Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: 2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does, they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as the curved versions. Not in my experience. If you look at my measurements of the Innersound Eros' horizontal dispersion -- see http://stereophile.com/loudspeakerre...19/index6.html -- then look at my measurements of the similarly proportioned panel of the MartinLogan Prodigy -- see http://www.stereophile.com//loudspea...90/index5.html -- you can see that the Prodigy's curved panel does indeed offer wider treble dispersion. But still not particularly wide, compared to what good dynamic speakers with smallish midrange (2 to 4 inch) and tweeter (3/4 to one inch) drivers can do. Did you look at these dispersion graphs, Mr. Ferstler? Yes, the flat panel of the Innersound speaker has the very restricted treble radiation pattern to which you were referring but the MartinLogan doesn't, thus proving your first statement above incorrect in all aspects. compare the radiation patterns of the two electrostatic speakers I referenced above. Whether it is due to the ML's curved diaphragm or to some other factor, their panel does indeed offer quite good lateral dispersion. Out to how many degrees off axis? How hard is it for you to click on a link, Mr. Ferstler? If you actually looked at the dispersion graphs that I published you would find the answer to your question. Needless to say, my Allison IC-20 systems satisfy most wide-dispersion requirements. Except that these speakers do not have wide dispersion, Mr. Ferstler, nor have you provided any measurements that support this claim. Do not have wide dispersion? Give me a break. Do not posture about this, John. You know as well as I that whatever one may think of the Allison designs, poor dispersion is not one of their characteristics. I am not "posturing," whatever you mean by that word, Mr. Ferstler. You have written at length about the supposed wide dispersion of the Allison tweeter, but it appears to be no better than any other 3/4" unit in this respect. I note also that you have also _not_ measured its dispersion. In addition, 1) it is naive for you to assume that the drive-unit's dispersion is not modified by the speaker baffle and 2) no matter how wide the tweeter's dispersion, this will be radically altered by the use of _two_ of them. Two laterally spaced tweeters offer a narrower horizontal radiation pattern than one alone. The original reviews of the IC-20 systems by both High Fidelity Magazine and Stereo Review commented upon their ultra-wide dispersion. But what measurements did those magazines publish to support that contention? And how where those measurements performed? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I can't remember the late Julian Hirsch performing either polar plots or the waterfall dispersion plots that I perform in Stereo Review. And again if I remember correctly, High Fidelity only performed sound _power_ measurements. Even if the systems had only one forward-facing panel they would have those Allison drivers dispersing widely clear out to 90 degrees off axis. But without measured support for this statement, you have no basis to make it, unless you label it as being your _opinion_. However, they have dual panels, each angled out 45 degrees from dead ahead, meaning that they have extremely wide dispersion to each side and out to 135 degrees off axis. No, this results in _narrower_ dispersion on the primary frontal axis, with complex lobing apparent. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. These days a lot of organs don't have 32 foot pipes, they have electronics and subwoofers instead. Even pipe organs sneak 'em in. Exactly. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Given that Stephen is still flogging the dead vinyl horse, he's got a lot of incentive to have a system with weak basss. Deep bass and vinyl are hard to mix. Furthermore, a lot of vinyl has the deep bass removed or mono-ized in the interest of having a recording that people could actually play. On the best day of vinyl's life, deep bass meant short sides. Dude, the cd player's hooked up to the same system. So what? So my choice of a speaker with relatively limited bass is unrelated to my including a turntable in my system. Stephen |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
In , dave weil wrote :
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:25:57 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? Why Dave I have just shared some musical tastes with a guy ? All the rest was coming from you. You are a proven liar Dave... An artist of the accordion debating trade. :-D |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
In , dave weil wrote :
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:28:44 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. It's just a guess though. Do you measured the exact frequency ? Look up the words "possibly" and "guess" and maybe you'll have the answer to your question (even as you butchered it in the English language). I am just interested in trying to explain the value : "8 hz". How can you know that it wasn't 12 or 11 or 7 hz. I'm just smiling because this precision is a little bit ridicule and prove, one more time, that you really don't know what you are speaking about. You are more and more grotesque, Dave. I feel sorry for you. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:22:24 +0200, Lionel
wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:25:57 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? Why Dave I have just shared some musical tastes with a guy ? All the rest was coming from you. Ummm, I was talking with Howard when you butted in. But that's cool. You just butt in whenever you like. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. These days a lot of organs don't have 32 foot pipes, they have electronics and subwoofers instead. Even pipe organs sneak 'em in. Exactly. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Given that Stephen is still flogging the dead vinyl horse, he's got a lot of incentive to have a system with weak basss. Deep bass and vinyl are hard to mix. Furthermore, a lot of vinyl has the deep bass removed or mono-ized in the interest of having a recording that people could actually play. On the best day of vinyl's life, deep bass meant short sides. Dude, the cd player's hooked up to the same system. So what? So my choice of a speaker with relatively limited bass is unrelated to my including a turntable in my system. Yeah, sure. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:29:11 +0200, Lionel
wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:28:44 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. It's just a guess though. Do you measured the exact frequency ? Look up the words "possibly" and "guess" and maybe you'll have the answer to your question (even as you butchered it in the English language). I am just interested in trying to explain the value : "8 hz". How can you know that it wasn't 12 or 11 or 7 hz. Mainly because I suspected that it was below the former (which I have heard as a confirmed value) and above the latter, which I have never heard. It might have been 9 hz, it might have been 10 hz. That's why I estimated 8 hz. I'm just smiling because this precision is a little bit ridicule and prove, one more time, that you really don't know what you are speaking about. It WASN'T precision, by definition, since I said "possibly" and further qualified it by saying "It's just a guess though". You sure are desperate to take me to task for anything but this is really graspig at straws. You are more and more grotesque, Dave. I feel sorry for you. You've GOT to be kidding. This little exercise of yours is the grotesque thing and truly pitiable. But feel free to keep banging your head against the wall... |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:25:57 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? OTH, anything with a bellows is appropriate for Lionel ----== 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 =---- |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Me: So my choice of a speaker with relatively limited bass is unrelated to my including a turntable in my system. Yeah, sure. Weak. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
In , dave weil wrote :
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:22:24 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:25:57 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? Why Dave I have just shared some musical tastes with a guy ? All the rest was coming from you. Ummm, I was talking with Howard when you butted in. Once again you are a *liar* Dave Weil. You wasn't discussing with Howard you was attacking Arnold Krueger. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Speakers are the weakest link De:dave weil Date:Mardi 12 Avril 2005 17:34:11 Forums:rec.audio.opinion On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: andy wrote: I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems, 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one). So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later models? So much for Arnold's knowledge. There's only one "later model". -------------------------------------------------------------------------- But that's cool. You just butt in whenever you like. You are a *pitiful* liar Dave Weil, deal with it |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
In , dave weil wrote :
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:29:11 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:28:44 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. It's just a guess though. Do you measured the exact frequency ? Look up the words "possibly" and "guess" and maybe you'll have the answer to your question (even as you butchered it in the English language). I am just interested in trying to explain the value : "8 hz". How can you know that it wasn't 12 or 11 or 7 hz. Mainly because I suspected that it was below the former (which I have heard as a confirmed value) What have been confirmed the source signal oo the restitued one ? Have you heard it or have you felt it ? How many time have you heard this signal ? How long before the Dead concert ? and above the latter, which I have never heard. It might have been 9 hz, it might have been 10 hz. That's why I estimated 8 hz. How can you know that it wasn't 11 hz ? |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
In , Clyde Slick wrote :
