| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: JA has an ax to grind and turf to protect. That he would contest the findings and designs of Roy Allison exhibits more hubris than I can calculate. What findings? I asked Allison about the comments made by JA regarding having horizontally located drivers on panels angled away from directly ahead. (Spacing them this way would simulate what we also get with panel systems having drivers that are both tall and wide.) According to JA, there would be interference effects similar to what we would get with two drivers placed side by side on a single panel, limiting their ability to disperse widely. I responded that having them on angled panels at 90 degrees from each other creates a whole new ball game. No, I was referring to the driver issue to which John Stone replied. However, why let me do the explaining? Here is the word from Allison himself: "At frequencies above about a half wavelength a baffle effectively limits radiation to a maximum angle of 90 degrees around a driver mounted symmetrically in its smallest dimension -- in other words, to 2 pi steradians. For the two woofers in a Model One or IC-20 this doesn't apply, but the distance between the woofers isn't great enough for cancellation to occur within their range. The tweeter radiation can't go around a right-angle corner at all, and for the mids there is the slight beginning of interference at the bottom of their range -- but the crossover and the mid's inherent Q value are designed to compensate for that minor effect." End of his comment. Enjoy your speakers. Measurements, please. Stephen |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Yeah. Incidentally, I profiled JJ, too in the Encyclopedia, even though I disagree with him about the impact of crossover frequencies between the 40 and 90 Hz range. I simply cannot see the big deal. The location of the satellites have a much more profound impact on the perceived sense of bass spaciousness than the use of dual subs or ultra-low crossover points. Him, expert. You, not. For someone preaching about theoretical limits of hifi, you're incurious about the real thing. Very often, audio experts are trying to make an audio system do something that is fine for "interesting" hi-fi, but not particularly important when it comes to reproducing sound or simulating live music in a home-listening environment. That's odd. Reports of jj's special recording and playback system emphasized an astounding accomplishment in reproducing sound in a environment that mimicked home-listening. Heck, JJ and I also went round and round about rock music as a reference for subjective evaluations. He said it would work fine and I said that in most instances it would not. Classical (meaning baroque, classical, romantic era, etc.) works far better. Go with what you know. Accept that others know different. Stephen |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: You are speculating about a tweeter design that you have not even analyzed with the laser device. You just assume that the driver must have problems or anomalies. Ahem. |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Yeah. Incidentally, I profiled JJ, too in the Encyclopedia, even though I disagree with him about the impact of crossover frequencies between the 40 and 90 Hz range. I simply cannot see the big deal. The location of the satellites have a much more profound impact on the perceived sense of bass spaciousness than the use of dual subs or ultra-low crossover points. Him, expert. You, not. However, one popular definition says that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. The point is that JJ's area of most renowned expertise related to perceptual coders. That's some distance from speakers in general. However, since joint stereo is an issue with both sat/sub speaker systems and perceptual coders, there can be technology transfer in some areas. For someone preaching about theoretical limits of hifi, you're incurious about the real thing. Since I've been doing a lot of recording, I'm tending towards the opinion that a person who is really interested in pursuing audio realism needs to do a lot of recording. For example, intensity stereo is a key concept in understanding many approaches towards realistic recordings. However, actually doing it and experimenting with in concert venues cuts through a lot that is fuzzy if all you know about is the theory. Very often, audio experts are trying to make an audio system do something that is fine for "interesting" hi-fi, but not particularly important when it comes to reproducing sound or simulating live music in a home-listening environment. That's odd. Reports of jj's special recording and playback system emphasized an astounding accomplishment in reproducing sound in a environment that mimicked home-listening. It's been long enough since JJ demoed his system to Atkinson, that I daresay it would have greater visibility now, if it really had a lot of merit. I can think of two main reasons why it may not have gone anyplace. Either it really didn't work that well, or it infringed someone else's patents that were still in force. Heck, JJ and I also went round and round about rock music as a reference for subjective evaluations. This would be one area where Ferstler gets to be wrong. He said it would work fine and I said that in most instances it would not. I don't agree with JJ about anything even though we are both borg. But, I surely agree with him about this. Classical (meaning baroque, classical, romantic era, etc.) works far better. Yawn. |
|
#245
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: John Stone wrote: On 4/13/05 9:33 PM, in article , "Howard Ferstler" wrote: Note that I said "pulsating hemisphere" and not "pulsating sphere." If you are going to take jabs at me, at least get your quotes correct. In any case, there is no "proof," per se, other than two things: 1. Allison's description of how the driver worked, which almost by definition proves the point. Howard, Howard, Howard. What were you thinking when you wrote this? Just the facts, Arny. Where is it written in stone that Allison had the foggiest notion of how the driver *actually* worked? Well, he actually diagrammed its design and how it was configured to work in his brochures. He also measured its output quite exactly. By the way, where is it written that the obsession you guys have with tight focus and locked-in sweet spot listening (and subwoofer performance to below the musical range) has anything to do with musical sound-reproduction reality? Indeed, where do we draw the line when beating the old dead horse of amp and CD player performance. I mean, while the tweakos go on and on about how amps sound different, there is the flip side where those who claim they sound the same continue to do tests to prove a point that does not need proving. I mean, the rationals have gotten the message and the crazies would not be swayed by any evidence you come up with. Why go on and on with worrying about it and coming up with more comparison techniques on your web site? If I replaced Allison's name with the name of some foggy-brained golden ear that is a darling of Stereophile like say Ray Kimber, I think you'd get the point. Arny, I am going to assume that you never have seen either Allison's early product brochures (which stand in contrast to the bunkum we get from most other manufacturers of the era) or read any of his published papers. 