Active Crossover Network

[Regi]

If you are using this, kindly brief us on the components and maker.
How do you like the performance? I am in the process of evaluating the
choice between 'make' or 'buy' and your opinion will be invaluable for me.

TIA, Regi

[Neil]

(Regi) wrote in message >...

For what purpose? Home? Car?

Budget?

> If you are using this, kindly brief us on the components and maker.
> How do you like the performance? I am in the process of evaluating the
> choice between 'make' or 'buy' and your opinion will be invaluable for me.
>
> TIA, Regi

[Neil]

(Regi) wrote in message >...
> (Neil) wrote in message >...
> > (Regi) wrote in message >...
> >
> > For what purpose? Home? Car?
> >
> > What do you need the crossover to do?
> >
> > Budget?
> >
> > > If you are using this, kindly brief us on the components and maker.
> > > How do you like the performance? I am in the process of evaluating the
> > > choice between 'make' or 'buy' and your opinion will be invaluable for me.
> > >
> > > TIA, Regi
>
> Home use, only for music -- stereo. I hope to put this together ie
> network + amps+ speakers for max $800.

I think it would be a lot easier just to buy stereo loudspeakers and
an amp. I don't see any reason why you'd want an active crossover. In
terms of what you're trying to achieve, why do you want an active
crossover?

Or if you really want an active crossover, you could buy bookshelf
size or smaller speakers and buy a powered subwoofer that will include
an active crossover. Or you could buy a "power tower" loudspeaker that
will have a builtin active crossover and subwoofer amp and speaker.

For an amp, look for a used integrated amp or a power amp. You should
be able to find these at locally, at a pawn shop, or on eBay, starting
at about $50 USD and up. It's nice to have a volume control on the amp
also.

Some of the pro amps offer a lot of bang for the buck. I've seen an
80wpc AudioControl (or is it AudioSource? can't quite remember the
brand name) stereo amp at www.jandr.com for $230.

I wouldn't bother with an active crossover. You can buy new
loudspeakers with a built-in crossover that will be designed to work
with the loudspeaker's drivers, cabinet, and overall design. Unless
you have an active crossover designed to work with your speakers, you
may have problems getting good sound from an active crossover.

What would I do for $800? I'd buy a new or used integrated amp or
receiver for maybe $200 max, then spend the rest on a pair of
loudspeakers or a pair of bookshelf speakers and a powered sub.

[Regi]

There is no pressing reason for this misadventure other than to
experiment. Theory talks so much about the disadvantages of passive
network... you see :). I think best strategy would be to assemble a
low powered system myself. Otherwise, it will not be practical to buy
6 mono amps from market within my budget.

Thanks, Regi

(Neil) wrote in message >...
> (Regi) wrote in message >...
> > (Neil) wrote in message >...
> > > (Regi) wrote in message >...
> > >
> > > For what purpose? Home? Car?
> > >
> > > What do you need the crossover to do?
> > >
> > > Budget?
> > >
> > > > If you are using this, kindly brief us on the components and maker.
> > > > How do you like the performance? I am in the process of evaluating the
> > > > choice between 'make' or 'buy' and your opinion will be invaluable for me.
> > > >
> > > > TIA, Regi
> >
> > Home use, only for music -- stereo. I hope to put this together ie
> > network + amps+ speakers for max $800.
>
> I think it would be a lot easier just to buy stereo loudspeakers and
> an amp. I don't see any reason why you'd want an active crossover. In
> terms of what you're trying to achieve, why do you want an active
> crossover?
>
> Or if you really want an active crossover, you could buy bookshelf
> size or smaller speakers and buy a powered subwoofer that will include
> an active crossover. Or you could buy a "power tower" loudspeaker that
> will have a builtin active crossover and subwoofer amp and speaker.
>
> For an amp, look for a used integrated amp or a power amp. You should
> be able to find these at locally, at a pawn shop, or on eBay, starting
> at about $50 USD and up. It's nice to have a volume control on the amp
> also.
>
> Some of the pro amps offer a lot of bang for the buck. I've seen an
> 80wpc AudioControl (or is it AudioSource? can't quite remember the
> brand name) stereo amp at www.jandr.com for $230.
>
> I wouldn't bother with an active crossover. You can buy new
> loudspeakers with a built-in crossover that will be designed to work
> with the loudspeaker's drivers, cabinet, and overall design. Unless
> you have an active crossover designed to work with your speakers, you
> may have problems getting good sound from an active crossover.
>
> What would I do for $800? I'd buy a new or used integrated amp or
> receiver for maybe $200 max, then spend the rest on a pair of
> loudspeakers or a pair of bookshelf speakers and a powered sub.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 16 Jul 2003 07:12:21 -0700, (Regi) wrote:

>There is no pressing reason for this misadventure other than to
>experiment.

Fine.

>Theory talks so much about the disadvantages of passive
>network... you see :).

Just remember that implementation is probably more important in the
real world than theoretical advantages. Testament to that is the
ubiquity of passive-crossover loudspeakers.

>I think best strategy would be to assemble a
>low powered system myself. Otherwise, it will not be practical to buy
>6 mono amps from market within my budget.

Well, you could start anywhere but a bit of reading might be the right
place. Take a look at Colloms' High Performance Loudspeakers for some
information about why and how.

Kal


(Neil) wrote in message >...
>> (Regi) wrote in message >...
>> > (Neil) wrote in message >...
>> > > (Regi) wrote in message >...
>> > >
>> > > For what purpose? Home? Car?
>> > >
>> > > What do you need the crossover to do?
>> > >
>> > > Budget?
>> > >
>> > > > If you are using this, kindly brief us on the components and maker.
>> > > > How do you like the performance? I am in the process of evaluating the
>> > > > choice between 'make' or 'buy' and your opinion will be invaluable for me.
>> > > >
>> > > > TIA, Regi
>> >
>> > Home use, only for music -- stereo. I hope to put this together ie
>> > network + amps+ speakers for max $800.
>>
>> I think it would be a lot easier just to buy stereo loudspeakers and
>> an amp. I don't see any reason why you'd want an active crossover. In
>> terms of what you're trying to achieve, why do you want an active
>> crossover?
>>
>> Or if you really want an active crossover, you could buy bookshelf
>> size or smaller speakers and buy a powered subwoofer that will include
>> an active crossover. Or you could buy a "power tower" loudspeaker that
>> will have a builtin active crossover and subwoofer amp and speaker.
>>
>> For an amp, look for a used integrated amp or a power amp. You should
>> be able to find these at locally, at a pawn shop, or on eBay, starting
>> at about $50 USD and up. It's nice to have a volume control on the amp
>> also.
>>
>> Some of the pro amps offer a lot of bang for the buck. I've seen an
>> 80wpc AudioControl (or is it AudioSource? can't quite remember the
>> brand name) stereo amp at www.jandr.com for $230.
>>
>> I wouldn't bother with an active crossover. You can buy new
>> loudspeakers with a built-in crossover that will be designed to work
>> with the loudspeaker's drivers, cabinet, and overall design. Unless
>> you have an active crossover designed to work with your speakers, you
>> may have problems getting good sound from an active crossover.
>>
>> What would I do for $800? I'd buy a new or used integrated amp or
>> receiver for maybe $200 max, then spend the rest on a pair of
>> loudspeakers or a pair of bookshelf speakers and a powered sub.

