Value of KLH speakers?

[David Nebenzahl]

Not exactly a tech question, I know, but I trust I'll be forgiven.

Saw a pair of big old floor cabinet speakers yesterday at a place,
assumed they were Wharfedales or Jensens or some such, but they turned
out to be KLH Model Twelves. Never heard of or saw this model before.

Does anyone know what they might be worth, assuming good working
condition? Yes, I know: they're worth what someone'll pay for them. But
I'm looking for some real-world data here.

They look as if they might make a good set of speakers for someone, but
one would probably want to elevate them off the floor somehow.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, David Nebenzahl > wrote:
>Not exactly a tech question, I know, but I trust I'll be forgiven.
>
>Saw a pair of big old floor cabinet speakers yesterday at a place,
>assumed they were Wharfedales or Jensens or some such, but they turned
>out to be KLH Model Twelves. Never heard of or saw this model before.
>
>Does anyone know what they might be worth, assuming good working
>condition? Yes, I know: they're worth what someone'll pay for them. But
>I'm looking for some real-world data here.
>
>They look as if they might make a good set of speakers for someone, but
>one would probably want to elevate them off the floor somehow.


First time I heard of them myself. Just got familiar with them a couple minutes ago.
The most important thing is condition, and if these had any special repair needs.
Some of these old speakers held up well, not having foam surrounds.

Just love those big old cabinets. For the non collector, I would guess
they are worth mabe $200-400.

greg

[David Nebenzahl]

On 8/20/2010 11:36 AM GregS spake thus:

> In article >, David
> Nebenzahl > wrote:
>
>> Not exactly a tech question, I know, but I trust I'll be forgiven.
>>
>> Saw a pair of big old floor cabinet speakers yesterday at a place,
>> assumed they were Wharfedales or Jensens or some such, but they
>> turned out to be KLH Model Twelves. Never heard of or saw this
>> model before.
>>
>> Does anyone know what they might be worth, assuming good working
>> condition? Yes, I know: they're worth what someone'll pay for them.
>> But I'm looking for some real-world data here.
>
> First time I heard of them myself. Just got familiar with them a
> couple minutes ago. The most important thing is condition, and if
> these had any special repair needs. Some of these old speakers held
> up well, not having foam surrounds.

They're in good condition, cosmetically at least, so there's a good
chance they work well too. The woofer surrounds are fabric, not foam,
and are completely intact.

> Just love those big old cabinets. For the non collector, I would
> guess they are worth mabe $200-400.

That's in line with what I thought and what they're asking for them.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

[Damon Hill[_2_]]

David Nebenzahl > wrote in news:4c6ec712$0$2378
:

> Not exactly a tech question, I know, but I trust I'll be forgiven.
>
> Saw a pair of big old floor cabinet speakers yesterday at a place,
> assumed they were Wharfedales or Jensens or some such, but they turned
> out to be KLH Model Twelves. Never heard of or saw this model before.
>
> Does anyone know what they might be worth, assuming good working
> condition? Yes, I know: they're worth what someone'll pay for them. But
> I'm looking for some real-world data here.
>
> They look as if they might make a good set of speakers for someone, but
> one would probably want to elevate them off the floor somehow.
>
>

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/

There is a KLH speaker discussion group here which should be able to
answer or give an educated guess to your questions. Top topic at the
moment is about Model 12.

--Damon

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
.com
> Not exactly a tech question, I know, but I trust I'll be
> forgiven.
> Saw a pair of big old floor cabinet speakers yesterday at
> a place, assumed they were Wharfedales or Jensens or some
> such, but they turned out to be KLH Model Twelves. Never
> heard of or saw this model before.

Back in the day, I really liked how they sounded.

> Does anyone know what they might be worth, assuming good
> working condition? Yes, I know: they're worth what
> someone'll pay for them. But I'm looking for some
> real-world data here.

Check eBay and other audio autcion site closed auctions.

> They look as if they might make a good set of speakers
> for someone, but one would probably want to elevate them
> off the floor somehow.

They were intended to be floor-standing, check the classic speaker pages
ads:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library/klh/klh_12_klh_model_twelve/klh_model_12_ad_earlier/

[David Nebenzahl]

On 8/22/2010 4:53 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> .com
>
>> Not exactly a tech question, I know, but I trust I'll be
>> forgiven.
>> Saw a pair of big old floor cabinet speakers yesterday at
>> a place, assumed they were Wharfedales or Jensens or some
>> such, but they turned out to be KLH Model Twelves. Never
>> heard of or saw this model before.
>
> Back in the day, I really liked how they sounded.

Good to know.

>> Does anyone know what they might be worth, assuming good
>> working condition? Yes, I know: they're worth what
>> someone'll pay for them. But I'm looking for some
>> real-world data here.
>
> Check eBay and other audio autcion site closed auctions.

The reason I'm reluctant to go by eBay prices is that these would be so
dang hard (and expen$ive) to ship. I'm thinking more along the lines of
Craigslist, or of holding on to them for a while and finding a collector
willing to pay more.

>> They look as if they might make a good set of speakers
>> for someone, but one would probably want to elevate them
>> off the floor somehow.
>
> They were intended to be floor-standing, check the classic speaker pages
> ads:

Yes, I know that; it's just that they'd probably sound better off the
floor, as unwieldy as that might be. Maybe on short platforms?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
.com
> On 8/22/2010 4:53 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in
>> message
>> .com
>>> Not exactly a tech question, I know, but I trust I'll be
>>> forgiven.
>>> Saw a pair of big old floor cabinet speakers yesterday
>>> at a place, assumed they were Wharfedales or Jensens or
>>> some such, but they turned out to be KLH Model Twelves.
>>> Never heard of or saw this model before.
>>
>> Back in the day, I really liked how they sounded.
>
> Good to know.

I generally liked the sound of KLH speakers, though as close as I got to
owning any of them was a pair of larger Advents.

>>> Does anyone know what they might be worth, assuming good
>>> working condition? Yes, I know: they're worth what
>>> someone'll pay for them. But I'm looking for some
>>> real-world data here.
>>
>> Check eBay and other audio autcion site closed auctions.
>
> The reason I'm reluctant to go by eBay prices is that
> these would be so dang hard (and expen$ive) to ship. I'm
> thinking more along the lines of Craigslist, or of
> holding on to them for a while and finding a collector
> willing to pay more.

I'm just talking about price guidance.

>>> They look as if they might make a good set of speakers
>>> for someone, but one would probably want to elevate them
>>> off the floor somehow.

>> They were intended to be floor-standing, check the
>> classic speaker pages ads:

> Yes, I know that; it's just that they'd probably sound
> better off the floor, as unwieldy as that might be. Maybe
> on short platforms?

I hesitate to elevate speakers that were designed to be floor standers.

The lowest octave response of speakers is designed for aq certain space that
they work into. Some speakers are desgned for what is known as a half-space,
such as on a wall or in the middle of a floor. Others are designed for a
quarter-space such as the middle of a corner or near a floor or a ceiling. A
few speakers are designed for use in either a full space - suspended in the
middle of free space or an eigth-space which would be in a corner at the
floor or the ceiling. Using a speaker in a space other than the one that it
was properly designed can reasonably be expected to produce incorrect bass
response.

[Eeyore[_4_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 8/22/2010 4:53 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>>
>> They were intended to be floor-standing, check the classic speaker
>> pages ads:
>
> Yes, I know that; it's just that they'd probably sound better off the
> floor

What makes you think that ?


Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> I hesitate to elevate speakers that were designed to be floor standers.
>
> The lowest octave response of speakers is designed for aq certain space that
> they work into. Some speakers are desgned for what is known as a half-space,
> such as on a wall or in the middle of a floor. Others are designed for a
> quarter-space such as the middle of a corner or near a floor or a ceiling. A
> few speakers are designed for use in either a full space - suspended in the
> middle of free space or an eigth-space which would be in a corner at the
> floor or the ceiling. Using a speaker in a space other than the one that it
> was properly designed can reasonably be expected to produce incorrect bass
> response.

You hit the nail on the head, however I doubt that more than a tiny
fraction of users understand the 'space' issue, e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_space


Graham

[Bill Graham]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> I hesitate to elevate speakers that were designed to be floor standers.
>>
>> The lowest octave response of speakers is designed for aq certain space
>> that they work into. Some speakers are desgned for what is known as a
>> half-space, such as on a wall or in the middle of a floor. Others are
>> designed for a quarter-space such as the middle of a corner or near a
>> floor or a ceiling. A few speakers are designed for use in either a full
>> space - suspended in the middle of free space or an eigth-space which
>> would be in a corner at the floor or the ceiling. Using a speaker in a
>> space other than the one that it was properly designed can reasonably be
>> expected to produce incorrect bass response.
>
> You hit the nail on the head, however I doubt that more than a tiny
> fraction of users understand the 'space' issue, e.g.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_space
>
>
> Graham

I have a friend whose house if full of small speakers about 6 inches in
diameter....He's got at least two of them in every room. He has one huge
woofer that's hidden behind and below the TV in his living room.....I think
it may be bolted to the floor, because you can hear the whole house shake if
the music contains the lows to do it. It really made me re evaluate my own
thoughts on speakers....All you really need is one good bolted down woofer,
and all the other speakers can be small and relatively cheap, and you get a
fantastic sound system.

