearance of a poorly made square wave. By measuring the divisions on the 'scope (and seeing where we have set the magnification level) it is merely; this amp can produce X volts into Y load and therefore power output is Z watts. Distortion is measured on a distortion analyzer (tricky names those engineers can come up with) which is hooked in parallel to the output stages of the amp. Most often clipping is taken as 1% harmonic distortion. But a manufacturer can choose where to place their output power spec in relation to distortion. But clipping is measured with X amount of HARMONIC distortion and no other type. The problem with this static measurement technique is it has nothing to do with how you use the product. It is essentially buying a car by the way it sits in your driveway. Music is not a series of sinewaves and a speaker is not a load resitor. Because harmonic distortion can be less intrusive to the music than intermodulaton distortion it was chosen to remain the approved method of measuring amplifier performance. (IM was discovered after THD.) IM distortion is always a bad news day. It has no relationship to nature or music (not that the two are separate, unless you're listening to Phil Collins). Tubes tend to emphasize the even order harmonics in their distortion content. As this is similar to the harmonic structure of many instruments it is somewhat less obtrusive to the ear than the odd order harmonic emphasis of bipolar transistors which have no natural counterpart. This even order distortion is used against tubes to say they make things "sweet" (using a term Gregory might approve). As with all theories it is merely that and there are more theories about why tubes and transistors sound unalike than there are theories about the origins of the Shroud of Turin. (Isn't it amazing that we are willing to let scientists ruled by pure logic tell us what we should decide about matters of pure faith? Oh ... here come the nuns again ... they're all carrying wooden rulers. Rulers. Rulers. ARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHH, no more rulers!) ? !!! We've done all we can here, Tonto. It's time to move on. Let's go sleep in the desert together. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1681 Registered: Dec-03 | Now we are here, what do you see, looking straight up? The stars. And what does that mean? The vastness of space; the final resting place of all our forefathers; the signs and constellations that govern our lives; beyond them, the infinite extension of our human understanding... No, you fool, it means someone's stolen the tent. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 326 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I went home after work yesterday and started listening to Mozart's Great Mass in C Minor. About two minutes into the piece, I thought about you and the nuns............sorry about that, but thanks for the laugh! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1684 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, In late 1992 I was two minutes into Mozart's Mass in C minor (John Elliot Gardiner; London Baroque Players) and just as the ff kicked in my beloved Armstrong 621 amp died. I did not see the thunderbolt, striking the unbeliever's system, but I have my suspicions... Totally amazing piece. The influence of Handel's Messiah runs all through it, and I believe even WAM owned up to that. B•gger the nuns. "Et incarnatus est" is sensu*l, erot*c. They could never have known how to write stuff like that. The following words are not allowed on this discussion board: erot*c sensu*l I have never scored two before. This forum must be run by nuns. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 327 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks John. Now we know why Jan never officially joined..........HHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMM |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | No more rulers! No more ... Must go ... listen ... to ... Shostakovich ... no rulers ... |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Main Entry:ruler Pronunciation:*r*-l*r Function:noun Date:14th century 1 : one that rules; specifically : SOVEREIGN 2 : a worker or a machine that rules paper 3 : a smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a straightedge or for measuring HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Main Entry:ruler Pronunciation:*r*-l*r Function:noun Date:14th century 1 : one that rules; specifically : SOVEREIGN 2 : a worker or a machine that rules paper 3 : a smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a straightedge or for measuring For measuring ...? HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Main Entry:ruler Pronunciation:*r*-l*r Function:noun Date:14th century 1 : one that rules; specifically : SOVEREIGN 2 : a worker or a machine that rules paper 3 : a smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a straightedge or for measuring STRAIGHT EDGE ... For measuring ...? HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!! OH, MY! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1688 Registered: Dec-03 | The individual is sovereign (J. S. Mill). We are the rulers, now. Hey, I thought you guys sorted yourselves out in 1776? Actually, a nice symbolic hereditary monarch turns out to be very useful for keeping power-mad politicians under control. The ones who think they were elected to rule are the worst. They were elected to serve. No names, no pack drill. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 328 Registered: Dec-03 | Keep an eye on him John, and don't let him attend any formal affairs. It's the black/white thing I suspect. The meds will kick in soon and all will be well. |
|
peach Unregistered guest | John, "They could never have known how to write stuff like that. " No one can appreciate water like a thirsty man. And no one can appreciate sensuality like...well..read the Song of Solomon---pretty explicit stuff--but spirituall also. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1689 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Will do. He has already overstepped the mark, imho. There was this super guy, named Kelley... (off topic). peach, Point taken. You are correct. Another case; Hildegard of Bingen. I will lay off nun-bashing. We all do the best we can. Peace. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 756 Registered: Dec-03 | what are you guys going in hear? are you all on drugs? give me some! I want to see flying nuns wearing penguin suits with rulers smacking themselves in the heads! |
|
peach Unregistered guest | Old Hildegard--"the voice of music unheard" I once read. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Anyone going to take on speaker designs? If not, who can do: dBW (decibel/watt) scale? I'm asking since I don't want to type all that out. If you are unfamiliar with the scale it starts out: Watts dBW 1 0 1.25 1 1.6 2 2 3 2.5 4 3.2 5 4 6 5 7 6.3 8 8 9 10 10 20 40 80 160 Can anyone please finish the table out to 1000 watts and give a brief description of how this table is created and its significance to amplifier power vs. the gain in dB's achieved? If so, would someone then take the: Conversion table for loudspeaker efficiencies and run through the same type of table and discussion? Watts for dB (SPL) for 0 dBW 89 dB output (1 watt) input 0.8 89 1.0 88 1.25 87 1.6 86 2.0 85 2.5 84 3.2 83 4.0 82 5.0 81 6.3 80 8.0 79 10.0 78 Please take the table in the opposite direction and explain what is happening. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Anyone going to take on speaker designs? If not, who can do: dBW (decibel/watt) scale? If you are unfamiliar with the scale it starts out: Watts / dBW 1 / 0 1.25 / 1 1.6 / 2 2 / 3 2.5 / 4 3.2 / 5 4 / 6 5 / 7 6.3 / 8 8 / 9 10 / 10 20 / 40 / 80 / 160 / Can anyone please finish the table out to 1000 watts and give a brief description of how this table is created and its significance to amplifier power vs. the gain in dB's achieved? If so, would someone then take the: Conversion table for loudspeaker efficiencies and run through the same type of table and discussion? Watts for - dB (SPL) for 0 dBW 89 dB output - (1 watt) input 0.8 / 89 1.0 / 88 1.25 / 87 1.6 / 86 2.0 / 85 2.5 / 84 3.2 / 83 4.0 / 82 5.0 / 81 6.3 / 80 8.0 / 79 10.0 / 78 Please take the table in the opposite direction and explain what is happening. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John! No looking on Kegger's paper! |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 770 Registered: Dec-03 | Sensitivity: Measure of the sound pressure level generated at a distance of one meter from a speaker when the speaker is fed a 2.83 volt signal (1 watt at 8 ohms); efficiency of a speaker creating a certain sound pressure level from a given input with high figures representing a more efficient speaker. Speakers with a high sensitivity are able to play louder with a given input than speakers with a low sensitivity. In order to increase output by 3 decibels (dB) requires a doubling of amplifier power. Thus a speaker operating at a sensitivity of 88 dB with a 200-watt amplifier would put out the same sound level as a speaker with a sensitivity of 91 dB being driven by a 100-watt amplifier. The higher the sensitivity, the less input is needed to create a given output. Speakers with low sensitivities need large amplifiers to play reasonably loud. An average speaker sensitivity rating is around 86 to 88 dB. Typically, the most sensitive speakers (and the most efficient) are horn speakers, which may enjoy sensitivities of 95 dB or higher. dB (Decibel): Logarithmic scale measuring the intensity of sound (the sound pressure level); a 10 decibel (dB) increase represents in a doubling of sound level. Since the decibel scale is logarithmic, there is not a linear relationship between levels. For example, on a linear scale, 4 is twice is big as 2 and 8 is twice as big as 4 and 4 times as big as 2. When measuring decibels, 20 is twice the sound level of 10 decibels but 30 is twice as loud as 20. That makes 40 decibels twice the sound level of 30 decibels and four times the sound level of 20 decibels (on a linear scale, 40 is two times 20). In an audio system, to produce three decibels more sound output, the amplification power must be doubled. One decibel is the smallest perceptible change in sound level that the human ear can detect. Some examples of sound pressure levels are: whisper - 20 dB, normal speech - 70 dB, passing subway train - 100 dB, large jet plane - 120 dB. The threshold of pain is around 120 dB. Sound Pressure Level (SPL): Measurement in decibels of the pressure or force exerted by a sound wave on the environment with increasing pressure generating increased loudness or higher volume (creating more pressure in the ear increases perceived loudness). Sound pressure level is essentially how loud a sound is. Very loud sounds, such as jet engines, have high sound pressure levels. Conversely, soft sounds have low sound pressure levels. The loudness of a sound (its SPL or sound pressure level) can be read by a SPL meter. The pressure level is measured in decibels with zero decibels being the threshold of human hearing (a just barely audible sound). The maximum level of human hearing is around 120 decibels sound pressure level, which is the level where people begin to experience pain due to the high sound pressure levels. The decibel scale is logarithmic meaning that a 10 decibel increase in sound pressure level is a doubling of the perceived sound pressure level (this doubling requires using 10 times the acoustic power however). Thus, the scale remains fairly low until around 60 dB or so where it begins to slope up much more steeply. For instance, doubling 1 only gets 2, doubling 2 gets 4, doubling 4 gets 8, doubling 8 get 16, doubling 16 gets 32 - at first the increases are small with a shallow slope, but they quickly build after a certain threshold gaining very rapidly at some point. The smallest change in sound pressure level the ear can detect is one decibel. Some examples of sound pressure levels are: whisper - 20 dB, normal speech - 70 dB, passing subway train - 100 dB, large jet plane - 120 dB. Sounds become quieter as we move farther from the source. Each doubling in distance from a sound source results in a loss of 6 dB of sound pressure. now this is just some of what jan was looking for. and i took the easy way out! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Thanks, Kegger. Anyone going to finish what Kegger started? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Interesting article that touches on several topics discussed here: http://www.axiomaudio.com/archives/power.html |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 447 Registered: Feb-04 | J V The article explains the power/speaker relationship well. Also, I rate my speakers (on average) at 8.7 mr's - 10 being the optimum. Up to 7.75 the required output is not that serious but from there on an increase by .1 of a unit draws about $1500 from savings accounts. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I have sold some pretty expensive systems but most of my time was spent selling on the law of diminishing returns. There is an obvious improvement going from a $1,500 to a $3,000 system. An improvement in clarity, some bass and ease of presentation comes at about $5,000. $10,000 gets a little better but the difference between that system and one for $30,000 gets more difficult to hear and justify for most everyone. The strange thing is the most expensive systems I sold were hardly ever used, the owners always said they were too busy to sit and listen and the kids used it the most. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I have sold some pretty expensive systems but most of my time was spent selling on the law of diminishing returns. There is an obvious improvement going from a $1,500 to a $3,000 system. An improvement in clarity, some bass and ease of presentation comes at about $5,000. $10,000 gets a little better but the difference between that system and one for $30,000 gets more difficult to hear and justify for most everyone. The strange thing is the most expensive systems I sold were hardly ever used, the owners always said they were too busy to sit and listen and the kids used it the most. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | i notice noone seems to upgrade the 5Z4P rectifier tube! why is that? what does that tube do? any difference in brands/quality? change sound at all? should i look into an upgrade? should i get a spare? J. Vigne Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 08:02 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kegger - Rectifier tubes are a portion of the circuit that takes the AC coming into the equipment and converts (rectifies) it to a DC current which is then used throughout the internal circuitry of the unit as a reference voltage. In circuits where the signal is not present it is split into different sections by a regulated power supply (you've probably read of pieces of equipment that have various numbers of regulated power supplies) and the voltages are fed to areas such as bias circuits. Where there is a signal passed through the circuit the DC voltage acts as a reference voltage that the signal modulates against. A rectifier tube is a somewhat benign system since its only function should be to accomplish the change from AC to DC. The tube will age as any tube will, but, like most pre amp tubes this a replacement about every five to seven years. A spare won't be a bad idea since the pre amp won't work without this tube. I have only once found a slightly improved sound from exchanging rectifier tubes so I can't tell you nothing will change with a different tube but it will be very slight, particularly in a pre amp. The quality of the tube is still a matter of who made the tube and still follows the guidelines I've given on the 12AT7. There are some people who sell solid state rectifiers that plug into the tube socket and the claim is made that the s.s. device will give better sound. Most audio uses stay with the tube rectifier since they have little interest in finding a solid state sound in their tube equipment. Solid state rectifiers in tube gear are more useful for guitar amps where the s.s. device doesn't age like the tube rectifier will and this gives the guitar player a more consistent voltage when they are using the amp. It is less of a concern with home audio, again particularly in a pre amp, since a slight variance in voltage is not going to affect the output stages like it might in a musical instrument amp that gets kicked around from session to session. Unless you could find a 5Z4P that was built for ruggedness I wouldn't be concerned with changing that tube. http://www.fust-electronica.nl/rectifiertubes.htm Heavy on technical but look under "diodes" http://www.du.edu/~etuttle/electron/elect27.htm J. Vigne Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 08:34 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a good picture of the inside of a pre amp with explanations of the various parts. The rectifier tube is a part of the whole power supply circuit. http://www.graniteaudio.com/photo/770inside.PDF |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Someone asked a question about isolating a turntable to which I gave a reply that is probably worth (in MY opinion at least) posting here for future reference. It falls ouside of the defintions portion but possibly in the descriptions side and is definitely in the DIY portion that might be an addition to this if you are interested. Let's talk about isolating a turntable from the outside world of acoustical and mechanical vibration. How you go about isolating your turntable from the effects of vibration are determined by the type of table you own. In the world of turntable design there are essentially two types of tables on the market; a suspended table such as the AR and Linn Sondek designs and a nonsuspended table such as the Rega and it's derivatives. The two types of design will require different methods of isolation in some key areas and similar methods overall. One of the first things almost every table manufacturer agrees upon is the need for rigidity in the support system and in the table's structure. I know of no turntable sold today that performs at its best when placed on a sloppy, lossy type of support system. This is required because a turntable is an electromechanical design. In other words the only way a turntable works is by mechanical motion of the record past the stylus of the cartridge to produce an output voltage. If the stylus modulates in reference to a movement that is not in the original groove then the result is distortion. Any outside motion can swamp the signals of a record groove which are created by movement of the stylus in the grooove to a dimension that is smaller than the width of a human hair. These are the gross effects of feedback and this is what you want to eliminate from the "closed loop" of the turntable system. To that end the first point of reference is to make certain the surface the table sits upon is a rigid as possible. This precludes the use of the rattan boookcase and the hand me down coffee table as suitable surfaces for a turntable. If you look at the megabuck tables on the market you will see that, at the top most price range, the turntable is actually part of a structure that supports the table in an extremely rigid environment. If you can't afford $80,000 for one of these tables you can at least take a few ideas from them and bring them down to the DIY market. Unsprung tables particularly, and most suspended tables, will almost always perform best for the least amount of money on a wall mounted shelf. These are available from