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:25:57 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? OTH, anything with a bellows is appropriate for Lionel This coming from the weakest regular of this NG. A coward who has publicly abjured his faith... Disgusting !!!! |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Me: So my choice of a speaker with relatively limited bass is unrelated to my including a turntable in my system. Yeah, sure. Weak. Agreed Stephen, your comment was very weak. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Me: So my choice of a speaker with relatively limited bass is unrelated to my including a turntable in my system. Yeah, sure. Weak. Agreed Stephen, your comment was very weak. Thanks. I won a bet. Stephen |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Me: So my choice of a speaker with relatively limited bass is unrelated to my including a turntable in my system. Yeah, sure. Weak. Agreed Stephen, your comment was very weak. Thanks. I won a bet. Next time Stephen bet with someone other than yourself, and you'll show a positive cash flow. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 said: Thanks. I won a bet. There's somebody willing to bet Krooger won't say something stupid? Lemme at him! |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote in message ... In , Clyde Slick wrote : "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:25:57 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? OTH, anything with a bellows is appropriate for Lionel This coming from the weakest regular of this NG. A coward who has publicly abjured his faith... Disgusting !!!! Even though I don't attend synagogue, my yalmake is still not for sale. ----== 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 =---- |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Me: So my choice of a speaker with relatively limited bass is unrelated to my including a turntable in my system. Yeah, sure. Weak. Agreed Stephen, your comment was very weak. Well that certainly was 'robust'!! ----== 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 =---- |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:55:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? Why Dave I have just shared some musical tastes with a guy ? All the rest was coming from you. Ummm, I was talking with Howard when you butted in. Once again you are a *liar* Dave Weil. You wasn't discussing with Howard you was attacking Arnold Krueger. I replied to: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This was completely separate from my off-hand comment (proven wrong, BTW) to Arnold. This was in a technical discussion about Quad that Howard was making. This reply from me reply had NOTHING to do with Mr. Krueger. You lose. Again. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:04:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:29:11 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:28:44 +0200, Lionel wrote: In , dave weil wrote : I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. It's just a guess though. Do you measured the exact frequency ? Look up the words "possibly" and "guess" and maybe you'll have the answer to your question (even as you butchered it in the English language). I am just interested in trying to explain the value : "8 hz". How can you know that it wasn't 12 or 11 or 7 hz. Mainly because I suspected that it was below the former (which I have heard as a confirmed value) What have been confirmed the source signal oo the restitued one ? This is unintelligible. Have you heard it or have you felt it ? Both. At 12 hz, you do both. The dB level of the signal was fairly loud, but it was nowhere near that of the Dead show, which was SURELY at 115 dB+ (but don't worry, I'm not going to say anything more than that). How many time have you heard this signal ? Once. How long before the Dead concert ? Quite a few years. and above the latter, which I have never heard. It might have been 9 hz, it might have been 10 hz. That's why I estimated 8 hz. How can you know that it wasn't 11 hz ? I can't. That's why I qualified my remark TWICE. Heck, it could have been 12 hz. Or 6 hz (although since my pants remained clean, I doubt that it was that low). If you can't take the statement for what it was, I suggest that you calm down and have some French water. Or a nice Tokay. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:52:28 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: You are correct. Most people do not really need a subwoofer for music, especially classical music. I have A/B compared my IC-20s running full range against the same speakers with the Velodyne F1800 helping out and compared my Dunlavy Cantatas running full range against the same speakers with the Hsu TN1220 helping out, and the vast majority of the time there is no difference that would matter to anybody. Wouldn't it be "sensible" for you to argue against spending $2800 for something that *might* be used once in a blue moon? For some people, that last octave or half octave is pretty important, particularly if they listen in a fairly large room. I spent $120 on an overstock AR subwoofer that's good down to something like 28 hz. Hsu and SVS both make under $1000 subs that can go flat to 20 Hz, and I have two of them on hand at my place right now. Admittedly, the SVS is an early production model that I have since modified to bring it up to current company standards. I have reviewed both for The Sensible Sound, and also wrote about the mods I did to the SVS. I have compared some so-called "mid-priced" subs (several in the $500 class, for instance, including a couple made by companies who know what they are doing when it comes to full-range speakers) that were supposedly decent down to 25 Hz or so to several of the lower-priced models made by Hsu and SVS (meaning subs that cost from $300 to $500) and those Hsu and SVS models mopped up the floor with them. This involved both