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>> I hesitate to elevate speakers that were designed to be floor standers.
>>>
>>> The lowest octave response of speakers is designed for aq certain
>>> space that they work into. Some speakers are desgned for what is
>>> known as a half-space, such as on a wall or in the middle of a floor.
>>> Others are designed for a quarter-space such as the middle of a
>>> corner or near a floor or a ceiling. A few speakers are designed for
>>> use in either a full space - suspended in the middle of free space or
>>> an eigth-space which would be in a corner at the floor or the
>>> ceiling. Using a speaker in a space other than the one that it was
>>> properly designed can reasonably be expected to produce incorrect
>>> bass response.
>>
>> You hit the nail on the head, however I doubt that more than a tiny
>> fraction of users understand the 'space' issue, e.g.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_space
>>
>>
>> Graham
>
> I have a friend whose house if full of small speakers about 6 inches in
> diameter....He's got at least two of them in every room. He has one huge
> woofer that's hidden behind and below the TV in his living room.....I
> think it may be bolted to the floor, because you can hear the whole
> house shake if the music contains the lows to do it. It really made me
> re evaluate my own thoughts on speakers....All you really need is one
> good bolted down woofer, and all the other speakers can be small and
> relatively cheap, and you get a fantastic sound system.

Not if you want to hear any stereo content in the bass region.

Graham

[Bill Graham]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I hesitate to elevate speakers that were designed to be floor standers.
>>>>
>>>> The lowest octave response of speakers is designed for aq certain space
>>>> that they work into. Some speakers are desgned for what is known as a
>>>> half-space, such as on a wall or in the middle of a floor. Others are
>>>> designed for a quarter-space such as the middle of a corner or near a
>>>> floor or a ceiling. A few speakers are designed for use in either a
>>>> full space - suspended in the middle of free space or an eigth-space
>>>> which would be in a corner at the floor or the ceiling. Using a
>>>> speaker in a space other than the one that it was properly designed can
>>>> reasonably be expected to produce incorrect bass response.
>>>
>>> You hit the nail on the head, however I doubt that more than a tiny
>>> fraction of users understand the 'space' issue, e.g.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_space
>>>
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>> I have a friend whose house if full of small speakers about 6 inches in
>> diameter....He's got at least two of them in every room. He has one huge
>> woofer that's hidden behind and below the TV in his living room.....I
>> think it may be bolted to the floor, because you can hear the whole house
>> shake if the music contains the lows to do it. It really made me re
>> evaluate my own thoughts on speakers....All you really need is one good
>> bolted down woofer, and all the other speakers can be small and
>> relatively cheap, and you get a fantastic sound system.
>
> Not if you want to hear any stereo content in the bass region.
>
> Graham

That is, (of course) true, but I don't think there IS much stereo content in
the bass region.....At least, I don't seem to hear any, so if it exists, it
is probably hard to hear.

[Michael Black[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Bill Graham wrote:

> That is, (of course) true, but I don't think there IS much stereo content in
> the bass region.....At least, I don't seem to hear any, so if it exists, it
> is probably hard to hear.
>
It depends on how you define "bass".

The point of subwoofers was to provide that extra low frequency coverage.
You'd have regular speakers, and then for the even lower frequencies, ie
lower than good speakers provide, one subwoofer would handle those
frequencies, and yes, down there it's non-directional.

The concept has been mangled in recent years, with the coming of "computer
speakers" and "surround sound speaker systems". There, at least in the
low range, the small speakers won't give much bass, and the "subwoofer"
is too small to provide extended bass. They are using the "subwoofer"
to cover what normal speakers would provide, normal "bass". And thus
except if you spend lots of money, it ruins the whole concept. I've seen
bigger woofers in "bookshelf" speakers than a lot of those low end
"subwoofers" and the boxes they are in aren't much better.

Michael

[David Nebenzahl]

On 8/26/2010 5:55 PM Eeyore spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/2010 4:53 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>>
>>> They were intended to be floor-standing, check the classic speaker
>>> pages ads:
>>
>> Yes, I know that; it's just that they'd probably sound better off the
>> floor
>
> What makes you think that ?

Intuition.

Granted, I don't have the technical knowledge about audio that you and
others here do, so I'm not looking to start an argument here. It's just
that to me, it seems counterintuitive to place any speaker on the floor
and expect good results. I remember the advice given back in the 70s and
80s: get those speakers off the floor!

It seems to me (again, my untutored intuition) that while low
frequencies would project fine with a woofer placed close to the floor,
anything higher--say, 400 Hz up--would suffer from such placement.

Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor covering, room
geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors can't be good for *any* speakers.

I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong here. It just has never seemed
like a good idea to me to put speakers on the floor, and I was frankly
surprised to run across this specimen of KLH speaker which was obviously
designed for that very placement.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
.com
> On 8/26/2010 5:55 PM Eeyore spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/22/2010 4:53 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>>>
>>>> They were intended to be floor-standing, check the
>>>> classic speaker pages ads:
>>>
>>> Yes, I know that; it's just that they'd probably sound
>>> better off the floor
>>
>> What makes you think that ?
>
> Intuition.
>
> Granted, I don't have the technical knowledge about audio
> that you and others here do, so I'm not looking to start
> an argument here. It's just that to me, it seems
> counterintuitive to place any speaker on the floor and
> expect good results.

To you.

Speakers that are designed to be floor standing should be used that way.

> I remember the advice given back in
> the 70s and 80s: get those speakers off the floor!

That applied to speakers designed for bookshelf installation.

> It seems to me (again, my untutored intuition) that while
> low frequencies would project fine with a woofer placed
> close to the floor, anything higher--say, 400 Hz
> up--would suffer from such placement.

Not suffer, be changed.

> Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor
> covering, room geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors can't
> be good for *any* speakers.

Simply not true.

> I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong here. It just
> has never seemed like a good idea to me to put speakers
> on the floor, and I was frankly surprised to run across
> this specimen of KLH speaker which was obviously designed
> for that very placement.

That's the key - speakers need to be designed for specific postitioning, and
end-users need to make that one criteria for acquisition.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 8/29/2010 5:27 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> .com
>
>> It seems to me (again, my untutored intuition) that while
>> low frequencies would project fine with a woofer placed
>> close to the floor, anything higher--say, 400 Hz
>> up--would suffer from such placement.
>
> Not suffer, be changed.

So it's possible that mid to high frequencies might be enhanced by floor
placement? Bass I can see.

>> Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor
>> covering, room geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors can't
>> be good for *any* speakers.
>
> Simply not true.

Really? Carpet doesn't "eat up" high frequencies?

Although I suppose this could be corrected by simply changing the
tweeter level, assuming the speaker system has such an adjustment.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
.com
> On 8/29/2010 5:27 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in
>> message
>> .com
>>> It seems to me (again, my untutored intuition) that
>>> while low frequencies would project fine with a woofer
>>> placed close to the floor, anything higher--say, 400 Hz
>>> up--would suffer from such placement.
>>
>> Not suffer, be changed.

> So it's possible that mid to high frequencies might be
> enhanced by floor placement? Bass I can see.

It's all about balance. Too much enhancement of either bass or treble is a
bad thing.

Speakers that were designed by competent engineers usually sound best when
they are installed and used as intended.

>>> Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor
>>> covering, room geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors
>>> can't be good for *any* speakers.

>> Simply not true.

> Really? Carpet doesn't "eat up" high frequencies?

Again, its about balance. Many speakers are designed with the presumption
that there will be a carpet and it will diminish the high frequencies to a
certain extent. If they are used with carpeting then they sound more
balanced than they will if they are used with bare floors.

> Although I suppose this could be corrected by simply
> changing the tweeter level, assuming the speaker system
> has such an adjustment.

Ever hear of electronic equalizers? You can make some headway along the
lines of restoring balance with them. The alternative is to use speakers as
they were designed to be used.

[Randy Yates]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:
> [...]
> Speakers that were designed by competent engineers usually sound best when
> they are installed and used as intended.

That's generally good advice. The problem is, there are
several variables in actual installations that may not
match what the engineer intended and which are not easy
to change, a good example being hardwood floors instead
of some assumed carpet.

But this dialog has brought up a thought: why aren't there
(at least some) speakers that adapt to their installation?
I can imagine a wireless sensor being provided with the
speakers that is placed at or near the listening position
and with which the speaker system can measure important
parameters of it's surroundings and attempt to compensate.
--
Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
Digital Signal Labs % ... What is it worth?"
% 'Mission (A World Record)',
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % *A New World Record*, ELO

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>> [...]
>> Speakers that were designed by competent engineers
>> usually sound best when they are installed and used as
>> intended.
>
> That's generally good advice. The problem is, there are
> several variables in actual installations that may not
> match what the engineer intended and which are not easy
> to change, a good example being hardwood floors instead
> of some assumed carpet.