various manufacturers and are designed to screw into the studs that support the wall. This is about as rigid as you can find as long as you do not mount the table to the drywall alone. Make certain the wall you are using is not subject to vibration from a fan or air conditioning motor that will add vibration to the shelf. If you would like to start out with less financial investment you can buy shelf brackets at the hardware store and mount these to the wall studs with a shelf on top. Try to find braces that are three pieces. The "L" shaped brackets will have an amount of spring but a bracket that gets diagonal support from the bottom will be more stable. A welding shop will often do a quick job for not much money that will allow you to customize the shelf for your needs. When mounting a shelf to any surface for a suspended turntable it is usually best to isolate the shelf from the surface it will sit upon. This can be done several ways but the most common is a spike of some type. When using a spike you will normally be trying, in the case of a turntable, to drain any vibration in the equipment chasis away from the device and to keep vibration from entering the equipment from the surface it is resting upon. This means the large end of the spike will be against the equipment and the small end will be on the supporting surface. This places a very small contact area at the support surface and little energy can move up the path to the table. Another way to isolate the table is with ball bearings. The surface of the table and shelf will touch the surface of the bearing only at a tangent to each surface. This provides a small contact area similar to a spike. With either a spike or bearing it is usually a good idea to place a hard surface, such a penney, under the tip of the spkie or the bearing to assure as small a contact area as possible. To maintain the rigidity of the support it is often a good idea to use a blob of a substance called BluTack or photo mounting plastic to the bottom of the structure sitting on the spike. DO NOT use a compliant material such as sorbothane or gel inserts as this will defeat the idea of rigidity and possibly add unwanted motion in the playback system. You effort is to lock the support system in space while isolating it from the outside environment. With an unsprung table you will normally find it best to attach the shelf to the brackets. Make this surface as level as possible and remember three points of support are the most stable as the system will become self stabilizing while four points will tend to wobble (thank you, Roy Gandy from Rega). ANY spring type surface will change the resonant frequency of the system and may defeat the entire purpose of what you want to accomplish. Unless you are well enough versed in physics that you can determine the frequency with which the system you are creating with compliant materials will oscillate you should stick to making a rigid support system and leave the compliant material selection to the table manufacturers. Once you have a support system in mind it is a good idea to look at what you are going to create and decide if you are looking for high mass or low mass. Different tables will respond to each system differently and it is best, if you don't already know, to find out if you are going in the right direction for your particular table. A call to the manufacturer is the best way to find out what they have found to be the best way to use their product. The down side to high mass is the energy storage of most high mass materials/structures will delay the transmission of vibration in time. This means whatever does get through to the table will be delayed in time similar to an echo (or feedback)and, in extreme cases this is exactly the sound you might hear through your system. The advantage of low mass is the vibrations are shifted upward in frequency, where they are less noticeable and have less effect due to the shorter wavelength, and are released more quickly. The down side of low mass is the difficulty in making a rigid structure and the likelyhood that the structure will ring and still have a delayed effect on the system. If your table is one that prefers a low mass system, such as a Linn Sondek, you are almost home free at this point. Tables such as this can be mounted on a shelf that is sitting on a rigid support structure and at most a set of spikes will be sufficient between the shelf and the table. (The approach taken by the Linnites is to use a short table since shorter dimensions are more likely to retain a certain degree of stiffness. This low, light table gave rise to the Linn bashers proclaiming Linn users had to knee down in honor of their table before they could play a record.) If you are using a free standing shelf it should be mounted on spikes and filled with a material that will dampen the vibrations of the structure. Cat litter is one of the best materials for this purpose. The blow in foam insulation sold in cans is another option. If, on the other hand, your table is one of the many that will perform better on a high mass system then you still have work to do. If you are using a free standing shelf you will want to fill it with lead, sand (or concrete) and some people like to finish off the top with cat litter (or foam) to create several layers of material that all absorb different frequencies. Shelves should have no enclosed spaces such as a bookshelf or the racks sold with systems. These spaces act as acoustic collectors that will increase the amount of vibration in the support structure. Once you have managed to construct or purchase a support system that works well with your table you can proceed to "how to place the table on the support". In most cases the more isolation you can provide here is beneficial. The easiest support is a simple piece of solid wood. Not plywood since you want to keep the surface the table sits on as light as possible so it will dissapate energy as quickly as possible. The best choice for this surface is a maple cutting board. You can usually find these in the dimensions necessary to support a table and it will be a solid surface that will not move in separate directions. An alternative approach is to use several tennis balls that have been cut in half under a shelf that has sufficient mass (a paver from the home improvement store is a usual choice) that the shelf weight will keep the rubbery mass of halved tennis balls from oscillating. This is far more difficult than a simple cutting board on a shelf. Another alternative is a sand filled box with the shelf sitting on a few inches of sand. This can be effective if you think through the problems of leveling the shelf, having a top box that doesn't touch the outer box and yet the shelf remains stable. I've seen some DIY designs of this sort where the bottom of the shelf has "paddles" (L brackets) placed at different angles that penetrate the sand and add the required resistance to keep the shelf stable. If you want to try this method I've always thought this technique would be far more effective (though more costly) if you substituted, or combined, lead shot for the sand. If you are going the high mass route all the way through the system you will want to use several layers of MDF, the material your speakers are most likely made from. MDF is available at any home improvement center but if you go to a lumber yard you might be able to find High Density Fiberboard which will be stiffer and more resistant to vibration. Several layers of MDF with a SINGLE layer of paper towel between them is a good choice for a support system. To get more sophisticated you can vary the materials and/or use a damping material sold at car stereo shops to dampen panels in between the layers. If you go the damping material route make certain you have a material that will not convert vibration into horizontal energy. For more sophistication use a constrained layer damping material. This can be purchased from various suppliers on the web, usually scientific supply houses or large elctrical/mechanical suppliers. Try: http://www.mcmaster.com/. Some good combinations of materials to build upon one another are MDF, marble or granite topped with glass. If you go this route you want to make certain the structure doesn't get unstable with weight at the top so it will tend to oscillate as the table spins. This will require redoubling your efforts to make a rigid structure. In the end this surface must be absolutely level. (If you use MDF and have a router you can scribe an undulating pattern on the bottom of the panel going about 1/3 the depth of the panel. This will help breakup vibration patterns.) If you wish to go further before you place your table on this surface you can purchase diver's weights for about $5 at any scuba supply store and place these under the feet/spike of your table. These are weights made of lead that will further deaden your system. Again make certain you are not creating a system that will oscillate from all the weight at the top. Always use a second nut on the spikes to lock the spike in place. If you can push on the side of the table or, depending on its design, its frame and have the table or support wobble in the least you have to go back to find out what is wrong. The table itself can be made less prone to react to vibration if you dampen the panels of the table. You can use the automobile damping sheets, I coated the inside of the frame to my VPI HW19 with epoxy and then built up consecutive layers of lead shot which increased its mass approximately three fold, sorbothane would work on a "boxed" table or there is a ceramic based paint sold at paint centers that is used for insulation purposes that will deaden the panels. (If you go this route buy enough to coat the inside of your speaker cabinets also.) On all tables make certain the frame of the table is stiff. On a Rega there is no other option but on a table like the VPI HW19 put diagonal braces across all four corners to eliminate flexing. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Once you have the table supported properly you can move on to isloating the motor from the plinth. The motor is going to want to vibrate and now your job is to keep that vibration to a minimum and keep it from entering the playback system. If you want to simply put some sorbothane between the motor and the plinth this will help as long as you don't change the geometry of the belt riding on the (sub)platter. If you want to go further you can again look at the high priced tables and see they use a motor assembly that is isolated from the main plinth. The motor is placed in a heavy mounting sytem and has no hard physical connection to the plinth. You can begin by simply keeping the vibration of your motor down to a minimum. This can be accomplished by placing a weight (either a diver's weight or a weight from a barbell) under the motor and attaching it to the motor with BluTack or epoxy (I put a spike that was Blutacked to the motor on to a barbell weight [10 lbs.] that let the vibration drain to the weight and by adjusting the height of the weight/spike I all but eliminated vibration from the motor). The weight has to be supported or else you will create a rotational mass that will defeat your purpose. Layers of sorbothane or damping material (or ball bearings) will do to raise the weight sufficiently and will keep the vibration from entering into your support shelf. You can also take a can or some other container that is stiff enough and, after detaching the motor from the plinth, you can place the motor in the can, afix it with BluTack and fill the rest of the space with lead shot. Get a size of shot that will not enter any openings in the motor casing. If you go this route, epoxy three ball bearings to the bottom of the container to act as spikes to the motor assembly. As before you do not want to change the geometry of the motor spindle/belt/platter. Many spindles will have set screws that will allow some height adjustment. If your table has a pressed on spindle you will have to adjust the height of your newly isolated motor assembly to accomodate the needed height of the spindle/platter. Dust covers are a major source of feedback since they act as collectors of mechanical and airborne vibration. It is best to remove the dustcover, or simply raise it, when playing a record . If your table has a sprung chasis you will normally find a small piece of open cell foam inside the springs. If you table doesn't have these you can use a piece of foam from a corrugated mattress pad or go to a shop that sells musical instruments and buy a foam wind screen for a microphone. Use enough to slip inside the spring without impeding its motion, the fit should be loose. (Use remaining foam in the port of your speakers to tighten the bottom end on reflex and ported designs.) Platter mats and record weights are a matter of taste and whether your turntable can use these accessories. More often than not they make an improvement that is worth the money. If you can't go the expense of an aftermarket mat try a piece of rice paper between your mat and the record. Rice paper can be purchased at art supply houses or they are the heavy record sleeves sold to audiophiles. Cut it to fit your platter and you may have a cheap fix for the sound of a thin mat or a glass platter. A cheap record weight is a tin can filled with shot, but you must make absolutely certain (absolutely certain) the hole for the spindle is at absolute dead center. An off center weight will eventually wear your table's main bearing. (Not all tables can use a weight, make certain yours can before attempting this mod.) Some machine shops will make a one off weight for a few dollars. Tonearm damping can be added to many arms and will improve tracking and give a more solid presentation. There are articles on the web on how to accomplish this. The method is too long to be included in this article. It is, however a simple DIY project. The same methods normally apply to isolating a CD player or a tube pre amp. The difference is in the selective use of compliant materials in those applications. One way to judge the effectiveness of your efforts is to rap the surfaces of the turntable with your knuckle with the stylus sitting in the groove of a record that isn't spinning. The volume on your pre amp should be at a low level to begin until you are certain your efforts have been successful, increase the volume as you feel confident of your efforts. A stethoscope is even more revealing for about $10 to $15. If you begin to hear noise transmitted through the system, stop and reasess your design. That's pretty much the primer on isolating tables. Kegger, would you care to go through some of the ideas you have for DIY projects for speakers? Or anyone else? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | We never got an answer on the request for clarification. Would any one care to give a definition of "noise floor"? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1744 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Turntables: Yes, definitely worth repeating. Thank you. "Dust covers are a major source of feedback since they act as collectors of mechanical and airborne vibration. It is best to remove the dustcover, or simply raise it, when playing a record ." As I have said before, this is the best single piece of audio advice I have ever received. "Open the lid". What a priceless upgrade, I had been playing my Rega Planar 3 for many years with the dust cover on, just because Rega said so. When I had it on a paving slab, in various previous houses, the feedback was not so bad. I eventually purchased a steel Rega wall bracket, with three cups for the three feet. The problem then was the wall, in combination with the resonant structure of the turntable with its closed lid. I tried all sorts of things. During that time, I found the way the cables were suspended made a big difference; they have to hang freely, otherwise they seem to pick up vibration from somewhere. Running them over the wall bracket, which looks neater, makes the closed-lid turntable almost unusable, except at very low volumes. Anyway, I shall be getting a new wall in some months' time. When looking at houses, one of my major concerns was always trying to find one with a decent listening room, if possible not adjoining another inhabited room, and certainly not one of any neighbours. My wife always thought this was eccentric, along with the paving slab. Our present room is an add-on extension, quite separate in construction from the rest of the house. This is ideal. It adjoins a garden shed, but I do not worry so much about disturbing the mice, particularly since they move in in the autumn and seem to like nothing better than gnawing on cables. I have yet to discover whether the pipistrelles in the garden are impressed by ultrasonic capabities of my KEF tweeters. The room also adjoins a sort of laundry room, where a washing machine and tumble dryer operate from time to time but can always be turned off, thereby reducing the listening room's noise floor. I am often struck by how oblivious some people seem to be to noise: extractor fans, especially. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1745 Registered: Dec-03 | "Noise floor". I have always taken this to refer to the noise inherent in the sound reproduction system itself, or in some part of it; it is what you hear when there is no signal, and what you can hear "beneath" the signal. Gregory has pointed out that some people have pleasurable associations for certain sorts of noise. Ghia recently said she liked the hiss on a particular recording, it sounded more "organic". I have some LPs where you can here tape hiss, and know just what she means. I have a theory about this; it provides a substitute for ambience, and therefore continuity to a discontinously-recorded performance (will come bakc to this later. Rumble, in constrast, is unpleasant. The Rega turntable is so good that any audible rumble comes from the recording. But, here is an even more basic term: "Noise". What counts as "noise"? Digital recording with its high signal-to noise ratios brought a new sort of madness: the idea that music is performed in total silence. Walk into any large space, and you will hear an ambience which originates from eddies of air caused by convention currents. Even outdoors can have ambience, depending on all sorts of things: sound sources; the lie of the land; the weather; etc. Good recording companies like BIS always start and finish with about 20 seconds of the ambience of the room in which the recording took place, so, when the music starts, you know where it is coming from, and, when it stops, you do not feel you have gone deaf. But so many big companies (DG; Decca London; Philips) all seem to think that an ideal CD recording is music appearing magically from nowhere, out of digital zero, as if willed into existence by some divine power. I always find this ludicrous. When the recording then ramps down rapidly to digital zero between movements or songs, yet you were aware of the ambience when the music was playing, the effect is even more absurd. I even have some otherwise beautifully-recorded DVD-As that still do that. I cannot imagine the recording engineers who did such a good job being responsible. It must be post-production editors who seem to assume, as do so many in "the industry", that NOBODY IS ACTUALLY LISTENING. If I could only understand this strange paradox of the audio industry.... So, to add to Gregory's "association" theory, it seems to me that some system noise can probably mask the fact that ambience is being switched on and off. Since the switching is disturbing (rightly so), and some system noise (tape hiss?) can be mistaken itself for ambience, the overall effect of having a perceptible noise floor can be that the performance is reproduced more convincingly. Take away the noise floor, and you can less easily suppress distracting and musically-irrelevant images of nerdy engineers moving slide controls on mixing consoles. "Noise" is "sound out of place". "Out of place" is a subjective judgement, and can only be described relative to some standard. If one has the original performance as a standard, any sound that was not present there can be described as "noise". If however, one is not interested in an original performance, which of course is fine, it is a free world (we hope), then "noise" can only mean "sound I do not like", and, as before, there is little we can usefully say to each other, it seems to me. And, in that case, we can never really agree or disagree; merely express personal preferences, any of which is as good as any other. Unless, that is, we grant some privileged status to one particular set of preferences.... |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Another frequent question is, "Should I upgrade to separates?" Here's my answer to a recent question: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/68729.