[Neil]

(Regi) wrote in message >...
> There is no pressing reason for this misadventure other than to
> experiment. Theory talks so much about the disadvantages of passive
> network... you see :).

I understand. Could be fun!

>I think best strategy would be to assemble a
> low powered system myself. Otherwise, it will not be practical to buy
> 6 mono amps from market within my budget.

Sounds like a fun and educational project!

As for the amps, you could look around at flea markets, pawn shops,
etc. and buy three stereo integrated or power amps, or receivers, and
you'd have 6 channels pretty cheaply. The amps wouldn't match in terms
of looks or specs, but this would be a cheap way to get 6 channels of
amplification. I suggest that whatever you get, make sure you can
control the volume on each amp, or else build volume controls into
your crossover network.

(snip)

[Regi]

Thanks for the idea. I can try this. As you have indicated,
synchronous control of volume across 3 systems would be the challenge.

Thanks, Regi

(Neil) wrote in message >...
> (Regi) wrote in message >...
> > There is no pressing reason for this misadventure other than to
> > experiment. Theory talks so much about the disadvantages of passive
> > network... you see :).
>
> I understand. Could be fun!
>
> >I think best strategy would be to assemble a
> > low powered system myself. Otherwise, it will not be practical to buy
> > 6 mono amps from market within my budget.
>
> Sounds like a fun and educational project!
>
> As for the amps, you could look around at flea markets, pawn shops,
> etc. and buy three stereo integrated or power amps, or receivers, and
> you'd have 6 channels pretty cheaply. The amps wouldn't match in terms
> of looks or specs, but this would be a cheap way to get 6 channels of
> amplification. I suggest that whatever you get, make sure you can
> control the volume on each amp, or else build volume controls into
> your crossover network.
>
> (snip)

[Neil]

(Regi) wrote in message >...
> Thanks for the idea. I can try this. As you have indicated,
> synchronous control of volume across 3 systems would be the challenge.

If you have a preamp, or a CD or DVD player with a variable audio
output, you could use any of those for a master volume control. Then
after you got some volume settings on the amps at levels you like,
then you could use the preamp's or CD or DVD player's volume control
as the master volume control.

There are CD and DVD players with volume controls, but it's slightly
rare, not advertised much, and you may have to look carefully for that
feature. If there's a volume control on the player's remote control,
that often means the player has a volume control.

I own an old Pioneer CD player and a newer Mintek 1600 DVD player, and
they both have volume controls. I like that feature because it means I
can connect either player directly to an amp or a set of powered
speakers, then use the player's volume control.

I used to connect the Pioneer CD player directly to an outboard,
line-level sub/sat crossover, and then the crossover sent the highs to
one amp and a pair of bookshelf speakers, while the crossover sent the
lows to a powered subwoofer.

That worked fine, but because I didn't have a preamp or audio source
switch in the system, I couldn't add any other audio source (such as a
radio tuner, TV, tape deck, etc.) to the system.

> Thanks, Regi
>
> (Neil) wrote in message >...
> > (Regi) wrote in message >...
> > > There is no pressing reason for this misadventure other than to
> > > experiment. Theory talks so much about the disadvantages of passive
> > > network... you see :).
> >
> > I understand. Could be fun!
> >
> > >I think best strategy would be to assemble a
> > > low powered system myself. Otherwise, it will not be practical to buy
> > > 6 mono amps from market within my budget.
> >
> > Sounds like a fun and educational project!
> >
> > As for the amps, you could look around at flea markets, pawn shops,
> > etc. and buy three stereo integrated or power amps, or receivers, and
> > you'd have 6 channels pretty cheaply. The amps wouldn't match in terms
> > of looks or specs, but this would be a cheap way to get 6 channels of
> > amplification. I suggest that whatever you get, make sure you can
> > control the volume on each amp, or else build volume controls into
> > your crossover network.
> >
> > (snip)

[Bob-Stanton]

(Regi) wrote in message >...
> There is no pressing reason for this misadventure other than to
> experiment. Theory talks so much about the disadvantages of passive
> network... you see :). I think best strategy would be to assemble a
> low powered system myself. Otherwise, it will not be practical to buy
> 6 mono amps from market within my budget.
>
> Thanks, Regi
>

Going to an electronic crossover is a good idea if one can't afford a
high-end ($2000-$10,000) power amplifier. An electronic crossover can
greatly reduce the distortion of medium priced power amplifiers. With
an electronic crossover, medium priced amplifiers can come very close
to (or sometimes equal to) the sound quality of high-end amplifiers.

You can build your own electronic crososver for about $7.00. Below is
a schemetic of a 2 kHz electronic crossover:


From preamp--------------------10K Ohm--------- To low frequency amp
| |
| 0.01uF
| |
| Gnd
|
-----------0.01 uF-----
|
10 K Ohm pot >
< <--- To high frequency amp
>
|
Gnd

The above crossover is 6 dB per octave and is designed to work into an
amplifier input impedance of 50K Ohms.

Since the crossover has only four components, (two capacitors, one
resistor, and one pot) it is easy to build. You can build it on a
Radio Shack eight phono jack board. Part# 274-370, (cost $2.19).

This crossover has the advantage over active crossovers, in that it
has less distortion. The disadvantage is it has only a 6 dB per octave
rolloff rate. Only the highest quality (read expensive) drivers can
handle 6 dB per octave crossovers. Medium priced tweeters, for
example, will distort at higher sound levels.

Most drivers require at least a 12 dB per octave rolloff rate. This
can be achieved by adding a passive componet in series with the woofer
and the tweeter.


From low side power amplifier------------640 mH----------
|
8 Ohm woofer
|
Gnd

From high side power amplifier ----------10 uF----------
|
8 Ohm tweeter
|
Gnd

The electronic crossover (top) and the passiver crossover (above) will
combine to give a 12 dB/ octave rolloff to the system.