2. Assorted product reviews over the years that lauded the dispersion qualities of the tweeter. Howard, Howard, Howard. What were you thinking when you wrote this? Just the facts, Arny. Dome tweeters have broad dispersion, especially if they are small - that's what they do. But the Allison tweeter disperses wider, well into the range beyond 45 degrees off axis. One-inch domes start to get directional above 8 kHz. That is not good, Arny. Furthermore, who's to say that braod, nearly hemispherical dispersion is even a good thing? There are a number of reasons why broad dispersion into the treble range, or even throughout the midrange, is a good thing: 1) It allows the designer to keep the critical distance (the point between the direct and reverberant fields) between the listener and speaker stabilized. With directional speakers, this critical distance moves back and forth between the speakers and listener. Depending upon the frequency, the sound is sometimes direct-field dominated and sometimes reverberant-field dominated. With wide-dispersion drivers the critical distance does not move so much. If a speaker is going to be directional, it should stay that way over the midrange and treble frequencies, and keep directionality under control. 2) It allows the treble frequencies to be as spacious sounding as the midrange frequencies. With treble beaming, this characteristic is not there. 3) It allows a speaker to soundstage more effectively in typical listening rooms. Placement is also not as critical, as the speaker does not have to be aimed at the listener. 4) Following number three, above, it allows anyone listening from off-axis locations to get the same spectral balance from the speaker as those sitting closer to the speaker's axis. 5) With the midrange being wide dispersing (particularly in comparison with systems that have largish midrange drivers) it reduces the radiation-efficiency sag common at and near the crossover frequency. Yes, certain horn designs overcome this, but the result is a speaker that spotlights sound instead of spreading it out along the soundstage. How does this constitute any proof? It works that way because Allison says it does? Agreed. Allison does not know everything there is to know about speakers. His knowlege is like all knowlege about the real world that there is - its subject to being improved upon. Right. But if we are going to improve things, let's at least head off into the right direction. Most audio buffs are interested in things that make speakers seem more hi-fi like than more realistic sounding. They treasure microscopic detail over soundstaging realism. Well, given their musical tastes, I suppose soundstaging realism is really not all that big a deal for them. I have to assume here that you either: 1) Think that Allison fudged the data. What data? Show me a polar plot for Allison;s speakers in a form that meets current professional standards for characterising the directionality of a speaker for use by professionals. Well, Allison has been out of business for years. (The "new" company does not count, since he is not head man.) He did supply me with some polar curves, but they no doubt would not suit your purposes. He also ran on and off-axis curves (out to 90 degrees off axis) for the midrange and tweeter drivers. Those were readily available. According to the brochure info, "the measurement conditions were sine-wave input signal applied through the system's crossover network [remember, I have noted that Allison designed the drivers and crossover together as a system]. The driver was flush mounted off center on a baffle one-meter square. A B&K model 4135 microphone 10 inches from the center of the driver was used, the recorder paper speed was 3 mm per second. The pen writing speed was 50 mm per second." I am not sure how standardized these measurements would be these days, but they are surely more precise than what most other companies were printing about their system drivers back in 1980. Actually, did those curves run for the speakers noted below include descriptions of the microphones used, recorder paper speed and pen-writing speed? In case you don't know what that looks like, here are some examples from some leading manufacturers: http://www.electrovoice.com/Electrovoice3/files.nsf/Pages/Zx5-90/$file/Zx5-90_EDS.pdf http://www.jblpro.com/srx700/PDF/JBL.SRX715.pdf http://www.jblpro.com/LSR/PDF/JBL.LSR6328P.pdf OK, these are pro-grade speakers, designed for monitoring work and also designed to stress focus, detail, and imaging over soundstaging realism. Regarding the information packaging itself, how many standard consumer-oriented manufacturers put out data like this? Remember, Allison was marketing towards knowledgeable audio buffs and not recording engineers. If he had wanted to market to the pros, he probably would have included still more data. Although I could not make out all the info on the graphs (perhaps I need a better monitor), it appears to me that polar response out to wide off-axis angles was not a priority item with any of those speakers. What was a priority was the ability to project a focussed direct-field signal to engineers sitting at a control panel. Fine for adjusting recording parameters, but not too cool in a home-listening environment, at least not in my opinion. Actually, I thought one of the JBL Pro units (the one with the 15-inch woofer) was probably especially unsuitable for really good sound reproduction in a home-audio environment. Way, way too directional, as anyone can tell from looking at the polar curves. Mark Davis, who designed the original dbx speaker (and also helped to develop Dolby AC-3), used polar curves like that with his info package for the speaker to show just what was WRONG with the directional speakers of that era. And that era was two decades ago. Those speakers you noted are still stuck in the same rut as the ones Davis described. Speakers like that are fine for tight-imaging freaks, however. The Electro-Voice model seemed no better than the 15-inch