musical and test-tone inputs, with level matching and quick switching. It was sometimes shocking to see how much coloration those other subs generated compared to the SVS and Hsu units, although it was clearly most noticeable with those test-tone inputs. I have formally reviewed those Hsu and SVS systems in The Sensible Sound, by the way, and keep two of the Hsu units on hand for the kind of comparison purposes mentioned above. Just because a sub is "good down to something like 28 Hz" does not qualify it as really all that good down to that frequency. What you have may work just fine, but I do suggest getting a good test disc (Delos has a good one in a two-disc set, and Hi-Fi News and Record Review also produced one a few years back) and doing some interesting work with them. Such a device can help with rock music, however, mainly because it will prevent the punchy, moderately low bass from pulverizing the woofers in typical full-range systems Hardly. "Moderately low bass" is easily handled by most "full-range" systems. Hell, my Allison CD-8s can easily handle all rock music except for the most extreme volume levels. You are right, but I probably misstated my case. At modest levels you will have no problem. However, in a big room (3000+ cubic feet or larger) pushing for rock-music levels (at least with some program sources) is going to get those otherwise fine woofers into trouble. Those systems have very good and output-flat low-bass performance down to about 45 Hz, with clean but significantly attenuated response right down to 30 Hz. Below that frequency, all bets are off, but as you noted, with rock music no bets need be taken, at least at reasonable volume levels in typically sized rooms Howard Ferstler |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:52:28 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: BTW, the temple that I attended in my youth HAD 32 ft pipes (IIRC) and would occasionally utilize them. The whole sanctuary would rumble. Wonderful feeling. In any case, now you have a good idea of what a good subwoofer can do in a good room. Oh, I've heard LOTS of low bass. That's part of the live music experience. Only if you attend organ concerts. Remember, bass down to only 40 Hz is not LOW bass. Howard Ferstler |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: The orchestra (opera or otherwise) also does not go particularly low. Any good "woofer" system that is flat to 40 Hz can handle just about anything an orchestra can throw at it. Much of the time this is probably true. Nevertheless, preserving deep bass helps convey part of the sense of being there. Yes. It can do this in two ways, at least with concert-hall presentations. First, a subwoofer can reproduce the low-frequency hall "noise" that surrounds the listener at a live performance. This will be subtle and probably would not be noticed at all unless it was suddenly stopped. (Like hearing a clicking clock stop that you had not previously noticed.) This becomes particularly impressive with surround-sound recordings or stereo recordings that have been given DSP ambiance simulation work. The hall-space sound (which also includes subtle higher-frequency clues, in addition to the ultra-deep bass factor) then realistically envelopes the listener. Unfortunately, a subwoofer may also be able to reproduce the sound of that big truck that was idling its engine outside of the hall during the recording session. Second, it can get that occasional instrumental or soundstage clue (thumping sounds or even combined harmonics like what Stravinsky used at the beginning of The Firebird) that a normal woofer would just not reproduce fully. The effect will be subtle (more subtle than the hall noise mentioned above), but it can be the icing on the kind of cake that serious audio enthusiasts crave. In that case, who cares? Real audiophiles. Yep. As I noted above. That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. These days a lot of organs don't have 32 foot pipes, they have electronics and subwoofers instead. Yep. Ironically, Ed Villchur's Acoustic Research corporation kind of pioneered using AR-1W woofers to augment organ performance decades ago. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Given that Stephen is still flogging the dead vinyl horse, he's got a lot of incentive to have a system with weak basss. One would be hard pressed to obtain a vinyl recording that had genuine deep bass. Supposedly, some were produced, but they were specialty items. These days, many compact discs have deep-bass signals that would shame even so-called super-duper LP releases. Deep bass and vinyl are hard to mix. Furthermore, a lot of vinyl has the deep bass removed or mono-ized in the interest of having a recording that people could actually play. On the best day of vinyl's life, deep bass meant short sides. Yep. Yet, with a CD you can have deep bass on a release that is over 70 minutes long. An LP that could approach that kind of bandwidth (approach but probably not reach) would be lucky to be 15 minutes on a side. Howard Ferstler |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