> But this dialog has brought up a thought: why aren't there
> (at least some) speakers that adapt to their installation?
> I can imagine a wireless sensor being provided with the
> speakers that is placed at or near the listening position
> and with which the speaker system can measure important
> parameters of it's surroundings and attempt to compensate.

There are some speakers that come with that facility. I believe JBL/Infinity
have this. There are also third-party products such as Audessy.

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/general/Product.aspx?PId=28&MId=5

http://www.krksys.com/product_ergo.php

http://www.jblpro.com/press/evo_press_release.htm

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

[Randy Yates]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:

> "Randy Yates" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>>> [...]
>>> Speakers that were designed by competent engineers
>>> usually sound best when they are installed and used as
>>> intended.
>>
>> That's generally good advice. The problem is, there are
>> several variables in actual installations that may not
>> match what the engineer intended and which are not easy
>> to change, a good example being hardwood floors instead
>> of some assumed carpet.
>
>> But this dialog has brought up a thought: why aren't there
>> (at least some) speakers that adapt to their installation?
>> I can imagine a wireless sensor being provided with the
>> speakers that is placed at or near the listening position
>> and with which the speaker system can measure important
>> parameters of it's surroundings and attempt to compensate.
>
> There are some speakers that come with that facility. I believe JBL/Infinity
> have this. There are also third-party products such as Audessy.
>
> http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/general/Product.aspx?PId=28&MId=5
>
> http://www.krksys.com/product_ergo.php
>
> http://www.jblpro.com/press/evo_press_release.htm
>
> http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

Interesting. Thanks for the links, Arny.
--
Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
Digital Signal Labs % ... What is it worth?"
% 'Mission (A World Record)',
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % *A New World Record*, ELO

[dizzy]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

>Carpet doesn't "eat up" high frequencies?

What, you have a sheet of carpet hanging from the ceiling, to block
the sound from getting directly from the speaker to your head?

Sheesh. Let's engage our brains, here.

(Hopefully no one will be so stupid to "inform" me about reflections.
We don't "need" reflections from walls and floors to hear a
loudspeaker.)

[dizzy]

Bill Graham wrote:

>All you really need is one good bolted down woofer,

It need not be bolted-down, of course.

>and all the other speakers can be small and relatively cheap, and you get a
>fantastic sound system.

Sure. The amplifiers for the "main" speakers can be smaller as well.
Subwoofers can be the way to go, in many, if not most, situations.

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I hesitate to elevate speakers that were designed to be floor
>>>>> standers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lowest octave response of speakers is designed for aq certain
>>>>> space that they work into. Some speakers are desgned for what is
>>>>> known as a half-space, such as on a wall or in the middle of a
>>>>> floor. Others are designed for a quarter-space such as the middle
>>>>> of a corner or near a floor or a ceiling. A few speakers are
>>>>> designed for use in either a full space - suspended in the middle
>>>>> of free space or an eigth-space which would be in a corner at the
>>>>> floor or the ceiling. Using a speaker in a space other than the
>>>>> one that it was properly designed can reasonably be expected to
>>>>> produce incorrect bass response.
>>>>
>>>> You hit the nail on the head, however I doubt that more than a tiny
>>>> fraction of users understand the 'space' issue, e.g.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_space
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> I have a friend whose house if full of small speakers about 6 inches
>>> in diameter....He's got at least two of them in every room. He has
>>> one huge woofer that's hidden behind and below the TV in his living
>>> room.....I think it may be bolted to the floor, because you can hear
>>> the whole house shake if the music contains the lows to do it. It
>>> really made me re evaluate my own thoughts on speakers....All you
>>> really need is one good bolted down woofer, and all the other
>>> speakers can be small and relatively cheap, and you get a fantastic
>>> sound system.
>>
>> Not if you want to hear any stereo content in the bass region.
>>
>> Graham
>
> That is, (of course) true, but I don't think there IS much stereo
> content in the bass region.....At least, I don't seem to hear any, so if
> it exists, it is probably hard to hear.

Depends on the music source. Modern electronic rock / pop music is
likely to have more stereo bass content than an orchestra I'd suspect.

The big misunderstanding about bass is the myth that it is all
omnidirectional.

More correctly, the cabinet radiation at low frequencies is nearly
omnidirectional but that is an entirely different matter from the
content of the source and yes it IS audible.

Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> That is, (of course) true, but I don't think there IS much stereo
>> content in the bass region.....At least, I don't seem to hear any, so
>> if it exists, it is probably hard to hear.
> It depends on how you define "bass".
>
> The point of subwoofers was to provide that extra low frequency coverage.
> You'd have regular speakers, and then for the even lower frequencies, ie
> lower than good speakers provide, one subwoofer would handle those
> frequencies, and yes, down there it's non-directional.
>
> The concept has been mangled in recent years, with the coming of "computer
> speakers" and "surround sound speaker systems". There, at least in the
> low range, the small speakers won't give much bass, and the "subwoofer"
> is too small to provide extended bass. They are using the "subwoofer"
> to cover what normal speakers would provide, normal "bass". And thus
> except if you spend lots of money, it ruins the whole concept. I've
> seen bigger woofers in "bookshelf" speakers than a lot of those low end
> "subwoofers" and the boxes they are in aren't much better.

'Mangled' is a good description of the state of affairs.

Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> .com
>> On 8/26/2010 5:55 PM Eeyore spake thus:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2010 4:53 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>> They were intended to be floor-standing, check the
>>>>> classic speaker pages ads:
>>>> Yes, I know that; it's just that they'd probably sound
>>>> better off the floor
>>> What makes you think that ?
>> Intuition.
>>
>> Granted, I don't have the technical knowledge about audio
>> that you and others here do, so I'm not looking to start
>> an argument here. It's just that to me, it seems
>> counterintuitive to place any speaker on the floor and
>> expect good results.

Speaker behaviour at low frequencies is HIGHLY influenced by placement.
At one time extended bass response was made popular by 'corner loading'
which is a "1/8th space environment" e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-space

>
> To you.
>
> Speakers that are designed to be floor standing should be used that way.
>
>> I remember the advice given back in
>> the 70s and 80s: get those speakers off the floor!
>
> That applied to speakers designed for bookshelf installation.
>
>> It seems to me (again, my untutored intuition) that while
>> low frequencies would project fine with a woofer placed
>> close to the floor, anything higher--say, 400 Hz
>> up--would suffer from such placement.
>
> Not suffer, be changed.
>
>> Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor
>> covering, room geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors can't
>> be good for *any* speakers.
>
> Simply not true.
>
>> I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong here. It just
>> has never seemed like a good idea to me to put speakers
>> on the floor, and I was frankly surprised to run across
>> this specimen of KLH speaker which was obviously designed
>> for that very placement.
>
> That's the key - speakers need to be designed for specific postitioning, and
> end-users need to make that one criteria for acquisition.

Very much agreed.

Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 8/29/2010 5:27 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote
>>
>>> It seems to me (again, my untutored intuition) that while
>>> low frequencies would project fine with a woofer placed
>>> close to the floor, anything higher--say, 400 Hz
>>> up--would suffer from such placement.
>>
>> Not suffer, be changed.
>
> So it's possible that mid to high frequencies might be enhanced by floor
> placement?

Enhanced ? What is your idea of 'enhancememt' ? It all depends on the
physical construction of the speaker.

> Bass I can see.
>
>>> Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor
>>> covering, room geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors can't
>>> be good for *any* speakers.
>>
>> Simply not true.
>
> Really? Carpet doesn't "eat up" high frequencies?

Who said the floor was carpeted ?

Most studio control rooms I encounter have wooden floors ! I wonder why ?

Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

dizzy wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> Carpet doesn't "eat up" high frequencies?
>
> What, you have a sheet of carpet hanging from the ceiling, to block
> the sound from getting directly from the speaker to your head?
>
> Sheesh. Let's engage our brains, here.
>
> (Hopefully no one will be so stupid to "inform" me about reflections.
> We don't "need" reflections from walls and floors to hear a
> loudspeaker.)

Have you ever been in an anechoic room ? It's truly 'weird'.

Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Ever hear of electronic equalizers? You can make some headway along the
> lines of restoring balance with them.

Funny you should say that. I've been developing an ultra-accurate
electronic crossover for studio use in combination with a studio
installation company and the first additional request was for an
integrated parametric EQ ( now designed and retrofitted ).

Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Randy Yates wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>> [...]
>> Speakers that were designed by competent engineers usually sound best when
>> they are installed and used as intended.
>
> That's generally good advice. The problem is, there are
> several variables in actual installations that may not
> match what the engineer intended and which are not easy
> to change, a good example being hardwood floors instead
> of some assumed carpet.