JBL unit. Speakers like that are a joke for home-audio use, as far as I am concerned. All three systems reflect the current obsession with tight imaging and a strong direct-field signal and not the ability of a system to present a blended soundfield in a home-listening environment. or 2) Think that Allison does not know what he is doing. He did what a long, long time ago. Contrary to what seems to be your beliefs Howard, or those of Cal, speaker technology has advanced in the past decade or two (in your case) or 4 or 5 (in Cal's case). Cal? What is this Cal stuff? Given that I have compared the big Allison models I have on hand to a number of very fine other designs by Dunlavy, Waveform, Triad, NHT, and even Polk, I am more confident than ever that Allison's "old" products can hold their own with the best now available, in spite of all of those driver and crossover-related breakthroughs mentioned or implied by both you and John Stone. Howard Ferstler |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Brother Horace the Pecunious intoned: Brother Horace the Overly Fussy said: For some people, that last octave or half octave is pretty important, particularly if they listen in a fairly large room. Notably, this is nonsense in the context of chamber music. Well, I was not referring to chamber music Your obsession, even monomania, with chamber music is well known. Thus it is proven that you are a dickless blowhard. You always seem to be here, Middius. Get a life. Howard Ferstler |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Stephen Pal, you would have to use a LOT of wire to effect a proper delay line for that concentric-ring design. You would practically have to make it several miles long. Howard Ferstler |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: What findings? I asked Allison about the comments made by JA regarding having horizontally located drivers on panels angled away from directly ahead. (Spacing them this way would simulate what we also get with panel systems having drivers that are both tall and wide.) According to JA, there would be interference effects similar to what we would get with two drivers placed side by side on a single panel, limiting their ability to disperse widely. I responded that having them on angled panels at 90 degrees from each other creates a whole new ball game. No, I was referring to the driver issue to which John Stone replied. John Stone is a driver salesman. I replied at length to his commentary elsewhere. Go find it. However, why let me do the explaining? Here is the word from Allison himself: "At frequencies above about a half wavelength a baffle effectively limits radiation to a maximum angle of 90 degrees around a driver mounted symmetrically in its smallest dimension -- in other words, to 2 pi steradians. For the two woofers in a Model One or IC-20 this doesn't apply, but the distance between the woofers isn't great enough for cancellation to occur within their range. The tweeter radiation can't go around a right-angle corner at all, and for the mids there is the slight beginning of interference at the bottom of their range -- but the crossover and the mid's inherent Q value are designed to compensate for that minor effect." End of his comment. Enjoy your speakers. Measurements, please. Stephen I'll supply some as soon as you come up with some for your speakers. Incidentally, I hit this group every two or three days for an hour or two and yet when I do you are ALWAYS here, right on the spot answering my posts. Like Middius, you need to get out more. Howard Ferstler |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. And a bunch of wire. Do you think this implementation degrades the sound of Quads? Would call the circuitry "esoteric"? Stephen |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Heck, JJ and I also went round and round about rock music as a reference for subjective evaluations. This would be one area where Ferstler gets to be wrong. Not this time. Rock music is recorded to be an end in itself, mostly (exceptions exist). However, classical music, at least done right, is recorded to be a simulation of a live-music event. Just ask any classical-music recording engineer. The problem with rock-music freaks who lionize audio gear is that they need to justify their obsession with state of the art audio. If rock music could not be used as a reference when evaluating audio hardware, then the whole idea of super-duper audio gear for listening to rock music becomes a waste of time and a joke. Juke boxes do just as well. It must be tough to be both a rock-music lover (hard to see how an adult could be this way, but some people persist at being adolescents well into adulthood) and a hi-fi enthusiast. Howard Ferstler |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. Finally, some support from you instead of vituperation. Howard Ferstler |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. And a bunch of wire. Do you think this implementation degrades the sound of Quads? Would call the circuitry "esoteric"? Introducing intentional, broad-bandwidth delays between driver elements in a system would have to involve esoteric circuitry. Hey, I never said it would not work, or that it would introduce the kind of distortions that I would find offensive. However, the use of such hardware has to give pause to purists such as yourself. Howard Ferstler |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Yeah. Incidentally, I profiled JJ, too in the Encyclopedia, even though I disagree with him about the impact of crossover frequencies between the 40 and 90 Hz range. I simply cannot see the big deal. The location of the satellites have a much more profound impact on the perceived sense of bass spaciousness than the use of dual subs or ultra-low crossover points. Him, expert. You, not. However, one popular definition says that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. Like being an expert on the definition of 'expert'. The point is that JJ's area of most renowned expertise related to perceptual coders. That's some distance from speakers in general. However, since joint stereo is an issue with both sat/sub speaker systems and perceptual coders, there can be technology transfer in some areas. I refer to his recording/playback system: Perceptual Soundfield Reconstruction. The relevance to Howard is the necessity of preserving bass directionality. For someone preaching about theoretical limits of hifi, you're incurious about the real thing. Since I've been doing a lot of recording, I'm tending towards the opinion that a person who is really interested in pursuing audio realism needs to do a lot of recording. For example, intensity stereo is a key concept in understanding many