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | On how to install an EQ: On the back of my EQ there are 4 red and white RCA cabels can u tell me were these go on the back of my receiver -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usually they go from tape out to the EQ and from the EQ to tape in. You simply make a loop with the EQ in the middle and then engage the tape monitor to have the EQ in circuit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By doing that does it only allow me to EQ the Tap or the Hole system? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you place the tape deck in the loop downstream of the EQ you will EQ tapes and the whole system. Of course, if you put EQ on the tape as you record you will then have to un-EQ the tape when you play back or you will be doubling your changes. This loop also makes the process of playback more complicated if you have a three had tape deck. If your pre amp has the ability to do tape to tape dubbing between two decks you can place the EQ in tape one and the deck in tape two. This will allow tape EQ and playback with minimal fuss. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Here's a discussion of how to spend your money on a system. What's more important, the speakers or the electronics in front of the speakers? https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/69075.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | How about those speaker cables: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/46852.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | A question on subwoofer X-overs: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/75553.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Connectors on speaker cables: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/76103.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Whole house speaker distribution: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-theater/75650.html |
|
Matty C Unregistered guest | I'm only very amature at home theatre sound and have a basic sony setup (stereo, 2 x bookshelf speakers, 1 x centre and 2 x surround speakers). This only cost about $700 3 years ago (in Australia). My question is how do I get more sound from my current setup? I understand going out and buying an expensive setup is optional but can I do anything to upgrade my current speakers? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Sorry, Matty, telling us you want more sound from your system doesn't mean anything. You'll have to be more specific than that about what you are looking to improve. You can start by telling us what you think your system doesn't do CORRECTLY. That's always a good start because doing something correctly and doing something to your liking are two different things. So here's the key, tell us what your system does correctly, then what it doesn't do correctly (in your opinion) and then tell us what you would like it to do that it is not doing now. If you can do all three things then you will have thought through your problems and strengths and have a better understanding of where you are starting out and where you would like to get to. Without that knowkedge, Matty, you are a blind man wandering in the wilderness and you are going to get eaten alive by someone out there in a white van with some crappy speakers they want you to buy. Please take this advice seriously, I have seen it happen too many times. You must have solid ideas about your system before you can improve anything otherwise you can change it every week and never improve it once. So stop and think before you post the next question. If you are asking about upgrades to your speakers my experience is you already have something in mind, or, have been suggested something by someone. What did you have in mind? You'll also, once again have to tell us some detail about what speakers you own and what you think are the good and bad points and what you are trying to achieve. Is this a system that all came in one box or do you have separate pieces. If they are separates that you chose, why did you choose them (other than cost) if you don't care for them? Was there something you heard that now is not right or what is the specific problem? Sorry to be such a stickler for information but it is impossible to answer your question with out some knowledge to go on. I guess we could all ask the question how do I make my life better? But that would be relative to what your life is like now, wouldn't it? We will also have to have some kind of budget that you can work with. Making suggestions to go buy a new Ferrari would be useless to the guy who's stretching to get into a seven year old Honda. Is "buying an expensive setup" really an option? If so, it's usually a very good way to get better sound quality. Finally, you're welcome to stay on this thread if you like, but your type of question was not the original intent of this therad (which if you haven't explored, please go back through the archives to find the origin of this posting) and when you post a question like your's in the middle of a different thread most people who might want to answer your question are not looking here due to the title of the thread. My advice would be to start a new thread under "speakers". |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1965 Registered: Dec-03 | J. Vigne writes "You can start by telling us what you think your system doesn't do CORRECTLY" I would go one step further, and say "You can start by telling us what you think/hope your system could do better". There has to be something you are dissatisfied with, Matty, otherwise there is nowhere to start. If you generally feel your audio system could do better, but are not sure how, you could go to a dealer and ask for some advice, and demonstrations. Good dealers are often busy with call-in customers, whom they should not ignore; it is a good sign of they are busy. If they are busy with computer games etc, that is different. But, after initial contact, you could make an appointment and then take along some of your own discs. It seems to me there are various sorts of "newbie". That is a term requiring definition. I doubt if anyone is really a newbie, everyone has some previous experience to build on. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | How to trace a problem and how to get your stuff fixed right the first time (hopefully): https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/77356.html |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1984 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Awesome. I think andre may have been hoping for something simpler, however. I, too, try to keep anarchism as a last resort. It ain't always easy, though. Some brands/owner-manuals/dealers deserve both barrels, but one has to consider innocent bystanders, as well as having identified the correct target. Matty, I think you received good advice. Did you get anywhere with improving your system? Did you get any other recommendations? Beware if anyone says "What you need is Brand X". |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Here's some help with how to hook up a system: http://www.prillaman.net/ht_info_8-wiring.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can also put "home theater wiring diagrams" into a search engine and browse till you find what suits your needs. Unfortunately there are too many variations to tell how to hook up everything in one easy answer. These guides will get you started and then it is best to sit down with your owner's manual. You can also always call the store where you bought your system for some professional assistance from someone who now has some of your money. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | If you are certain you have everything hooked up correctly and still get no picture or sound you probably need to turn on or direct a signal. This is most often accomplished at the menu of your reciever or processor. Look through the troubleshooting section of your owner's manual or look through the index for references to your specofic needs. If you can't find what you are needing go to your set up menu and start to browse until you find something that looks like it might refer to your situation and then check the owner's manual for a description of what you are going to do by turning this switch on or off. Most recievers and TV's have a default setting that can restore your set up to original, factory settings if you hit the wrong switch; if your system has defaults you can almost always get back to a starting point no matter what switches you hit. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Speaker phasing, antennas and grounds: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/84637.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Shielded speakers: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/84637.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Alternatives to spikes under speakers: You have several options. If you are mostly concerned with the spikes leaving marks on the floor you can place something under the spikes. A coin is fine, a knockout from an AC box, a piece of metal shim or some companies sell specific "footers" to go under spikes. You can also use a T-nut (the item which has teeth to grab into wood and threads inside). You place the T-nut on the floor facing up and the spike sits in the threaded portion of the T-nut. Buy a small T- nut that will allow the spike to reach not quite to the floor. Any of these devices should be PlastiTak'd to the floor for security. (You can buy PlastiTak at The Container Store or use photo mounting plastic from an office supply store. Both are essentially the same as BluTak but less expensive and easier to find. BluTak can be purchased from Audio Advisors.) If you want to avoid spikes all together you can use ball bearings. Since the ball bearing is round the contact with the floor will be along its tangent and will provide the same type of mass loading that a spike does. These can be PlatiTak'd to the speaker if you do not plan to move the speaker. You can find metal and nylon ball bearings mounted in a captured housing which will allow you to move the speakers without marring the floor. I use a hard nylon ball that I found in an auto supply house. It was threaded to accept a piece of all-thread with the same thread pattern as the spikes. A few nuts to secure the two pieces together and the speaker is loaded to the floor but I can slide it out of the way on my hardwoods and not mark the floor. These nylon balls were meant to be replacement knobs on generic automobiles. Depending on the size you want they will run a few dollars each. Take one of your spikes with you to check the threads. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Setting a X-over point for a subwoofer: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/84849.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | More on sub X-overs: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/84454.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | On Bose: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/92124.html |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 565 Registered: Aug-04 | "Accuracy" Rick was describing his new Spendor speakers as being the most 'accurate' he has ever heard. Could someone please define what 'accuracy' means in a speaker - what is the reference for speaker accuracy or how do we know that what we are hearing in a speaker is really 'accurate' - thanks! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 413 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, An excellent question, and I think the one that both drives us crazy, and keeps us in this hobby. To me accuracy has to go back to the source, be it a live performance, or the recording of the performance. How did it sound at the source? Accuracy is getting as close to THAT as possible. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Here's my opinion of accuracy, particularly in realtion to speakers. (I'll rehash many of the comments I have made on this forum on other threads.) Accuracy is as accuracy does. Yeah, that helps a lot. But there is no real measure of accuracy other than what we expect it to be. My grammar gets worse the farther I go into this so bear with me. Attention. Attention. Dangling Participle Alert! Having installed so many speakers that were the epitomy of accuracy in so many different rooms and systems I can tell you there were no two systems that sounded the same when I got everything set up to the owner's satisfaction. I could still tell whether I had delivered Quads or Klipschs but even the most colored speakers I ever sold sounded different in the home than they did in the store. I think most all of us know that the component that alters and affects the sound the most is the room and its furnishings. I have treated rooms with thousands of dollars of acoustics dampeners, diffraction grating, reflectors and so on. I have run Mylar around a room and shined a light on it to get the hot spots identified. I've used a tape measure and repositioned speakers and chairs. I have tweaked and retweaked rooms for stores and clients and no pair of speakers was ever alike. A recent question about Bose products had me answering why people do and don't like Bose. Part of my answer was people like Bose because they have been told they will and they have never been told they wouldn't. When the majority of people who are willing to put out big sums of money for a stereo system have never played an instrument and seldom, if ever have heard live music (let alone live, unamplified music) there is no reference for accuracy. And even among those who do attend live performances there was litle agreement about what consituted the best system. You would think that audio salespeople who know what a basoon sounds like in a concert hall (Meyerson symphony hall here in Dallas) could agree when they hear an accurate reproduction of that sound of a disc (many recordings done in that hall, some on audiophile labels). But no one I ever worked with had the same components as the next person. Wouldn't you think that we would be after accuracy in most cases? But I do not have the same hearing as Rick, John, Kegger or any other of you. I also don't necessarily listen in the same manner that you do. So accuracy is no more than what I expect it to be and no less than what I will allow it to be. I once ask Gregory what a screamimg baby sounds like. I believe, if you asked that question of a dozen people you would get a dozen different answers. Most likely a mother with a child would answer differently than, say, a priest or symphony conductor. I asked John, I believe, to tell me what blue looks like. Accuracy in vision is the same as accuracy in hearing. If you can convince me something is blue just by describing it to me in words I will believe you can have accurate sound from your system. (At the moment I am having a terrible time just getting accuracy in my typing. Thank goodness for the delete key.) I think that will do for now. I look forward to other answers and will respond again after some of you have contributed. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 566 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick Thanks mate, but your answer is sort of what made me ask the question. You say the Spendors are the most accurate speaker you've heard, now referring to your response to my question,how do you qualify your statement re the Spendors. I'm not trying to put you on the spot here - really - just trying to understand how one can tell if the speakers are delivering a sound as close as possible to source when we can't actually hear the source for a reference. I hope you get what I'm driving at as I'm not trying to undermine your judgement. Yours are among the few who contribute here whose opinion I value. I'm just another old dog trying to learn another trick or two! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 567 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan Thanks, your post crossed over mine. Great, so with all that said (and said well), I think you and Rick should see the point I just made: if people describe a speaker as being accurate, they only using their best judgement without any real terms of reference. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 414 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, I will answer question your question, but ruin the suspense and drama for Ghia. Jan, if you are listening in, I posted a partial story on "Old Dogs" regarding Van Morrison, and my friend John. I was honored to be in the studio, when the "Into The Mystic" track was laid down and mixed. I have heard John play his Martin for hundreds of hours. Trust me I KNOW the sound,timbre, whatever you want to call it of that guitar. When I heard the opening chord of that track on the CD played thru the Mac/Spendor combo, I said "HOLY _ _ _ _! That is exactly how it sounds. Time stood still, I could see John's face. I was back in that studio. I have never experienced this with any other system or combo. If that isn't at least the illusion of accuracy, what is? |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 571 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick Thankyou my friend. And I'm am sorry for causing you to reveal your story prematurely. I had once before tried to find that review on the Spendors by Reichert (probably the glasses thing) but anyway,I found it today (by doing a search on the website) and read it. He basically says what I was thinking and what Jan says and he certainly epitomised your view. The illusion of accuracy probably does exist, but it has to depend upon one's memory. And it certainly seems that your recall of a very noteworthy moment in your life has, in fact, brought back what you heard then to become a valid reference for your description of the accuracy of your Spendors. To recall the details of a sound (or timbre or whatever) after a period of time can be a difficult thing for most people no matter how good is their hearing. But an emotional moment like that would, IMO, make a very real difference. And one which allows you to answer my question very well. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CorneliusPost Number: 41 Registered: Jun-04 | Nice! That's accuracy - getting a feeling, an emotional connection. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 575 Registered: Aug-04 | You missed the point Cornelius, the emotion of that moment made the memory of that sound possible! Thus creating a reference for accuracy. There is no other type reference if you think about it. If you can come up with one, please let us know. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CorneliusPost Number: 42 Registered: Jun-04 | Rantz, I'm on the same page as Rick, are you? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 417 Registered: Dec-03 | Hope you enjoyed the story. John was with Mr. Morrison from "Domino" thru "Moondance". That's his claim to fame. As for me, I have none. That story and a Quarter will get me a local phone call (LOL!). Cheers! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 581 Registered: Aug-04 | Good story Rick. It reminds me of Knopfler's Gibson rifts in Brothers In Arms. I recall being taken back to one of the Strait's concerts when I first played that haunting track on CD. Damn, those old Acculab speakers I chucked out must have been accurate after all. Jeez Cornelius, I don't think I'm even on the same planet as Rick! |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 300 Registered: Apr-04 | Ok, I'm working my way through this great thread (thanks Rick and MR) and came across this and had to comment: JohnA wrote: " Ghia recently said she liked the hiss on a particular recording, it sounded more "organic". I have some LPs where you can here tape hiss, and know just what she means. I have a theory about this; it provides a substitute for ambience, and therefore continuity to a discontinously-recorded performance" JohnA, thanks! Part of my "frustration" of these audio experiences is articulating what I'm hearing and feeling. When I heard some of the tape hiss in the SACD of Getz/Gilberto, the only way I could think to describe it was to say it was "organic" which, to me, is a positive and "pleasurable" experience of "noise" - but, to others, "organic" may not mean anything. But, JohnA's articulation of it as a "substition of ambience" is perfect! That's exactly what I would have said, if I had a sliver of JohnA's brilliance. Ok, back to this interesting thread. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 418 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, I always considered Mark as one of the best guitarists on the planet. Thanks for reminding me. I haven't listened to any Dire Straits with the new combo. I'll do just that this evening. I'll raise my glass to you, my friend. Cheers! Ghia, Glad you found this thread. As always, Jan is an endless source of knowledge. Again, sorry for ending the Van story here, But glad you caught up with it. Stay well........! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Her's something to conjure upon; what if the speaker/system can get the timbre right and put Rick back in the studio with Mr. Morrison and his friend; but, it can't, in the words of a Linn salesperson, play the tune. In other words it doesn't sound as if you are at a performance and it has no emotional appeal. Is it still accurate? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Where is Tonto when you want him? Probably off pounding his buckskins again. He wants me to believe it's to make it soft. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 583 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick M.K. certainly is one of the best. I had the pleasure to meet him and John Isley at an after concert party a few centuries ago. We (wife and friends) all had a good long chat with them over a few beers. Top guys. Glad I jolted your memory. Enjoy! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 584 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan, It's a darn quandery! Rick's experience would have to come about as close to knowing if a speaker is accurate - it explains it - but it doesn't prove it, now does it? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 419 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I think Tonto would starch them if he could....... BTW-Great question above-I'll let others respond before I comment on the emotion element. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 585 Registered: Aug-04 | Only the emotion from the timbre of the speaker/system could put Rick back in the studio. If there was no tune how is the timbre indentified? If it didn't sound like a performance, what would it sound like? Who thought up this question - Tonto? Have you been harvesting the agave plant again Tonto? |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 301 Registered: Apr-04 | Rick, that's awesome! "Into the Mystic" is my favorite song on Moondance and, even without having heard your story first, it would have been a track I would use in a Spendor/B&W comparison. And you were there for the recording??!? Very cool! I have even greater anticipation of what I'm about to hear! MR, your question regarding knowing the accuracy of a reproduced sound when not having the benefit of hearing the original source is right on. I suspect my "listening" experience might be improved if I started going to clubs and concerts again as Jan mentioned. This may be why the Heart "Alive in Seattle" SACD struck such a chord with me. Even though I had this CD for a year, it had only been played 1-2 times on my CD player. But, the first time I heard it in the SACD I was blown away. This SACD took me back to the 25 or 30 Heart concerts I attended in my youth. I realize now this is the "accuracy" that is being discussed here. Having experienced many Heart concerts, I recognized what I was hearing in the SACD mix and understood and responded to it. Jan, Rick, this discussion has given me some direction for being able to enrich the enjoyment of hearing music with a better understanding of what is being heard. Thanks! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rick - yes, starch with a crease. |
|
Ranger Unregistered guest | You know injuns. anything to make the ol' feather stand up again. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 422 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, While in Canada, you could get a nasty rash from all that starch. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CorneliusPost Number: 43 Registered: Jun-04 | I just got back from a session with a surround sound set-up of powered Spendors - sounded really nice. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 423 Registered: Dec-03 | Cornelius, Sorry to leave you hanging. Sounds interesting! How many channels, and what were driving them? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 424 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan asked a great question in a post above. How do you listen to music? I bet we all listen in different ways, and I also would like input, not only HOW, but WHAT, we listen to or for. I think we could be in for a very enlightening discussion. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CorneliusPost Number: 45 Registered: Jun-04 | Rick, I don't about the sub, but all of the speakers were the powered studio monitors (built-in amps). Two mains, center and two rears. They were a smaller size than a pair that I heard in another studio, probably close in size to the S3/5. I always like to walk into a room and see a pair (or more) of Spendors. n |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | It seems not that many years ago I thought I would always be listening to some rock among my other choices. Ten years ago I covered a very wide spectrum of music that I had in my collection and would run through in a night of listening. Much wider than most anybody I worked with. But lots of them were still listening to audiophile discs. I listen to albums that sound good but seldom audiophile stuff. Now I am suprised to find I don't listen to rock at all unless it is old rock. Dire Straits (who haven't recorded in years) and Eric Clapton (who hasn't recorded new "rock" in years) is about where I stop. U2 lost me. I'm an old dog in that most of what I listen to in any genre is much older than the guy behind the counter where I buy music. So today I find myself listening to old rock, mostly old jazz, some blues, old country (though I can't not put on Johnny Cash's last few albums, but they get no airplay) and some folk, and classical. A few odds and ends but that represents the majority of my listening. As always there are about twenty albums in my rotation at any one time. No matter what I'm listening to I am hearing whatever is driving the music forward, usually the drum or purcussion but in lots of rock the bass is ahead of the drum. I listen for the rhythm of the piece more than the melody. And in classical and jazz I listen for a theme that is repeated and changed and exchanged as the piece moves forward. How the previous musicians set up the following players is how I hear music in most pieces. Of course, with Elvis or J. Cash, the words themself and how they are bent and manipulated are the music. Elvis' version of "Fever" is still the best I've heard because of his voice and the slow, sex-ual (a word not allowed here) quality of his version. And it is offset by a sultry, and very simple, back up group that plays slightly behind him and then catches up and pulls your attention to the percussion of finger snaps and wood blocks and upright bass to settle in beneath the vocal. Classical is quite often chamber music or smaller groups so the bass (where there is bass) is still what I am aware of first. The manner in which the music is lifted up and sent down, fast and slow, loud and soft are all in that region or come from that region. I pay quite a bit of attention to the dynamics of how a musician goes at a piece of music. In jazz the dynamics of the backing players is often more interesting than the instrument in front at any one moment. I think it is like acting with a good actor who listens to what is said by the other characters and hears something different each performance. That type of actor makes the other performers look good even by being in the background and helping the other performers move the play along with sheer energy. Paul Desmond (when he's not playing with Dave Brubeck) is my favorite jazz player and he does this magnificently. I still can get lost in the Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia and Dave Grissman are a joy to listen to. Doc Watson is one of the most unselfish artists because he seems to just enjoy the act of making music so much. As a used to be audio salesperson I still listen to the hi fi part of my system occassionally. I always pull out "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits when I want to hear a system work. Good dynamics and how sounds move around in that piece is still a good test for me and still great fun to listen to. FourPlay is another quick, "I like it or I don't" in a few seconds. The music either flows together or gets torn apart by most systems. But they are more a quick test piece as I seldom listen to an entire album of theirs and don't eagerly await their next recording. Too many artists I listen to are now dead so Clapton is about the only one I wait for now. ("Me and Mr. Johnson" was a large disappointment. That should have been Clapton by himself not with a seven piece backing band. And the sound pretty much sucked because of it.) As I've said what I listen for was seldom what my clients were listening for. I wanted speakers that weren't in the room with me of course. Soundstaging across the room was what I went for and depth when it was there either naturally or, in the case of Dire Straits, artificially produced. I never went for pinpoint imaging because I never really heard that in a performance. What many thought was spectacular I found boring. I wanted consistency. Lots of what I sold lacked consistency in that an amp like Krell wanted to overwhelm me with detail but it gave me a middle of the auditorium soundstage. I like about seven or eight rows back and the detail is there but doesn't come out and slap you in the face and go "LISTEN TO THE DETAIL!!!!". The speakers I own for my main system don't play loud or have lots of bass. They are to me very much like a Quad in their speed but are box speakers. The bass is there but it doesn't draw attention to itself, it just puts a foundation under the music with a speed that is not there in most box speakers. Since I could never afford most of what I sold, sins of omission were my choice. If the system can't do it well, I'd rather it not point that out to me. Overall my system is pretty mellow compared to most. A Grado cartridge, tube pre amp and the Mac tubes for power and Spica Angelus speakers. The LS3/5a's do most of the same things as the Spica's. They have one of the best midranges around and they just play music. Things don't get conjested if I'm judicious with the volume, which isn't hard for me. I've had my system more or less as is for a long time so I know what to expect and I don't have to listen to the system any more. What I want to hear is the communication between the artists. What I don't want to hear is my system. (Though I'm always judging its performance to some extent.) |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 589 Registered: Aug-04 | Good stuff on an interesting subject. I had written a bit of a similar epic on the subject only to submit it and cop an error! Jeeeeezzzzzzzzz I hate it when a post disappears. To tired to do it all again now - maybe tomorrow. Maybe that darn pinto ate it! |
|
Bronze Member Username: CorneliusPost Number: 46 Registered: Jun-04 | "I never went for pinpoint imaging because I never really heard that in a performance". That's great! Like Rick and some others here, I have a pair of Ohm Micros. When I was thinking of trying them, I emailed a reviewer about them and he said the same thing. I know we lost Maui along the way, but it was designs like the Europas that got me thinking about listening and not hearing. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Naw, the indian smoked it. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I'm just going to stick in a link to acoustic treatments: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/accessories/84788.html Carry on. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 590 Registered: Aug-04 | "How do we listen to music and what do we listen for?" Good questions, but for me (us) there are no singular answers. I would like to say I listen to the music and not the system, but that's not so all the time. Because of recent up-grades I find that when listening to music seriously I'm still occasionally assessing where tweaking our system may improve what I'm hearing. However, short of falling prey to the cable snake oil merchants or relining our internal walls with sound dampening material, I think we have gone about as far as we can go in practical terms. And, after all our spending, we are fortunate to be very content with the level of quality in the sound our system puts out. Our own research and good people from this forum have contributed to that result. Our listening patterns differ. Normal (cd) listening is from the bar that faces the opposite side of the room from where our sound system has been set up. This is mainly for after work happy hours or a week's end happy evening where the intent is more for communicating with each other as well as music and beverage enjoyment. For serious appreciation of our music, we place ourselves on our comfy sofa where speaker distances, levels etc have been optimised for surround sound (dvd-a, sacd and dd 5.1 or dts 5.1) and also where we are at the apex of the triangle created by the position of our main speakers for stereo listening. I listen for good solid bass, but dislike recordings where it smothers the clean mids and highs that I like to hear. I like to be able to define the difference between the bass drum and the bass instrument (s). I like to hear the snare, the tom, the high-hats etc instead of a messy percussion in the background. I like good honest music where there is usually just the right number of musicians and instruments to get things right. I must have rhythm in my music -- if my toes aren't tapping or some part of me is not moving to the beat then something tells me to play something else. We are not fans of the classics, but do appreciate some on occasion. We only have around 350 CD's with about 75% devoted to blues. Jazz, older rock, and a few swing and reggae discs make up the rest. We have about 30 music (concert) DVD's, and at this time, about 18 hi-res DVD-A or SACD discs which presently take up most of our serious listening time. Hi-res is really wonderful and especially in surround providing the mix has been engineered well. I have always liked stereo recordings where depth and imaging can make the music magic -- and still do, very much, but I have found on a few of the hi-res surround recordings, those two traits along with the resolution can take me to entirely different levels -- and without any assisting substance. Unlike Jan, I don't want to hear communication between the musicians. I think they should all shut up while they are playing unless they have a voice role in the recording -- kidding Jan of course! I agree: communication between talented musicians creates a tight cohesive result and makes listening a real pleasure. One good example of this is the dvd-v "Sade Live." Attired in a stunning shimmering two-piece dress, with her sultry voice, and exotic looks, I could look and listen to her all day long (wife understands this problem of course), but I soon realise it is really the band who's taking me along on the wonderful ride. Anyone who has watched and listened to this with a reasonably good system will know exactly what I'm talking about. Soundstage positioning or relevance to original recordings do not really have an important impact in what I listen for, if the amp or receiver is doing what it's paid to do and the signals are getting through those dang cables so the speakers are pumping as they should, all the planets are aligned, and there is no one nagging* in my ear telling me my time would be better spent mowing the lawn, then it really is all about enjoying the music. * This does not occur in real life -- just poetic license. I really don't have a nagging wife. In fact I have a wonderful wife -- the best there is. Occasionally, she reads these threads also. |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 309 Registered: Apr-04 | Interesting outlooks, Jan and MR. I am in the same place as MR is in regards to getting the system to sound as good as it can in practical terms. Honestly, my system and listening environment in its current state probably blows away 90% of other systems. But, I will never be able to afford high end equipment so where does that leave me? In a very good place, that's where. I am mostly past the point of tweaking my system (except for some speaker placements recently made at JohnA's suggestion). And, for the type of music I listen to, it sounds pretty darn good! I want my system to have an open sound and I want it to be warm. I want to be able to hear the space between the instruments and not have them sound as if they are emanating from a box. That's one reason why I chose the B&W speakers over Linn a couple of years ago. That the Monitor Audio speakers also provide that space while improving the range is why they replaced the B&W's as my main. While my musical tastes are fairly eclectic, my preferences are pop/rock, traditional jazz, folk, blues and classical, in that order. For pop, I prefer artists who understand melody including Aimee Mann, Matthew Sweet, Jack Johnson, Wilco, etc. I also like jangly guitars in pop music. The jazz sounds of the 50's and 60's including Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Louis Armstrong, Stan Getz and Thelonius Monk is where it is at. When I listen to these artists, I wish I had been part of the "sophisticated" and "hip" crowd enjoying their club shows. Alas, I'm a generation too late. And, what about female vocalists (who I hear sound superb on Spendor speakers) like Dusty Springfield, Dinah Washington, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holliday, and kd lang? Or, even Tift Merritt?! I look for "honesty" in music. Sometimes that's not easy to describe. It's a little like the adage about what is "p0rn" - you know it when you see it, et al. In this case, you know it when you hear it. If music is honest, it has a timelessness to it. It isn't manufactured towards a trend or demographic. It is there for everyone. Music had this quality years ago. That's why the music of the Beatles, Johnny Cash, Dylan, Stones, Al Green, Miles Davis, etc still sounds good now and still has relevancy. There are artists out there now who honor this value but you won't hear them on your "local" Clear Channel radio station. When I want to do some "serious listening" I pull my leather chair into position at the point of the stereo imaging. My BF just lays on the sofa and says it sounds just as good there as in the "sweet spot". It is difficult for me to say how well my system reproduces recordings in regards to the original source. But, I do know that I get a great deal of enjoyment out of kicking back and listening to great music on a great system. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1387 Registered: Dec-03 | ...................Y E P................... |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 172 Registered: Dec-03 | To me, it all about the music. That being said, I have tried to assemble a stereo that will allow me to enjoy it. It gets complicated when you get into produced, multitrack recordings because the intent of the responsible parties may not necessarily be to recreate a "live" moment. Some artists could care less about fidelity and some are obsessed with it. You also have albums that were recorded at a certain point in time when recording technology may not have accurately rendered vision (what would the Beatles, Hendrix, or Pink Floyd have done with a Mac and Pro Tools?). As far as great artists and their music not being heard, I think it always has happened. How many people have John McLaughlin, Frank Zappa, or Roy Buchanan on their short list of great guitarists from the late 60's and early 70's? Probably not as many as those that will rattle off names like Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Townsend, and Beck. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2048 Registered: Dec-03 | Tonto, him back from Quebec. Him have jet lag. Him no have baggage. Baggage in Montreal Dorval. Him try send smoke signals while away, using Wifi. Him timed out. Tonto, him never use starch or other stiffening agents. Him find no need. I will never catch up with all these missed posts. Someone (Kegger?) please apologise to Larry. No offence intended, I see that. It is a shame that e-coustics does not have an innuendo filter. No, on second thoughts, the thought police would program it, and we would all be worse off. |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 317 Registered: Apr-04 | Welcome back, Him! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2054 Registered: Dec-03 | Ghia she thanked warmly. This is off topic but let me humbly submit The Day After Tomorrow as the worst movie ever made. The disaster special effects were lost in the Air Canada Boeing 767, but more than enhanced by watching it during turbulence which reached even up to 39000 ft. over the Northern edge of hurricane Frances. It was such a dire movie I am determined to watch it again, just to be sure. I was not sure whether it was supposed to be a spoof, like Airplane. I greatly fear they were serious. It must have cost a fortune to make. Sorry to interrupt. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - Art Bell and Whitley Stieber will get you for that: http://www.unknowncountry.com/ |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/04/24.html |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2058 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you, Jan. Pertinent links, as always. I failed to spot any black triangles, UFOs, or crop circles. It could have been inattention on my part. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - Not to impugn your observational skills and powers of recollection; but, did you look out the window? To your right, that's where the threat is at. Sorry, to have to ask but you're not Sherlock Holmes, you know. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2063 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Yes, I did. But I had an aisle seat. Though I doubt if clear access to the emergency exits will help much when the black triangle strikes. Or does whatever it does. I would probably have greeted any alien as a long-lost friend (no comments, please, I know, I know...) after viewing "The day after tomorrow", and cited it as good cause for mass destruction. I rather enjoyed "Independence Day" which was from the same director. But ID was clearly a spoof, whereas TDAT was deadly serious, as far as I can tell, and entirely misleading, alarmist, empty, and devoid of the faintist glimpse of understanding, on real issues. Watch out for the next Ice Age folks. It will happen literally overnight (like last time), and be caused by Global Warming (don't ask...). No need to worry though, the casualties will all be foreigners, and Mexico will gladly accept 250 million refugees from the North, out of debt and gratitude for all its big neighbour has done for it, in the past. Sorry if this is a spoiler. I am not at all anti-American, but that movie really does test the limits of credulity. Is history or geography, let alone physics, actually taught at any level all in US schools? Then, the CGI'd marauding wolf pack... Argh. Even Disney does less harm that this. Perhaps I take things too seriously.... TDAT probably has brilliant sound [attempt to get back on topic]. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 613 Registered: Aug-04 | John A No, I just watched the worst movie ever made. It was a very violent and gross pictorial about a guy who got a jolly good thrashing, died, then was resurrected. Maybe I didn't get it! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - Sure, the history of geography is teached here. I know east is east and west is west. As fer as physics the new rule is you're either with us or against us. Nothing else matters if WE don't get THEM. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2066 Registered: Dec-03 | MR, Thanks. I think I will give that one a miss. It is it on DVD in record time, which probably means it bombed at the box office. It does not sound like wholesome family entertainment. Although it is based on a true story, I am told. Surely Disney or, better, Aardman, could do an animated version. I keep hoping there will be a follow-up to Chicken Run. Jan, Perhaps it is the geography of history that should concern us more. When we all agree, then we'll know who's won. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - History of geography or geography of history? Yer obviously trying to confuse me. All I can say is I couldn't agree more ... in fact I could agree at all. Or something like that. Yer just gonna take words and move them around till you get what I meant to be what you meant to be and I won't mean that anymore. It's one crazyassed game yer playing mister. I know what I mean and you can't make me not mean it even if you make it sound like I don't know what I mean. You take my word ferit, if we all start agreee'n the nuns have done won the ball game. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | NoNoNo - I meant I couldn't agree when I said I could agree. That's one mean game you got going. Making me write what I don't want to write. It don't even matter if I don't know how you did that I won't play along. I'm gonna only write stuff I think I mean. So there Mr. Communistical-thought-police-nuns should take over our lives. Don't ferget I took your silly political correctness test and now I'm conviced you messed with my score so I'd look like I'm not me. WELL IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!!!!!!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2067 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, ---Yep--- "I'm gonna only write stuff I think I mean". Great. I'll drink to that. If we get on to the subject of Alice, I can see no end to the discussion. But she did ask whether meaning what you say is the same as saying what you mean. Or words to that effect. This thread is, after all, named "Definitions and descriptions". I think that all we need now are a few incisive words from that nice Mr Rumsfeld. He sorts things out in no time. Off to search the room with the piano, for clues. Cheers. |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Quite correct Mr. Vigne, he is not me. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Bass and treble: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/93389.html |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 365 Registered: Apr-04 | Jan You wrote: .... As fer as physics the new rule is you're either with us or against us. Nothing else matters if WE don't get THEM. You're allowed to stay in Tx with views such as this? lol |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Yoo Betcha, Sweetie Pie!!! It's because we real ice that we done gotch a grate leader who knows a mushroom type cloud when he hears one that we are solidly in the camp of "Let's go get somebody" here in the Largest state in the uonion (cause down here we don't recognize anything to the left of us). But we'll take care of everything with a little help from that Grate State of Florida, Home of the President's brotheer and the biggest bunch of wind this country has seen in many a year, come election day for those of us who make the Right decision. And to secure that we just won't let nobody who hasn't signed a loyalty othe get in the votin' bouth. So don't yoo worry yer pretty little head about none of this stuff. Weand Haliburton will be keepen yoo all safe while yoo sleep through what we're doing. Now yoo want to bring up our turned aroun economy? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Ya know I most shurley and certannly do hope that everybody understands the impotance of having a leader who has no problem with killing people (he's been doin' a good job of it ever since he was, and in our hearts still is, our almost leader of Texas, cause bein the governor doesn't really mean yoo lead us anywhere down here. There's too many people with BIG money down here for that to happen) instead of somebody who is more concerned about where his cigar has been (if you know what I mean by that and I'm OK that yoo just don't know stuff). And we just don't need anybody who everybody knows he's gonna think!!! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | And now that yoov'e forced me into bringin Halliburton into this dsicussion let me clear up something that people think about our vice pres who you think of as Dick. We shoud all be glad that, in a time of unending war (And let me make it clear that we did not need this war they brung it to us) we have a vice guy who is clear headed enough to know that yoo don't take the time for bids on contratcts when our nation's securities are at stake. You act!!!!!, and then, and only then, do you act like you don't know anything about it. and to those people who think that the vp is dishonest when he says he doesn't know what he did let me say this - D.C. (Get the impotance of those intials?) has always been acting with the straightest of faces. This is a aman that was Senator for Monatana or Wyoming or one of those Cold States and yet when he took over ruuning Haliburton he was ready to move to Dallas ( actually Highland Park where everybody thinks about what's right for our country by doing business with Iran is OK as long as you keep your money to yourself) and he even registered to vote down here (actually he didn't vote down here cause he was busy ruuning Haliburton which wasn't easy cause they were loosing money till he showed them how to make it look like they were making money by putting the right figures in the right columns) anyway he didn't try to live in somewhere else until the law said you can't have two guys from the state that George Bush lives in be the same two guys that are ruuning for Prez and vice and so what that grateing type American that he is he listed his address as Montana or somewhere else other than Dallas cause the prez used to live in Dallas and there you are. So he said he was from someplace that he wasn't but he would be if he lost the election but he didn't so he isn't and he sold his house in Dallas (actually Highland Park cause the property values are lots higher there and the taxes too which is why he was so mad about all the taxes everybody and especcially his friends there in Highland Park who just want to keep their money to them selfs was paying) so anyway he sold his house here and said he would live there cause he didn't need no house here since he was a shurred he was gonna get Al Gore's old place and he wouldn't have to pay taxes on it since the public pays for everything. So that was the most honorable thing I think I've ever seen a Republican do. And just cause yoo brought it up that stuff with Iran didn't mean he couldn't do business with them if he did it by doing it with them when he was somebody else. See? He was doing it to and for the people of the US not by being a US company but by being a subsidary company of that American company that doesn't even have an American address. How American is that? When they passed that rule or law or whatever they didn't say if you went off shore with your jobs that would be bad. Actually they gave Haliburton bunches of new contracts to tell them how smart it was to make money off the taxpayers and not pay any taxes on it. So if that aint' proof I don't know what isn't. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | And that brings up another good point that yoo are forcing me to make about dick n' George Bush. It was Haliburton who bought democracy and the capitalistic way of doing business to a post office box somewhere in some little country that didn't even have mail delivery that made them the millionaires they are today. (Actually George did it by having people that he used to work with when he "owned" and "ran" the Texas Rangers baseball team like every other business he had owned and then some of the guys who liked him so much they wanted to work with him again when he was our almost grate leader as governor and they gave him $16 Million for showing up at a few games and helping the local economy by buying some hot dogs and he always tipped) Dick and George are rich now, that is, the country still doesn't have enough money to buy a goat for delivering mail but that is not the fault of the Big Guy. And anyway he said he would have paid taxes on it if someone had asked him but nobody asked him since they had set up the rules when he was in that ingrateful state of Washington, D.C. where they want to vote and have a representative even when we're at war and are running the biggest deficits in the history of our Nation. Don't these people know that when Dick and George got the moving van pulled up to the White House there was a recession left behind on the door step by the previous owner so there was nothing they could do except adopt the worst economic policy anyone has ever seen. Don't those people know what it costs to have a Senator do what yoo want them to do? We can't be throwing money around like that when we have basketball fields to build in Iraq. And we're goona need them too because our USA hoops team didn't do squat this time around. Old Ooday and Koosaid would have beaten them and then raped their wives if we hadn't liberated them ( if yoo know what I mean and I know lots of people who don't know what I mean). We know that cause they used weapons on their own people twenty years ago. Anyway so Big Dick would have given the money to the government even though it wasn't theirs it is our money they want to spend. But like when George Bush was doing his duty in the National Guard after he had learned to protect the skies of Texas from foreign Viet Cong fighters and they stopped flying the plane he was flying or at least he thought they told him that so that's why he didn't have anybody to stand on the stage with him like John F.(renchy) Kerry did to tell about how brave he was in combat. George just laid low and didn't worry if anybody could vouch for him when he was Prez cause he's the Prez so there. And George never even threw a grenade let alone one that could have killed him if it hadn't just lodged a little eensy weeny tiny little piece of shrapnel in his leg. George is too smart to get that close to something that could blow up. So George had said he would have gone to VietNam if some body like those people who weren't giving him special favors would have asked but they didn't which proves he wasn't anybody special back then and dick would have given his taxes to someone in Highland Park who was suffering under outrageous property taxes that was just going to go to educate the poor kids in South Texas which if Vince Fox had his way would be Mexico now anyway. But nobody asked them to do it that's why these two guys are leading our Nation to see that things get done the way they have always done them. They think alike even when Dick has to tell Geroge what to think. And there yoo have it!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 448 Registered: Dec-03 | That's a mouthful Jan. Does this mean the Republican ticket can't count on your vote this November? (LOL!) |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 639 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan And this is a definition of . . . :-) |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rick - Uh ... no. Rantz - Why a typical Texan, of course. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 640 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan Good reply! LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 372 Registered: Apr-04 | Right on, Brother Jan! Wait, that's not right. Left on, Brother Jan! Uh, uh....oh! Amen, Brother Jan! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Ghia - Careful with the Amens, the nuns will hear us. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rick - Just to clarify my "Uh ... no". I'm waiting for Dick n' George to send me one of their famous pictures of themselfs with soldiers and flags and images of Ground 0 and God (did yoo know he looks a lot like Pat Robertson X sept a little taller in the shoulders?) subslimely super impositioned and where their asking me to keep America safe by sending them money (even though by the methods discussed and straightened out above they both, and X specially The Dick, have enough money that they are keeping to themselfs, that they could buy and sell me to Al Kada and that guy we don't mention anymore cause he's dead or alive, several times not to mention buy a company that makes them electronical voting machines that do the voting for yoo so there's no mistake who yoo want to have doing it to and for yoo for the next deccade or whenever long it takes to get Arnold made Prez)! So's until I recieve that in a envelope that's been checked for white powder, and not the kind people think George did when he was on the young and restless, but the kind that comes from Democrats cause their the only ones that got that stuff sent to them ( really clever of them, huh?) I'm one of then so called gonna be committed voters. Cause down here in Texas we learned long ago that yoo don't promise your vote to no more than three people if they ain't gonna do something for yoo ( or your brother in law cause then he's gotta pay the Taxes that I would rather keep to my selfs and yoo can turn him in if he don't stop messing around with your sister). Hope that makes things clear as a pig in mud? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 451 Registered: Dec-03 | Sho Nuff ! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | One last thing then I'll get back to the audjio side of this. If your wondering what I think of John Kerry, I don't have to think about him cause, with me living in a Grate Red State, he hasn't shown up down here in forever. And the Dallas paper hasn't reported on him not doing it. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 455 Registered: Dec-03 | Just one question with all due respect....... You aren't naive enough to think you are living in a democracy.............do you? |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 174 Registered: Dec-03 | If you are an ex-ENRON exec the best thing you could hope for is 4 more years of Dick & Jr. Wasn't there a promise made in 2000 to restore credibility to the White House? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rh1Post Number: 100 Registered: Jun-04 | Main Entry: 1lib·er·al Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free 1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth 2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a > b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a > c : AMPLE, FULL 3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS 4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a > 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms 6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I'm not sure what that last post is supposed to mean unless yoo think I don't know what a liberal tells me they are. In this Red State we only have Dick-shunarry's (named after who know who) that have definitions without no Big Letters. All letters are created equal in our book unless they spell something foreign (with the X seption of taco and stuff like that). I assume those big letters yoo provided was provided by yoo. That would be a way to point out that liberals are (3) obsolete, lacking in maoral restraint and are without a doubt whatever that other word is. Well, I'm standing in the middle (kinda to the right actually) of a Grate State that is not afraid to talk about liberals, mostly cause down here those liberals are pretty dang close to what everybody else calls Republicans in other parts of the country. Oh, there's a few radicals but we can mostly ignore them cause they ain't speaking the same language as the rest of us. But I will let everyone know that good democrats and Republicans are willing to be broad-minded. Heck, the Republicans paid a bunch of them to come to New York for Dick n' George's party that the insurance companies threw so they could tell everybody how they was gonna fix the health care crisis and it turns out it's gonna be taken care of pretty much like the Medicare fix where the old people can start paying for those discount cards for drugs, but not from a country that speaks french cause that's dangerous,and we don't want no bottles coming from a country like that cause there could be terrorist drugs in there. What with all the nuclear material that is left over from when Ronald Reagan single handedly defeated the Ruskies (not to mention all the WMDs that Saddam moved out of the country before we pulled him out of his hidey hole) and those commie scientists over there practicing crack pot science like the guys here who want you to believe in global warming and stem cells that would destroy our way of life if they weren't given a chance to grow up and anyway those russian guys are selling that nuclear stuff to terrorists before we can buy it from them, which the ruskies said we could do cause that stuff's good for about 100 million years, cause we're busy fighting a war and that takes money you know and 911 changed all that and George can't think about everything at once. He's only the Prez and not God, at least not till he dies and we send him up to Heaven like we did to Ronnie (and ain't that son of his an ungrateful little SOB when he could of just been a little wiggler in a test tube if Ronnie hadn't loved him and all life, X sept for that one bitchyassed daughter of his for awhile, and went ahead and had the kid for pictures that showed what a great family man Ronnie was after he left his first wife just because she complained about him cheating on her and any way let the kid live even if the little punk did turn out to be a little light in his ballet shoes if yoo know what I mean). So there yoo have a good way for terrorists to get stuff that could blow us all to our Heavenly reward, well not every one of us according to Jerry Falwell, but enough of us that we'd know it and then where would yoo be? And it only takes a bomb the size of a Coke can to whipe out a whole part of a city we don't want to go to, cause most of the better people moved up to Plano and such cause the downtown is full of homeless people anyway, so you can start imaging if we imported those drugs and a bomb came through in a bottle of 1000 Aspirins. And anyway the isurance compnies were reall grateful for the way George fixed the Medicare mess where the people weren't getting good health care cause they had to decide to eat pills or cat food and so they had this big party for Dick n' George for all the needed reforms that are gonna start in about four or five years. But yoo don't have to worry about the insurance companies raising your rates or nothing because they was just spending the $144 billion that George went ahead and gave them when Congress passed the bill last year. But that isn't even a problem, see, cause George didn't tell Congress about the extra $144 billion that it was gonna cost and that he stuck off to the side and kept to himself until after it passed and then that way it looks like they never got any money at all. And anyway while we're being broad-minded we do like them to be ample and full and we certianly don't mind if they're a little on the loose side cause we ain't gonna marry them or nothing. All we really care about is if they are good Christian's that hate two people getting married if they ain't different. And as for your knowledge I have never seen a Texas Republican who wasn't OPENHANDED!!! Heck, it's one of their best qualities. Just this year our current near leader, though there will never be another like George we keep hoping, let a bunch of guys from various companies that are involved in school testing and stuff that is educational, he let them take him and his family on a trip to the Bahamas (and they didn't have to speak nothing but English there) and that wasn't long after he got back from Italy with a bunch of guys that make stuff that are interested in our making stuff from Italy here in Texas. So don't tell me about openhanded. It just goes to prove that George was a uniter and not a divider. Most all our politicians do business just like the way he does. So I think yoo might just want to write a letter to the editor of that book yoo got there and straighten them out about a few facts. Yoo can give them my name as a reference. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rh1Post Number: 106 Registered: Jun-04 | ok...well the post was a "definition" which I believe is the intent of this thread. Enjoy life in the big D! |
|
Anonymous | I didn't think Vol's could read (or play football) |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 648 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan Another great little hissyfit - hope u feel better 4 it! (LOL) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 457 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I can see your basic dilemma. It seems you can't decide if you're a conservative democrat, or a liberal republican. The nuns did a great job! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH ....................nuns! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 458 Registered: Dec-03 | So now that we know our votes are going to cancel each other out, let's just say "God bless America", and have that glass of Chivas........... |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH ...................chivas! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | Whack! Whack! And don't make it a HABIT! |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | She was just here Watson, search the forum. She is close man! |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | It's very dark inside this forum Watson. Be careful my good man, there are a lot of multi-channel receivers lurking about. Just follow the glow of the soft blue lights. They will not hurt you! |
|
Moriarty Unregistered guest | Holmes - How completely and utterly incompetent you have proven yourself yet again. You were so close you could hear the clatter of her oversized Crucifix as she moved in for the kill. Why, my good man, you must have felt the breeze as she struck the fatal blow. Whack! Whack! And yet she has escaped you just as easily as before and before that. Your tawdry efforts have lost the soul of yet another to the demon mid-fi. As you stood there helpless to intervene The Nun accomplished her terrible deed. And then she merely disappeared as if lifted away on a breeze. You fool! Beware, Holmes, she has you where she wants you now. You will die a horible death when you choose the wrong cable. HA HA HA HAAAAA! |
|
One Who Knows Unregistered guest | Holmes - Here's a clue, look beyond the whimple! |
|
One Who Knows Unregistered guest | Gad, her power is immense, quickly - the word is wimple. I must go now! |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Careful Watson, she may still be in here, and armed with the deadliest weapon known to a child................................A RULER! |
|
littlehelp Unregistered guest | Main Entry:1wimple Pronunciation:*wim-p*l Function:noun Etymology:Middle English wimpel, from Old English; perhaps akin to Old English w*pian to wipe Date:before 12th century 1 : a cloth covering worn over the head and around the neck and chin especially by women in the late medieval period and by some nuns 2 Scottish a : a crafty turn : TWIST b : CURVE, BEND Main Entry:2wimple Function:verb Inflected Form:wimpled ; wimpling \-p(*-)li*\ Date:13th century transitive senses 1 : to cover with or as if with a wimple : VEIL 2 : to cause to ripple intransitive senses 1 archaic : to fall or lie in folds 2 chiefly Scottish : to follow a winding course : MEANDER 3 : RIPPLE Think, Holmes, Think!!! |
|
Moriarty Unregistered guest | HOLMES - That defintion WILL NOT assist you in the least. DO NOT be misled by some underwitted merry-andrew. This is not the time or place for defintions. Action, man!, pursue while the trail is hot!!! |
|
Anonymous | Huh? I thought it was the Priests that liked to administer correction to young boys. |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | Whack! Ah you foolish ones. I make it a habit of hiding a ruler in my habit while I meander around my habitat. This is the cross I bear. Curse me and I shall cause you more than a mere wimple my children. Whooooooooooooooooooosssssssh . . . . |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | It's worse than I feared Watson. Both the Nun and Moriarty inside the forum-TOGETHER! Can there be any greater evil? Call for help my dear Watson. Summon my old friend Van Helsig and THE Priest. We may need an exorcism my good Doctor. Time is of the essence. Damn you Moriarty............... |
|
E. A. P. Unregistered guest | Once upon a forum dreary, while he pondered, weak and weary, Over a quaint and curious thread of forgotten lore- While he nodded, nearly napping, sudenly there came a Whacking, As of some one gently Whacking-Whacking past his chamber door. "Tis some visitor," he muttered, "Whacking at my chamber door- Only this and nothing more." Ah, distinctly He remembers, it was in the bleak transistor, And each separate dying channel wrought its ghost upon the floor. Eagerly He wished the morrow:- vainly He had sought to borrow From His books surcease of sorrow-sorrow for He lost The Nun- For the rare and Whacking Maiden whom the Doctor named The Nun- Gone from here for evermore. And the muslin sad uncertain russling of each black habit curtain Thrilled Him- filled him with fantastic terrrors never felt before; So that now, to still His beating heart, He stood repeating "'Tis some Nun entreating passage at my chamber door- Some late visitor entreating passage through my chamber door;- This it is and nothing more." Presently His soul grew harder; hesitating then but colder, "Sir," said He, "or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore; But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came Whacking, And so faintly You came Whacking-Whacking at my chamber door- That I scarce was sure I heard You"-here He opened wide the door:- Darkness there and nothing more. Deep into that darkness peering, long He stood there wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal dared to ever dared to dream before; But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token, And only the words there spoken were the whispered words, "The Nun!" This he whispered, and an echo murmured back the words, "The Nun!" Merely this and nothing more. Back into the chamber turning, all His soul within Him burning, Soon he heard again a Whacking, somewhat louder than before. "Surely," said He, "surely that is something at my speaker baffle; Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore;- 'Tis the tweeter and nothing more." Open here He flung the shutter, when, with many a wow and flutter, In there whooshed a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore; not the least obeisance made he; not an instant stopped or stayed he; But, with mein of a Whacking Lady, perched above His chamber door- Perched upon a speaker of Polk Ls just above His chamber door- Perched, and sat, and nothing more. Then this ebony bird beguiling His sad fancy into smiling, By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore, "Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou," He said, "art sure no craven, Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore- Tell me where thy Doctor's game is on The Nun's Plutonian shore!" Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore." Holmes, "Nevermore!" |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | E. A. P. = Elvis Aaron Presley? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 459 Registered: Dec-03 | Bravo! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 656 Registered: Aug-04 | Wonderful, if a little Poe can't scare away the nun, who can? Very clever Edgar! |
|
E. A. P. Unregistered guest | Thank you, kind sirs. I will asist in anyway possible. I have come across many similar to The Nun and Moriarty. They are purely evil and we must do everything possible to stamp out their kind. I do not wish to impugn Mr. Holme's ability, though he does seem rather impotent in this matter, but might I suggest he give a quick glance to "The Gold Bug". It is a story of detection that might sharpen his reflexes in the battle to find The Nun before she can Whack again. Moriarty is another matter all together. I wish you all the best of luck, I will be monitoring your actions and will offer aid when I see fit. As for now I must retire. Did I hear someone mention Chivas? |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | Holmes is pathetic. You think that's snuff that goes up his nose? Really? Why do you think the world's best detective needs that silly Watson fellow to help get him throught the day? Well, it's elementry my dear friends. Heh heh heh! Hey wat's on Watson? Ha Ha Ha! Once again the sisters and I have been sent down into this bleak place to do His whackings. My last mission was to punish Jake and Elmore. Remember them? They just couldn't get enough of my ruler. They cursed, I whacked! They cursed again, I whacked again! And on and on it went. Some people just never learn no matter how much you beat them. Now, this forum is mine and we'll soon see who learns! Evil, you say I am! Well I am not the one obsessed with twisting my knobs and pushing my buttons. People suffer around the world every day while all you can do is twiddle with your pretentious, petty, little music machines and play the "mine is bigger than yours' game. He should have let you all drown when you were having that big swim upstream. But that's His mistake and now it's my duty to whack sense into those of you that need some sense whacked into you. Now, this is your warning. I'll be lurking with ruler at the ready. No can't get me so start praying or you'll soon be paying! And that goes for you also Poe! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | BTW - Elwood changed his name to Elmore after the good whacking he received. Thought he could fool me with an alias. No one can fool me. They'll get an darn good whacking if they do! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1510 Registered: Dec-03 | whack this! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 661 Registered: Aug-04 | Kegger What's "this" - If we can't find it how's the Nun going to find it :-) Holmes - bring your magnification lens if you would! As for the Nun - Holy Cow! Whoops, sorry sister, really! Jan, Elvis never wished to be a poet. He just wanted to be your teddy bear! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1511 Registered: Dec-03 | HOW WE LISTEN TO MUSIC. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1512 Registered: Dec-03 | OK A FOLLOW UP TO MY UNTIMELY HIT OF THE KEYBOARD. on the subjuct stated above as a follow up from the earlier posts. will be back shortly! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1513 Registered: Dec-03 | ok the main thing I listen for "and notice right away" is equalization. and to me that translates to how well something is recorded and the setup it's played on. If their is to little or to much of bass/midrange or treble it is very annoying to me. having said that I prefer slightly higher treble and bass "not to far where it's annoying" but if the music or system is lacking in these areas it's nothing I care to listen to. the other things that come into music listening for me is being able to distinguish sounds from one another whether it's multiple voices or hearing an instruement and tell what it is. lately since ive been into tubes the things i'm hearing and loving is texture, the extra sounds you hear on instruments and voices to me that seperates the good systems from great systems. low level detail is really big with me. when you hear a voice and can feel the passion in it or a guitar being played that you can hear the plucking of the strings and fingers moving. it's really hard to describe but when your in room with someone and their playing a gutair you hear everything the guitar is doing not just the sound it's producing and the harmonics after the chord is played don't just stop dead they linger that is what i want to hear! the same with voices, the breathing , the extra harmonics on whispers the way a voice slowly disapates not just quickly disapears. probably the thing I enjoy the most is really good bass guitar, the finger plucking, the gentle stroll up the strings. but i also love saxaphone, any other guitar,drums and liquid midange for the incredable reproduction of beautiful voices. I can get goose bumps with the right voice or bass guitar! I don't really care what someone is singing about as long as it sounds good. "sure some lines are great ones" but they don't have to be as long as it rolls nice. I'm not a country fan, sure i can listen and enjoy a lot of older country "johnny cash,hank junior" I listen to anything but great drums and guitar get me going so my main music is rock "of any kind" hears some of my recent listenings "these are just a few" peter gabriel "great bass and voices" oingo boingo "a little bit of everything" joe jackson "same as above" steely dan "all around excelent" al stewart "incredable voices and gives the tweeters a workout" doobie brothers "good old classic rock" missing persons "good crankin stuff" suzanne vega "excelent music great voice" 3 blind mice "awsome chineese jazz band" tracy chapmin "great band great voice" devo "strange techno , sycho rock/punk" steve miller band "classic rock" deep purple "classic rock great bass and vocals" j geils band "probably best bass player on the planet" rush "awesome collection of 3 musicians" police "same as above" police and rush fav drummers fleetwood mac "rumors, does it get any better" talking heads "very fun songs" ac/dc "high voltage rock&roll" queensrique "incredable voculs" danzig "heavy hard rock" iron maiden otherwise known as MAIDEN "INCREDABLE GUITARS AND EVEN BETTER VOCULS" just throw some others out there. beck pink floyd james taylor neil young nora jones dianna krall queen roxy music bto heart my systwm needs to play loud and clear but also pick up all the subtle details the music has to offer. and for me right now that means tube equipment with highly efficent speakers. dvd-a and sacd don't hurt either. I prefer larger full range towers with large bass drivers then fill in the very bottom with subs. right now i'm biamping two tube amps on a pair of highly modified jbl towers then running solid state to 2 subs from a sub processor all coming from a tube preamp. that runs the 2channel setup in the same setup with the surround. I enjoy both 2channel and surround. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1514 Registered: Dec-03 | oh yah the rest of my surround is klipsch and jbl with homemade subs coming from a harmon kardon reciever with some external amplification. again I can't truly put into words how to describe the sound that i'm hearing from these excelent amplifers. ghia has tried to explain the same thing and the only way I can really do it is! things don't sound recorded they sound real/live like someone is there playing it. that is what i'm experiencing and now really enjoy! |