Very true.

> But this dialog has brought up a thought: why aren't there
> (at least some) speakers that adapt to their installation?
> I can imagine a wireless sensor being provided with the
> speakers that is placed at or near the listening position
> and with which the speaker system can measure important
> parameters of it's surroundings and attempt to compensate.

A speaker expert friend of mine has had good results with programmable
equalisers driven by a response correction program on a PC. Only works
best for one listening position of course.

Graham

[Eeyore[_4_]]

dizzy wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> All you really need is one good bolted down woofer,
>
> It need not be bolted-down, of course.
>
>> and all the other speakers can be small and relatively cheap, and you get a
>> fantastic sound system.
>
> Sure. The amplifiers for the "main" speakers can be smaller as well.
> Subwoofers can be the way to go, in many, if not most, situations.

Ahhhhhh, the fetid smell of the omnidirectional bass myth.

Graham

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/5/2010 10:02 PM Eeyore spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/2010 5:27 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>>
>>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor covering,
>>>> room geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors can't be good for
>>>> *any* speakers.
>>>
>>> Simply not true.
>>
>> Really? Carpet doesn't "eat up" high frequencies?
>
> Who said the floor was carpeted ?
>
> Most studio control rooms I encounter have wooden floors ! I wonder why ?

My point was that the floor the speakers is placed on *could* easily be
carpeted. Certainly not my choice of floor covering here, but it exists
in many places out there in the wild.

And yes, I certainly wouldn't expect to see carpet in a studio control room.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> > Sure. The amplifiers for the "main" speakers can be smaller as well.
> > Subwoofers can be the way to go, in many, if not most, situations.
>
> Ahhhhhh, the fetid smell of the omnidirectional bass myth.

Beats the smell of the "directional 20Hz" myth I guess. IF you define a sub
woofer properly (rather than simply calling any normal woofer a sub woofer)
then the sub 50Hz bass region is not going to be too bothered by
directionality in any normal room.

Of course IF you consider anything below 1kHz as "sub woofer" material (like
some advertising copy writers do) then you definitely WOULD have a problem.

MrT.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, David Nebenzahl > wrote:
>On 9/5/2010 10:02 PM Eeyore spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/29/2010 5:27 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>>>
>>>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, much depends on many factors: the floor covering,
>>>>> room geometry, etc., etc. Carpeted floors can't be good for
>>>>> *any* speakers.
>>>>
>>>> Simply not true.
>>>
>>> Really? Carpet doesn't "eat up" high frequencies?
>>
>> Who said the floor was carpeted ?
>>
>> Most studio control rooms I encounter have wooden floors ! I wonder why ?
>
>My point was that the floor the speakers is placed on *could* easily be
>carpeted. Certainly not my choice of floor covering here, but it exists
>in many places out there in the wild.
>
>And yes, I certainly wouldn't expect to see carpet in a studio control room.


I would say carpeting is mandatory in my view in any audio room. So
is wall treatments, and ceiling treatments.

greg

[dizzy]

Mr.T wrote:

>"Eeyore" wrote:
>
>> > Sure. The amplifiers for the "main" speakers can be smaller as well.
>> > Subwoofers can be the way to go, in many, if not most, situations.
>>
>> Ahhhhhh, the fetid smell of the omnidirectional bass myth.
>
>Beats the smell of the "directional 20Hz" myth I guess. IF you define a sub
>woofer properly (rather than simply calling any normal woofer a sub woofer)
>then the sub 50Hz bass region is not going to be too bothered by
>directionality in any normal room.

Exactly.

>Of course IF you consider anything below 1kHz as "sub woofer" material (like
>some advertising copy writers do) then you definitely WOULD have a problem.

Plus, stereo subs can be used, if wanted. Mine are stereo, in fact
(although mono'ed for 5.1 movies).

[Mr.T]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Plus, stereo subs can be used, if wanted.

Of course, if space and budget permit.

>Mine are stereo, in fact

As are mine. Of course a very good reason for most people to do so is if
they cross them over at higher frequencies, or use a more gradual slope.


> (although mono'ed for 5.1 movies).

I doubt you will find any stereo separation below 50Hz on any music CD
either, and definitely not on any vinyl source. So there is no difference
between twin mono (real) SUB woofers, and true stereo for all practical
purposes anyway.

MrT.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:38:32 +1000, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

>I doubt you will find any stereo separation below 50Hz on any music CD
>either, and definitely not on any vinyl source. So there is no difference
>between twin mono (real) SUB woofers, and true stereo for all practical
>purposes anyway.

Unless your room is at least 50' wide, it won't be heard in stereo.
Wavelength for a 50hz wave is 22'. Let it bounce off the near walls and
it will definately not be stereo by the time it reaches the listener.

If you can hear where sound is coming from your subs, it is because of
harmonics above about 80-100hz.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" >
wrote in message

> dizzy wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> All you really need is one good bolted down woofer,
>>
>> It need not be bolted-down, of course.
>>
>>> and all the other speakers can be small and relatively
>>> cheap, and you get a fantastic sound system.
>>
>> Sure. The amplifiers for the "main" speakers can be
>> smaller as well. Subwoofers can be the way to go, in
>> many, if not most, situations.
>
> Ahhhhhh, the fetid smell of the omnidirectional bass myth.

There's only a myth if one takes an extreme position.

Given that people use subwoofers crossed over at 125 Hz (LFE) or higher
(small 2.1 computer speaker systems) then the so-called bass can be at high
enough of a frequency to be directional.

If the two high range speakers go down to 50 Hz and are six feet apart, then
the bass from a subwoofer positioned between them is practiacally
omnidirectional.

If your listening room is 25 feet wide, you put a subwoofer on each side of
your listening position, and we consider that the ear can actually hear
phase changes at frequencies this low, then bass may indeed be directional.

[Arny Krueger]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:38:32 +1000, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> I doubt you will find any stereo separation below 50Hz
>> on any music CD either, and definitely not on any vinyl
>> source. So there is no difference between twin mono
>> (real) SUB woofers, and true stereo for all practical
>> purposes anyway.

> Unless your room is at least 50' wide, it won't be heard
> in stereo.

If you have two subwoofers driven by a stereo source, and there is
significant phase shift between them, then you may have some significant
frequency response variations. One question will be whether or not the
frequency response variations due to phase are masked by standing waves in
the room which abound at low frequencies.

[Bill Graham]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:38:32 +1000, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>>I doubt you will find any stereo separation below 50Hz on any music CD
>>either, and definitely not on any vinyl source. So there is no difference
>>between twin mono (real) SUB woofers, and true stereo for all practical
>>purposes anyway.
>
> Unless your room is at least 50' wide, it won't be heard in stereo.
> Wavelength for a 50hz wave is 22'. Let it bounce off the near walls and
> it will definately not be stereo by the time it reaches the listener.
>
> If you can hear where sound is coming from your subs, it is because of
> harmonics above about 80-100hz.
>
>
>

Not sure how relevant this is to your discussion, but I play a trumpet, and
I amplify my sound sometimes, so I can use special effects, and I have to
cut off anything below about 100 Hz, in order to eliminate the valve clunk I
get when my valves return to their highest, "relaxed" position.....There is
a lot of low frequency noise in any recorded band. Not just valve "clunk",
but guitar fretboard noise and other stuff like that.....I can get rid of
most of it with a low cut filter, but not all of it.....

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
>
>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:38:32 +1000, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>>
>>>I doubt you will find any stereo separation below 50Hz on any music CD
>>>either, and definitely not on any vinyl source. So there is no difference
>>>between twin mono (real) SUB woofers, and true stereo for all practical
>>>purposes anyway.
>>
>> Unless your room is at least 50' wide, it won't be heard in stereo.
>> Wavelength for a 50hz wave is 22'. Let it bounce off the near walls and
>> it will definately not be stereo by the time it reaches the listener.
>>
>> If you can hear where sound is coming from your subs, it is because of
>> harmonics above about 80-100hz.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Not sure how relevant this is to your discussion, but I play a trumpet, and
>I amplify my sound sometimes, so I can use special effects, and I have to
>cut off anything below about 100 Hz, in order to eliminate the valve clunk I
>get when my valves return to their highest, "relaxed" position.....There is
>a lot of low frequency noise in any recorded band. Not just valve "clunk",
>but guitar fretboard noise and other stuff like that.....I can get rid of
>most of it with a low cut filter, but not all of it.....
>

I used to try and play trumpet. You could cut it off way higher I'm sure.

I have in the past used signal generators and try to find how high before
localization occurs. 70 Hz and below is pretty safe. Even my cheap signal
generator has .5% distortion, but my old HP does way better. Any
little noise can be localized, especially woofer wind or basket noise.


greg

[Bill Graham]

"GregS" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Bill Graham"
> > wrote:
>>
>>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:38:32 +1000, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I doubt you will find any stereo separation below 50Hz on any music CD
>>>>either, and definitely not on any vinyl source. So there is no
>>>>difference
>>>>between twin mono (real) SUB woofers, and true stereo for all practical
>>>>purposes anyway.
>>>
>>> Unless your room is at least 50' wide, it won't be heard in stereo.
>>> Wavelength for a 50hz wave is 22'. Let it bounce off the near walls and
>>> it will definately not be stereo by the time it reaches the listener.
>>>
>>> If you can hear where sound is coming from your subs, it is because of
>>> harmonics above about 80-100hz.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not sure how relevant this is to your discussion, but I play a trumpet,
>>and
>>I amplify my sound sometimes, so I can use special effects, and I have to
>>cut off anything below about 100 Hz, in order to eliminate the valve clunk
>>I
>>get when my valves return to their highest, "relaxed" position.....There
>>is
>>a lot of low frequency noise in any recorded band. Not just valve "clunk",
>>but guitar fretboard noise and other stuff like that.....I can get rid of
>>most of it with a low cut filter, but not all of it.....
>>
>
> I used to try and play trumpet. You could cut it off way higher I'm sure.
>
> I have in the past used signal generators and try to find how high before
> localization occurs. 70 Hz and below is pretty safe. Even my cheap signal
> generator has .5% distortion, but my old HP does way better. Any
> little noise can be localized, especially woofer wind or basket noise.
>
>
> greg

Yes, I could cut it higher, but I notice a lot of devices have a built-in
filter that cuts the lows off at around 80 to 100 Hz, and, since there is no
music below there, that's about where I have my gate set....It's just that a
lot of devices and microphones advertize good frequency response down to
below 50 Hz, and I wonder why anyone would pay any significant amount of
extra money to buy such a device, when all you get at those frequencies is
noise anyway? AC hum is 60 Hz, and nobody would want to amplify
that.....Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
shouldn't open up that can of worms......It's just that when you are trying
to maximize your performance per unit dollar, you sometimes think about
these things.....I have five cats who can, (I'm sure) hear sounds in the
over 10 KHz range, but they don't appreciate most of the music I mess
with....:^)

[dizzy]

Bill Graham wrote:

>.Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....

You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
no matter what the fundamental frequency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:29:51 -0500, dizzy > wrote:
>Bill Graham wrote:

>>.Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....

>You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
>no matter what the fundamental frequency.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics

Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are totally deaf above 15khz.
There really isn't much information' between 10 and 20khz. Just noise.

[Bill Graham]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>.Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....
>
> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
> no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>

Yes.....Barely audible, at least to me....I do notice that when I was
younger, I had little or no trouble being able to tell the difference
between real sounds, and sounds that came from some electronic reproductive
device, but in recent years (I am 75) I frequently get confused, and think
that something from the TV is a real sound, (usually something behind me.)
So, I jump up and look behind me foolishly, when the noise just came from
the TV or whatever.....My cats, on the other hand, pay no attention to any
program material from the TV, but should something real happen, they perk
right up immediately, telling me that its a "real" noise.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:05:10 -0700, Bill Graham > wrote:

....
>device, but in recent years (I am 75) I frequently get confused, and think
>that something from the TV is a real sound, (usually something behind me.)
>So, I jump up and look behind me foolishly, when the noise just came from
>the TV or whatever.....My cats, on the other hand, pay no attention to any
>program material from the TV, but should something real happen, they perk
>right up immediately, telling me that its a "real" noise.

I have a phone app that generates high pitched noise and it is amusing
seeing who in a crowd can hear it. Unsurprisingly, the name of the
app is "Teen Repellant"

[Bill Graham]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:05:10 -0700, Bill Graham > wrote:
>
> ...
>>device, but in recent years (I am 75) I frequently get confused, and think
>>that something from the TV is a real sound, (usually something behind me.)
>>So, I jump up and look behind me foolishly, when the noise just came from
>>the TV or whatever.....My cats, on the other hand, pay no attention to any
>>program material from the TV, but should something real happen, they perk
>>right up immediately, telling me that its a "real" noise.
>
> I have a phone app that generates high pitched noise and it is amusing
> seeing who in a crowd can hear it. Unsurprisingly, the name of the
> app is "Teen Repellant"

One of my cats (B-K, whom I picked up in a Burger King parking lot) comes
when I call him with a "dog whistle" It's amazing how far away he can hear
that whistle. All I have to do is leave the front door ajar, and blow that
whistle, and he shows up in about 10 or 15 minutes.....

[thanatoid]

AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

<snip>

> Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are totally
> deaf above 15khz. There really isn't much information'
> between 10 and 20khz. Just noise.

According to your esoteric statistics, even people over 25 will
hear about half of that "noise".

I can hear only to about 6KHz, and *I* can tell the difference
between something that is 20-*TEN*K and something that is 20-
20K.


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/9/2010 5:24 PM Bill Graham spake thus:

> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:05:10 -0700, Bill Graham >
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>> device, but in recent years (I am 75) I frequently get confused,
>>> and think that something from the TV is a real sound, (usually
>>> something behind me.) So, I jump up and look behind me foolishly,
>>> when the noise just came from the TV or whatever.....My cats, on
>>> the other hand, pay no attention to any program material from the
>>> TV, but should something real happen, they perk right up
>>> immediately, telling me that its a "real" noise.
>>
>> I have a phone app that generates high pitched noise and it is
>> amusing seeing who in a crowd can hear it. Unsurprisingly, the name
>> of the app is "Teen Repellant"
>
> One of my cats (B-K, whom I picked up in a Burger King parking lot) comes
> when I call him with a "dog whistle" It's amazing how far away he can hear
> that whistle. All I have to do is leave the front door ajar, and blow that
> whistle, and he shows up in about 10 or 15 minutes.....

10 or 15 minutes? How old is that cat?

D "my late cat Oscar lived to be almost 20" Neb


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

[Arny Krueger]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message


> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:29:51 -0500, dizzy
> > wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>> .Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8
>>> Kilohertz, so
>>> it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that
>>> operate much above that, either, but that's a whole
>>> different argument, and I probably shouldn't open up
>>> that can of worms.....
>
>> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics
>> above 8 kHz, no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>
> Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are
> totally deaf above 15khz.

Simply not true. It is usually a matter of frequency and SPL. Make it loud
enough and even many old geezers will reliably perceive sound above 15 KHz.

> There really isn't much
> information' between 10 and 20khz.

That very much depends on the nature of the music. Given a reasonble choice
of music, brick wall filters as high as 15-16 Khz can be reliably detected.
And the reason the point of detection is this low is due to masking, not a
raw inability to hear isolated sounds that high.

> Just noise.

No, there's music up to 80-100 KHz, depending on the instrument. A trumpet
with a Harmon mute comes to mind.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:12:55 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid > wrote:
>AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

><snip>

>> Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are totally
>> deaf above 15khz. There really isn't much information'
>> between 10 and 20khz. Just noise.

>According to your esoteric statistics, even people over 25 will
>hear about half of that "noise".

>I can hear only to about 6KHz, and *I* can tell the difference
>between something that is 20-*TEN*K and something that is 20-
>20K.

That is only because equipment that only goes to 10K is going to be a
serious piece of **** and have all kinds of distortion, and difference
in frequency response well below 10K.

[thanatoid]

AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:12:55 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> > wrote:
>>AZ Nomad > wrote in

>>:
>
>><snip>
>
>>> Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are
>>> totally deaf above 15khz. There really isn't much
>>> information' between 10 and 20khz. Just noise.
>
>>According to your esoteric statistics, even people over 25
>>will hear about half of that "noise".
>
>>I can hear only to about 6KHz, and *I* can tell the
>>difference between something that is 20-*TEN*K and
>>something that is 20- 20K.
>
> That is only because equipment that only goes to 10K is
> going to be a serious piece of **** and have all kinds of
> distortion, and difference in frequency response well below
> 10K.

I have good equipment, ProAc speakers, and I am talking about
the RECORDING, not the /equipment it is played on/ to begin
with!


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[Bill Graham]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
.com...
> On 9/9/2010 5:24 PM Bill Graham spake thus:
>
>> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:05:10 -0700, Bill Graham >
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> device, but in recent years (I am 75) I frequently get confused, and
>>>> think that something from the TV is a real sound, (usually
>>>> something behind me.) So, I jump up and look behind me foolishly,
>>>> when the noise just came from the TV or whatever.....My cats, on
>>>> the other hand, pay no attention to any program material from the
>>>> TV, but should something real happen, they perk right up
>>>> immediately, telling me that its a "real" noise.
>>>
>>> I have a phone app that generates high pitched noise and it is
>>> amusing seeing who in a crowd can hear it. Unsurprisingly, the name
>>> of the app is "Teen Repellant"
>>
>> One of my cats (B-K, whom I picked up in a Burger King parking lot) comes
>> when I call him with a "dog whistle" It's amazing how far away he can
>> hear that whistle. All I have to do is leave the front door ajar, and
>> blow that whistle, and he shows up in about 10 or 15 minutes.....
>
> 10 or 15 minutes? How old is that cat?
>
> D "my late cat Oscar lived to be almost 20" Neb

B-K will be 7 this Thanksgiving. He is very gregarious, and knows most of
the neighbors....He spends time in all their houses, and so he might have to
wait until they let him out before he responds to my call....The guy next
door is allergic to cats, but he loves B-K, because he hates moles who
destroy his lawn, and B-K waits for hours to catch a mole, and then leaves
the body on his front doorstep as a present....:^)

[Bill Graham]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
>
>
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:29:51 -0500, dizzy
>> > wrote:
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>>> .Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8
>>>> Kilohertz, so
>>>> it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that
>>>> operate much above that, either, but that's a whole
>>>> different argument, and I probably shouldn't open up
>>>> that can of worms.....
>>
>>> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics
>>> above 8 kHz, no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>>
>> Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are
>> totally deaf above 15khz.
>
> Simply not true. It is usually a matter of frequency and SPL. Make it loud
> enough and even many old geezers will reliably perceive sound above 15
> KHz.
>
>> There really isn't much
>> information' between 10 and 20khz.
>
> That very much depends on the nature of the music. Given a reasonble
> choice of music, brick wall filters as high as 15-16 Khz can be reliably
> detected. And the reason the point of detection is this low is due to
> masking, not a raw inability to hear isolated sounds that high.
>
>> Just noise.
>
> No, there's music up to 80-100 KHz, depending on the instrument. A trumpet
> with a Harmon mute comes to mind.
>
> http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
>

I don't deny that the music contains these higher frequencies, but what I
question is, what good are they if one can't hear them? IOW, if I can't hear
any frequencies above, say, 15 KHz, then I won't be able to tell the
difference between a Hi-Fi system that copies to 20 KHz, and one that only
copies to 15 KHz.....Isn't that true? So, any money I spend on equipment
that copies over 15 KHz is wasted......My cats will be able to hear it, but
they would be happier with a $1.00 pull toy, or a fresh can of cat food.
The way it is now, I can't tell a TV sound from a live one, so what good is
a 20 to 20 KHz sound system to me? The harmonics may be there, but I can't
hear them, so the music sounds just as good to me on a much poorer system.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:38:30 -0400, Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message


>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:29:51 -0500, dizzy
>> > wrote:
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>>> .Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8
>>>> Kilohertz, so
>>>> it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that
>>>> operate much above that, either, but that's a whole
>>>> different argument, and I probably shouldn't open up
>>>> that can of worms.....
>>
>>> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics
>>> above 8 kHz, no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>>
>> Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are
>> totally deaf above 15khz.

>Simply not true. It is usually a matter of frequency and SPL. Make it loud
>enough and even many old geezers will reliably perceive sound above 15 KHz.

>> There really isn't much
>> information' between 10 and 20khz.

>That very much depends on the nature of the music. Given a reasonble choice
>of music, brick wall filters as high as 15-16 Khz can be reliably detected.
>And the reason the point of detection is this low is due to masking, not a
>raw inability to hear isolated sounds that high.

>> Just noise.

>No, there's music up to 80-100 KHz, depending on the instrument. A trumpet
>with a Harmon mute comes to mind.


If you can't hear a tone at 17khz, what makes you think you can
hear anything out at 50khz?

[Bill Graham]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:12:55 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> > wrote:
>>AZ Nomad > wrote in
:
>
>><snip>
>
>>> Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are totally
>>> deaf above 15khz. There really isn't much information'
>>> between 10 and 20khz. Just noise.
>
>>According to your esoteric statistics, even people over 25 will
>>hear about half of that "noise".
>
>>I can hear only to about 6KHz, and *I* can tell the difference
>>between something that is 20-*TEN*K and something that is 20-
>>20K.
>
> That is only because equipment that only goes to 10K is going to be a
> serious piece of **** and have all kinds of distortion, and difference
> in frequency response well below 10K.
>
Yes....The placebo effect is so great in these matters that one must use a
serious double blind test in order to really know what someone really hears,
and what they are just surmising from the things they see. As a trumpet
player, I can tell you that musicians are seriously influenced by many other
things other than the pure sounds they hear.....They do crazy things because
of these outside (sometimes ridiculous) influences. They cryogenically treat
their horns for example.....Bring them down to over 150 degrees below zero
for a half hour, and then let them return to room temperature, (which does
absolutely nothing to the metal in the horn) and they actually think their
horn will perform/sound better because of this. No amount of argument by
experienced metallurgists can convince them otherwise....:^) Another thing
they swear by is something called, "projection". This is a perceived
increase in the volume of their sound over distance, which breaks Gauss'
inverse square law, and is, of course, impossible. As a physicist, I have
found it totally impossible to convince them of this.....If they believe,
then its like a religion. They will continue to believe against any and all
logic.

[thanatoid]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:

<snip>

> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are they if
> one can't hear them?

You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of which is
~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it makes in the overall
sound of the **complex** harmonic structure you perceive as a
"single note".

Whether /you/ can tell the note comes from a Selmer saxophone or
a kazoo is another matter.

> IOW, if I can't hear any frequencies
> above, say, 15 KHz, then I won't be able to tell the
> difference between a Hi-Fi system that copies to 20 KHz,
> and one that only copies to 15 KHz.....Isn't that true?

No.

> So,
> any money I spend on equipment that copies over 15 KHz is
> wasted...

No. OK, maybe - for YOU.

> My cats will be able to hear it, but they would
> be happier with a $1.00 pull toy, or a fresh can of cat
> food. The way it is now, I can't tell a TV sound from a
> live one, so what good is a 20 to 20 KHz sound system to
> me? The harmonics may be there, but I can't hear them, so
> the music sounds just as good to me on a much poorer
> system.

I never disputed your /individual/ inability to tell the
difference, just your cloudy views on the matter.

Nonetheless, 20 years ago when I got my ProAcs the difference
between them and the speakers that came with my VERY good Sony
MHT-3500 mini-system was MUCH more perceptible than it is today,
but I can /still/ hear *A* difference, even though a simple test
with computer hardware (using Sennheiser headphones - and I have
a real stereo hooked up to the sound card anyway, not a pair of
½" 'speakers') tells me my hearing cuts off around 6KHz.


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid > wrote:
>"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:

><snip>

>> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
>> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are they if
>> one can't hear them?

>You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of which is
>~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it makes in the overall
>sound of the **complex** harmonic structure you perceive as a
>"single note".

It doesn't and you won't.

[Bill Graham]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never disputed your /individual/ inability to tell the
> difference, just your cloudy views on the matter.

Why are these views, "cloudy"? One can either hear the highs, or not. If one
can't hear them, then why would one spend money to reproduce them
faithfully? Now, it may be that I am not the only one that listens to my
equipment, and therefore, I might want to buy and maintain better equipment
for my friends. But the facts are still the facts. If any part of a serial
system is defective, then the whole is not going to do the job, right? It's
like a chain, which is only as strong as its weakest link. So, ones ears are
a part of the system.....The last link in the chain, as it were. Therefore,
even if the rest of the chain is bouquet fine stuff, if the last link is
bad, then the whole thing is inadequate. That's all I'm trying to say, and I
see no reason to call my reasoning, "cloudy".

[Bill Graham]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> > wrote:
>>"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:
>
>><snip>
>
>>> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
>>> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are they if
>>> one can't hear them?
>
>>You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of which is
>>~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it makes in the overall
>>sound of the **complex** harmonic structure you perceive as a
>>"single note".
>
> It doesn't and you won't.

I don't really believe it will either, but there is a great deal of,
"placebo" effect going on in a room full of very expensive and elegant
equipment, and so there is a "cult" of believers that are convinced that
there is some kind of magic going on that allows them to hear things that
aren't really there......I am, (by the way) not at all immune to this
placebo effect....I too, think the music is better, (even though I should
know better.) So, I may (and frequently have in the past) spend the money
and feed my own erroneous beliefs even though I should know better. But I
don't think I should be castigated for expressing my belief in physics. The
fact of the matter is, if you can't hear those upper harmonics, then the
music won't sound any better by the time it enters your brain, and if you
think it does, then you are being deceived by something else than what you
hear. Which is OK.....I like magic shows as well as the next person.....But
I still insist that they are nothing more than magic shows, and not real
magic.

[Arny Krueger]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> > wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" > wrote in
>> :
>
>> <snip>
>
>>> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
>>> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are they
>>> if one can't hear them?
>
>> You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of
>> which is ~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it
>> makes in the overall sound of the **complex** harmonic
>> structure you perceive as a "single note".
>
> It doesn't and you won't.

Agreed. If you can't hear it, you can't hear its effects.

[thanatoid]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:

<snip>

>> I never disputed your /individual/ inability to tell the
>> difference, just your cloudy views on the matter.
>
> Why are these views, "cloudy"? One can either hear the
> highs, or not. If one can't hear them, then why would one
> spend money to reproduce them faithfully?

<snip>

OK, just to play this for a little longer... HOW MUCH did your
system cost?

I used to be a musician and there is nothing I love more than
music. But I think people who spend more than $1,500 on a sound
system are nuts.

The logic of "If you can't hear it, you can't hear its effects."
(A.K.) appears undeniable, and I do not believe my stereo would
sound better - to MY ears, and 99.9% of humans - if it *just*
cost $30,000 more.

I *have heard* $30,000 systems with 2 mono block valve amps and
speakers 3 times the size of my body, and I am /perfectly/ happy
with my 20+ yr old 2x30W Sony MHC-3500, and my ProAc Tablette II
speakers (the original Sonys, better than you would think, are
used with my computer).

Even on MY system, I /can/ hear the difference between something
I recorded with a 15KHz high pass filter on Vs. off.

Anyway, this is silly to argue about.

Now, for something a LOT more important:

Has anyone heard if "they" have developed a tinnitus reversal
operation procedure, OR some wonder drug? Mine is not THAT bad -
when I am talking (etc.) I am barely aware of it, but when I
listen to MUSIC, it is in full force. A nightmare.



--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[Arny Krueger]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message

> "Bill Graham" > wrote in
> :
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I never disputed your /individual/ inability to tell the
>>> difference, just your cloudy views on the matter.
>>
>> Why are these views, "cloudy"? One can either hear the
>> highs, or not. If one can't hear them, then why would one
>> spend money to reproduce them faithfully?
>
> <snip>
>
> OK, just to play this for a little longer... HOW MUCH did
> your system cost?
>
> I used to be a musician and there is nothing I love more
> than music. But I think people who spend more than $1,500
> on a sound system are nuts.


Hmmm.. My "fun" system, in my living room.

Somethings are old, somethings are new...

Pioneer Blu Ray Player: $120
Sherwood 100 wpc stereo receiver $85
Rane 1/3 octave Stereo eq $300
Pair Boston Acoustics CR9 speakers $450
Paradigm 12" Subwoofer $450

Yes, there's a 60" HDTV spliced onto the side of this, but it doesn't count!

I guess that this system is according to you, not nuts.

However it is pretty close to the limit. IME spending more money on
speakers, including subwoofers can be audibly beneficial.

[Mr.T]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...
> I used to be a musician and there is nothing I love more than
> music. But I think people who spend more than $1,500 on a sound
> system are nuts.

Hell I've never heard a pair of speakers that I'd be happy with for that
price, and the frequency response above 15kHz is NOT a real consideration
for me any more. BUT distortion levels and bass response sure are. However
for those who are happy with their little systems, good luck to them, they
sure save a lot of money, but don't pretend they are just as good.

And IF you are a musician, I'll bet you wouldn't be happy playing in a venue
with a $1500 sound system!

MrT.

[Bill Graham]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "thanatoid" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I used to be a musician and there is nothing I love more than
>> music. But I think people who spend more than $1,500 on a sound
>> system are nuts.
>
> Hell I've never heard a pair of speakers that I'd be happy with for that
> price, and the frequency response above 15kHz is NOT a real consideration
> for me any more. BUT distortion levels and bass response sure are. However
> for those who are happy with their little systems, good luck to them, they
> sure save a lot of money, but don't pretend they are just as good.
>
> And IF you are a musician, I'll bet you wouldn't be happy playing in a
> venue
> with a $1500 sound system!
>
> MrT.
>
>

Oh, I wouldn't say that....I am perfectly happy playing a flugelhorn through
an AT PRO 35 R microphone ($125) to a TC Helicon Vocal processor ($150) and
a Behringer 45 Watt Amp ($175) to a dance floor containing around 20 couples
every week. Sure, the Rolling Stones couldn't use my equipment playing
Hollywood Bowl, but not all musicians are in their league. The amateur
musicians in this country outnumber the paid professionals by about 100 to
1, and many of them are a lot better than the pros, too.....AAMOF, I would
call most professional musicians "Entertainers", and not musicians. The real
musicians in this world are practicing in their own living rooms, and not in
front of any crowd.

[dizzy]

AZ Nomad wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid > wrote:
>>"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:
>
>><snip>
>
>>> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
>>> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are they if
>>> one can't hear them?
>
>>You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of which is
>>~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it makes in the overall
>>sound of the **complex** harmonic structure you perceive as a
>>"single note".
>
>It doesn't and you won't.

Yes you will, you're an idiot.

[dizzy]

AZ Nomad wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:29:51 -0500, dizzy > wrote:
>>Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>>.Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>>>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>>>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....
>
>>You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
>>no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>
>Meanwhile most people above the age of about 25 are totally deaf above 15khz.
>There really isn't much information' between 10 and 20khz. Just noise.

No, they are not, and you're a ****ing idiot.

Sheesh, do you *really* want to claim that all 8 kHz (fundamental)
notes will sound the same, to older people?

[dizzy]

Bill Graham wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote:
>
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>>Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>>>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>>>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....
>>
>> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
>> no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>
>Yes.....Barely audible, at least to me....I do notice that when I was
>younger, I had little or no trouble being able to tell the difference
>between real sounds, and sounds that came from some electronic reproductive
>device, but in recent years (I am 75)

Doesn't excuse the above silly statement you made:

[thanatoid]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

<snip>

> Hmmm.. My "fun" system, in my living room.
>
> Somethings are old, somethings are new...
>
> Pioneer Blu Ray Player: $120
> Sherwood 100 wpc stereo receiver $85

Is this old and good or some Chinese **** by people who bought
out the name? Or does this brand actually continue? Or is this a
different Sherwood altogether (like a UK one?)

> Rane 1/3 octave Stereo eq $300
> Pair Boston Acoustics CR9 speakers $450
> Paradigm 12" Subwoofer $450
>
> Yes, there's a 60" HDTV spliced onto the side of this, but
> it doesn't count!

No kidding. Throw that piece of crap in the trash and get a CRT
for a decent image. **** HD and LCDs. (JMHO.)

> I guess that this system is according to you, not nuts.

No, but I would NEVER spend that much on anything Boston
Acoustics makes. You could have done a LOT worse though. It's a
decent brand, but a better value with their lower-priced stuff
IIRC.

> However it is pretty close to the limit. IME spending more
> money on speakers, including subwoofers can be audibly
> beneficial.

I do not like subwoofers. They are for gamers and people who
like hollywood action ****.
I had a subwoofer hooked up along with my Tablettes for a while,
and I have been much happier since I removed it.


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[thanatoid]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in
u:

> "thanatoid" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I used to be a musician and there is nothing I love more
>> than music. But I think people who spend more than $1,500
>> on a sound system are nuts.
>
> Hell I've never heard a pair of speakers that I'd be happy
> with for that price, and the frequency response above 15kHz
> is NOT a real consideration for me any more. BUT distortion
> levels and bass response sure are. However for those who
> are happy with their little systems, good luck to them,
> they sure save a lot of money, but don't pretend they are
> just as good.
>
> And IF you are a musician, I'll bet you wouldn't be happy
> playing in a venue with a $1500 sound system!
>
> MrT.

Take off all the gold necklaces affecting your brain operation
and you MAY realize that an amplifier (etc) for stage use is NOT
quite the same as a hi-fi amplifier in the house.

My ProAc Tablettes II cost well under a grand when I bought them
(the new ones are MUCH too big and too expensive) and they were
considered one of the 2-3 best speakers of that size /ever/
built. I would have bought the equivalent minitowers - just an
extra woofer - because they were so beautiful (IMO /the/ best
geometrical proportions of any speaker ever made), but they were
a little too expensive.

I am not into big sound (unless I /am/ on stage, but those days
are gone, pretty much).


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[thanatoid]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:

<snip>

> Oh, I wouldn't say that....I am perfectly happy playing a
> flugelhorn through an AT PRO 35 R microphone ($125) to a TC
> Helicon Vocal processor ($150) and a Behringer 45 Watt Amp
> ($175) to a dance floor containing around 20 couples every
> week. Sure, the Rolling Stones couldn't use my equipment
> playing Hollywood Bowl, but not all musicians are in their
> league.

Yes, some people actually use more than 5 guitar chords over 50
years...

Yes, not *three* chords, five :-]

> The amateur musicians in this country outnumber the
> paid professionals by about 100 to 1, and many of them are
> a lot better than the pros, too...

No kidding. Quality rarely sells records or radio time.

> AAMOF, I would call
> most professional musicians "Entertainers", and not
> musicians. The real musicians in this world are practicing
> in their own living rooms, and not in front of any crowd.

No kidding, again.


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[Bill Graham]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>>>>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>>>>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....
>>>
>>> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
>>> no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>>
>>Yes.....Barely audible, at least to me....I do notice that when I was
>>younger, I had little or no trouble being able to tell the difference
>>between real sounds, and sounds that came from some electronic
>>reproductive
>>device, but in recent years (I am 75)
>
> Doesn't excuse the above silly statement you made:
>

And what silly statement was that?