approaches towards realistic recordings. However, actually doing it and experimenting with in concert venues cuts through a lot that is fuzzy if all you know about is the theory. I've recorded live concerts, but haven't engineered them in the sense of choosing mics and their positions. So I've experienced live mic feeds and done editing (novel at the time, but commonplace now). Very often, audio experts are trying to make an audio system do something that is fine for "interesting" hi-fi, but not particularly important when it comes to reproducing sound or simulating live music in a home-listening environment. That's odd. Reports of jj's special recording and playback system emphasized an astounding accomplishment in reproducing sound in a environment that mimicked home-listening. It's been long enough since JJ demoed his system to Atkinson, that I daresay it would have greater visibility now, if it really had a lot of merit. I can think of two main reasons why it may not have gone anyplace. Either it really didn't work that well, or it infringed someone else's patents that were still in force. http://www.att.com/attlabs/products/portfolio.html Give it a shot. I'd guess it works, but that it's not suitable for the normal way of recording pop music. Heck, JJ and I also went round and round about rock music as a reference for subjective evaluations. This would be one area where Ferstler gets to be wrong. Elevating one's preference can often be wrong. He said it would work fine and I said that in most instances it would not. I don't agree with JJ about anything even though we are both borg. But, I surely agree with him about this. Go with what you know. Classical (meaning baroque, classical, romantic era, etc.) works far better. Yawn. Classical was more useful when more people knew what it sounds like. Stephen |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. Finally, some support from you instead of vituperation. There's wire, too. Do you think those capacitors and inductors change the sound for the worse? Stephen |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brother Horace the Underappreciated said to the Krooborg: Finally, some support from you instead of vituperation. As if there were a difference..... |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. And a bunch of wire. Do you think this implementation degrades the sound of Quads? Would call the circuitry "esoteric"? Introducing intentional, broad-bandwidth delays between driver elements in a system would have to involve esoteric circuitry. Which of these is esoteric?: wire capacitors inductors Hey, I never said it would not work, or that it would introduce the kind of distortions that I would find offensive. However, the use of such hardware has to give pause to purists such as yourself. It's about the same as what goes into the crossover of a point-source conventional speaker. Stephen |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brother Horace the Whiney whined: Brother Horace the Pecunious intoned: Brother Horace the Overly Fussy said: For some people, that last octave or half octave is pretty important, particularly if they listen in a fairly large room. Notably, this is nonsense in the context of chamber music. Well, I was not referring to chamber music Your obsession, even monomania, with chamber music is well known. Thus it is proven that you are a dickless blowhard. You always seem to be here, Middius. I'll take that as an admission of your abject defeat. Thanks for playing, and too bad you're impotent. |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Yeah. Incidentally, I profiled JJ, too in the Encyclopedia, even though I disagree with him about the impact of crossover frequencies between the 40 and 90 Hz range. I simply cannot see the big deal. The location of the satellites have a much more profound impact on the perceived sense of bass spaciousness than the use of dual subs or ultra-low crossover points. Him, expert. You, not. For someone preaching about theoretical limits of hifi, you're incurious about the real thing. Very often, audio experts are trying to make an audio system do something that is fine for "interesting" hi-fi, but not particularly important when it comes to reproducing sound or simulating live music in a home-listening environment. Heck, JJ and I also went round and round about rock music as a reference for subjective evaluations. He said it would work fine and I said that in most instances it would not. In most instances (recordings) neither are much good but in some instances(recordings) either will work quite well. Classical (meaning baroque, classical, romantic era, etc.) works far better. Scott Wheeler |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: What findings? I asked Allison about the comments made by JA regarding having horizontally located drivers on panels angled away from directly ahead. (Spacing them this way would simulate what we also get with panel systems having drivers that are both tall and wide.) According to JA, there would be interference effects similar to what we would get with two drivers placed side by side on a single panel, limiting their ability to disperse widely. I responded that having them on angled panels at 90 degrees from each other creates a whole new ball game. No, I was referring to the driver issue to which John Stone replied. John Stone is a driver salesman. I replied at length to his commentary elsewhere. Go find it. You're quick to dismiss experts, aren't you? Wasn't Allison a speaker salesman? However, why let me do the explaining? Here is the word from Allison himself: "At frequencies above about a half wavelength a baffle effectively limits radiation to a maximum angle of 90 degrees around a driver mounted symmetrically in its smallest dimension -- in other words, to 2 pi steradians. For the two woofers in a Model One or IC-20 this doesn't apply, but the distance between the woofers isn't great enough for cancellation to occur within their range. The tweeter radiation can't go around a right-angle corner at all, and for the mids there is the slight beginning of interference at the bottom of their range -- but the crossover and the mid's inherent Q value are designed to compensate for that minor effect." End of his comment. Enjoy your speakers. Measurements, please. I'll supply some as soon as you come up with some for your speakers. I've supplied links to several measurements and referred you to a book with technical descriptions, diagrams and pictures. Oh, what was that quote? "I have better things to do...than cater to your requirements at this time." Incidentally, I hit this group every two or three days for an hour or two and yet when I do you are ALWAYS here, right on