|
Marc C Unregistered guest | Wow! what a head-spinningly great thread! it has everything - i laughed...i cried... don't know what i listen for exactly, i've cranked through crappy stuff most the time. but my ears tell my gut which tells me. if my foot's tappin, head bangin, or jaw droppin, i take that as a sign. clarity and heady stuff is nice, but i must hear soul coming out. and while i love all kinds of music, when i crank rock my system must be able to kick my butt up between my shoulder blades real proper like. just no escaping them suburban 70's roots... Peter Gabriel ("Passion") Hendrix Rush Motorhead Sade Santana Roxy Music Robin Trower UFO Ronnie Montrose Johnnie Winter The Who Annie Lennox Bo Diddly Robbie Robertson aww nevermind... Who's this Nun character? Is she attractive? Shame on me...I have a girlfriend. |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 246 Registered: Mar-04 | Kegger, I see above you mentioned Al Stewart in your list of recent listenings. Over the years I never gave Al Stewart much attention. Then one evening my wife and I attended a Blunstone/Argent concert at a small theater, and Stewart was the opening act. Just him sitting on a stool with his acoustic guitar. What a delightful story-teller, and an even more amazing guitar player. He was nothing short of fantastic. At the show I picked up his new cd (at least it was then, he may have another by now - not sure), "Down in the Cellar" - a cd devoted entirely to wine. I recently read an interview where someone described Stewart's knowledge of "all things wine" as such: he can take a sip of French wine and not only tell you the label and year but also which field the grapes were grown in. I'm sure a slight exaggeration, however, the man must really know his wines. And he can sure pick it on guitar as well. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1515 Registered: Dec-03 | sem cool info. I have the best of al stewart on cd "don't know if any hi rez aval" some of the great tunes are: On the Border Year of the Cat Song on the Radio Time Passages Midnight Rocks like you said the acoustic guitar work is excelent and their's many more tweeter workout instruements in his music, including some great saxophone! |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 247 Registered: Mar-04 | I'm not aware of any hi-res Al Stewart discs out yet, perhaps someday. One of my favorite songs by him is Antarctica from the Last Days of the Century album. Also, check out the Stewart - Alan Parsons connection. (I never miss an opportunity for an unsolicited plug). |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Marc C. - You laughed, you cried - but, did you spill your popcorn on yourself? And, about The Nun, "Is she attractive?", she is after all a nun, guy. That's just too weird for my Catholic school fed brain to deal with. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 460 Registered: Dec-03 | Marc C, Crying?????? There is no crying in Audio. Get a grip on yourself man. We are at war here. Fighting forces of great evil! As far as the NUN goes......SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH......we just got everything settled down for now. Let it go for now. Trust me, she will be back..........(LOL!) |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 248 Registered: Mar-04 | Rick Barnes wrote, "Crying?????? There is no crying in Audio." Hehehe, too funny!! Its my party and I'll cry if I want to.... |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 461 Registered: Dec-03 | Hi Sem, We have crossed posts on a few occasions.......I see we're from the same block. Which street??? Cheers! |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 249 Registered: Mar-04 | Upstate actually. Binghamton area. You? |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 250 Registered: Mar-04 | Rick, Or in audio terms...about a 10 minute drive from Audio Classics. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 462 Registered: Dec-03 | Sem, White Plains area........Audio Classics-great guys! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | WHACK! Take that J Vigne. We never taught you that nuns can't be attractive! |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | She's struck a terrible blow again Watson. We may have to summon up THE DEVIL himself. What's the name of the guy who's always playing the DEVILS advocate...........Rick something..............................................................ah yes.....Barnes. How can we contact him? |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 384 Registered: Apr-04 | Ok, Nun! Enough! Lay off my man, Jan. If Holmes can't track you down Ghia sure as hell can! This won't be any elementary beatin' either. It will be an ar$e-whoopin' like you ain't never seen. Whacking with a crucifix? Ha! How quaint. Remember that when you cower in the shadow of the mighty Mac. You have been granted a 24 hour head start. Run along. And, good luck. |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | Oh Lord help me! I'm being challenged by a woman who thinks she's a Volkswagon. Well, you cheeky little convertible bug you, an ar$e-whooping you say - hmmm, now is that's something to look forward to! "Whacking with a crucifix? " No, no, no dearie! It's a ruler - a very big one. And I wield it with a deft hand, my dear. And what's this Mighty Mac - you don't mean that fragile little thing with the broken face do you? Ha ha ha ha ha he he he! Swooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh . . . . |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | Take this Rantz . . . WHACK! Sorry doesn't cut it with me! Holmes - you can bring on the entire League of the Wimpish Gentlemen (and volkswagons) for all I care. The ruler will prevail! |
|
E. A. P. Unregistered guest | By God, this is no time for a party. Great evil has been loosed upon the world. This is very depressing! Grab the Scotch and let's have at it. |
|
Moriarty Unregistered guest | Ghia and My Nun in a mud wrestling match. This is working better than I could have ever hoped. Oh, yes, Holmes, you're a fool! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 464 Registered: Dec-03 | How did I get in the middle of this mess???? The Devil's Advocate? I'm just the guy who gets out of the car and runs in the store to buy HIM a pack of cigarettes. |
|
Livingston Unregistered guest | Yes, a Scotch might help. Mr Vigne said something curious that reminded me of an ancient tribal curse that was once used by the Wogabee in the Congo. It might help rid us from this horrendous evil. Let me try: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHH OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH AAAAAHHH AAAAAHHH TING TANG WALLA WALLA BING BANG! Now, all we can do is wait. Another Scotch if you please. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 662 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick I know how you feel. I'm almost afraid to return here. Damn, I hope Livinstone's curse helps. That ruler smarts! BTW - tell Nick he should quit. It might make him feel better.! |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 385 Registered: Apr-04 | Main Entry: nun Pronunciation: NONE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nunne, from Late Latin nonna 1: a woman belonging to a religious order; especially : one under solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience 2: a woman in dire danger of getting an ar$e-whooping by non-practicing Southern Baptist (the moderate branch) Main Entry: cab·ri·o·let Pronunciation: "ka-brE-&-'lA Function: noun Etymology: French, from diminutive of cabriole caper, alteration of Middle French capriole 1 : a light 2-wheeled one-horse carriage with a folding leather hood, a large apron, and upward-curving shafts 2 : a convertible coupe 3: a $exy, stylish marvel resulting from the marriage of chic Italian design and sturdy German engineering. Pardon my ignorance of your whacking methodology...you wear the crucifix (note for psych class - Goth-chick wannabe?). Your weapon is a flimsy 1"x12"x.25" three ounce piece of wood? Oh, how I quiver...in your dreams. And, we all know you have those dreams. Mighty Mac prevailed over shoddy shippers and will prevail over a frail, little virgin wielding a silly little stick! Like the Cheshire cat, Mighty Mac has 9 lives! You, pathetic little bastion of chastity, are a mere mortal made of decaying flesh and brittle bones and are no match for 44lbs of hunking steel and jagged glass (all the better to cut you, my dear)! vrooommm, vroommmm, vroommm!!! |
|
E. A. P. Unregistered guest | Livingston - I fear you presume too much! Pass the Scotch please. And watch for that large black bird that got in here. |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Yes Ghia, like I said follow the blue lights......they are friends! |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 386 Registered: Apr-04 | Of course, Holmes. Thank you. Leave it to a woman to do a man's job. |
|
Livingston Unregistered guest | Hmm. Edgar, the Chivas is very pleasant I must say. We must offer some to this lovely Ghia lass and to Holmes also of course. Mr Vigne can afford it surely. Now what's this nonsense about a big black bird - have you gone stark raven mad? Oh my . . . |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Livingston - I believe E. A. P. is correct here. Your incantation may work on a Congolese one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater but this is not of the Wooley tribe. And your elixir is but a respite in this battle. What the Catholic Church has taught The Nun about alcoholic beverages is abloody mystery. Ghia - BE CAREFUL!!! You don't know what you're up against. I appreciate your efforts but a So. Baptist has no idea what The Nun and her ilk can do to you psychologically if you cross them. Her ruler is not Her only weapon. Her powers are 2000 years old and She is not afraid to use them. BE CAREFUL!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 465 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, You said aBLOODY mystery.....could it be aBLOODY MARY? Could THE NUN be the one and only SISTER MARY ELEPHANT? Have we uncovered her identity? |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 387 Registered: Apr-04 | Mr. Vigne, Thank you for the concern and the warning. BUT! Fear not! With a little deception, I can convince my fundamentalist brethren of my commitment to their cause and they will come to aid me in the fight against this evil force. With Brother Falwell, Brother Robertson and - God himself, G.W. Bush - and his warriors Dick, John, and Don, we will comprise a brigade of evil that will dwarf Nun. Then, Mighty Mac will come crashing down to end Nun's reign of terror. It's all very simple, really. Livingston, I will need a glass of Chivas to prepare for this undertaking. But! Don't let the fundamentalists know or my cover could be blown... |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Watson, this Ghia may be on to something. With the Republicans on our side, how can THE NUN compete with the "DARK SIDE"? Hurry my good man, no time to waste. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 466 Registered: Dec-03 | Well Marc, I hope you're happy. You have everyone all riled up again. Heck, we have everyone here except the Ranger and Tonto! I hate when this happens.............. |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! Ah! you foolish ones. You think I'm a figment from the drug impaired minds of a couple of old Mexicans. Think again. Lord, how these feeble ones make me work! Mr Vigne is smarter than he appears and Ms Cabriolet just doesn't get it yet! - Who do you think appeared in the van and whacked Mr Delivery Man as he stacked the "Mighty Mac" dearie - huh? Livingston - that curse is useless against me. Go back to your drink and dream about that missionary position that you held for so long in the dark continent. We know what you really taught. Holmes - forget it! Get out your snuff box and try again. What - you think I'm a Democrat? Swooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh! Lord - what was that big black thing? |
|
Moriarty Unregistered guest | My dear Nun, come with me. While these brigands and blotters chase their own tails we shall away. Let them run to the Republicans, they shall find a new kind of evil there. We will stay to the left where I am assured we will not be recognized. We've had our fun with this bunch of besotted bumpkins. Away, we shall return when they least expect us. |
|
Barney Unregistered guest | OK, OK!!! Let's break it up here, folks. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go. Nothing to see here. Nothing to see. Let's break it up. Nip it in the bud! Nip it! Nip it! Let's go. |
|
Ranger Unregistered guest | HiYO, Silver, Awa .............. Where'd everybody go? |
|
Ranger Unregistered guest | Well, are you coming or not? You look fine. Yes, you do! Folks, I really have to apologize here for us being late. Tonto was pounding a crease into his buckskins and ... What? Well, I'm certainly not going to take the blame for ... What am I supposed to tell them? Oh, ferChrissake! Uh, ...................................we'll get back with you. |
|
E. A. P. Unregistered guest | That was very depressing, Livingston. Is there another bottle? Nevermore. |
|
E. A. P. Unregistered guest | Livingston? I believe that damn bird has crapped on my head. |
|
Livingston Unregistered guest | Uh! Oh, I was dreaming about a darn white horse. By crikey Edgar, I do believe I'm a bit under the weather. If that damn nun came in here now she'd have me by the . . . Good grief, old man, what's that stuff on your head? |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 664 Registered: Aug-04 | Hopefully, the nun is asleep while I sneak in here. Rick Jan, Ghia, Kegger and myself have answered those questions (how do we listen to music and what do we listen for). While there are still others (John A and Co) we'd like to respond, I think it's about time you gave us your version too old buddy. If for nothing else but to return to a bit of sanity here and maybe help keep the demons at bay. Poe - that raven pooping on your head might be an omen! And Livingston, do people always presume you are you or is there a reason they can't really tell? I mean, there you were among countless natives back in the dark country and this guy Stanley comes up to you and says. "Doctor Livingston I presume!" Well, I certainly hope you gave him a harsh word or two. |
|
Marc C Unregistered guest | J. Vigne, spillin' my popcorn would mean picking the kernels outta me keyboard...can't have that. Rick B, *shrug*....no fault of mine....i didn't do it... besides, only thing i was cryin' at was how sloppy that nun works. i expected better. btw - that Nun's got nuthin. her and her little ruler...HA! out here in San Francisco people do that stuff for recreation. *yawn* maybe some day i'll be impressed... just downloaded, err, possessed "Year of the Cat". who can forget that one... |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 467 Registered: Dec-03 | How do I listen to music? For serious listening I prefer to listen alone. I don't want any conversation or any distraction from the music at hand. I use to spend a lot of time listening to my system-but don't any more. (LOL) I concentrate on the quality of the performance, be it individual or group effort. Oh, yes, my musical preference is definitely two channel stereo. Kegger-I enjoyed your post! If you enjoy Tracy Chapman, may I suggest you check out the work of Joan Armatrading. She has been around forever, very talanted, kind of a forerunner of Ms. Chapman. I think you would like her work. Cheers to all! |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 388 Registered: Apr-04 | Ah, None, you old hag, it is you who fails to understand. Your lies and deceptions cannot trick me for I am Woman. Surely you understand the concept of "Fight fire with fire"? My homeland is filled with snake-handling (more dream fodder for you) Pentecostals, alcohol/dirty dancing banning Baptists and heathen Presbyterians so your Catholic represssion and ruler beatings are mere child's play to me. Gentlemen, allow me to expose None's latest lie. The security tape has been reviewed and there is no presence of wimple or wimpy girly-man, Moriarty. Mighty Mac merely fell off the turnip truck during the transfer in Mayberry. This unfortunate incident occurred right in front of a local patrol car who's occupant appears to be slumped over and sleeping. The UPS man was able to scoop the package back onto the truck without detection. None, as you can tell (and if you can't tell I'm telling you now), your reign of terror is careening towards an overdue end. Already, you've got a little Southern girl and a Young San Franciscan who have no fear. It is merely a matter of time before we quell the fears of the Italian Texan and the Brits and Aussies and Noo Yawkers, and the cowardly, effeminate clan of Holmes, Watson, Ranger, Tonto and Barney. You are no match for the Republican brigade and the left-leaning Mighty Mac and Ghia (shhh - Livingston - don't blow my cover to the fundamentalist before the mission is complete). Your only hope is to recruit that Australian, fundamentalist, extremist, Mel Gibson. Run, None. |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Watson, is that a pistol in your pocket? A mere derringer you say? Pity! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | First it was Nuns and now there are Fransicans in here ...................................... ooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! memories, memories .......................... trapped between the pages ... |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 469 Registered: Dec-03 | OH BROTHER......................! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | WHACK! The car woman lies that's why she's a convertible. She'll convert anything she wants to distort the truth. "snake-handling Pentecostals, alcohol/dirty dancing banning Baptists and heathen Presbyterians" Your 'Brigade of Evil" has failed and now you think these weak zealots can bring me down. Ha! Swooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh Lord, that black thing again! Oh God! It's the Raven . . . . |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Watson, she called us effeminate! Does this houndstooth check make me look fat? Hurry my good Doctor, The NUN is still here, the chase is on...................... |
