Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Do all satellite speaker systems with bass module have these frequency gaps? Actually, most anything with smaller than 4 inch speakers and a tweeter do, though a seperate tweeter is crutial. The best midrange speaker on the market that you could make a one-way speaker with is about 80hz to 16Khz, though with "flat" response. Yes, it's very pricey. Still, it doesn't get to 20Khz or down to low speaking voices, or say a bass guitar(50hz or so), so a 2-way speaker is pretty much non negotiable. The M & K satellite system I had many years ago had 2 midrange speakers and 2 tweeters in each satellite. And the mids were at least 4 inches if I recall. They sounded very full even without the matching sub. But add that and they really rocked. Not your father's Bose. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote:
The M & K satellite system I had many years ago had 2 midrange speakers and 2 tweeters in each satellite. And the mids were at least 4 inches if I recall. They sounded very full even without the matching sub. But add that and they really rocked. Not your father's Bose. That's the basic point. For the whole satellite-sub system to work, you need to build satellites that go down low enough to be useful all by themselves in the first place. That means either somewhat large boxes (a cubic foot minimum), or very inefficient boxes, or both. These days efficiency is a non-issue, but everybody seems to want tiny satellites that blend into the decor. You just can't do that and get satellites that go down low enough. In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. This would make the sub an actual sub, as opposed to most of the systems out there where the sub is really just a mono woofer taking over all the bass reproduction duty. But people don't want satellites big enough to do that and frankly most people listen to panpotted stereo recordings that have no bass imaging anyway. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's the basic point. For the whole satellite-sub system to work, you need to build satellites that go down low enough to be useful all by themselves in the first place. That means either somewhat large boxes (a cubic foot minimum), or very inefficient boxes, or both. These days efficiency is a non-issue, but everybody seems to want tiny satellites that blend into the decor. You just can't do that and get satellites that go down low enough. In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. This would make the sub an actual sub, as opposed to most of the systems out there where the sub is really just a mono woofer taking over all the bass reproduction duty. But people don't want satellites big enough to do that and frankly most people listen to panpotted stereo recordings that have no bass imaging anyway. I agree, Scott. But the question was are there any satellite systems without the gaps present in the Bose, and the answer is yes. And these still have some advantages over 2 huge floor speakers. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote: The M & K satellite system I had many years ago had 2 midrange speakers and 2 tweeters in each satellite. And the mids were at least 4 inches if I recall. They sounded very full even without the matching sub. But add that and they really rocked. Not your father's Bose. KEF makes a nearly identical speaker in their KHT line. It sounds pretty decent, even with 4 inchers in it. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. How many of your CDs and DVDs have anything below 20Hz? -- Eiron. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Eiron wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. How many of your CDs and DVDs have anything below 20Hz? Not too many. And the reason nobody is willing to put subsonic information on recordings is because the average consumer can't reproduce it. People don't bother trying to set playback systems up with real bass extension because it's a lot of work and there are so little records with anything there anyway. It's a vicious cycle. As always, though, if you want to hear something with plenty of stuff below 20 Hz, check out the track I submitted to the r.a.p compilation. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Mar 2005 10:05:01 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. Utterly clueless. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. This would make the sub an actual sub, as opposed to most of the systems out there where the sub is really just a mono woofer taking over all the bass reproduction duty. But people don't want satellites big enough to do that and frankly most people listen to panpotted stereo recordings that have no bass imaging anyway. Generally, if the low-pass filtering is sharp enough (24 dB per octave should do it), a crossover as high up as 90 Hz is fine. The THX people have it at 80 Hz, just to make sure. If you have a sub that is low-pass filtered at 20 Hz, just what kind of musical sounds do you expect the thing to deal with? For the most part, all it would reproduce is hall rumble (not music) at frequencies that were felt rather than heard. Is that all you want a sub to do? PS: if you think that bass "images," disconnect your satellites (all of them) and put on a bass-potent recording with just the subwoofer playing. Try a variety of crossover frequencies. I think that you will find that even that 90 Hz point mentioned above will prevent the sub from being localized, provided it generates distortion low enough to not make undesirable harmonic artifacts audible. Generally, bass "imaging" is the result of the satellite speakers reproducing the leading edge of a bass note (bass-drum whack), and not the low-frequency tail of the signal. The Franssen Effect sees to it that the leading edge determines the location of the sound. Howard Ferstler |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