Use the 10K pot to balance the levels of the system. (Pick a tweeter
that is 3 dB more efficient than the woofer. For example, a tweeter
with 91 dB sensitivtiy, and a woofer with 88 dB sensitivity.)

With the money you save by building your own electronic crossover, you
could buy high quality drivers from Madisound.
Vifa, Audax and Morell all make good drivers, that are not too
expensive.

If you don't like woodworking, you could, go to the Salvation Army
Store or a garage sale, and buy some old bookself speakers. Rip out
the old drivers and put in high quality ones.

You will need to do some homework to be sure you get the correct
drivers/enclosure combination. Other than that, this is a no-fail
recipe :-)

If you want to have a lower crossover frequency you can increase the
size of capacitors and inductor. For example, doubling the size of the
capacitors and the inductor (to: 0.02 uF, 0.02 uF, 20 uF and 1280 mH)
will drop the crossover frequency down to 1000 Hz.

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om

> Going to an electronic crossover is a good idea if one can't afford a
> high-end ($2000-$10,000) power amplifier.

Not really.

> An electronic crossover can
> greatly reduce the distortion of medium priced power amplifiers.

As if high price makes an amplifier necessarily more distortion free, or low
price means it has to have audible distortion. Just isn't true!

>With
> an electronic crossover, medium priced amplifiers can come very close
> to (or sometimes equal to) the sound quality of high-end amplifiers.

The decision to use electronic crossover should be based on points that are
irrelevant to amplifier price.

For example, the near-universal choice to use electronic crossovers with
subwoofers has a lot to do with the costs and inconveniences related to
making a passive crossover at say 50 Hz for a 8 ohm speaker that is designed
to work with a low source impedance.

> You can build your own electronic crossover for about $7.00. Below is
> a schematic of a 2 kHz electronic crossover:

> From preamp--------------------10K Ohm--------- To low frequency amp
> | |
> | 0.01uF
> | |
> | Gnd
> |
> -----------0.01 uF-----
> |
> 10 K Ohm pot >
> < <--- To high frequency amp
> >
> |
> Gnd

> The above crossover is 6 dB per octave and is designed to work into an
> amplifier input impedance of 50K Ohms.

Potentially problematical given that so many power amps have input
impedances of less than 50 K.

> Since the crossover has only four components, (two capacitors, one
> resistor, and one pot) it is easy to build. You can build it on a
> Radio Shack eight phono jack board. Part# 274-370, (cost $2.19).


IMO if you are going to do something, do it *right*.

> This crossover has the advantage over active crossovers, in that it
> has less distortion.

It has less noise, too but in fact noise and distortion from reasonably
good, modern electronic crossovers just isn't a problem. Furthermore, we are
seeing more and more digital crossovers, and if you drive and load them with
digital equipment, they are theoretically free of nonlinear distortion.

Here's an example of a good, modern, relatively inexpensive but
comprehensive electronic crossover of the digital persuasion:

http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=DCX2496&lang=eng

>The disadvantage is it has only a 6 dB per octave
> rolloff rate. Only the highest quality (read expensive) drivers can
> handle 6 dB per octave crossovers. Medium priced tweeters, for
> example, will distort at higher sound levels.

Again price really doesn't have that gosh awfully much to do with it. Once
you get past the crappy drivers (which sell for a wide range of prices
ranging from low to high) you can find a lot of reasonably-priced drivers
with good performance including ability to work with low-slope crossovers.

> Most drivers require at least a 12 dB per octave rolloff rate. This
> can be achieved by adding a passive component in series with the woofer
> and the tweeter.

> From low side power amplifier------------640 mH----------
> |
> 8 Ohm woofer
> |
> Gnd
>
> From high side power amplifier ----------10 uF----------
> |
> 8 Ohm tweeter
> |
> Gnd
>
> The electronic crossover (top) and the passive crossover (above) will
> combine to give a 12 dB/ octave rolloff to the system.

> Use the 10K pot to balance the levels of the system. (Pick a tweeter
> that is 3 dB more efficient than the woofer. For example, a tweeter
> with 91 dB sensitivity, and a woofer with 88 dB sensitivity.)

> With the money you save by building your own electronic crossover, you
> could buy high quality drivers from Madisound.

In fact one of the major costs associated with using electronic crossovers
is the double or tripled number of power amps, and using dirt-cheap
hyper-simple electronic crossovers won't help you with that!


> Vifa, Audax and Morell all make good drivers, that are not too
> expensive.

Agreed about Vifa and Audax.

> If you don't like woodworking, you could, go to the Salvation Army
> Store or a garage sale, and buy some old bookshelf speakers. Rip out
> the old drivers and put in high quality ones.

This can work. You can also often find speaker enclosures as surplus parts.

> You will need to do some homework to be sure you get the correct
> drivers/enclosure combination. Other than that, this is a no-fail
> recipe :-)

Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from simple
unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter speaker
system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores around.
Here's your chance to invest in measurement and analytical tools! The good
news is that they are far less costly today than they were years ago.

> If you want to have a lower crossover frequency you can increase the
> size of capacitors and inductor. For example, doubling the size of the
> capacitors and the inductor (to: 0.02 uF, 0.02 uF, 20 uF and 1280 mH)
> will drop the crossover frequency down to 1000 Hz.

If you want two good small two-way speakers, you will probably save money
(not to mention time!) in the end by looking at speakers from manufacturers
like Paradigm, NHT, PSB. Boston Acoustics, etc.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message


> As if high price makes an amplifier necessarily more distortion free, or low
> price means it has to have audible distortion. Just isn't true!
>

Which of the low priced amplifiers is totally transparent? Do you have
this information on your website?

> For example, the near-universal choice to use electronic crossovers with
> subwoofers has a lot to do with the costs and inconveniences related to
> making a passive crossover at say 50 Hz for a 8 ohm speaker that is designed
> to work with a low source impedance.

That's right. For a *very* low frequency crossover (60 hz), the
component cost is high. However, the cost of components, for a 2kHz
crossover, is low.

>
> Potentially problematical given that so many power amps have input
> impedances of less than 50 K.
>

One should check for conventional input impedance (50k to 100K) before
buying.


> > Since the crossover has only four components, (two capacitors, one
> > resistor, and one pot) it is easy to build. You can build it on a
> > Radio Shack eight phono jack board. Part# 274-370, (cost $2.19).
>
>
> IMO if you are going to do something, do it *right*.

What is wrong with building a crossover on a Radio Shack phono-jack
board?