the spot answering my posts. Like Middius, you need to get out more. Coincidence. I don't think I posted at all Friday and Saturday. You reply quickly yourself. Why don't you get out? Stephen |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Heck, JJ and I also went round and round about rock music as a reference for subjective evaluations. This would be one area where Ferstler gets to be wrong. Not this time. Yep this time and most of the time. Rock music is recorded to be an end in itself, mostly (exceptions exist). Clearly you don't know much about the subject. However, classical music, at least done right, is recorded to be a simulation of a live-music event. Just ask any classical-music recording engineer. So are many rock records. The problem with rock-music freaks who lionize audio gear is that they need to justify their obsession with state of the art audio. Nonsense. Rock benefits from SOTA playback. If rock music could not be used as a reference when evaluating audio hardware, then the whole idea of super-duper audio gear for listening to rock music becomes a waste of time and a joke. Juke boxes do just as well. You are an idiot. It must be tough to be both a rock-music lover (hard to see how an adult could be this way, but some people persist at being adolescents well into adulthood) and a hi-fi enthusiast. I'm sure it is hard for a moron such as yourself. Scott Wheeler |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Stephen Pal, you would have to use a LOT of wire to effect a proper delay line for that concentric-ring design. You would practically have to make it several miles long. At last! Yes, Quad use a LOT of wire, plus some phase tricks. http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...16/index6.html "These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11 miles of wire!) which allowed the flat diaphragm to radiate the sound first at the center and last at the periphery, as if it were a radiating sphere--the ideal shape for approximating sound emanating from a point source with an apparent location 12" behind the panels. The single element in the new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind, treble-beaming effect found in speakers with multiple panels. This design meant near-perfect phase coherency, as shown by Quad's show-stopper demos in which two squarewaves, out of phase with each other, are fed to two Quad speakers. A microphone placed between the speakers shows that the two signals cancel out completely, suggesting very low distortion in the speakers." Just the thing if you need to cancel a squarewave. Stephen |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 said to the Feckless Ferstlerian: You reply quickly yourself. Why don't you get out? Harold is afraid of the dark, as you well know. |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: John Stone wrote: On 4/13/05 9:33 PM, in article , "Howard Ferstler" wrote: Note that I said "pulsating hemisphere" and not "pulsating sphere." If you are going to take jabs at me, at least get your quotes correct. In any case, there is no "proof," per se, other than two things: 1. Allison's description of how the driver worked, which almost by definition proves the point. Howard, Howard, Howard. What were you thinking when you wrote this? Just the facts, Arny. Where is it written in stone that Allison had the foggiest notion of how the driver *actually* worked? Well, he actually diagrammed its design and how it was configured to work in his brochures. He also measured its output quite exactly. By the way, where is it written that the obsession you guys have with tight focus and locked-in sweet spot listening (and subwoofer performance to below the musical range) has anything to do with musical sound-reproduction reality? In most books and papers about room acoustics. You really should just break down and buy a used pair of Bose 901s and be done with it. Indeed, where do we draw the line when beating the old dead horse of amp and CD player performance. It would seem somewhere well after 20 years for dorks like you. I mean, while the tweakos go on and on about how amps sound different, there is the flip side where those who claim they sound the same continue to do tests to prove a point that does not need proving. Tests? Like the fraudulant one you published? I mean, the rationals have gotten the message and the crazies would not be swayed by any evidence you come up with. Yeah call me crazy for not finding a fraudulant test unpersuasive. Why go on and on with worrying about it and coming up with more comparison techniques on your web site? Why do you keep coming back to RAO for helpings of humble pie and crow? If I replaced Allison's name with the name of some foggy-brained golden ear that is a darling of Stereophile like say Ray Kimber, I think you'd get the point. Arny, I am going to assume that you never have seen either Allison's early product brochures (which stand in contrast to the bunkum we get from most other manufacturers of the era) or read any of his published papers. 2. Assorted product reviews over the years that lauded the dispersion qualities of the tweeter. Howard, Howard, Howard. What were you thinking when you wrote this? Just the facts, Arny. Dome tweeters have broad dispersion, especially if they are small - that's what they do. But the Allison tweeter disperses wider, well into the range beyond 45 degrees off axis. One-inch domes start to get directional above 8 kHz. That is not good, Arny. Furthermore, who's to say that braod, nearly hemispherical dispersion is even a good thing? There are a number of reasons why broad dispersion into the treble range, or even throughout the midrange, is a good thing: 1) It allows the designer to keep the critical distance (the point between the direct and reverberant fields) between the listener and speaker stabilized. With directional speakers, this critical distance moves back and forth between the speakers and listener. Depending upon the frequency, the sound is sometimes direct-field dominated and sometimes reverberant-field dominated. With wide-dispersion drivers the critical distance does not move so much. If a speaker is going to be directional, it should stay that way over the midrange and treble frequencies, and keep directionality under control. 2) It allows the treble frequencies to be as spacious sounding as the midrange frequencies. With treble beaming, this characteristic is not there. 3) It allows a speaker to soundstage more effectively in typical listening rooms. Placement is also not as critical, as the speaker does not have to be aimed at the listener. 4) Following number three, above, it allows anyone listening from off-axis locations to get the same spectral balance from the speaker as those sitting closer to the speaker's axis. 5) With the midrange being wide dispersing (particularly in comparison with systems that have largish midrange drivers) it reduces the radiation-efficiency sag common at and near the crossover frequency. Yes, certain horn designs overcome this, but the result is a speaker that spotlights sound instead of spreading it out along the soundstage. How does this constitute any proof? It works that way because Allison says it does? Agreed. Allison does not know everything there is to know about speakers. His knowlege is like all knowlege about the real world that there is - its subject to being improved upon. Right. But if we are going to improve things, let's at least head off into the right direction. Most audio buffs are interested in things that make speakers seem more hi-fi like than more realistic sounding. That's funny. Think about it. They treasure microscopic detail over soundstaging realism. Sorry your speakers are so opaque. Resolution and good soundstaging do not have to be an either/or proposition. Well, given their musical tastes, I suppose soundstaging realism is really not all that big a deal for them. You do like to make things up about people who blow the lid off of your religion. I have to assume here that you either: 1) Think that Allison fudged the data. What data? Show me a polar plot for Allison;s speakers in a form that meets current professional standards for characterising the directionality of a speaker for use by professionals. Well, Allison has been out of business for years. Surprise surprise. (The "new" company does not count, since he is not head man.) He did supply me with some polar curves, but they no doubt would not suit your purposes. He also ran on and off-axis curves (out to 90 degrees off axis) for the midrange and tweeter drivers. Those were readily available. According to the brochure info, "the measurement conditions were sine-wave input signal applied through the system's crossover network [remember, I have noted that Allison designed the drivers and crossover together as a system]. The driver was flush mounted off center on a baffle one-meter square. A B&K model 4135 microphone 10 inches from the center of the driver was used, the recorder paper speed was 3 mm per second. The pen writing speed was 50 mm per second." I am not sure how standardized these measurements would be these days, but they are surely more precise than what most other companies were printing about their system drivers back in 1980. Actually, did those curves run for the speakers noted below include descriptions of the microphones used, recorder paper speed and pen-writing speed? In case you don't know what that looks like, here are some examples from some leading manufacturers: http://www.electrovoice.com/Electrovoice3/files.nsf/Pages/Zx5-90/$file/Zx5-90_EDS.pdf http://www.jblpro.com/srx700/PDF/JBL.SRX715.pdf http://www.jblpro.com/LSR/PDF/JBL.LSR6328P.pdf OK, these are pro-grade speakers, designed for monitoring work and also designed to stress focus, detail, and imaging over soundstaging realism. Regarding the information packaging itself, how many standard consumer-oriented manufacturers put out data like this? Remember, Allison was marketing towards knowledgeable audio buffs and not recording engineers. If he had wanted to market to the pros, he probably would have included still more data. Although I could not make out all the info on the graphs (perhaps I need a better monitor), it appears to me that polar response out to wide off-axis angles was not a priority item with any of those speakers. What was a priority was the ability to project a focussed direct-field signal to engineers sitting at a control panel. Fine for adjusting recording parameters, but not too cool in a home-listening environment, at least not in my opinion. Actually, I thought one of the JBL Pro units (the one with the 15-inch woofer) was probably especially unsuitable for really good sound reproduction in a home-audio environment. Way, way too directional, as anyone can tell from looking at the polar curves. Mark Davis, who designed the original dbx speaker (and also helped to develop Dolby AC-3), used polar curves like that with his info package for the speaker to show just what was WRONG with the directional speakers of that era. And that era was two decades ago. Those speakers you noted are still stuck in the same rut as the ones Davis described. Speakers like that are fine for tight-imaging freaks, however. The Electro-Voice model seemed no better than the 15-inch JBL unit. Speakers like that are a joke for home-audio use, as far as I am concerned. All three systems reflect the current obsession with tight imaging and a strong direct-field signal and not the ability of a system to present a blended soundfield in a home-listening environment. IOW they are designed to do a better job of recreating the sound of live music. or 2) Think that Allison does not know what he is doing. He did what a long, long time ago. Contrary to what seems to be your beliefs Howard, or those of Cal, speaker technology has advanced in the past decade or two (in your case) or 4 or 5 (in Cal's case). Cal? What is this Cal stuff? Given that I have compared the big Allison models I have on hand to a number of very fine other designs by Dunlavy, Waveform, Triad, NHT, and even Polk, I am more confident than ever that Allison's "old" products can hold their own with the best now available, in spite of all of those driver and crossover-related breakthroughs mentioned or implied by both you and John Stone. Given your opinion of those crappy Allisons in comparison to real high end speakers like the Dunlavys I am more confident than ever that you are quite deaf, dumb and blind. Scott Wheeler |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Which audio world would that be? Yours or the real one? The one that knows what live music should sound like. In other words, the one in which you rarely inhabit ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. Finally, some support from you instead of vituperation. It helps when you are correct about things, Howard. Howard, I was very polite with you about your errors in those other posts. If you want to see vituperation, look at the corresponding posts from that well-known technical ignoramous, Scott Wheeler. |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. And a bunch of wire. Spoken like someone who has no idea of proper electronic terminology. These particular bunches of wire are the components of a delay line. http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm "An ingenious arrangement of concentric electrodes fed by a sequential delay line produces a sound