|
Livingston Unregistered guest | That was a close call, Edgar. We must do something or all will be lost. Lucky for us she went for that Ghia lassie this time. No! No more Scotch. We need to keep our heads clear. My Rantz - I presume you presume I can verify that presumption. Well, presume I can. Now, where were we Edgar? Yes, you got it all - wait, there's still a bit on your chin. |
|
Marc C Unregistered guest | Ghia, Yeah sister! She don't scare us...(that wimpy ruler.) Btw - sounds like you'd dig SF! J.Vigne, Aww c'mon. Some of us Franciscans aren't all bad. Well....I mean...at least a few of us are self aware! Ya know, every time I see the None, I can't help but think of an order we have out here in San Francisco. They call themselves the order of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Great bunch of guys. They have names like Sister Olive O'Sudden and the head is Pope Oblivion the Last. They'd cruise around in frocks, up to their hyjinx, doing charity and community work.....great bunch of guys... You don't see them much around lately, but back in the days... By the way, I realized something about the None. |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 389 Registered: Apr-04 | What was that? Oh. Just a little leaf twig. Is that all you got, None? MarcC, Thank you for alerting me to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. They will be recruited as part of the regional brigade and will be deployed in the event None finds her way to SF. She thinks the missions there are safe havens but we have successfully infiltrated them and are prepared to drop the hammer. Don't worry. This paragraph is written in a chameleon ink so None actually sees the following text: My dearest Nun, I acquiesce! You win. Please meet me in SF to deliver the whacking I so much deserve. In obeyance to you always, Ghia Cabriolet MarcC, as you can see, we have many tricks and weapons at our disposal. We will rid the world of ruler terrorism. |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 390 Registered: Apr-04 | MarcC, SF is one of my favorite cities and Northern CA is spectacular. I've been there several times and may make a trip out there next year with the intent of attending a SFSO Mahler concert. |
|
E. A. P. Unregistered guest | Thank you, Livingston. You're a good chap for someone who lived in the jungles all those years. Have I told you about Lenore? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 471 Registered: Dec-03 | It's nice to see that all is quiet again and everyone is back on their meds............. Now then, which is the better subwoofer cable? |
|
Livingston Unregistered guest | Edgar, Yes, you did old friend. 'Tis a shame she died so young! I see Sir Barnes is loitering here once more. Maybe we should bring out the Scotch again and drink to Lenore. What in the blazes is a subwoofer cable - is that some sort of dog leash? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2087 Registered: Dec-03 | Gothic strip. A member of Bond stepping out of her Freudian slip. Further definitions on Teaching an old dog new tricks... include.... Hi-rez disc LP record. |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | You fools! You think the ruler is just for inflicting a little sting? Huh! Once whacked the whackee will soom discover that, over a period of time, music appreciation will wane dramatically. In fact, it will get to the point it will sound so bad, you'll want to give away all your audio gear. And VW girl, your Mighty Mac will soon sound like Bose Ha! Ha! ha! ha! Swoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh |
|
The Raven Unregistered guest | AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARKKKKKEEEEERK! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | That'll teach you for sticking your beak in where it don't belong! Bye Bye Blackbird - Ha! ha! Ha! Ha! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2092 Registered: Dec-03 | The Nun, Don't you dare hang around this thread opening old wounds, otherwise we'll shoot the unicorn. And tell a few tales you would prefer to remain untold. Off with you, you monochrome fundamentalist. |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | If the NUN is close, Moriarty will be near. Proceed with caution Watson............ |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2094 Registered: Dec-03 | Anyone remember "Dominique" by "The Singing Nun"....? Ah, well. |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 251 Registered: Mar-04 | Quite often you all amaze me with your technical knowledge when it comes to audio-electronics. But now this...I'm not sure what leaves my head spinning more, your audio expertise or these strange ramblings of your subconscious. |
|
The Exorcist Unregistered guest | Okay, those with spinning heads please make an appointment. Email to therev@evilrid.con or phone 666 666 Area Code 666. Bless you. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2095 Registered: Dec-03 | Not my subconcious, Sem, if you mean me. I was trying to scare it away. I can explain all. But probably should not. There really was a 1960s hit called "Dominique" by the Singing Nun (link courtesy of Google). |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 252 Registered: Mar-04 | John A. I do remember Dominique...quenique...quenique...just thought I'd never think of it again. Singing Nuns, Flying Nuns, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and of course Regan (†) aside, this thread reminds me more of Waters' lunacy than anything else: " And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon." \ |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Lunacy is, as lunacy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DOES! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2099 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes, Sem, parts of this thread could be straight out of Ummagumma, surely. Sorry to awaken memories of The Singing Nun. I am not sure if there is a word for it, but there are some things I wish I had never known. Let us not count our chickens, but it is beginning to look as if The Nun is indeed reconsidering her position, as it were. |
|
Marc C Unregistered guest | Ghia, Ah! So ya know me fair town. Former Land of the Heretics and Heathens that consistantly voted the Democratic ticket (now moreso home of failed dotcoms and the displaced unskilled/uncultured labor that came to prostpect the Fools Gold Rush, drive out culture and talent, and drive up rents). Ya know - speaking of Nuns, I just love that Sister Wendy Becket. I just haven't caught here show lately and I think I'm due. A dumb, suburban-born Ignant like myself must battle the ever-threatening cultural illiteracy. It ain't easy, but J.Vigne and the Old Dogs are a big help... |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 681 Registered: Aug-04 | Although it's somewhat strange behaviour, I can relate to the Nun and the other odd characters who pervade this thread. If you don't go a little crazy now and then, you'll go a little crazy now and then. |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Strange behaviour? What do you mean my dear Rantz???????? |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 683 Registered: Aug-04 | Well, resurrectionism on such a grand scale! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | Back again - been busy selling stuff to suckers on the tele. Did y'all buy one of my cute little figurines, huh? Heh, heh,heh, heh, heh, heh, ahem! Now, where's that sweet little volkswagen girl - hiding again? Scaredy cats and broken Macs - ah such fun! |
|
Holmes Unregistered guest | Watson, The Nun is hiding on an American home shopping network? This is too strange for me to handle..........................CHECK PLEASE. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | And now for something completely different: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/94490.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rick - DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK: http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/04/111.html |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 490 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Thanks for the tip......just from the name of the site, it sounds like far left lunatic wing hell! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Actually the writer is ... "Bob Boudelang" ... who is a ... "Republican Team Leader who hopes someday Our Great President could be as popular here as he is in Iraq. He (Bob, not Our Great President) can be reached at bobboudelang@yahoo.com." |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 491 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks Jan. I'll have a little chat with Bob the first chance I get. I prefer to keep these kind of "talks" in the family so to speak......(LOL!) |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Flying lessons: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/103771.html |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 722 Registered: Aug-04 | This "Bob Boudelang" - isn't he a song: Bob Boudelang Boudelang |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 512 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, That's BOOMERANG not BOUDELANG! (LOL) |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 739 Registered: Aug-04 | Ma boudelang won't come back Ma boudelang won't come back I've chucked da thing all over da place Practised 'til I was blue in da face I'm a big disgrace to da aboriginal race Ma boudelang won't come back Darn - I think it is Boomerang Rick! But seriously - there was an old song with boudelang boudelang in the chorus - come on think man, it was in your era :-) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 513 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, That's BOOMERANG not BOUDELANG! (LOL) |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 740 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick, That's LEMONMERANG not BOOMERANG!(LOL) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 514 Registered: Dec-03 | OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH! LEMONMERANG............... |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | WHACK! Y'all just being plain silly again! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 742 Registered: Aug-04 | Oh No! Now look what you've gone and done Rick! |
|
Anonymous | You are all going the right way for a smacked bottom and I don't care who knows it! |
|
The Nun Unregistered guest | Oooh, I just hope I know when I'm there! Tee hee hee! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 515 Registered: Dec-03 | I'm sorry Sister Mary Elizabeth! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2182 Registered: Dec-03 | I am shocked and disappointed to discover that My Rantz, too, recalls a hit record of Mr Charlie Drake. I have tried for decades to keep a close cover on all that. About twelve to fifteen years ago "my boomerang won't come back" was re-released on compilation Cds "Hello Children everywhere". The joke "Must go, before I fall down the hole in the middle of the record" had been running for decades before that, as the CD proves. Of course, in the CD transfer, it should have been "before the laser 'beams me up' (Scotty), off the edge of the disc". MR, you will not believe the nostalgia in those CDs. You will probably need grandchildren to have an alibi for buying them, though. WE still had small children, who learned the whole of "Bangers and mash" by Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren, to name but one great song among many. See also MR's Inspector Clouseau joke on "Old Dogs". Whatever next, Rolf Harris.....?! The Nun, Watch your step. We know all what you get up to. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2183 Registered: Dec-03 | "But seriously - there was an old song with boudelang boudelang in the chorus.." You are not thinking of "He's so fine... doo lang, doo lang, doo lang"....? |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 743 Registered: Aug-04 | Damn it John. I was quite happy humming to boudelang boudelang before you chimed in. Now I'm humming to doodoolang doodoolang and I don't know whether I'm Arthur or Martha. Although I guess I'd better pick Arthur - he's not going to jail too is he? I must away - Mr V has posted his view in 'Old Dogs' regarding the great debate and I'm going over there now to tell him what I thought. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Could you be remembering that hit from the medicated (or not) mind of Brian Wilson : Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob Bouldelang Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob Bouldelang Went to a dance Looking for a Bob ................ |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Or was it : Went to dance Looking for MyRantz |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 518 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you Jan, I was never really sure what the lyrics were. Know we know................... |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 519 Registered: Dec-03 | Oh....BTW....who's being silly NOW? ...............................better duck! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 749 Registered: Aug-04 | Mr Vigne "Went to dance Looking for MyRantz " Ah - that was part of the war cry of all the young girls in my old home town. Hope you didn't have a sister there :-) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 521 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, You 'ol rascal you! LOL! |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 751 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick Na - not really. Just had to ignore most of them. Except Barbara Ann of course. LOL! Oh - the memories! Why are they fading? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2188 Registered: Dec-03 | "Hope you didn't have a sister there :-)" Wonder how many young Australians should have names O'Rantz, FitzRantz, Rantzson, etc? In Wales, it could have been Ap Rantz, contracted to Prantz. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Went to a dance looking for Ap Rantz ????? No wonder the Beach Boys weren't popular in Wales. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 752 Registered: Aug-04 | The ancestors were Macrantz and Aprantz. The registrar on the convict ship made an error and wrote plain ol' Rantz in the log, so that's who we became. I came into the world and eventually was named My because those who laid eyes on me would say. "My, what an extremely handsome child!" Luckilly that trait has been my constant companion. Thank goodness for my Parantz! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 522 Registered: Dec-03 | I'm on the floor........................................................................... ................................................................................ .............................................................................LOL !!!!! Ladies and Gentleman, I declare it another MyRantz classic. A standing ovation is in order here! BRAVO!!!! |
|
Old Dog Audience Unregistered guest | Bow wow! Ruff! Woof woof! Bark! Griff griff, Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap, woof woof! Grrrr, Hooowwwwllll! Bow wow! Ruff! Woof woof! Bark! Griff griff, Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap, woof woof! Grrrr, Hooowwwwllll! Bow wow! Ruff! Woof woof! Bark! Griff griff, Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap, woof woof! Grrrr, Hooowwwwllll! Bow wow! Ruff! Woof woof! Bark! Griff griff, Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap, woof woof! Grrrr, Hooowwwwllll! Scratch, scratch! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Yes, I've heard it said everyone who lays eyes upon him says, Oh ...... My!" |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2193 Registered: Dec-03 | Actually, there was/is a UK TV presenter called Rantzen. I wiill spare you the details. She was obviously from the Danish branch of the family. It think "My" was just a sort of endearment in old Victoria and New South Wales. As in Ned Kelly (really good movie) when he say's "Sure, they jailed My Ma'". Then, at a key moment in the Rantz life cycle, the young lady in question would say "Oh, Oh, My, Rantz". So the name stuck. It's great having home cinema and kids. Ned Kelly was great, but the most preposterous load of tosh since The Matrix: Van Helsing. No words do it justice. Totally arch and self-conscious, all the way through; they even ride off into the sunset. Perhaps I missed the joke. Again. Yes, I forgot "Mac". The McRantz's mostly settled in New Zealand, I think. The clan's distictintive tarten enhanced its reputation, since the virtue of many a lass was compromised after she'd asked, innocently, "what's worn under the kilt?" and the McRantz's were able to prove that nothing was worn, it was all in perfect working order. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 753 Registered: Aug-04 | "Yes, I forgot "Mac". The McRantz's mostly settled in New Zealand" Not a chance John - they may not have been the brightest lot but they did have scruples. LOL! Rick Thanks, we all have the need to kid ourselves occassionally. :-) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2195 Registered: Dec-03 | "Not a chance John - they may not have been the brightest lot but they did have scruples. LOL!" ... the ones that didn't, eventually signing up with Peter Jackson as orcs. There are enough credits at the end; next time I will look out for all the McRantzes in the cast. Seriously, do not caste doubt on the location of the definitive cinematographic portrayal of Middle Earth. My aim is the retire to Rivendell. I quite like the Shire, but I think they do not readily accept people taller that three foot six. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | If we haven't done Class A amps here's the info: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/105702.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Connecting speaker wires at a wall to a whole house or surround system: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/105855.html |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Installing ceiling speakers: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/105764.html |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1682 Registered: Dec-03 | surround speaker setup! http://www.pantherproducts.co.uk/Articles/Audio/surround_sound2.shtml |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics