Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: I have written in the past that mis-positioning speakers with a multi-directional output can cause imaging problems due to a clustering of reflections from too near room surfaces. The main audible result is a seeming stretching of center soloists or hole in the middle. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/WW5604v62p206.pdf _Thank_ _You!_ Not a word of acknowledgement or dawning comprehension from the O/P, I notice. Adrian, We have been friends in the past. I know I have been slow in checking out all of the discs you have sent me, for which I apologize. My wife has constant headaches and I can't play my music whenever I want, so things get put on the back burner. If that is the reason for your "dawning comprehension" remark I can only ask you to forgive and keep personalities out of it. 1956? This is the extent of your knowledge about reproduction? Why did you drag this out of the closet? This is the kind of ignorance I have been writing about. What am I supposed to do, write my article all over again in answer to it? These guys have discovered time/intensity trading. They think that stereo works with the direct sound only. They confuse stereo with binaural. They state that the position of a source will not be quite as well defined with reverberation present as it would be without. They advocate using a binaural head or similar because they think we are recording input signals for the ears. Then they show a drawing of closely spaced cardioids (Fig 11) in which the right microphone is pointing to the left and vice versa! This is an ancient, silly article. You must be showing it to us because in all their wisdom they say that we don't want reflections in the playback room. Pardon me, but this is where I came in. I don't need to see it again. Gary Eickmeier |
#242
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"George Graves" wrote in message ... In article , "Peter Larsen" wrote: If you are a happy amateur with the freedom that is a part of it, then it is a good and noble aim to make recordings for your own stereo. If you are a professional you must make recordings for everybody's stereo. Amen to that brother. Someone very smart once noted that the definition of a professional is a person who is the tool of the man who hires him. Exactly, which is at odds with what Peter said though, since you primarily have to please the person paying the bill, which is not necessarily the same as pleasing "everybody's stereo" and in fact more often isn't these days. Trevor. |
#243
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
In article , "Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... I am not a craxy and I base all of my observations on listening and I have heard them all and used my own system as a laboratory to prove out my theories and it really does check out. I know and have heard good and bad sound, mine is good and I am dismissed at the starting gate as soon as they hear the word Bose, and all communication ceases. I thought I was going to get some sorely needed street cred in the Linkwitz Challenge, but it was not to be. Too many egos involved to admit I could be right about something that they had ridiculed and tried to straighten me out on for so many years. This reminds me of the soldier wondering why everyone else is out of step but him :-) IF you are happy, why care what others think? But trying to change everyone elses opinion to suit your own is both stupid and narcissistic. Trevor. I have often wondered this about Gary. If he is happy with his experiments and the sound of his stereo system, and of the recordings he makes, Wy should he care that others might not agree with his conclusions? If you are a happy amateur with the freedom that is a part of it, then it is a good and noble aim to make recordings for your own stereo. If you are a professional you must make recordings for everybody's stereo. Kind regards Peter Larsen Amen to that brother. Someone very smart once noted that the definition of a professional is a person who is the tool of the man who hires him. Well, you are indeed a tool George... George and I have exchanged discs a few times and have enjoyed it. I can hear the qualities in his work on my crummy amateur system somehow, and he has complimented my recordings. Why the "piling on" here is a mystery to me. Maybe he's a climber. Extremely offensive and dissapointing. Gary |
#244
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"George Graves" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described - really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers. Yes, a pity that they did have some clues like conjugate capacitors, but often spent more money on the aluminium boxes for many of their Xovers than the rest of the parts. Of course they weren't alone there, KEF's of the same vintage are also improved by adding better Xovers, as are quite a few others with good enough drivers to bother. That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. That's pretty relative. You could certainly get deeper bass from a 12" woofer if you wanted, but they still go deeper, louder, and with less compression and distortion than smaller systems. Trevor. |
#245
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Why the "piling on" here is a mystery to me. Obviously. When multiple people disagree with false pretenses to which you cling, you think it's "piling on". A man who came to learn would think it was advice worth considering well enough to expend sufficient effort to understand that which is being offered. You'd rather type than learn. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#246
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
- excellent". And yes, I slammed them back then and ended up buying a pair in 1997 and it is one of the best audio purchases I made. Because if it is good on them, it is good on everything ... People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described - really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers. That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. Flumpy bass in - flumpy bass out. Good bass in - good bass out. Are you aware that the fairly small port bends due to its length? Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#247
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
[...] http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/WW5604v62p206.pdf 1956? This is the extent of your knowledge about reproduction? Why did you drag this out of the closet? This is the kind of ignorance I have been writing about. What am I supposed to do, write my article all over again in answer to it? If necessary, yes. [...] This is an ancient, silly article. This is a well-written report on properly conducted research. It works from established principles of physics and acoustics and puts forward explanations based on controlled experiments. Where the errors due to individual judgements are unavoidable, these are reduced by using multiple subjects. Much more has been discovered about acoustics since that article was written, but most of it is still based on the results of research like that from the 1930s to the 1950s. None of this later research (AFAIK) has ever discovered any major deviation from those original established principles. The fact that the explanations which the paper proposes have been accepted for over 55 years with little modification is an indication that it is very likely to be correct in most of its conclusions. It also provides perfectly adequate and straightforward explanations for the well-known phenomena which you have observed, without the need for any further speculation. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#248
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Peter Larsen wrote: Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: I have written in the past that mis-positioning speakers with a multi-directional output can cause imaging problems due to a clustering of reflections from too near room surfaces. The main audible result is a seeming stretching of center soloists or hole in the middle. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/WW5604v62p206.pdf _Thank_ _You!_ Not a word of acknowledgement or dawning comprehension from the O/P, I notice. Adrian, We have been friends in the past. I know I have been slow in checking out all of the discs you have sent me, for which I apologize. My wife has constant headaches and I can't play my music whenever I want, Wow. Is there anyone from whom you *can* take a hint? ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
#249
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On 09/28/2013 03:58 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Check this out: https://www.zoom-na.com/ The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer, multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box! Gary Eickmeier Now that you have the unit, can you put some of this into perspective now that you have had some limited experience with it? Tobiah |
#250
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article , "Trevor"
wrote: "George Graves" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described - really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers. Yes, a pity that they did have some clues like conjugate capacitors, but often spent more money on the aluminium boxes for many of their Xovers than the rest of the parts. Of course they weren't alone there, KEF's of the same vintage are also improved by adding better Xovers, as are quite a few others with good enough drivers to bother. That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. That's pretty relative. You could certainly get deeper bass from a 12" woofer if you wanted, but they still go deeper, louder, and with less compression and distortion than smaller systems. Trevor. That doesn't really answer my question. The original JBL "4300" series studio monitors thumped out a lot of midbass. It was loud, it hit the listener in the pit of of the stomach, so at mid-bass frequencies, these speakers obviously moved a lot of air. but they had little in the way of REAL, deep bass. I was doing a lot of recording for NPR at this time (I was the recording engineer for their "Jazz Alive" series, among other projects). Anyway, KQED-FM had JBL 4310's in their editing studio and I used it extensively to put together the "Jazz Alive" location recordings that I made all over San Francisco. Once I was required to record a pipe-organist at the huge Grace Cathedral on Nob Hill. I took the 2-track/15ips master back to the studio to edit it for broadcast (I wasn't a KQED employee, but the producer was). I couldn't believe how poor the organ sounded on those speakers and was scared that something had gone wrong with the recording. So, the producer and I grabbed the tape off of the studio Ampex and took it to my house to play it on my AR-2ax's. There was nothing wrong with the recording (the bass was spectacular), but the JBLs emasculated it of any real low end. So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. |
#251
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 9:07:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Graves wrote: In article , "Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... I am not a craxy and I base all of my observations on listening and I have heard them all and used my own system as a laboratory to prove out my theories and it really does check out. I know and have heard good and bad sound, mine is good and I am dismissed at the starting gate as soon as they hear the word Bose, and all communication ceases. I thought I was going to get some sorely needed street cred in the Linkwitz Challenge, but it was not to be. Too many egos involved to admit I could be right about something that they had ridiculed and tried to straighten me out on for so many years. This reminds me of the soldier wondering why everyone else is out of step but him :-) IF you are happy, why care what others think? But trying to change everyone elses opinion to suit your own is both stupid and narcissistic. Trevor. I have often wondered this about Gary. If he is happy with his experiments and the sound of his stereo system, and of the recordings he makes, Wy should he care that others might not agree with his conclusions? If you are a happy amateur with the freedom that is a part of it, then it is a good and noble aim to make recordings for your own stereo. If you are a professional you must make recordings for everybody's stereo. Kind regards Peter Larsen Amen to that brother. Someone very smart once noted that the definition of a professional is a person who is the tool of the man who hires him. Well, you are indeed a tool George... George and I have exchanged discs a few times and have enjoyed it. I can hear the qualities in his work on my crummy amateur system somehow, and he has complimented my recordings. Why the "piling on" here is a mystery to me. Maybe he's a climber. Extremely offensive and dissapointing. Gary Gary, don't look now, but your paranoia is showing. Nobody is "piling on you". Just because I am critical of some of your theories and some of your experiments doesn't mean that I'm attacking you personally. I'm not. I still consider us friends and I have jumped to your defense more than once here. |
#252
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
In article , "Trevor" wrote: "George Graves" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described - really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers. Yes, a pity that they did have some clues like conjugate capacitors, but often spent more money on the aluminium boxes for many of their Xovers than the rest of the parts. Of course they weren't alone there, KEF's of the same vintage are also improved by adding better Xovers, as are quite a few others with good enough drivers to bother. That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. That's pretty relative. You could certainly get deeper bass from a 12" woofer if you wanted, but they still go deeper, louder, and with less compression and distortion than smaller systems. Trevor. That doesn't really answer my question. The original JBL "4300" series studio monitors thumped out a lot of midbass. It was loud, it hit the listener in the pit of of the stomach, so at mid-bass frequencies, these speakers obviously moved a lot of air. but they had little in the way of REAL, deep bass. I was doing a lot of recording for NPR at this time (I was the recording engineer for their "Jazz Alive" series, among other projects). Anyway, KQED-FM had JBL 4310's in their editing studio and I used it extensively to put together the "Jazz Alive" location recordings that I made all over San Francisco. Once I was required to record a pipe-organist at the huge Grace Cathedral on Nob Hill. I took the 2-track/15ips master back to the studio to edit it for broadcast (I wasn't a KQED employee, but the producer was). I couldn't believe how poor the organ sounded on those speakers and was scared that something had gone wrong with the recording. So, the producer and I grabbed the tape off of the studio Ampex and took it to my house to play it on my AR-2ax's. There was nothing wrong with the recording (the bass was spectacular), but the JBLs emasculated it of any real low end. So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. Your experience is unlikely to be due to the crossovers. If a driver/cabinet design doesn't provide low bass the crossover can't add any. -- best regards, Neil |
#253
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. That's pretty relative. You could certainly get deeper bass from a 12" woofer if you wanted, but they still go deeper, louder, and with less compression and distortion than smaller systems. Trevor. That doesn't really answer my question. The original JBL "4300" series studio monitors thumped out a lot of midbass. It was loud, it hit the listener in the pit of of the stomach, so at mid-bass frequencies, What do you call mid-bass? - spell it out in Hz! these speakers obviously moved a lot of air. but they had little in the way of REAL, deep bass. What do you call deep bass? - spell it out in Hz! So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? Actually there is no bass problem to fix and so little x-over x-works that there is nothing that really can cause any, ie. no large iron-cored coils. I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. I just told you, I reckon I can pass as "anyone". Also just saying "the 4300 series" is absurdly wide. The 4310/11/L100 - basicly there are three cabinet versions and two cross-over versions, the oldest one has NO components on the bass unit, the improved version has a roll-off coil and the official mod is to add a roll-off coil to the midrange unit so that it actually crosses over to the treble unit instead of competing with it. What could cause bass problems would be to play them in a non-rigid room such as a controlroom that has been bassabsorberized for 120+ dB SPL playback from 4340 or 4350 boxes or so and then also has a pair of 431x's playing it almost open air, possibly free standing. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#254
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote: George Graves wrote: In article , "Trevor" wrote: "George Graves" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described - really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers. Yes, a pity that they did have some clues like conjugate capacitors, but often spent more money on the aluminium boxes for many of their Xovers than the rest of the parts. Of course they weren't alone there, KEF's of the same vintage are also improved by adding better Xovers, as are quite a few others with good enough drivers to bother. That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. That's pretty relative. You could certainly get deeper bass from a 12" woofer if you wanted, but they still go deeper, louder, and with less compression and distortion than smaller systems. Trevor. That doesn't really answer my question. The original JBL "4300" series studio monitors thumped out a lot of midbass. It was loud, it hit the listener in the pit of of the stomach, so at mid-bass frequencies, these speakers obviously moved a lot of air. but they had little in the way of REAL, deep bass. I was doing a lot of recording for NPR at this time (I was the recording engineer for their "Jazz Alive" series, among other projects). Anyway, KQED-FM had JBL 4310's in their editing studio and I used it extensively to put together the "Jazz Alive" location recordings that I made all over San Francisco. Once I was required to record a pipe-organist at the huge Grace Cathedral on Nob Hill. I took the 2-track/15ips master back to the studio to edit it for broadcast (I wasn't a KQED employee, but the producer was). I couldn't believe how poor the organ sounded on those speakers and was scared that something had gone wrong with the recording. So, the producer and I grabbed the tape off of the studio Ampex and took it to my house to play it on my AR-2ax's. There was nothing wrong with the recording (the bass was spectacular), but the JBLs emasculated it of any real low end. So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. Your experience is unlikely to be due to the crossovers. If a driver/cabinet design doesn't provide low bass the crossover can't add any. Well, that was pretty much my point. Mr. Kruger (and others) talked about how modern crossover design has taken these speakers from their original poor reputation and made them acceptable sounding. My point was if those modifications didn't fix the bass, then there was little to recommend going to the trouble of retrofitting new crossovers as they can't fix one of the 4300 series most fundamental problems. |
#255
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On Monday, October 7, 2013 3:20:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Larsen wrote:
George Graves wrote: That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. That's pretty relative. You could certainly get deeper bass from a 12" woofer if you wanted, but they still go deeper, louder, and with less compression and distortion than smaller systems. Trevor. That doesn't really answer my question. The original JBL "4300" series studio monitors thumped out a lot of midbass. It was loud, it hit the listener in the pit of of the stomach, so at mid-bass frequencies, What do you call mid-bass? - spell it out in Hz! My definition of mid-bass shouldn't be substantially different from anyone else's. I.E. 40 - 90 Hz. these speakers obviously moved a lot of air. but they had little in the way of REAL, deep bass. What do you call deep bass? - spell it out in Hz! Again, My definition of deep-bass shouldn't be substantially different from anyone else's. I.E. below 40 Hz So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? Actually there is no bass problem to fix and so little x-over x-works that there is nothing that really can cause any, ie. no large iron-cored coils. I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. I just told you, I reckon I can pass as "anyone". Also just saying "the 4300 series" is absurdly wide. The 4310/11/L100 - basicly there are three cabinet versions and two cross-over versions, the oldest one has NO components on the bass unit, the improved version has a roll-off coil and the official mod is to add a roll-off coil to the midrange unit so that it actually crosses over to the treble unit instead of competing with it. What could cause bass problems would be to play them in a non-rigid room such as a controlroom that has been bassabsorberized for 120+ dB SPL playback from 4340 or 4350 boxes or so and then also has a pair of 431x's playing it almost open air, possibly free standing. Peter, my point was that crossovers really wouldn't do anything to alleviate a lack of low bass. That's almost completely a driver/cabinet design matter. Obviously, JBL was interested in the "juke-box" region for these monitors because that's what most rockers like to hear, and that kind of "bass" is centered around 80 Hz. |
#256
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"Neil Gould" writes:
-snips- Your experience is unlikely to be due to the crossovers. If a driver/cabinet design doesn't provide low bass the crossover can't add any. Don't forget the room!!! A small edit suite, with little or no treatment, could really wreck the LF. A little larger living room, and you might just get lucky, especially with a few room peaks centered on a few key pedal notes. A little larger room and you could get a little more lucky. In the 1970s I used 4310s, 4320s, and 4333s. - the 4310s were pretty awful until the midrange driver polarity was flipped. Apparently, this mis-wiring was a known manufacturing defect for some production runs. The 4311s were slightly better, but I didn't use them on a regular basis. - the 4320s were honky/snarky, but improved with soffet mounting in good rooms. I heard several at Opryland. And while not overly pleasant listening, you could get good mixes out of them. - the 4333s were an amazing step up. Sweet sounding (though somewhat artificial), and they sounded remarkable in a good room. First heard and used them at Kaye-Smith in Seattle. They did require added bottom via room EQ if not in soffits. My $0.02. (I much prefer my SGM10Bs.) Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#257
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. Neil Gould said: Your experience is unlikely to be due to the crossovers. If a driver/cabinet design doesn't provide low bass the crossover can't add any. Well, that was pretty much my point. Mr. Kruger (and others) talked about how modern crossover design has taken these speakers from their original poor reputation and made them acceptable sounding. My point was if those modifications didn't fix the bass, then there was little to recommend going to the trouble of retrofitting new crossovers as they can't fix one of the 4300 series most fundamental problems. If you want church organ bass from the lowest pipe on the organ it is a different 4300 series box you need, namely the 4333 or something with a LE14 in 3 cubic feet it. What the 431x will give you is the lowest note on the bass guitar. Don't blame the tool if you use the wrong tool, blame the operator for not checking what the tool is designed to do. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#258
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article isition,
Frank Stearns wrote: "Neil Gould" writes: -snips- Your experience is unlikely to be due to the crossovers. If a driver/cabinet design doesn't provide low bass the crossover can't add any. Don't forget the room!!! A small edit suite, with little or no treatment, could really wreck the LF. A little larger living room, and you might just get lucky, especially with a few room peaks centered on a few key pedal notes. A little larger room and you could get a little more lucky. In the 1970s I used 4310s, 4320s, and 4333s. - the 4310s were pretty awful until the midrange driver polarity was flipped. Apparently, this mis-wiring was a known manufacturing defect for some production runs. The 4311s were slightly better, but I didn't use them on a regular basis. - the 4320s were honky/snarky, but improved with soffet mounting in good rooms. I heard several at Opryland. And while not overly pleasant listening, you could get good mixes out of them. - the 4333s were an amazing step up. Sweet sounding (though somewhat artificial), and they sounded remarkable in a good room. First heard and used them at Kaye-Smith in Seattle. They did require added bottom via room EQ if not in soffits. My $0.02. (I much prefer my SGM10Bs.) Frank Mobile Audio Have you ever used 4350's or 4355's? I've never heard a pair, but understand that they were spectacular with really good, deep bass, smooth midrange and a decent (albeit somewhat beamy) top. There used to be a small studio in San Francisco that used Infinity Gamma's as main control room monitors. I do believe that that studio had the best monitor sound I've ever heard in a studio. The guy who ran the studio told me that the only problem with the Gammas was reliability. The Irish "Straithern"- built quasi-ribbon midrange and tweeters went out all the time. They could be fixed in-house most of the time with a bit of soldering, apparently. and Infinity had a good supplies of spares and could rebuild most of them in a pinch. |
#259
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. Neil Gould said: Your experience is unlikely to be due to the crossovers. If a driver/cabinet design doesn't provide low bass the crossover can't add any. Well, that was pretty much my point. Mr. Kruger (and others) talked about how modern crossover design has taken these speakers from their original poor reputation and made them acceptable sounding. My point was if those modifications didn't fix the bass, then there was little to recommend going to the trouble of retrofitting new crossovers as they can't fix one of the 4300 series most fundamental problems. If you want church organ bass from the lowest pipe on the organ it is a different 4300 series box you need, namely the 4333 or something with a LE14 in 3 cubic feet it. What the 431x will give you is the lowest note on the bass guitar. Don't blame the tool if you use the wrong tool, blame the operator for not checking what the tool is designed to do. Kind regards Peter Larsen Peter, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. II'm neither complaining (particularly) about a 40-year old speaker design, or about the incorrect application of tools. IOW, I'm blaming nothing and no one for anything. I'm merely posing an anecdote to illustrate when I first realized that for their size, 4310s didn't have much bass. I was using the facilities available to me at the time and I found them inadequate for organ recording (although I had no real complaints about any of the jazz recordings I was editing in that same suite). This whole discussion came about because several people said that modern crossovers could fix the JBL' s widely acknowledged poor sound. I made the point that crossovers can't fix drivers and enclosures that don't go very low in the first place. There's no argument here. Regards, George Graves |
#260
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
Have you ever used 4350's or 4355's? I've never heard a pair, but understand that they were spectacular with really good, deep bass, smooth midrange and a decent (albeit somewhat beamy) top. You said the 4300 series was no good, remember? Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#261
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Peter Larsen wrote:
George Graves wrote: This whole discussion came about because several people said that modern crossovers could fix the JBL' s widely acknowledged poor sound. "the JBL's widely acknowledge poor sound" - that's a "theysay" type of statement. Who has aknowledged that what JBL model has poor sound? I never much liked the 4311s, but I have never really used the newer JBL monitors. Has anyone heard the new M2 models? There was a sort-of underground demo at the last AES show but I didn't get a chance to hear them for myself at all. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#262
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
This whole discussion came about because several people said that modern crossovers could fix the JBL' s widely acknowledged poor sound. I made the point that crossovers can't fix drivers and enclosures that don't go very low in the first place. Bandwidth may well remain unchanged, while behavior around the crossover point might be improved tremendously. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#263
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves writes:
snips Have you ever used 4350's or 4355's? I've never heard a pair, but understan= d that they were spectacular with really good, deep bass, smooth midrange a= nd a decent (albeit somewhat beamy) top. No, never did. I actually found it somewhat frightening that those big monsters could deliver 130 dB into a control room. Yikes. Never found myself in such rooms. However, the Imax in my old home town used what looked a lot like 4350s all around the room -- though no doubt some different components and voicing for a big room application. As far as theater sound, they were quite good -- way better than the local megaplex sound. There used to be a small studio in San Francisco that used Infinity Gamma's= as main control room monitors. I do believe that that studio had the best = monitor sound I've ever heard in a studio. The guy who ran the studio told = How was the room designed and treated? Were the monitors soffit mounted? Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#264
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"George Graves" wrote in message ... Gary, don't look now, but your paranoia is showing. Nobody is "piling on you". Just because I am critical of some of your theories and some of your experiments doesn't mean that I'm attacking you personally. I'm not. I still consider us friends and I have jumped to your defense more than once here. You have accused me of being like your clueless friend with the horrid setup, making recordings for a system that has a huge hole in the middle. So you are making judgements about me without any knowledge of who I am or what I am doing. There is no defense for unwarranted assumptions. You are joining with the Alrich class of court jester despite evidence to the contrary. If I am successful with some more recordings with my various techniques in a decent venue with this concert band I will send you a disc again. I have tested it out last night with the new recorder and had some very encouraging success. It is not a good enough recording to send to anyone because of the AC noise, which I can't do anything about. Gary |
#265
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "George Graves" wrote in message ... Gary, don't look now, but your paranoia is showing. Nobody is "piling on you". Just because I am critical of some of your theories and some of your experiments doesn't mean that I'm attacking you personally. I'm not. I still consider us friends and I have jumped to your defense more than once here. You have accused me of being like your clueless friend with the horrid setup, making recordings for a system that has a huge hole in the middle. So you are making judgements about me without any knowledge of who I am or what I am doing. There is no defense for unwarranted assumptions. You are joining with the Alrich class of court jester despite evidence to the contrary. I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was relating an anecdote about someone else, who like you, didn''t have a lot of experience, and made the mistake of recording for HIS OWN PLAYBACK SITUATION, rather than for anybody who might end-up listening to his recordings. Since this is what you seem to be doing as well, I thought that part or the story analogous to your situation, but that's as far as the comparison went. I thought I made that clear. BTW, my assessment of your recording methods are neither assumptions nor unwarranted, Gary. Remember, I have examples of your recordings upon which to base these "unwarranted assumptions". If I am successful with some more recordings with my various techniques in a decent venue with this concert band I will send you a disc again. I have tested it out last night with the new recorder and had some very encouraging success. It is not a good enough recording to send to anyone because of the AC noise, which I can't do anything about. Always glad to get those from you. George Graves Gary |
#266
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: This whole discussion came about because several people said that modern crossovers could fix the JBL' s widely acknowledged poor sound. "the JBL's widely acknowledge poor sound" - that's a "theysay" type of statement. Who has aknowledged that what JBL model has poor sound? I've heard many of them. So *I* say that they sounded lousy. In fact, all the ones that I've heard shared a characteristic sound, I.E. they all sounded similar - I suppose that's on purpose and probably useful to disparate studios sharing work. |
#267
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article ion,
Frank Stearns wrote: George Graves writes: snips Have you ever used 4350's or 4355's? I've never heard a pair, but understan= d that they were spectacular with really good, deep bass, smooth midrange a= nd a decent (albeit somewhat beamy) top. No, never did. I actually found it somewhat frightening that those big monsters could deliver 130 dB into a control room. Yikes. Never found myself in such rooms. However, the Imax in my old home town used what looked a lot like 4350s all around the room -- though no doubt some different components and voicing for a big room application. As far as theater sound, they were quite good -- way better than the local megaplex sound. There used to be a small studio in San Francisco that used Infinity Gamma's= as main control room monitors. I do believe that that studio had the best = monitor sound I've ever heard in a studio. The guy who ran the studio told = How was the room designed and treated? Were the monitors soffit mounted? Frank Mobile Audio As to how the room was treated, I cannot say. I was only there once. It WAS treated though, as there were sound absorbent panels interspersed along the walls and alternating with hard areas. The speakers were NOT soffit mounted, but sat on the floor about three feet out from the wall. When I was there, they were editing a San Francisco Symphony recording for Phillips Records, IIRC (Edo De Waart, conducting). It sounded GREAT through those speakers. |
#268
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
You are joining with the Alrich class of court jester despite evidence to the contrary. Yep, I point out what a joke your concepts are, and how foolish is your ongoing attachment to them, and how arrogant is your failure to process information from many truly experienced practitioners who are professional listeners. You are your own punchline. Clearly the evidence supports that George Graves has done and probably does excellent professional audio recording work. That is something you should think about before trying to turn your delusions into "theories". -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#269
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: Have you ever used 4350's or 4355's? I've never heard a pair, but understand that they were spectacular with really good, deep bass, smooth midrange and a decent (albeit somewhat beamy) top. You said the 4300 series was no good, remember? Kind regards Peter Larsen Tell, me Peter, are you just naturally contrary, or is there a point here? No, I didn't like the sound of any JBL 4300 series monitor that I have heard. However, as I said very clearly above, I've never heard 4350's or 4355s. |
#270
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On Monday, October 7, 2013 6:58:02 PM UTC-7, hank alrich wrote:
George Graves wrote: This whole discussion came about because several people said that modern crossovers could fix the JBL' s widely acknowledged poor sound. I made the point that crossovers can't fix drivers and enclosures that don't go very low in the first place. Bandwidth may well remain unchanged, while behavior around the crossover point might be improved tremendously. I don't doubt that at all. |
#271
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"George Graves" wrote in message ... Gary, don't look now, but your paranoia is showing. Nobody is "piling on you". Just because I am critical of some of your theories and some of your experiments doesn't mean that I'm attacking you personally. I'm not. I still consider us friends and I have jumped to your defense more than once here. You have accused me of being like your clueless friend with the horrid setup, making recordings for a system that has a huge hole in the middle. So you are making judgements about me without any knowledge of who I am or what I am doing. There is no defense for unwarranted assumptions. You are joining with the Alrich class of court jester despite evidence to the contrary. But, you're doing precisely what is friend is doing: making recordings without a standardized reference. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#272
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
George Graves wrote:
In article , "Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: Have you ever used 4350's or 4355's? I've never heard a pair, but understand that they were spectacular with really good, deep bass, smooth midrange and a decent (albeit somewhat beamy) top. You said the 4300 series was no good, remember? Kind regards Peter Larsen Tell, me Peter, are you just naturally contrary, or is there a point here? Yes, there is a point, your logic is sloppy and you go from "special case" to "generality" and claim - in another post - that JBL's poor sound is "widely acknowledged" because you disliked them. I am sure you can do a lot better, you appear to be quite competent. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#273
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: In article , "Peter Larsen" wrote: George Graves wrote: Have you ever used 4350's or 4355's? I've never heard a pair, but understand that they were spectacular with really good, deep bass, smooth midrange and a decent (albeit somewhat beamy) top. You said the 4300 series was no good, remember? Kind regards Peter Larsen Tell, me Peter, are you just naturally contrary, or is there a point here? Yes, there is a point, your logic is sloppy and you go from "special case" to "generality" and claim - in another post - that JBL's poor sound is "widely acknowledged" because you disliked them. I am sure you can do a lot better, you appear to be quite competent. Kind regards Peter Larsen Fair enough. I have known more than few recording engineers and producers from the "4300" era. The "rockers" seemed to like the speakers well enough, those recording classical and jazz were fairly universal in their disdain for the speakers. I should have made clear that *I" think they were terribly inaccurate and my opinion was shared by many. Since this is an informal NG, I didn't think it was necessary to be that precise in giving my opinion. |
#274
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"George Graves" wrote in message ... In article , "Neil Gould" wrote: George Graves wrote: In article , "Trevor" wrote: "George Graves" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described - really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers. Yes, a pity that they did have some clues like conjugate capacitors, but often spent more money on the aluminium boxes for many of their Xovers than the rest of the parts. Of course they weren't alone there, KEF's of the same vintage are also improved by adding better Xovers, as are quite a few others with good enough drivers to bother. That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass" but not really very deep bass. That's pretty relative. You could certainly get deeper bass from a 12" woofer if you wanted, but they still go deeper, louder, and with less compression and distortion than smaller systems. That doesn't really answer my question. The original JBL "4300" series studio monitors thumped out a lot of midbass. It was loud, it hit the listener in the pit of of the stomach, so at mid-bass frequencies, these speakers obviously moved a lot of air. but they had little in the way of REAL, deep bass. I was doing a lot of recording for NPR at this time (I was the recording engineer for their "Jazz Alive" series, among other projects). Anyway, KQED-FM had JBL 4310's in their editing studio and I used it extensively to put together the "Jazz Alive" location recordings that I made all over San Francisco. Once I was required to record a pipe-organist at the huge Grace Cathedral on Nob Hill. I took the 2-track/15ips master back to the studio to edit it for broadcast (I wasn't a KQED employee, but the producer was). I couldn't believe how poor the organ sounded on those speakers and was scared that something had gone wrong with the recording. So, the producer and I grabbed the tape off of the studio Ampex and took it to my house to play it on my AR-2ax's. There was nothing wrong with the recording (the bass was spectacular), but the JBLs emasculated it of any real low end. So, my question is, do the modern, improved crossovers fix the bass problem? I suspect not, but if anyone knows, I'd love to hear their experiences with these speakers. Your experience is unlikely to be due to the crossovers. If a driver/cabinet design doesn't provide low bass the crossover can't add any. }Well, that was pretty much my point. Mr. Kruger (and others) talked about how modern crossover design has taken these speakers from }their original poor reputation and made them acceptable sounding. }My point was if those modifications didn't fix the bass, then there was little to recommend going to the trouble of }retrofitting new crossovers as they can't fix one of the 4300 series most fundamental problems. But easily fixed with active EQ. The sealed AR's have a slower roll off and deeper bass, but actually *less* possible SPL at those lower frequencies than the JBL's, and far less in the mid bass. Therfore the best way to fix the JBL's of course is not by fixing the passive Xovers, but by tri-amping them. Not so hard or expensive these days. Trevor. |
#275
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message ... If you want church organ bass from the lowest pipe on the organ it is a different 4300 series box you need, namely the 4333 or something with a LE14 in 3 cubic feet it. Yeah, but LE14A's in 4 cuft are even better. I still have mine :-) I'd love to see those AR's play any low pipes as loud! :-) Of course these days you can do better with active EQ sub woofers. Trevor. |
#276
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"George Graves" wrote in message ... Fair enough. I have known more than few recording engineers and producers from the "4300" era. The "rockers" seemed to like the speakers well enough, those recording classical and jazz were fairly universal in their disdain for the speakers. I should have made clear that *I" think they were terribly inaccurate and my opinion was shared by many. Since this is an informal NG, I didn't think it was necessary to be that precise in giving my opinion. -------------------------- Well it would certainly help reduce arguments. I have always favoured big JBL's for rock and roll, but wouldn't dream of using them for a string quartet! OTOH the big models are just fine for pipe organ, but not so the smaller models. Just as you wouldn't use a LS3/5A for that either! Horses for courses. Trevor. |
#277
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... But, you're doing precisely what is friend is doing: making recordings without a standardized reference. --scott OK, as I just told George, I have made the statement a few times here and elsewhere that it ain't a recording until it gets played back, and you can't tell what someone else that you send it to will hear on it. This could open up a whole nuther side discussion, describing the sound of a recording or the sound of some particular system. But let's set that aside for a moment, and ask you what you are monitoring on? What is your ultimate system? Gary |
#278
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"Tobiah" wrote in message ... On 09/28/2013 03:58 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Check this out: https://www.zoom-na.com/ The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer, multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box! Gary Eickmeier Now that you have the unit, can you put some of this into perspective now that you have had some limited experience with it? Tobiah Tobiah - I think I lost the Email on which I described the features etc to you. Might have it at work, but could you re-post that here from your computer? Then I would like to go further into it in another thread because this one is getting out of control. Gary |
#279
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 17:22:28 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
... If I am successful with some more recordings with my various techniques in a decent venue with this concert band I will send you a disc again. Gary, why don't you upload couple of minutes somewhere? |
#280
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
But let's set that aside for a moment, and ask you what you are monitoring on? What is your ultimate system? I've already discussed that. I am monitoring on a pair of NHT A-20s, a pair of Magnepans, and a pair of junk Atlas whizzer-cone boxes, for different things. LEDE configuration. Room is okay, it's not too live and it's very diffuse, but it could probably benefit from even more bass absorption. I tend to like the Magnepans but as I said earlier, they do not translate very well to other speaker systems and I tend to use them because I have a personal desire for a more distant presentation than the customers usually do; I like to sit back in the balcony. This is not by any means either a typical or a high-end control room for classical work and I would not recommend it for someone learning to mix and track. It is built to deal with some of my personal handicaps. My ultimate system would have more to do with the room than the speakers, but I'd pick something like the Masterdisc room with the Griffin monitors. Francis Manzella design, very very clean room. Sight lines aren't very good but the sound is excellent, and these days video monitoring is making the need for good sight lines into tracking space less important. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Zoom H2n | High End Audio | |||
Zoom H2n | High End Audio | |||
Zoom H2? | Pro Audio | |||
Zoom H2 vs H4 | Pro Audio | |||
I just got the Zoom H2 | Pro Audio |