pressure pattern that is an exact replica of that from an ideal source placed 30cm behind the plane of the diaphragm." http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/ESL...3_history.html "So, finally, what is new about all this? Really, it is a lot of old ideas fitted together. Kellogg in 1929 proposed the connection of a series of electrostatic elements by inductors as a delay line. His idea was to improve efficiency and reduce the power requirement from amplifiers. Shorter of the BBC took out a patent in 1941 describing the connection of a series of annular rings using resistors and Janszen, in 1953, suggested variations on the same theme. "In effect therefore, all I have done is to collect these ideas and add a little work which says that if you can make the device acoustically transparent, then the performance can be predicted. We think this is very important since it enables correction to the performance to be made very easily and after simple laboratory measurements." Peter Walker, June, 1979 AES British Section." "The work of Donovan Ernest Lea Shorter is particularly interesting. you may like to take a look at Shorter's Patent (G.B. Pat. 537,931) diagrams of July 14, 1941, before reading further. OK, so it's connected to a valve driven circuit. However, you see the basis of the delay lines in the ESL '63. Shorter was concerned partly in his work with directivity, and states: "The present invention provides means for bringing about the necessary reduction in source dimensions with rising frequency, and is applicable both to those loudspeakers in which the radiating surface is divided into mechanically independent sections and to those in which there is used a single diaphragm having sufficient internal or external damping to attenuate substantially any transverse wave motion at high frequencies which may be propagated from one part of its surface to another." "The matter of transverse waves upsetting the apple-cart (as it were) is dealt with in the ESL '63 by gently electrically attenuating the signal as it propagates outwards from the central node. Directivity control is, of course, one of the things which Walker was trying to achieve in the '63, and to a large extent succeeded. Do you think this implementation degrades the sound of Quads? Would call the circuitry "esoteric"? I think that the collection of diaphragms driven by a delay line are one of the things that makes a Quad 63 (and later models as we recently discussed) what they are. http://www.quadesl.com/quad_esl63.shtml "It uses a sectionalized panel approach like the original ESL, but unlike the Original, all the stator spacings are the same, and the different audio frequencies are not divided up amongst the different regions of the speaker. However the speakers is divided into regions in the form of concentric rings (see diagram). The audio signal is fed to the concentric rings through a delay line. The signal reaches the innermost ring first and then progresses to the next outer ring. This technique makes the flat panel radiate a wave front that is similar in geometry to a point source located a short distance behind the speaker." |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:54:14 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: I think that laser interferometer analysis of cone or dome behavior probably begins to become a bit obsessive Cue irony loop... I'm still chuckling about the charge of serious comb-filtering on the Quad. |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:54:14 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Which audio world would that be? Yours or the real one? The one that knows what live music should sound like. That sort of leaves you out, doesn't it? |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:43:32 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Dome tweeters have broad dispersion, especially if they are small - that's what they do. But the Allison tweeter disperses wider, well into the range beyond 45 degrees off axis. One-inch domes start to get directional above 8 kHz. That is not good, Arny. There's a simple test that one can do that doesn't even involve test equipment. All one has to do is stand right in front of the tweeter and listen. Then walk around to the side of the speaker. It's pretty clear that the output stays pretty constant to right at the point where you cross the plane of the front of the cabinet. It then falls off dramatically, as you would expect. The difference is quite clear to more conventional designs, where the output starts audibly dropping about 60 degrees off axis. I'll say this about the CD8 - at levels that one would usually consider medium loud, the speaker as a system starts to distort, so it isn't a system that one would use to achieve "realistic" levels of high output music. This wouldn't hold true with the IC-20, which I have heard stay relatively "clean" at pretty impressive output levels. Still, the CD-8 stays coherent at levels that satisfies me about 95% of the time. |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Howard, I was very polite with you about your errors in those other posts. If you want to see vituperation, look at the corresponding posts from that well-known technical ignoramous, Scott Wheeler. If irony would wash your mouth with feces. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. And a bunch of wire. Spoken like someone who has no idea of proper electronic terminology. The amount of wire is actually important to the design. These particular bunches of wire are the components of a delay line. http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm "An ingenious arrangement of concentric electrodes fed by a sequential delay line produces a sound pressure pattern that is an exact replica of that from an ideal source placed 30cm behind the plane of the diaphragm." Thanks for quoting. Howard wouldn't read these links when I posted them earlier. http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/ESL...3_history.html snip "The matter of transverse waves upsetting the apple-cart (as it were) is dealt with in the ESL '63 by gently electrically attenuating the signal as it propagates outwards from the central node. Directivity control is, of course, one of the things which Walker was trying to achieve in the '63, and to a large extent succeeded. There goes Howard's resonance. Do you think this implementation degrades the sound of Quads? Would call the circuitry "esoteric"? I think that the collection of diaphragms driven by a delay line are one of the things that makes a Quad 63 (and later models as we recently discussed) what they are. The concept of identity: well-grasped. http://www.quadesl.com/quad_esl63.shtml "It uses a