dizzy wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 10:05:01 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. Utterly clueless. Maybe he meant 120. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
dizzy wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 10:05:01 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. Utterly clueless. Play Art Blakey's _A Night at Birdland_ on a good stereo system with serious low end extension. Now, play it on a satellite-sub system with just as good low end extension. Listen to the space around the standup bass. You actually _can_ hear imaging at 20 Hz. Below that, you can't. So if you have a mono sub, you want to cross it over well below that point. Needless to say this is ludicrous, and that's the basic problem with the whole satellite/sub concept. No, the fundamental on Curly Russell's Bass doesn't go down to 20 Hz. But it goes down low enough that with a crossover at 20 Hz there is still going to be a noticeable contribution from the sub. Not a problem for people who listen to intensity stereo recordings with no bass imaging anyway, though. Which is probably most of the world today. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Generally, if the low-pass filtering is sharp enough (24 dB per octave should do it), a crossover as high up as 90 Hz is fine. The THX people have it at 80 Hz, just to make sure. You can still hear directionality at 90 Hz. If you had one sub per channel, you could easily do that. But if you're crossing over to a single sub you are reducing your bass imaging severely. The THX people are dealing with film soundtracks which are not exactly the most demanding performance recordings out there. The THX standards for the sub response are pretty terrifying too.... If you have a sub that is low-pass filtered at 20 Hz, just what kind of musical sounds do you expect the thing to deal with? For the most part, all it would reproduce is hall rumble (not music) at frequencies that were felt rather than heard. Is that all you want a sub to do? Right, that's basically what a sub is _supposed_ to do. It's a _sub_ woofer that kicks in below the point where the woofer stops. PS: if you think that bass "images," disconnect your satellites (all of them) and put on a bass-potent recording with just the subwoofer playing. Try a variety of crossover frequencies. I think that you will find that even that 90 Hz point mentioned above will prevent the sub from being localized, provided it generates distortion low enough to not make undesirable harmonic artifacts audible. A bunch of folks have done this sort of thing. There was actually a paper at the last AES show from some folks in Greece who showed no effect on typical material with the crossover moved up to 200 Hz. If you listen to minimalist classical recordings, the effect is quite audible. Generally, bass "imaging" is the result of the satellite speakers reproducing the leading edge of a bass note (bass-drum whack), and not the low-frequency tail of the signal. The Franssen Effect sees to it that the leading edge determines the location of the sound. This _is_ absolutely true, and it's certainly the case for most percussion. You'll find a distant bass drum is very different than a distant kettledrum in this regard, though, because of the softer attack. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Brian wrote: Thanks Neil for your feedback. I've added some comments to your reply below Parts of the post were removed to reduce the size of this post. wrote: Brian wrote: I have a BOSE Acoustimass 7 (3 saterlite speakers and bass speaker) I brought this for surround sound. I have two BOSE VS100 small sized speakers at the back of the room, near the ceiling. (snip) It's really easy to get focussed on these sort of numbers and lose track of whether the speakers are doing what you want. Somebody else's measurements don't really tell you how the speakers will measure or sound in your room. Furthermore, no speaker is perfect, and all speakers will have some anomalies that prevent them from being perfect. That's true but I could bring home a truck load of speakers and still not find any suitable. I think you'd be much better off to get out to some stores and listen for yourself. Then you can compare and contrast that experience with the experience you're used to at home with your present gear. By having some technical details helps me narrow down my choice of speakers. The problem is that these numbers are only part of the story. I've bought speakers myself based on impressive numbers, great reviews, etc., only to discover that (probably due to acoustics in my home, my hearing (which is far from perfect, just like your hearing and everyone else's), my taste, etc.) that the speakers didn't sound good to me. I also am keen on reading reviews. It can be fun to read reviews. There are tons in the magazines, on the web, etc. But they're no substitute for listening IRL. They can be a fun way to start shopping, however. But again, they can be misleading. It's like buying a car. Sure,those 500 mph and 500 mpg specs make impressive reading, but they don't tell you if you'll be comfortable and happy with the car. Are you in some way dissatisfied with your speakers? People are often updating their hifi systems as the systems are improving over time. The weakness in BOSE is when the sound of a singer comes only from one satellite speaker rather than being blended between two speakers. Many of the early stereo recording were like this Agree, but the sound being isolated in an extreme way to one channel, or mostly to one channel, is a problem in the recording, not your speakers. Your speakers are merely reproducing what the recording has sent to the speakers. You can fix that problem by listening in mono or (possibly) in a synthesized surround mode. Try some different settings on your receiver. for example Nancy Sinatra singing "My baby shot me down". Don't get me wrong I like the more recent songs as well. If you're happy with the sound of your current speakers, then keep them. Some music sounds good on BOSE speakers and other music does not sound so good. Arguably true for many speakers. BTW, some popular music is intentionally produced to sound good on boom boxes, cheap car stereos, etc. 13.3k Hz to 20K Hz. Assuming you can hear above 13.3kHz, there's little or no music there. To get a better grasp of where music really is in terms of frequency range, see a few examples: http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html http://music.theory.home.att.net/insrange.htm http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS....audio_spectrum The last has samples at 100hz and 10,000hz (10khz). You might also want to get your hearing measured by an audiologist to find out what you really can hear. I think you'll find that interesting, seriously. Don't forget that with the recent Super Audio CD's that you need speakers that have a range up to 50Khz But nobody can hear that and there's no music there anyway. It's a pointless feature, other than for Sony to try to convince people it's worthwhile. (Sony sell these speakers) Can you post a link? It would be like making running shoes that work at 50 mph. It's pointless, because it's beyond human capability. A high and a low note can form an overtone which can be heard. Overtones help the listener tell the difference of a grand piano and common home piano. Agree, but the overtones, harmonics, etc. aren't way up high. A piano might have some higher overtones, but remember that the piano's keys top out at 4,186 hz, as you saw at the above web sites. I'll also add that having worked in a piano store in a previous life, the differences between the sound of different sizes of pianos can be less obvious than you may think. A room or two away from the piano, and I've been fooled by some of the better electronic keyboards, I admit. The biggest differences among pianos are caused by what the music is and who's playing it, and many players can mimic others easily. Can you name something that you're missing way up there? That's much higher than anything you'd ordinarily hear. Almost all sound is much, much lower. Special effects in movies, Those are much more likely to be at really low frequencies. If you want to go really low, including room-shaking sound that you can't hear, you'll need the right sort of room and/or a really big sub. (I find I don't really need an extreme amount of that at home. I can hear enough bass through normal speakers and my small sub in my small room, and I'm watching the screen and know what's going on, and I'm not usually interested in movies with extreme special effects. YMMV.) and like I said the result of overtones. Again, that's arguable. I really recommend the trip to the audiologist. It'll open your eyes. I did it and found it very interesting to learn what I really could hear, not just what I assumed I could hear. I recently brought a sub woofer Is this new sub powered by its own amplifier, or is it powered by your receiver? It's an active sub woofer (powered by amp) to try and full in the gap at the low frequency range. The sub woofer is 28Hz to 200Hz. I can't see anyway of disableing the BOSE bass speaker so that the Sub Woofer is used. Can you tell us more about that new sub? It's a 100 watt sub woofer made by Sony with a frequency range of 28 to 200 Hz. At what db (volume level) for 28hz and a few other frequencies up to and including 200 hz? And to be really picky, I'll add that you'd need to measure it in your room to really get an accurate measurement. It has an adjustable cutoff filter. In an early scene from the movie Gladiator the sub woofer is effective when flaming arrows crash into trees. The sound becomes more realistic. A powered sub can be really handy, not just to get more bass, but to dial in just the sort of bass you like. What does the new sub's manual say about connecting the new sub to the receiver? It can be connected to the amplifiers speaker output, then connected to speaker from the sub woofer or it can be connected to the sub output socket on the amplifier. Either one should work fine. I have a Surround 5.1 sound decoder in my DVD player and connected the player to the ampilifer using 6 leads (one for each speaker). In doing this I was hoping that the subwoofer would get only the low frewuency sounds. I have since found that the cut off frequency for the sub woofer filter built into the DVD player is 120K Hz. This leaves a gap from 120K Hz ...I think you meant to say "120Hz" here... sorry my error to 202K Hz. ...I think you meant to say "200Hz" here... sorry my error again Again, this sort of gap really isn't a big deal, assuming it's really there. The acoustics of your room could cause much bigger anomalies. Due to the acoustics of your room, you might even have a peak between 120Hz and 202Hz. It could be why some music sounds better than other music. Could be that, your hearing, and/or your acoustics. Anyway, if it sounds good to you, that's what's most important. Different musical instruments have a certain frequency range. The electronic organ ....and pipe organs too... has a wide frequency response. But not as wide as you may think, and your hearing and taste may or may not let you hear all of that. If you really want to get serious about frequency response, you could start by getting a sound meter from Radio Shack and some test CDs that will provide test tones at different frequencies. I hope to connect an audio signal generator for testing. Could be fun! Make sure to get some measurement gear also. But don't rely solely on technical measurement. Do what it takes to get sound that suits you. (snip) There are some speakers that are bigger and better than what you've got now, but if your speakers sound and look good to you in your typical use, that's all that matters. Once I've listened to some different show room speakers I'll know for sure. I think you'll find that while the Bose speakers obviously suit many consumers, if you want to get a more refined, even, and more pleasing sound, you'll have to go to the audio specialty stores. Luckily, there are many good, affordable brands. BTW, I find I'm less picky with HT speakers than I am when I'm listening only to music, where I really have to have speakers that suit me. If you buy more speakers, get return privileges, in case the new speakers don't sound good in your room. most have 7 or 14 day returns Good. If you want to sell the Bose speakers, you'll find many bidders on eBay. An advantage of owning a really popular brand like Bose is that there's always a strong resale market. It's interesting that many don't like BOSE yet there are many that want to buy them second hand. Bose is like anything that's really, really popular; it attracts some rebellion and dislike. I like some Bose products within certain limitations. But if I was going to build some sort of ultimate sound system in my home, I'd go with speakers from specialist makers, such as B&W. Any advice would be most welcome. But what about too much advice, as I've probably given already? ;-) Regards Brian Regards Brian TGIF! |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander wrote: wrote: I think the OP will need to spend more than $100 to get a set of HT speakers + sub that will have the sort of frequency response figures he's focused on. Sure, but a *pair* of simple 2-way speakers can easily be had for even as little as $100 that will be free of the problems the BOSE systems have. If you can recommend a $100 set of HT speakers + sub that will have the sort of numbers he wants, please do so. Heh. Now, a system, that's going to run $300 at least for a competant sub, and probably $100 a speaker for anything that will be decor friendly and sound good. I understand what you're saying, but the OP seems to be big on HT, so he'll need surround. BTW, I've been quite happy with several smaller stereo systems I've had where I spent just about the amount you recommend on the speakers and sub. I could get decent sound with music, which is a tougher listening test for me than when I just needed sound for DVDs, TV, etc.,when I'm watching the image and that tells me what's going on, and I focus less on the sound of the speakers. So I do see the point of your suggestion. I've spent many a happy hour enjoying exactly what you suggest, or else using stereo headphones. Actually, another suggestion, if the OP is comfortable with headphones, is that he could keep his current speakers and use those when other folks visit, then switch to headphones when he's alone and wants to really focus on sound. I now do that myself with one TV and a small small HT system, using speakers that sound OK, not great, but look good and didn't cost much. If I really want to get into the sound, I switch to headphones. A lot simpler and more compact than having really expensive, big speakers that would gather dust most of the week anyway. Plus, I can switch to different headphones (I have several) when I feel like it. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Neil.
It was interesting to read your comments. From what you've written you seem to have been studying HiFi for some time. I hope you don't mind me removing the text from the orginal post as the post was getting very large and most people would have read it. I've posted you the Sony New Zealand site that lists some of the Sony Speakers, many have a range of 45Hz to 70Hz which is for listening to Super Audio CD's. I hope to have a listen to this type of CD with speakers in this frequency range to see if I notice much difference. A HiFi sales person I spoke to recently suggested Mission M30 speakers. I have to have a listen to them soon. Sony Speaker Site http://www.sony.co.nz/products/produ...sid=1914715008 Sony Bookself speakers that I hope to listen to as a demo. These may be better for listening to music. http://www.sony.co.nz/products/produ...sid=1914715008 Sony SSK30EDP Bookself speaker Product Features · 130W Maximum Power Handling · Extended Frequency for SCAD Playback · 45Hz-70kHz Frequency Response =============== · 88dB Sensitivity · 8 Ohms Impedance · 2-Way, 2 Speaker System · Carbon Composite Dome Tweeter · 165mm Aramid Fibre Woofer Product Specification Construction Speaker type Book Shelf Magnetically shielded Yes Speaker unit Full range - Woofer 165mm Aramid cone Mid - Tweeter (balance dome) 25mm Carbon Composite Speakers per unit 2 General Enclosure type Bass Reflex Maximum power handling 130W Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ======================== Extended frequency for SACD playback Yes ================== Sensitivity 88dB Impedance 8ohms Dimensions (WxHxD) 235 x 430 x 375mm Weight 8.5kg each -------------------------------------------------------------- These are the specs on the Sub Woofer I am trying. Sony SAWM250 Sub woofer Product Features · 100W RMS Power Handling · 20cm Bass Driver · 28Hz-200Hz Frequency Response · Speaker/Line Input · Low Boost Mode · Magnetically Shielded · Phase Switch · Bass Reflex Enclosure · Dimensions (WxHxD)mm 290x355x385 · Weight: 11.5kg · Available in Black Only Product Specification Construction Speaker type Active subwoofer Magnetically shielded Yes Enclosure type Bass reflex Speaker unit 20cm Audio Power output (RMS) 100W RMS Frequency response 28Hz-200Hz Speaker input Yes Line input Yes Low boost mode No Movie/music/bass-boost selector No Phase switch Yes General Colour Silver Dimensions (WxHxD) 290 x 355 x 385mm Weight - Thanks for the helpful site addresses in your last post. I'm hoping to find a mp3 file that does a frequency sweep from 20Hz to 20000Hz. Regards Brian |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Brian wrote:
Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ======================== What do you suppose THAT is all about? |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:51 -0600, Joe Sensor
wrote: Brian wrote: Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ======================== What do you suppose THAT is all about? It's for shattering wine glasses. Adds real excitement to a wine and cheese party. Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote:
Brian wrote: Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ======================== What do you suppose THAT is all about? It's so you can play Super Audio CD's (SA-CD) that claim to have a frequency response greater than 20KHz. The only problem is you also need to have an amplifer that also has a frequency response greater than 20Khz. Some of Sony's speakers are 45Hz to 50KHz If us humans can't enjoy it then maybe cats and dogs can :=) Regards Brian |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
It is simply incredible how any time BOSE is mentioned the threads are
infinitely long. AMAZING what some good propaganda can do to the crowd. Long live BOSE and their patrons. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
dizzy wrote:
Whatever. What "satellite" speaker goes down to 20 Hz? It seems to me that you have the mistaken notion that a "subwoofer" is for reproducing infrasonic frequencies. It's not. It's for reproducing frequencies below which most "normal" speakers are capable (which sure the hell isn't 20 Hz). Pretty much none of them do go down that far, and if they did, they'd be large enough to be impractical. That's why the notion of the satellite/sub is a basically misguided one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote:
Brian wrote: Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ======================== What do you suppose THAT is all about? Marketing. Check out the Tannoy Ellipse as well. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:10:51 GMT, Willie K.Yee, M.D. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:51 -0600, Joe Sensor wrote: Brian wrote: Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ======================== What do you suppose THAT is all about? It's for shattering wine glasses. Adds real excitement to a wine and cheese party. It isn't ultrasonic frequencies that are used to shatter a wine glass. It is frequencies right at the glass's resonant frequency and held their long enough for the glass to oscillate to pieces. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Dickless growled: held their long enough Held their what, Scroots? Something you don't have, maybe? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Brian wrote:
What do you suppose THAT is all about? It's so you can play Super Audio CD's (SA-CD) that claim to have a frequency response greater than 20KHz. The only problem is you also need to have an amplifer that also has a frequency response greater than 20Khz. Some of Sony's speakers are 45Hz to 50KHz If us humans can't enjoy it then maybe cats and dogs can :=) If you look at the sampling rate of SACD's, there is no doubt that a frequency response greater than 20khz is possible. And amplifiers don't cut off at 20khz, so that is not a problem either. Now, your ears, on the other hand.. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Willie K.Yee, M.D. wrote:
Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ======================== What do you suppose THAT is all about? It's for shattering wine glasses. Adds real excitement to a wine and cheese party. Hahaha. Good one! |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pretty much none of them do go down that far, and if they did, they'd be large enough to be impractical. That's why the notion of the satellite/sub is a basically misguided one. I'm not understanding you at all on this one. You are saying since a satellite/sub system cannot be practical to the degree it theoretically *could*, the whole concept is useless? If that were true, there are a lot of things we should really just give up on. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:48:21 -0600, TCS
wrote: It isn't ultrasonic frequencies that are used to shatter a wine glass. It is frequencies right at the glass's resonant frequency and held their long enough for the glass to oscillate to pieces. Then how come all the wine glasses in my house are broken, and everyone SWEARS they did not drop them? Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Willie K.Yee, M.D. said: Then how come all the wine glasses in my house are broken, and everyone SWEARS they did not drop them? All of them are broken? Probably not a question of audio or swearing. If I were you, I'd check for gremlins. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
dizzy wrote: Whatever. What "satellite" speaker goes down to 20 Hz? It seems to me that you have the mistaken notion that a "subwoofer" is for reproducing infrasonic frequencies. It's not. It's for reproducing frequencies below which most "normal" speakers are capable (which sure the hell isn't 20 Hz). Pretty much none of them do go down that far, and if they did, they'd be large enough to be impractical. That's why the notion of the satellite/sub is a basically misguided one. The sub/sat approach is usually though to be a compromise approach, not a perfectionist's approach. So, it is not nearly as misguided, as it is a compromise. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
The sub/sat approach is usually though to be a compromise approach, not a perfectionist's approach. So, it is not nearly as misguided, as it is a compromise. How is this different then a set of full range cabinets? There are always some sort of compromises in any design. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
The Big **** shat: The sub/sat approach is usually though[sic] to be a compromise approach, not a perfectionist's approach. So,[sic] it is not nearly as misguided,[sic] as it is a compromise. Misguided? Interesting word choice, Your ****tiness. In my book, misguided is expecting a 'borg to give useful advice.... about anything. In 98% of rooms, a sub-sat combo sounds just as good as full range speakers. Also, given™ that the vast majority of consumers have only one system for both music and surround, it's obvious why most of them choose a sub-sat system. Now that I've deconstructed™ your latest batch of lies, Mr. Kroofeces, will you do us the honor of giving yourself a swirly or three? |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message dizzy wrote: Whatever. What "satellite" speaker goes down to 20 Hz? It seems to me that you have the mistaken notion that a "subwoofer" is for reproducing infrasonic frequencies. It's not. It's for reproducing frequencies below which most "normal" speakers are capable (which sure the hell isn't 20 Hz). Pretty much none of them do go down that far, and if they did, they'd be large enough to be impractical. That's why the notion of the satellite/sub is a basically misguided one. The sub/sat approach is usually though to be a compromise approach, not a perfectionist's approach. By some perhaps but hardly enough to say "usually." So, it is not nearly as misguided, as it is a compromise. All speaker design involves compromise. Many attacks on SOTA are satellite/subwoofer systems. By the way you never answered any of these questions. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e82a68b91334b4 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...47a0eecd495fd7 Scott Wheeler |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
George M. Middius wrote:
Willie K.Yee, M.D. said: Then how come all the wine glasses in my house are broken, and everyone SWEARS they did not drop them? All of them are broken? Probably not a question of audio or swearing. If I were you, I'd check for gremlins. Stop listening to Maria Callas or keep the glasses topped up as only an undamped wine glass will oscillate itself to death. -- Eiron. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Sensor" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: The sub/sat approach is usually thought to be a compromise approach, not a perfectionist's approach. So, it is not nearly as misguided, as it is a compromise. How is this different then a set of full range cabinets? See the post I was responding to from Scott Dorsey. There are always some sort of compromises in any design. Of course, but when they are different, they provide alternate choices. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Sensor wrote:
Brian wrote: What do you suppose THAT is all about? It's so you can play Super Audio CD's (SA-CD) that claim to have a frequency response greater than 20KHz. The only problem is you also need to have an amplifer that also has a frequency response greater than 20Khz. Some of Sony's speakers are 45Hz to 50KHz If us humans can't enjoy it then maybe cats and dogs can :=) If you look at the sampling rate of SACD's, there is no doubt that a frequency response greater than 20khz is possible. And amplifiers don't cut off at 20khz, so that is not a problem either. Now, your ears, on the other hand.. My Amplifier is rated at 20Hz to 20KHz. Sony now sell Amplifiers that are build for a frequency response of well beyond 20K. Sony call these group of items Extended Range. www.sony.co.nz There's always something new in Technology. Regards Brian |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Brian wrote:
And amplifiers don't cut off at 20khz, so that is not a problem either. Now, your ears, on the other hand.. My Amplifier is rated at 20Hz to 20KHz. I didn't mention a rating. An amp is not a digital converter. A rating of 20 - 20k does not mean that the amp cuts off at 20khz. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Brian wrote:
If you look at the sampling rate of SACD's, there is no doubt that a frequency response greater than 20khz is possible. And amplifiers don't cut off at 20khz, so that is not a problem either. Now, your ears, on the other hand.. My Amplifier is rated at 20Hz to 20KHz. Sony now sell Amplifiers that are build for a frequency response of well beyond 20K. Sony call these group of items Extended Range. www.sony.co.nz There's always something new in Technology. My old Rotel claims a frequency response of 4-100,000Hz at +0.5dB, -3dB. So what's new in your technology, Brian? -- Eiron. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Brian nospam@hotmail wrote:
My Amplifier is rated at 20Hz to 20KHz. Sony now sell Amplifiers that are build for a frequency response of well beyond 20K. Sony call these group of items Extended Range. www.sony.co.nz There's always something new in Technology. Not really. My 1961-vintage Harman Kardon Citation I will go up to 65 KHz with two watts output. At rated power it drops off badly above 18, though, but most of the time it doesn't need to provide that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
The Art of Bose Bashing and Amar's Supposed Descent into Mediocrity | General | |||
Help Needed: Speaker Wiring Questions | Car Audio | |||
My equipment review of the Bose 901 | Audio Opinions | |||
Bose 901 Review | Vacuum Tubes |