For a real sense of being there, Howard would embrace stereo/multichannel subs. I have tried it both ways, and found that a big mono sub, crossed over low enough and mounted into a corner, will do the job as well as stereo subs. (It may do even better, because dual subs can generate inter-driver suckout artifacts.) Yes, I know that guys like Dave Griesinger (whom I admire greatly and even profiled in The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound) would disagree. Incidentally, my main system does have dual subs. The F1800 handles the left, right, surround, and LFE channels and a modified SVS unit (driven by a Hsu amp) handles the center-channel bass. The two of them are in the left and right front corners of my main room, about 20 feet apart. Howard Ferstler |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:45:51 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. One thing is for su you did not "hear" it, although you may have heard harmonic overtones. I am curious about what kind of instrument they used to generate an 8 Hz signal. I'm sure that it was synthesized. Maybe a super dbx 120x. I have a standard unit. It would take some work to do the mod. The AudioControl Phase Coupled Activator subharmonic bass generator has a switchable option that allows the user to generate subharmonics that get down REALLY low. (I reviewed one of these devices in issue 68 of The Sensible Sound.) I have found that feature to be musically pointless, however. Other than that, with some pop-music sources the two devices (with the PCA run in its standard mode) can be a lot of fun. Unfortunately, being analog devices, with any direct-digital input neither can be used, meaning that with DVD movies employing the digital hookup they are useless. However, with conventional laserdisc inputs (analog outputs and not DD or DTS outputs) they can soup up older action/adventure movies. Howard Ferstler |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: For a real sense of being there, Howard would embrace stereo/multichannel subs. I have tried it both ways, and found that a big mono sub, crossed over low enough and mounted into a corner, will do the job as well as stereo subs. (It may do even better, because dual subs can generate inter-driver suckout artifacts.) Yes, I know that guys like Dave Griesinger (whom I admire greatly and even profiled in The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound) would disagree. So would that jj guy who used to hang out here. Incidentally, my main system does have dual subs. The F1800 handles the left, right, surround, and LFE channels and a modified SVS unit (driven by a Hsu amp) handles the center-channel bass. The two of them are in the left and right front corners of my main room, about 20 feet apart. I'm sure that's fine for home theater .1, but you're missing out for well-recorded two and three channel. Stephen |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: Arnie: Deep bass and vinyl are hard to mix. Furthermore, a lot of vinyl has the deep bass removed or mono-ized in the interest of having a recording that people could actually play. On the best day of vinyl's life, deep bass meant short sides. Yep. Yet, with a CD you can have deep bass on a release that is over 70 minutes long. An LP that could approach that kind of bandwidth (approach but probably not reach) would be lucky to be 15 minutes on a side. Fortunately, I have a cd player. Stephen |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. Not when it comes to wide-angular dispersion. Howard Ferstler |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:12:16 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:52:28 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: You are correct. Most people do not really need a subwoofer for music, especially classical music. I have A/B compared my IC-20s running full range against the same speakers with the Velodyne F1800 helping out and compared my Dunlavy Cantatas running full range against the same speakers with the Hsu TN1220 helping out, and the vast majority of the time there is no difference that would matter to anybody. Wouldn't it be "sensible" for you to argue against spending $2800 for something that *might* be used once in a blue moon? For some people, that last octave or half octave is pretty important, particularly if they listen in a fairly large room. Well, for some, spending $9000 on a new set of Quads to squeeze out the best of midrange is pretty important. For others, spending $2000 on a used set of Quads for the same purpose might be the ticket. For someone else, spending almost $4 grand on a tube amp that has several modes of operation that gives different audio presentations might be important as well. I wouldn't demand that anyone else take those paths though. I spent $120 on an overstock AR subwoofer that's good down to something like 28 hz. Hsu and SVS both make under $1000 subs that can go flat to 20 Hz, and I have two of them on hand at my place right now. But I didn't want (or need) to spend more than a couple of hundred dollars for a subwoofer. That could certainly change in the future though. I'm just surprised that with all of the mods you've done to your listening room, that you didn't bother to install a Nousaine/Devil approved attic subwoofer. You stopped short of state-of-the-art, didn't ya? |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:13:14 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:52:28 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: BTW, the temple that I attended in my youth HAD 32 ft pipes (IIRC) and would occasionally utilize them. The whole sanctuary would rumble. Wonderful feeling. In any case, now you have a good idea of what a good subwoofer can do in a good room. Oh, I've heard LOTS of low bass. That's part of the live music experience. Only if you attend organ concerts. Remember, bass down to only 40 Hz is not LOW bass. Well, I have attended organ concerts (something that I don't think you've admitted to doing), but I've also heard plenty of sub 40 hz stuff at live rock shows as well. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:30:17 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Incidentally, my main system does have dual subs. The F1800 handles the left, right, surround, and LFE channels and a modified SVS unit (driven by a Hsu amp) handles the center-channel bass. The two of them are in the left and right front corners of my main room, about 20 feet apart. Of course, you can't always tell when both are operational. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:35:53 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:45:51 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. One thing is for su you did not "hear" it, although you may have heard harmonic overtones. I am curious about what kind of instrument they used to generate an 8 Hz signal. I'm sure that it was synthesized. Maybe a super dbx 120x. I have a standard unit That was a joke, Howard. I have the "standard" unit as well, but it's been loaned out for a couple of years. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: But still not particularly wide, compared to what good dynamic speakers with smallish midrange (2 to 4 inch) and tweeter (3/4 to one inch) drivers can do. Did you look at these dispersion graphs, Mr. Ferstler? Yes, the flat panel of the Innersound speaker has the very restricted treble radiation pattern to which you were referring but the MartinLogan doesn't, thus proving your first statement above incorrect in all aspects. OK, the ML system disperses wider. However, it is still no great shakes. Hey, I actually decided to read the reviews (I rarely read your magazine these days, John) and I have to admit that you do a pretty good job. I even had a really good electrical engineer who is a very serious audio buff and audio writer tell me that you were one of the best speaker testers around, and I have stated elsewhere (including in some recording reviews) that you are an excellent recording engineer. However, both he and I remain mystified that you continue to associate yourself with a magazine that often spouts poppycock. Well, perhaps you just need a job. compare the radiation patterns of the two electrostatic speakers I referenced above. Whether it is due to the ML's curved diaphragm or to some other factor, their panel does indeed offer quite good lateral dispersion. Out to how many degrees off axis? How hard is it for you to click on a link, Mr. Ferstler? If you actually looked at the dispersion graphs that I published you would find the answer to your question. I found the 3-D graph rather hard to interpret. Needless to say, my Allison IC-20 systems satisfy most wide-dispersion requirements. Except that these speakers do not have wide dispersion, Mr. Ferstler, nor have you provided any measurements that support this claim. Do not have wide dispersion? Give me a break. Do not posture about this, John. You know as well as I that whatever one may think of the Allison designs, poor dispersion is not one of their characteristics. I am not "posturing," whatever you mean by that word, Mr. Ferstler. You have written at length about the supposed wide dispersion of the Allison tweeter, but it appears to be no better than any other 3/4" unit in this respect. Even John Stone stated that the driver approximates what a 1/2-inch job could do. I have comparison graphs between good 3/4-inch units and the Allison tweeter, and above 8 kHz the latter is easily superior at extreme angles. Above 10 kHz it is no contest. And those extreme angles are important. As I have noted in a couple of magazine articles and also in one of my books, while the angular coverage from 0 to 45 degrees off is the same as from 45 degrees out to 90 degrees, the "area" covered by the latter angle response is almost 2.5 times as large as the area covered by the former. That partially explains why choppy response at wide angles can have a negative impact on speaker sound in typical (not acoustically treated) listening rooms. I note also that you have also _not_ measured its dispersion. Well, I have Roy Allison's own measurements. Perhaps you think that he either fudged the results or did not do the work correctly. In addition, 1) it is naive for you to assume that the drive-unit's dispersion is not modified by the speaker baffle and 2) no matter how wide the tweeter's dispersion, this will be radically altered by the use of _two_ of them. Two laterally spaced tweeters offer a narrower horizontal radiation pattern than one alone. I have polar response curves run by Allison that show you to be in error. But, yes, there are interference effects that will impact the smoothness of the first-arrival signals. This is no big deal to me, but it might be to guys like you and perhaps others who consider tight imaging to be the end-all criteria for good speaker sound. The original reviews of the IC-20 systems by both High Fidelity Magazine and Stereo Review commented upon their ultra-wide dispersion. But what measurements did those magazines publish to support that contention? And how where those measurements performed? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I can't remember the late Julian Hirsch performing either polar plots or the waterfall dispersion plots that I perform in Stereo Review. You write for Stereo Review? I thought that magazine had merged with Video to become Sound & Vision. Hey, just kidding. I know what you mean. But in any case, it is preposterous to assume that a system like the IC-20 has poor dispersion, and I again think that you are basically grandstanding to win some points for your team. And again if I remember correctly, High Fidelity only performed sound _power_ measurements. They measured on-axis performance, front-hemisphere performance, and sound-power performance. Dave Moran has measured the tweeter, as well as the full system (and also a number of other Allison systems) over a wide angle and found it to have exemplary dispersion. Of course, all one has to do is listen to the system when comparing it to a narrower-dispersion job (or even the more forward-facing, single-panel Allison jobs) to realize just how spacious the systems sound. Even if the systems had only one forward-facing panel they would have those Allison drivers dispersing widely clear out to 90 degrees off axis. But without measured support for this statement, you have no basis to make it, unless you label it as being your _opinion_. Well, I have the measurements of those other individuals, and of course one need only look at the system and look at the driver-response curves Allison made available to realize that, ipso facto, the system will have superb dispersion. However, they have dual panels, each angled out 45 degrees from dead ahead, meaning that they have extremely wide dispersion to each side and out to 135 degrees off axis. No, this results in _narrower_ dispersion on the primary frontal axis, with complex lobing apparent. At some frequencies, but not all of them. Also, the angled-panel mounting result in different effects from what you will get with drivers located side-by-side on one panel. If what you say is true, a system with drivers mounted all the way around its horizontal circumference would be the worst dispersing system possible. Howard Ferstler |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:04:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Yep, it works (at least for you and other fans of the speaker), but that does not mean that it works better than a number of other superb designs that are more conventional. But you don't know that. Right. But even you have not compared the speaker directly to other notable designs. You have listened to it open ended, and have no idea how well some competing models might do in comparison. But he's actually HEARD it. How does your statement apply to what YOU'VE written about the speaker? 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. Howard Ferstler |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:35:53 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:45:51 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. One thing is for su you did not "hear" it, although you may have heard harmonic overtones. I am curious about what kind of instrument they used to generate an 8 Hz signal. I'm sure that it was synthesized. Maybe a super dbx 120x. I have a standard unit. It would take some work to do the mod. The AudioControl Phase Coupled Activator subharmonic bass generator has a switchable option that allows the user to generate subharmonics that get down REALLY low. (I reviewed one of these devices in issue 68 of The Sensible Sound.) I have found that feature to be musically pointless, however. Other than that, with some pop-music sources the two devices (with the PCA run in its standard mode) can be a lot of fun. BTW, when I said "synthesized" and mentioned the 120X, it was a play on words. I'm sure that the signal was generated BY A SYNTHESIZER, probably triggered by a sensor on a drum pad. You see, Mickey Hart is a percussionist and this was during his improvisational "drumz/space" segment, which lasted about 20 minutes. I DO have a recording of that very show and it would be interesting to see how much of the signal was captured on the CD. I remember that that shirts flapped and chests tightened. You could feel it in your bones. Thankfully, it only lasted for a few seconds at most. It was close to being painful to the body. BTW, per the new Lionel Convention, I'm not claiming that it was *exactly* 8 hz, as I wasn't wired with a frequency analyzer at the time, but I'm quite sure that it was the lowest "tone" I've ever heard and it was a very high dB level. Here's Mickey's take on the system: http://www.mickeyhart.net/site2003_dev/0617.html Note that they use sound-cancelling technology for the stage performers. And here's the system itself: http://www.meyersound.com/news/2003/dead/index.htm That's EIGHTEEN subwoofers, Howard. THAT'S a high-end "hi-fi", Howard. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Yes, what are they doing instead? They are being electrically delayed by circuitry within the speaker. A real purist would wonder if this was causing some kind of distortion as the delays become longer at the outermost rings. A real realist would study up to see what the mechanism was. Well, one thing for su it involves an analog delay line, and something like that should make a serious audio purist (one who fantasizes about LP recordings, tube amps, green ink, super wires, etc., etc.) a bit nervous. Kessler's presence makes any commentary suspect. But he's a published author. Books, or just articles in tweako magazines? If a delay line is involved, the signal is no longer pristine. But, hey, it may still be clean enough to satisfy guys like you and me. It may offend the sensibilities of the purists, however, although many of them may love the speaker without having a clue about how much signal manipulating is going on inside. Then no "delay line" is involved. There is no way to electrically delay the signals going to the concentric rings without a delay line. The delay requirement basically mandates the use of a delay line in the analog domain. Of course, it seems that you're ignorant of the dispersion qualities of your own favored speakers, so perhaps we can discount your opinion on the matter. Huh? I have polar curves run from the middle bass on up to 16 kHz. Admittedly, Allison ran them, and I suppose that if you think he was a con artist then those polar plots might just be bogus. I don't however. JA had a different view of your tweeter. http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_audio_design/ 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. Howard Ferstler |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:04:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: However, you're speaking from ignorance, and willful ignorance at that. Well, while I have not heard the speakers, I have read about them and I know what inherent disadvantages large panel drivers will exhibit. In addition to the Lip****z paper I have mentioned, I have the simple common-sense issue of having a large radiating area sending signals to a small receptor (the ear). The signals from that large area surface cannot all reach the ear simultaneously. As a result, you get substantial comb-filtering artifacts. Hardly. Not in the case of the Quads. Nonsense. Just take a tape measure and compare the different distances from the extreme edges of the moving diaphragm to the ear with the distance from the center to the ear. Obviously, there are going to be cancellation artifacts (comb filtering) within the direct-field signals because of this. If you examime the dimensions of the speaker, you might realize why you are wrong in this case, especailly when you compare the dimensions with the dimensions of *your* speaker's array. I never said that the IC-20 was able to put forth a completely coherent, non-comb-filtered direct-field signal, although when set to its "focus" mode, with the inward-angled array dominating, it certainly can. However, what it can put out is flat power, and can disperse widely over the full 180-degree frontal axis. This flat power literally buries any anomalies we have with the direct-field signal, because the reverberant field so dominates. On the other hand, with the Quad 57 we most definitely have the direct-field signal dominating, and this means that any comb-filtering artifacts it exhibits will not be buried in the reverberant field. The effects will be clearly audible. Note that the IC-20 is indeed a line source system, but not one with a fixed length driver array. The tweeter line is short enough to not cause serious vertical beaming problems over the line's operating range. The longer midrange line (overlaying the tweeter line) does not cause serious vertical beaming problems over that line's operating range. It is a controlled-length line source. Howard Ferstler |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: For a real sense of being there, Howard would embrace stereo/multichannel subs. I have tried it both ways, and found that a big mono sub, crossed over low enough and mounted into a corner, will do the job as well as stereo subs. (It may do even better, because dual subs can generate inter-driver suckout artifacts.) Yes, I know that guys like Dave Griesinger (whom I admire greatly and even profiled in The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound) would disagree. So would that jj guy who used to hang out here. 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. Incidentally, my main system does have dual subs. The F1800 handles the left, right, surround, and LFE channels and a modified SVS unit (driven by a Hsu amp) handles the center-channel bass. The two of them are in the left and right front corners of my main room, about 20 feet apart. I'm sure that's fine for home theater .1, but you're missing out for well-recorded two and three channel. I do a lot more music listening than I do movie watching. It is easy to fast-check the impact of dual vs single bass locales with my main system. All I have to do is switch back and forth with the remote control between the bass below 90 Hz being reproduced by the single F1800 sub or being reproduced by the two, double-woofer arrays of my spaced apart (12 feet) IC-20 systems. (Quick pushes on the button allows for slick A/B work.) As long as I am not listening to music with strong bass below 35 Hz, the relative bass levels will be the same. And the sense of space will be the same, too. Incidentally, as best I can tell Griesinger (and perhaps JJ, too) played around with subwoofers flanking the listener and not out in front. The idea was to have the bass frequencies coming at the listener from cross-correlated locations. While this might result in some interesting effects (Griesinger had his design working with the double-sub feature of the Lexicon processors that he helped design), I am not sure that it enhanced realism any more than dipolar speakers (or Bose 901 speakers, for that matter) bouncing sound off of the front wall enhance realism. They just make for more interesting, and possibly more pleasant, sound reproduction. Howard Ferstler |
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 |