>
> > This crossover has the advantage over active crossovers, in that it
> > has less distortion.
>
> It has less noise, too but in fact noise and distortion from reasonably
> good, modern electronic crossovers just isn't a problem.

Yes, active electonic crossovers have very very low distortion. All I
said was, passive electronic crossovers have lower distortion. OK, it
doesn't matter, but they do have lower noise and distortion.


> Here's an example of a good, modern, relatively inexpensive but
> comprehensive electronic crossover of the digital persuasion:
>

*Very nice*, but not for an $800 budget.

> Again price really doesn't have that gosh awfully much to do with it. Once
> you get past the crappy drivers (which sell for a wide range of prices
> ranging from low to high) you can find a lot of reasonably-priced drivers
> with good performance including ability to work with low-slope crossovers.
>

Again, price doesn't matter if you *know* which cheap drivers are the
good ones. Do you have this information on your website?

> Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from simple
> unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter speaker
> system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores around.


Going to an electronic crossover *greatly simplifies* the design
problem.


Here is how to design a speaker system using an electronic crosover:

1) Stick to a two-way system. (If you want three-way system, buy a
subwoofer with an integrated amplifier, and make your satellite
speakers two-way.)

2) Buy a woofer that is of good quality from Vifa, or Audax or
Scan-Speak. Pick drivers that don't require a compensating network to
be flat.

3) Pick a woofer that is designed to work into a closed box. (Avoid
buying woofers that need to work into ported enclosures.)

4) Note what volume enclosure the manufacture recommends, and buy or
build, a *sturdy* enclosure of *that* volume. Fill it lightly with
(acoustic) fiberglass.

5) If the tweeter isn't sealed on the back, mount it in a seporate
enclosure.

6) Solder a series resistor-capacitor across the driver terminals.

------------------------------
| |
R = 8 Ohms |
| 8 Ohms driver. (Woofer or Tweeter)
C |
| |
------------------------------


The value for C depends on the inductance of the driver.
For the typical (8 Ohm) woofer, the value of C = 15 uF.
For the typical (8 Ohm) tweeter, the value of C = 1 uF

> Here's your chance to invest in measurement and analytical tools! The good
> news is that they are far less costly today than they were years ago.
>

I agree. Cooledit for $69 has an excellent little spectrum analyzer.

> If you want two good small two-way speakers, you will probably save money
> (not to mention time!) in the end by looking at speakers from manufacturers
> like Paradigm, NHT, PSB. Boston Acoustics, etc.

Are prebuilt speaker system as low cost as similar ones you build
yourself? I doubt it.

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

>> As if high price makes an amplifier necessarily more distortion
>> free, or low price means it has to have audible distortion. Just
>> isn't true!

> Which of the low priced amplifiers is totally transparent?

A couple of points.

(1) I didn't say totally transparent, I said "more distortion" and "more
distortion free".
(2) At this point there is no formal definition of "low-priced"

> Do you have this information on your website?

>> For example, the near-universal choice to use electronic crossovers
>> with subwoofers has a lot to do with the costs and inconveniences
>> related to making a passive crossover at say 50 Hz for a 8 ohm
>> speaker that is designed to work with a low source impedance.

> That's right. For a *very* low frequency crossover (60 Hz), the
> component cost is high. However, the cost of components, for a 2kHz
> crossover, is low.

Right and at that crossover point, electronic crossovers don't generally
make much sense, except for systems with more dynamic range than a typical
home system.

>> Potentially problematical given that so many power amps have input
>> impedances of less than 50 K.

> One should check for conventional input impedance (50k to 100K) before
> buying.

One then finds a lot of power amps with input impedances in the 5-20K range.

>>> Since the crossover has only four components, (two capacitors, one
>>> resistor, and one pot) it is easy to build. You can build it on a
>>> Radio Shack eight phono jack board. Part# 274-370, (cost $2.19).

>> IMO if you are going to do something, do it *right*.

> What is wrong with building a crossover on a Radio Shack phono-jack
> board?

Most the limitations forced on it because its passive.

>>> This crossover has the advantage over active crossovers, in that it
>>> has less distortion.

>> It has less noise, too but in fact noise and distortion from
>> reasonably good, modern electronic crossovers just isn't a problem.

> Yes, active electronic crossovers have very very low distortion. All I
> said was, passive electronic crossovers have lower distortion. OK, it
> doesn't matter, but they do have lower noise and distortion.

The we agree.

>> Here's an example of a good, modern, relatively inexpensive but
>> comprehensive electronic crossover of the digital persuasion:

> *Very nice*, but not for an $800 budget.

Buying twice or three times as many power amps pretty well creams a $800
system budget. Interestingly enough, a $800 system based on better quality
parts from the PC monitor or One Box Home Theater market segment would
probably end up with an active crossover.

Please see my 7/16 post about subwoofers.

>> Again price really doesn't have that gosh awfully much to do with
>> it. Once you get past the crappy drivers (which sell for a wide
>> range of prices ranging from low to high) you can find a lot of
>> reasonably-priced drivers with good performance including ability to
>> work with low-slope crossovers.

> Again, price doesn't matter if you *know* which cheap drivers are the
> good ones. Do you have this information on your website?

Nope, because my knowledge of the area is not up to the standards for my
websites. But I've experimented and looked around enough to have an idea
about what can be done.

>> Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
>> simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way
>> woofer/tweeter speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher
>> technical chores around.

> Going to an electronic crossover *greatly simplifies* the design
> problem.

Well, at the cost of the extra amplifiers, which in a $800 total system cost
for a system assembled by a consumer, makes things pretty tough.

> Here is how to design a speaker system using an electronic crossover:

> 1) Stick to a two-way system. (If you want three-way system, buy a
> subwoofer with an integrated amplifier, and make your satellite
> speakers two-way.)

Right, and at $800 system cost, it is probably best to stick with passive
2-way speakers.

> 2) Buy a woofer that is of good quality from Vifa, or Audax or
> Scan-Speak. Pick drivers that don't require a compensating network to
> be flat.

Again, Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter
speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores
around.

Most experiences speaker builders agree with this. I admit that I'm working
on a high-performance 2-way design, but it exceeds most
commercially-available 2-ways a number of ways, mostly relating to frequency
response extension and dynamic range. Also, the total system price that goes
with it will be far in excess of $800. I

> 3) Pick a woofer that is designed to work into a closed box. (Avoid
> buying woofers that need to work into ported enclosures.)

????

> 4) Note what volume enclosure the manufacture recommends, and buy or
> build, a *sturdy* enclosure of *that* volume. Fill it lightly with
> (acoustic) fiberglass.

Most manufacturers of quality woofers provide T/S parameters and leave the
design up to the purchaser.

> 5) If the tweeter isn't sealed on the back, mount it in a seporate
> enclosure.

Nope, just don't buy it.

> 6) Solder a series resistor-capacitor across the driver terminals.
>
> ------------------------------
> | |
> R = 8 Ohms |
> | 8 Ohms driver. (Woofer or Tweeter)
> C |
> | |
> ------------------------------
>

> The value for C depends on the inductance of the driver.
> For the typical (8 Ohm) woofer, the value of C = 15 uF.
> For the typical (8 Ohm) tweeter, the value of C = 1 uF

Zoebels are for people who don't get it.

>> Here's your chance to invest in measurement and analytical tools!
>> The good news is that they are far less costly today than they were
>> years ago.

> I agree. Cooledit for $69 has an excellent little spectrum analyzer.

Been there done that and I wouldn't recommend it to even someone I don't
like. If you want a superior tool for lots less money, check out
http://audio.rightmark.org/ Scroll down the download page to Rightmark AE.
Its better than CEP for the purpose, but I could write quite a bit about its
strengths and weaknesses.

>> If you want two good small two-way speakers, you will probably save
>> money (not to mention time!) in the end by looking at speakers from
>> manufacturers like Paradigm, NHT, PSB. Boston Acoustics, etc.

> Are prebuilt speaker system as low cost as similar ones you build
> yourself? I doubt it.

The price/performance and time investment is hard to beat.

Again, Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter
speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores
around.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message news:<bIKdnRc-

> (1) I didn't say totally transparent, I said "more distortion" and "more
> distortion free".

Two amplifiers, driven by an electronic crosover, are even more
distortion free yet. :-)


> (2) At this point there is no formal definition of "low-priced"
>

How about under $200?


> Buying twice or three times as many power amps pretty well creams a $800
> system budget. Interestingly enough, a $800 system based on better quality
> parts from the PC monitor or One Box Home Theater market segment would
> probably end up with an active crossover.
>
> Please see my 7/16 post about subwoofers.
>

Staying within an $800 budget is not tough.

Two, low cost, sterio amplifiers: $400
Passive electronic crossover: $ 20
Two Vifa woofers at $100 each: $200
Two Vifa TG 27 tweeters at $30 each: $ 60
Two old enclosures from a garage sale: $ 20

Total: $ 700


> Well, at the cost of the extra amplifiers, which in a $800 total system cost
> for a system assembled by a consumer, makes things pretty tough.




> > 3) Pick a woofer that is designed to work into a closed box. (Avoid
> > buying woofers that need to work into ported enclosures.)
>
> ????

Because making a ported enclosure work right, is more difficult than
just sticking a closed box driver, in the proper box.


> Most manufacturers of quality woofers provide T/S parameters and leave the
> design up to the purchaser.
>

Manufactures give a "VB ltrs" spec. Isn't that the recommended box
volume?


> Zoebels are for people who don't get it.

I'm one who doesn't "get it".

Zoebel networks convert the driver terminal impedance to a resistance.
That improves the crossover's rolloff characteristics. Zoebel's are
simple, cheap, and work darn well.


> The price/performance and time investment is hard to beat.

Investing time, saves money.


Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message news:<bIKdnRc-

>> (1) I didn't say totally transparent, I said "more distortion" and
>> "more distortion free".

> Two amplifiers, driven by an electronic crossover, are even more
> distortion free yet. :-)

All you have to do is reduce distortion to the point where it is inaudible.
Easy enough to do in the 21st century - without active crossovers.

>> (2) At this point there is no formal definition of "low-priced"

> How about under $200?

In terms of stand-alone power amps that does not leave a lot to select from.

>> Buying twice or three times as many power amps pretty well creams a
>> $800 system budget. Interestingly enough, a $800 system based on
>> better quality parts from the PC monitor or One Box Home Theater
>> market segment would probably end up with an active crossover.

>> Please see my 7/16 post about subwoofers.

> Staying within an $800 budget is not tough.

> Two, low cost, stereo amplifiers: $400
> Passive electronic crossover: $ 20
> Two Vifa woofers at $100 each: $200
> Two Vifa TG 27 tweeters at $30 each: $ 60
> Two old enclosures from a garage sale: $ 20

> Total: $ 700

This isn't a system.

>> Well, at the cost of the extra amplifiers, which in a $800 total
>> system cost for a system assembled by a consumer, makes things
>> pretty tough.

>>> 3) Pick a woofer that is designed to work into a closed box. (Avoid
>>> buying woofers that need to work into ported enclosures.)
>>
>> ????

> Because making a ported enclosure work right, is more difficult than
> just sticking a closed box driver, in the proper box.

IME, no. Either way, the best way is to optimize the driver & box
combination using Thiel/small parameters and verify with actual
measurements.

>> Most manufacturers of quality woofers provide T/S parameters and
>> leave the design up to the purchaser.

> Manufactures give a "VB ltrs" spec. Isn't that the recommended box
> volume?

Here's a sample set of data for a Vifa woofer from the manufacturer's web
site.

http://www.d-s-t.com/vifa/data/tc08sd49-04d.htm

Now maybe you can find Vb here, but I sure can't.

I can find Vas, but Vas isn't the same as recommended box size. Recommended
relationships between Vas, Vb and other parameters are given here:

http://www.diysubwoofers.org/sld/sealed1.htm


>> Zoebels are for people who don't get it.

> I'm one who doesn't "get it".

> Zoebel networks convert the driver terminal impedance to a resistance.
> That improves the crossover's rolloff characteristics. Zoebel's are
> simple, cheap, and work darn well.

How do they relate to a system with an electronic crossover?


>> The price/performance and time investment is hard to beat.

> Investing time, saves money.

Again, Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter
speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores
around.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Arny Krueger" >

> All you have to do is reduce distortion to the point where it is inaudible.
> Easy enough to do in the 21st century - without active crossovers.

Still, you haven't give us one example of a low cost amplifier with no
audible distortion.



> > Staying within an $800 budget is not tough.
>
> > Two, low cost, stereo amplifiers: $400
> > Passive electronic crossover: $ 20
> > Two Vifa woofers at $100 each: $200
> > Two Vifa TG 27 tweeters at $30 each: $ 60
> > Two old enclosures from a garage sale: $ 20
>
> > Total: $ 700
>
> This isn't a system.

Right, it isn't a system, it's the parts for a system. Add DIY and you
have a system.


> IME, no. Either way, the best way is to optimize the driver & box
> combination using Thiel/small parameters and verify with actual
> measurements.
>
> >> Most manufacturers of quality woofers provide T/S parameters and
> >> leave the design up to the purchaser.
>
> > Manufactures give a "VB ltrs" spec. Isn't that the recommended box
> > volume?
>
> Here's a sample set of data for a Vifa woofer from the manufacturer's web
> site.
>
> http://www.d-s-t.com/vifa/data/tc08sd49-04d.htm
>
> Now maybe you can find Vb here, but I sure can't.

I have data sheets for Vifa woofers, that Madisound sent out. Each
data sheet *has* a recommended VB(Ltrs) for the woofer.

One can go to Google and type: "speaker calculator". It will come up
with Websites that offer free T/S box calculators. They are *very*
easy to use. Just type in four T/S parameters, and the calculator will
come up with the correct volume for the enclosure.

>
> I can find Vas, but Vas isn't the same as recommended box size. Recommended
> relationships between Vas, Vb and other parameters are given here:
>
> http://www.diysubwoofers.org/sld/sealed1.htm
>
>
> >> Zoebels are for people who don't get it.
>
> > I'm one who doesn't "get it".

> How do they relate to a system with an electronic crossover?
>

Zoebels are not necessary for an electronic crossover system. (One of
the *advantages* of electronic crossoves.)

BTW *You didn't answer the question.* What do you have against
Zoebels?


BTW#2 Here's how to calculate the Zoebel, R and C values:

Rz = 1.25 * R (the voice coil, dc resistance.)
Cz (in uF) = 1000 * L (in mH)/(Rz*Rz)


Example Calculation:

(The L and R values are from the Vifa P13WH-00-08, 5' woofer)

R dc voice coil = 5.7 and L voice coil inductance = 1 mH.

Rz = 5.7 * 1.25 = 7.1 Ohms
Cz = (1000 * 1) / (7.1 * 7.1)= 19.8 uF


> Again, Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
> simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter
> speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores
> around.

Again, I have to disagree with you.

Yes, it is somewhat difficult to design a two-way speaker system: if
you want to have a bass reflex enclosure, if you want to have a
complex crossover (such as a 4th order, Linkwitz-Riley), if you want
to add equalization networks (to make the response flat to 1 dB), if
you want to have a resistive terminal impedance, and if you want to
have good polar patterns at all frequencies.

But, using a *closed box driver*, and using an *electronic crossover*,
greatly simplifies the design. Simplifies it to the point where, a
home builder can make a good two-way speaker, fairly easily.

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> All you have to do is reduce distortion to the point where it is
>> inaudible. Easy enough to do in the 21st century - without active
>> crossovers.
>
> Still, you haven't give us one example of a low cost amplifier with no
> audible distortion.

And you haven't given us one example of a low cost amplifier with audible
distoriton when operated within its ratings.

>>> Staying within an $800 budget is not tough.
>>
>>> Two, low cost, stereo amplifiers: $400
>>> Passive electronic crossover: $ 20
>>> Two Vifa woofers at $100 each: $200
>>> Two Vifa TG 27 tweeters at $30 each: $ 60
>>> Two old enclosures from a garage sale: $ 20
>>
>>> Total: $ 700
>>
>> This isn't a system.

> Right, it isn't a system, it's the parts for a system. Add DIY and you
> have a system.

Doooh. No front end, no control.

>> IME, no. Either way, the best way is to optimize the driver & box
>> combination using Thiel/small parameters and verify with actual
>> measurements.

>>>> Most manufacturers of quality woofers provide T/S parameters and
>>>> leave the design up to the purchaser.
>>
>>> Manufactures give a "VB ltrs" spec. Isn't that the recommended box
>>> volume?
>>
>> Here's a sample set of data for a Vifa woofer from the
>> manufacturer's web site.
>>
>> http://www.d-s-t.com/vifa/data/tc08sd49-04d.htm
>>
>> Now maybe you can find Vb here, but I sure can't.
>
> I have data sheets for Vifa woofers, that Madisound sent out. Each
> data sheet *has* a recommended VB(Ltrs) for the woofer.
>
> One can go to Google and type: "speaker calculator". It will come up
> with Websites that offer free T/S box calculators. They are *very*
> easy to use. Just type in four T/S parameters, and the calculator will
> come up with the correct volume for the enclosure.
>
>>
>> I can find Vas, but Vas isn't the same as recommended box size.
>> Recommended relationships between Vas, Vb and other parameters are
>> given here:
>>
>> http://www.diysubwoofers.org/sld/sealed1.htm
>>
>>
>>>> Zoebels are for people who don't get it.
>>
>>> I'm one who doesn't "get it".
>
>> How do they relate to a system with an electronic crossover?

> Zoebels are not necessary for an electronic crossover system. (One of
> the *advantages* of electronic crossoves.)

> BTW *You didn't answer the question.* What do you have against
> Zoebels?

They add complexity and parts, when the problem they propose to solve can be
addressed by other means or not at all.

> BTW#2 Here's how to calculate the Zoebel, R and C values:
>
> Rz = 1.25 * R (the voice coil, dc resistance.)
> Cz (in uF) = 1000 * L (in mH)/(Rz*Rz)
>
>
> Example Calculation:
>
> (The L and R values are from the Vifa P13WH-00-08, 5' woofer)
>
> R dc voice coil = 5.7 and L voice coil inductance = 1 mH.
>
> Rz = 5.7 * 1.25 = 7.1 Ohms
> Cz = (1000 * 1) / (7.1 * 7.1)= 19.8 uF

>> Again, Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far
>> from simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way
>> woofer/tweeter speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher
>> technical chores around.

> Again, I have to disagree with you.

> Yes, it is somewhat difficult to design a two-way speaker system: if
> you want to have a bass reflex enclosure, if you want to have a
> complex crossover (such as a 4th order, Linkwitz-Riley), if you want
> to add equalization networks (to make the response flat to 1 dB), if
> you want to have a resistive terminal impedance, and if you want to
> have good polar patterns at all frequencies.

> But, using a *closed box driver*, and using an *electronic crossover*,
> greatly simplifies the design. Simplifies it to the point where, a
> home builder can make a good two-way speaker, fairly easily.

I wish.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

> And you haven't given us one example of a low cost amplifier with audible
> distoriton when operated within its ratings.
>

How about any Radio Shack PA amplifier?


> Doooh. No front end, no control.


Double doooh, and a duh. That wasn't asked for by the person who
started this thread.


> I wish.

Me too. ;-)

Bob Stanton

[PLATANO]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
> om
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> >> As if high price makes an amplifier necessarily more distortion
> >> free, or low price means it has to have audible distortion. Just
> >> isn't true!
>
> > Which of the low priced amplifiers is totally transparent?
>
> A couple of points.
>
> (1) I didn't say totally transparent, I said "more distortion" and "more
> distortion free".
> (2) At this point there is no formal definition of "low-priced"
>
> > Do you have this information on your website?
>
> >> For example, the near-universal choice to use electronic crossovers
> >> with subwoofers has a lot to do with the costs and inconveniences
> >> related to making a passive crossover at say 50 Hz for a 8 ohm
> >> speaker that is designed to work with a low source impedance.
>
> > That's right. For a *very* low frequency crossover (60 Hz), the
> > component cost is high. However, the cost of components, for a 2kHz
> > crossover, is low.
>
> Right and at that crossover point, electronic crossovers don't generally
> make much sense, except for systems with more dynamic range than a typical
> home system.
>
> >> Potentially problematical given that so many power amps have input
> >> impedances of less than 50 K.
>
> > One should check for conventional input impedance (50k to 100K) before
> > buying.
>
> One then finds a lot of power amps with input impedances in the 5-20K
range.
>
> >>> Since the crossover has only four components, (two capacitors, one
> >>> resistor, and one pot) it is easy to build. You can build it on a
> >>> Radio Shack eight phono jack board. Part# 274-370, (cost $2.19).
>
> >> IMO if you are going to do something, do it *right*.
>
> > What is wrong with building a crossover on a Radio Shack phono-jack
> > board?
>
> Most the limitations forced on it because its passive.
>
> >>> This crossover has the advantage over active crossovers, in that it
> >>> has less distortion.
>
> >> It has less noise, too but in fact noise and distortion from
> >> reasonably good, modern electronic crossovers just isn't a problem.
>
> > Yes, active electronic crossovers have very very low distortion. All I
> > said was, passive electronic crossovers have lower distortion. OK, it
> > doesn't matter, but they do have lower noise and distortion.
>
> The we agree.
>
> >> Here's an example of a good, modern, relatively inexpensive but
> >> comprehensive electronic crossover of the digital persuasion:
>
> > *Very nice*, but not for an $800 budget.
>
> Buying twice or three times as many power amps pretty well creams a $800
> system budget. Interestingly enough, a $800 system based on better quality
> parts from the PC monitor or One Box Home Theater market segment would
> probably end up with an active crossover.
>
> Please see my 7/16 post about subwoofers.
>
> >> Again price really doesn't have that gosh awfully much to do with
> >> it. Once you get past the crappy drivers (which sell for a wide
> >> range of prices ranging from low to high) you can find a lot of
> >> reasonably-priced drivers with good performance including ability to
> >> work with low-slope crossovers.
>
> > Again, price doesn't matter if you *know* which cheap drivers are the
> > good ones. Do you have this information on your website?
>
> Nope, because my knowledge of the area is not up to the standards for my
> websites. But I've experimented and looked around enough to have an idea
> about what can be done.
>
> >> Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
> >> simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way
> >> woofer/tweeter speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher
> >> technical chores around.
>
> > Going to an electronic crossover *greatly simplifies* the design
> > problem.
>
> Well, at the cost of the extra amplifiers, which in a $800 total system
cost
> for a system assembled by a consumer, makes things pretty tough.
>
> > Here is how to design a speaker system using an electronic crossover:
>
> > 1) Stick to a two-way system. (If you want three-way system, buy a
> > subwoofer with an integrated amplifier, and make your satellite
> > speakers two-way.)
>
> Right, and at $800 system cost, it is probably best to stick with passive
> 2-way speakers.
>
> > 2) Buy a woofer that is of good quality from Vifa, or Audax or
> > Scan-Speak. Pick drivers that don't require a compensating network to
> > be flat.
>
> Again, Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
> simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter
> speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores
> around.
>
> Most experiences speaker builders agree with this. I admit that I'm
working
> on a high-performance 2-way design, but it exceeds most
> commercially-available 2-ways a number of ways, mostly relating to
frequency
> response extension and dynamic range. Also, the total system price that
goes
> with it will be far in excess of $800. I
>
> > 3) Pick a woofer that is designed to work into a closed box. (Avoid
> > buying woofers that need to work into ported enclosures.)
>
> ????
>
> > 4) Note what volume enclosure the manufacture recommends, and buy or
> > build, a *sturdy* enclosure of *that* volume. Fill it lightly with
> > (acoustic) fiberglass.
>
> Most manufacturers of quality woofers provide T/S parameters and leave the
> design up to the purchaser.
>
> > 5) If the tweeter isn't sealed on the back, mount it in a seporate
> > enclosure.
>
> Nope, just don't buy it.
>
> > 6) Solder a series resistor-capacitor across the driver terminals.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > | |
> > R = 8 Ohms |
> > | 8 Ohms driver. (Woofer or Tweeter)
> > C |
> > | |
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
> > The value for C depends on the inductance of the driver.
> > For the typical (8 Ohm) woofer, the value of C = 15 uF.
> > For the typical (8 Ohm) tweeter, the value of C = 1 uF
>
> Zoebels are for people who don't get it.
>
> >> Here's your chance to invest in measurement and analytical tools!
> >> The good news is that they are far less costly today than they were
> >> years ago.
>
> > I agree. Cooledit for $69 has an excellent little spectrum analyzer.
>
> Been there done that and I wouldn't recommend it to even someone I don't
> like. If you want a superior tool for lots less money, check out
> http://audio.rightmark.org/ Scroll down the download page to Rightmark
AE.
> Its better than CEP for the purpose, but I could write quite a bit about
its
> strengths and weaknesses.
>
> >> If you want two good small two-way speakers, you will probably save
> >> money (not to mention time!) in the end by looking at speakers from
> >> manufacturers like Paradigm, NHT, PSB. Boston Acoustics, etc.
>
> > Are prebuilt speaker system as low cost as similar ones you build
> > yourself? I doubt it.
>
> The price/performance and time investment is hard to beat.
>
> Again, Rolling your own loudspeakers and getting good results is far from
> simple unless you stick to subwoofers. Doing a two-way woofer/tweeter
> speaker system *right* is actually one of the tougher technical chores
> around.
>
>
>
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
>> And you haven't given us one example of a low cost amplifier with
>> audible distortion when operated within its ratings.

> How about any Radio Shack PA amplifier?

How about it. Where are your listening test results?

>> Doooh. No front end, no control.

> Double doooh, and a duh. That wasn't asked for by the person who
> started this thread.

That would be a matter of interpretation. Looks to me like he was looking
for a system for listening to music at home.

[George M. Middius]

Bob-Stanton said:

> I don't put much stock in judging amplifiers by listening tests.

How unhuman.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
>> om

>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

>>>> And you haven't given us one example of a low cost amplifier with
>>>> audible distortion when operated within its ratings.

>>> How about any Radio Shack PA amplifier?

>> How about it. Where are your listening test results?

> I don't put much stock in judging amplifiers by listening tests.

Name some more reliable way to determine the presence of audible distortion.

> Look at the published distortion figures from Radio Shack. The MPA-40
> has 10% THD, at 20 Watts. You don't need a listening panel of fifty
> people with golden ears, in order to make the wild guess that the
> amplifier is less than totally transparent!

Let's apply a little common sense here. Obviously they tolerate a lot of
distortion to jack up the power rating. 10% THD is pretty far into clipping.
I guess I should have thrown in the usual disclaimer about clipping.

What does this piece perform like at say 10 wpc, where it is more likely to
be used?

This is related to a pretty common audio NG question where people ask what
would be the audible difference between a receiver rated at 0.05% and 1%
THD. They could both be the same receiver, with different rated power!

If the receiver is powerful enough (say 100 wpc) its probably not going to
be listened to much anywhere near rated power. At normal listening levels,
it's that receiver rated at 0.05%, and the 1% THD rating is completely
irrelevant.

What's ironic is that I may have a MPA-40 on hand. If it's what I think, I
recently took one out of service. It was being used to supply sound
reinforcement (i.e., play music and voice) via two RS Minimus 7 speakers
(low efficiency, and one burned out tweeter) for a room that is 20 x 50 with
carpeting and a 15' high acoustical ceiling (pretty dead). The whole works
sounded like the dickens, but it was a horribly misengineered system. I
replaced it with a 75 wpc amp and a pair of Infinity monitors. People like
it, now.

There's a fair chance that if not operated in clipping, the MPS-40 is
sonically transparent.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Bob-Stanton said:
>
>> I don't put much stock in judging amplifiers by listening tests.
>
> How unhuman.

Thanks for supporting my side of the argument.

[Bob-Stanton]

George M. Middius > wrote in message >...
> Bob-Stanton said:
>
> > I don't put much stock in judging amplifiers by listening tests.
>
> How unhuman.

First of all, the word "unhuman" is not in Webster's Universal
Encyclopedic Dictionary, (of 330,000 words). The word you should have
used is "inhuman". From Webster's: "Inhuman: 1: b:COLD, IMPERSONAL.
2: of or suggesting a nonhuman class of being."

George, you know that resistance is futile.

If you put a lot of stock in Arny's listening tests, do you also agree
with him that all (higher quality) amplifiers sound the same?


Bob Stanton

[George M. Middius]

Bob-Stanton said:

> > > I don't put much stock in judging amplifiers by listening tests.
> >
> > How unhuman.
>
> First of all, the word "unhuman" is not in Webster's Universal
> Encyclopedic Dictionary, (of 330,000 words). The word you should have
> used is "inhuman". From Webster's: "Inhuman: 1: b:COLD, IMPERSONAL.
> 2: of or suggesting a nonhuman class of being."

No, that's not what I meant. If you had been paying to my
scribblings on RAO over the years, you would know that "unhuman"
is a neologism I devised to describe a specific state of existence
somewhere between machine and human.

> George, you know that resistance is futile.

Wait -- you have been listening after all!

Note, if you will, that I didn't call out the big gun adjective
for your pronouncement, the one I reserve for the really nasty
'borgs.


> If you put a lot of stock in Arny's listening tests, do you also agree
> with him that all (higher quality) amplifiers sound the same?

Krooger's listening "tests"? What are you talking about? If that's
what you meant when you devalued their stock, then forget I said
anything.

Bear in mind that RAO is a nontechnical, consumer-oriented forum.
Simply because a dolt like Krooger clomps around laying his turds
of pseudoscience at every opportunity does not mean that
"listening tests" acquire the patina of scientific investigation
as they are used in R&D. On RAO, "listening tests" (as distinct
from whatever self-defeating exercise in noise competition Krooger
likes to indulge in) are a dirty synonym for "critical listening
evaluation". No silly "test" protocols, especially highly
technical ones that are way beyond Krooger's grasp. Just listening
as carefully as you can. Because, as you know, when a consumer
buys something to use at home, his only purpose is to please
himself.

[Howard Ferstler]

George M. Middius > wrote in message >...

> Bear in mind that RAO is a nontechnical, consumer-oriented forum.

RAO is a forum for morons, and you are one of the primary morons.

Rant and rave, idiot.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Howard Ferstler said:

> > Bear in mind that RAO is a nontechnical, consumer-oriented forum.

> RAO is a forum for morons, and you are one of the primary morons.

Hi Harold! Good to see you're back where you belong.

Are you going to challenge Arnii Krooger for the RAO Posting
Championship?


> Rant and rave, idiot.

I've never been very good at doing that. But I encourage you to
keep shooting blanks.

[dave weil]

On 25 Jul 2003 12:43:46 -0700, (Howard Ferstler)
wrote:

>George M. Middius > wrote in message >...
>
>> Bear in mind that RAO is a nontechnical, consumer-oriented forum.
>
>RAO is a forum for morons, and you are one of the primary morons.
>
>Rant and rave, idiot.
>
>Howard Ferstler

Look, the plagiarist's back.

[Marc Phillips]

dave said:



>On 25 Jul 2003 12:43:46 -0700, (Howard Ferstler)
>wrote:
>
>>George M. Middius > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>> Bear in mind that RAO is a nontechnical, consumer-oriented forum.
>>
>>RAO is a forum for morons, and you are one of the primary morons.
>>
>>Rant and rave, idiot.
>>
>>Howard Ferstler
>
>Look, the plagiarist's back.

What else is he supposed to do now that he can't write about audio anymore?

Boon

[George M. Middius]

Marc Phillips said:

> >>> Bear in mind that RAO is a nontechnical, consumer-oriented forum.
> >>
> >>RAO is a forum for morons, and you are one of the primary morons.
> >>
> >>Rant and rave, idiot.
> >>
> >>Howard Ferstler
> >
> >Look, the plagiarist's back.
>
> What else is he supposed to do now that he can't write about audio anymore?

He certainly can't frequent a place that's a "forum for morons".
Unless, of course, Harold is prescribing rather than describing.