sectionalized panel approach like the original ESL, but unlike the Original, all the stator spacings are the same, and the different audio frequencies are not divided up amongst the different regions of the speaker. However the speakers is divided into regions in the form of concentric rings (see diagram). The audio signal is fed to the concentric rings through a delay line. The signal reaches the innermost ring first and then progresses to the next outer ring. This technique makes the flat panel radiate a wave front that is similar in geometry to a point source located a short distance behind the speaker." You haven't shown that you understand how wire contributes to the delay circuit. Even Howard got it eventually. Stephen |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. Finally, some support from you instead of vituperation. It helps when you are correct about things, Howard. Howard figured it out. Stephen |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Howard, I was very polite with you about your errors in those other posts. If you want to see vituperation, look at the corresponding posts from that well-known technical ignoramous, Scott Wheeler. If irony would wash your mouth with feces. Art, I prefer to watch your example rather than following it. |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. Finally, some support from you instead of vituperation. It helps when you are correct about things, Howard. Howard figured it out. Prove it. |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: I have only mentioned what another rather influential and knowledgeable individual wrote about it (well, said about it during a lecture). For all I know, the damned thing hung the moon. But in principle the system has characteristics that should make some purists a bit apprehensive. You haven't said what those are. The esoteric circuitry that allows for broad-bandwidth delays between each concentric ring. It's called 'wire'. You don't think it changes the sound. Wrong. It's a delay line composed of inductors and capacitors, and they are each well-known to change the sound. Finally, some support from you instead of vituperation. It helps when you are correct about things, Howard. Howard figured it out. Prove it. "Pal, you would have to use a LOT of wire to effect a proper delay line for that concentric-ring design. You would practically have to make it several miles long." That's the heart of the delay circuit: a LOT of wire. Stephen |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
IKYABWAIBorg tries sparking his feeble brain. If irony would wash your mouth with feces. Art, I prefer to watch your example rather than following it. That's more than 100 IKYABWAIs from you in 2005, Turdy, and it's only April. I think you've broken your previous record of feebleness. I'm going to take up a collection so you can get your nanites recharged. |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Howard figured it out. Prove it. "Pal, you would have to use a LOT of wire to effect a proper delay line for that concentric-ring design. You would practically have to make it several miles long." Actually, Howard is understating the problem. Light travels about 186,000 miles in a second, which you should know but obviously don't. A mile of wire causes something like 6 microseconds delay due to its length. As they say Stephen, do the math. It's actually simple arithmetic, and even a semi-employed music teacher should be able to do it. Or does the preschool's office keep up your attendance and grade books for you, Stephen? When you're building a speaker, the required delays are up in the milliseconds range. It takes like 166 miles of wire to create one millisecond's worth of delay, if you depend on just the delay due to the length of the wire. I'd bet money that there isn't even one mile of wire inside an ESL-63, let alone 166 miles. The whole idea of using a LCR-based delay line circuit is reducing the amount of wire needed for a delay down to some reasonble amount. The trade-off is that a LCR delay line has limited frequency response, and only approximates ideal performance. That's the heart of the delay circuit: a LOT of wire. Wrong Stephen. Regrettably, I've long known that you are totally incorrigable when you are wrong. Especially when you're so ignorant that you can't understand a proper correction expressed the simplest possible way. Stephen, just keep your day job baby-sitting bored children and don't try to pass yourself off as a circuit designer. |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Howard figured it out. Prove it. "Pal, you would have to use a LOT of wire to effect a proper delay line for that concentric-ring design. You would practically have to make it several miles long." Actually, Howard is understating the problem. Light travels about 186,000 miles in a second, which you should know but obviously don't. A mile of wire causes something like 6 microseconds delay due to its length. As they say Stephen, do the math. It's actually simple arithmetic, and even a semi-employed music teacher should be able to do it. Or does the preschool's office keep up your attendance and grade books for you, Stephen? Ooh, Arny's wearing the grumpy pants! When you're building a speaker, the required delays are up in the milliseconds range. It takes like 166 miles of wire to create one millisecond's worth of delay, if you depend on just the delay due to the length of the wire. What if you manipulate phase to increase the apparent length? And we're not talking about an ordinary box speaker. I'd bet money that there isn't even one mile of wire inside an ESL-63, let alone 166 miles. The whole idea of using a LCR-based delay line circuit is reducing the amount of wire needed for a delay down to some reasonble amount. The trade-off is that a LCR delay line has limited frequency response, and only approximates ideal performance. No, there isn't 166 miles of wire in a Quad, but I'll take that other bet. Unfortunately, it's illegal to bet money in Texas, or I'd be happy to increase my positive cash flow. How does Quad avoid the pitfalls of an LCR delay line? That's the heart of the delay circuit: a LOT of wire. Wrong Stephen. Regrettably, I've long known that you are totally incorrigable when you are wrong. Especially when you're so ignorant that you can't understand a proper correction expressed the simplest possible way. You've never seen a Quad's innards? Didn't one of those pages we cited have a picture of the electronics? Stephen, just keep your day job baby-sitting bored children and don't try to pass yourself off as a circuit designer. Attacking professions. You must be on shaky ground. Stephen |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