[Bill Graham]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in
> :
>
> <snip>
>
>> Oh, I wouldn't say that....I am perfectly happy playing a
>> flugelhorn through an AT PRO 35 R microphone ($125) to a TC
>> Helicon Vocal processor ($150) and a Behringer 45 Watt Amp
>> ($175) to a dance floor containing around 20 couples every
>> week. Sure, the Rolling Stones couldn't use my equipment
>> playing Hollywood Bowl, but not all musicians are in their
>> league.
>
> Yes, some people actually use more than 5 guitar chords over 50
> years...
>
> Yes, not *three* chords, five :-]
>
>> The amateur musicians in this country outnumber the
>> paid professionals by about 100 to 1, and many of them are
>> a lot better than the pros, too...
>
> No kidding. Quality rarely sells records or radio time.
>
>> AAMOF, I would call
>> most professional musicians "Entertainers", and not
>> musicians. The real musicians in this world are practicing
>> in their own living rooms, and not in front of any crowd.
>
> No kidding, again.
>
I am fond of saying that there exists, in almost every town in this country,
a housewife that could be a concert artist, if she had the ability to sell
herself as well as she could play her music, and was willing to spend the
hours waiting in line in producers and agents offices it takes to be
recognized.......

[thanatoid]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:

<snip>

> I am fond of saying that there exists, in almost every town
> in this country, a housewife that could be a concert
> artist, if she had the ability to sell herself as well as
> she could play her music, and was willing to spend the
> hours waiting in line in producers and agents offices it
> takes to be recognized.......

You forgot to mention paying low wages to a bimbo with big tits
who would lip sync/pretend to play instrument in her videos
while the artist hides in her kitchen and collects royalties.

Did you know "Whigfield" was just a model, the singer was
someone else? She was /just/ common-looking enough I thought she
may have been real... Poor Milli Vanilli guy... They were
****trailblazers**** and he snuffed it for nothing instead of
being inducted into the RnR Hall of Fame!

Sigh. I LOVE this century (NOT).


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:09:13 -0500, dizzy > wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote:

>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid > wrote:
>>>"Bill Graham" > wrote in
:
>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>>> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
>>>> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are they if
>>>> one can't hear them?
>>
>>>You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of which is
>>>~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it makes in the overall
>>>sound of the **complex** harmonic structure you perceive as a
>>>"single note".
>>
>>It doesn't and you won't.

>Yes you will, you're an idiot.

bull**** and more bull**** is all you have

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
>> > wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" > wrote in
>>> :
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
>>>> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are
>>>> they if one can't hear them?
>>
>>> You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of
>>> which is ~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it
>>> makes in the overall sound of the **complex** harmonic
>>> structure you perceive as a "single note".
>>
>> It doesn't and you won't.

> Yes you will, you're an idiot.

Ah, its the prerequisite radical subjectivist personal attack. When people
run out of logic, they can still use anger. Trouble is, it makes them look
like a fool. I feel just like I'm back on RAO!

[Arny Krueger]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
> :
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hmmm.. My "fun" system, in my living room.
>>
>> Somethings are old, somethings are new...
>>
>> Pioneer Blu Ray Player: $120
>> Sherwood 100 wpc stereo receiver $85
>
> Is this old and good or some Chinese **** by people who
> bought out the name?

The Sherwood is a few years old and therefore Chinese. The Pioneer is new
but they sometimes use places like the Philllapines, etc.

If you want to be a racist, that's your choice. I find that it is harder and
harder to distinguish country of origin by looking at the insides of things.

> Or does this brand actually
> continue? Or is this a different Sherwood altogether
> (like a UK one?)

All USA.

>> Rane 1/3 octave Stereo eq $300
>> Pair Boston Acoustics CR9 speakers $450
>> Paradigm 12" Subwoofer $450
>>
>> Yes, there's a 60" HDTV spliced onto the side of this,
>> but it doesn't count!

> No kidding. Throw that piece of crap in the trash and get
> a CRT for a decent image. **** HD and LCDs. (JMHO.)

I actually own a 2048 x 2048 CRT-based projector, which is sitting in
storage someplace. You can say whatever you want, but I know what the
actual comparison looks like. I'm using the best all-around tool in this
case.

>> I guess that this system is according to you, not nuts.

> No, but I would NEVER spend that much on anything Boston
> Acoustics makes.

Again a choice you get to make. The CR9s were bought new in the mid-1990s.
They seem to have stood the test of time.

> You could have done a LOT worse though.
> It's a decent brand, but a better value with their
> lower-priced stuff IIRC.


>> However it is pretty close to the limit. IME spending
>> more money on speakers, including subwoofers can be
>> audibly beneficial.

> I do not like subwoofers. They are for gamers and people
> who like hollywood action ****.

You seem to hold tightly onto a lot of prejudices that many knowlegeable
people disagree with.

> I had a subwoofer hooked up along with my Tablettes for a
> while, and I have been much happier since I removed it.

Next time, try implementing your subwoofer properly.

[thanatoid]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "thanatoid" > wrote in message
>

<snip>

> The Sherwood is a few years old and therefore Chinese. The
> Pioneer is new but they sometimes use places like the
> Philllapines, etc.

Phillipines, you racist misspeller (see below).

> If you want to be a racist, that's your choice.

If you want to be a retard whose trendoid "anti-racist" leanings
make him/her afraid of admitting that country 98% of whose
industry still has not mastered the subtle art of injection
molding may NOT be the best choice for manufacturing anything
beyond pencils, and realizing that this fact has NOTHING to do
with race, that's your choice as well.

Incredible.

NB: Cadbury recently opened a plant(s?) in China. I suggest next
time you feel like some good chocolate, you buy the Chinese-made
bar. Your contribution to the anti-racist movement, overall
political awareness, the health of Western World economies and
workforce, and the well-being of all good persons on this planet
will be greatly appreciated! Bon appétit!

> I find that
> it is harder and harder to distinguish country of origin by
> looking at the insides of things.

Once serious manufacturers realized the truth of the injection
molding statement above, they started exercising better control.
I just bought a Lumix digi camera and it is perfect, AND 100%
made in China. But the /battery/ is 100% made in Japan. I wonder
why?

>> Or does this brand actually
>> continue? Or is this a different Sherwood altogether
>> (like a UK one?)
>
> All USA.

No, all China.

>>> Rane 1/3 octave Stereo eq $300
>>> Pair Boston Acoustics CR9 speakers $450
>>> Paradigm 12" Subwoofer $450
>>>
>>> Yes, there's a 60" HDTV spliced onto the side of this,
>>> but it doesn't count!
>
>> No kidding. Throw that piece of crap in the trash and get
>> a CRT for a decent image. **** HD and LCDs. (JMHO.)
>
> I actually own a 2048 x 2048 CRT-based projector, which is
> sitting in storage someplace.

Aside from the rather interestng aspect ratio, may I state that
CRT projectors had far worse image quality than LCDs. But size
is all that matters to MANY clueless people.

> You can say whatever you want

Thank you, your majesty. I hope I was not being racist in
claiming HD and LCD was irrelevant ****.

> but I know what the actual comparison looks like.
> I'm using the best all-around tool in this case.

I know, it's a pointless argument. CRT's WILL be back, just like
turntables.

>>> I guess that this system is according to you, not nuts.
>
>> No, but I would NEVER spend that much on anything Boston
>> Acoustics makes.
>
> Again a choice you get to make.

Again, your benevolence is astonishing.

> The CR9s were bought new in
> the mid-1990s. They seem to have stood the test of time.

I never said BA stuff fell apart after 5 years, just that for
$450 you could have probably done better. OTOH, I never priced
stuff in that range. Once I heard the ProAcs, there was no other
speaker for me.

>> You could have done a LOT worse though.
>> It's a decent brand, but a better value with their
>> lower-priced stuff IIRC.
>
>>> However it is pretty close to the limit. IME spending
>>> more money on speakers, including subwoofers can be
>>> audibly beneficial.
>
>> I do not like subwoofers. They are for gamers and people
>> who like hollywood action ****.
>
> You seem to hold tightly onto a lot of prejudices that many
> knowlegeable people disagree with.

No, many people whose intelligence and knowledge are irrelevant
(not unlike people who like huge screens with no true black, and
mind-numbing content overshadowed by the all-important
resolution) like their room to shake, for whatever reasons. Last
time I was at the symphony, my seats did NOT shake.

>> I had a subwoofer hooked up along with my Tablettes for a
>> while, and I have been much happier since I removed it.
>
> Next time, try implementing your subwoofer properly.

Funny how seemingly interesting and knowledgeable people turn
into idiots with fascist aspirations. And you do not "implement"
a stupid subwoofer, you connect it. And then, if you care about
content and not about your furniture rattling from joy, you
*DIS*connect it.

Whoever at Bose came up with the subwoofer/tiny satellites
concept should be fried alive. That design was originally aimed
for RESTAURANTS, BTW. Restaurants are WELL known for stressing
musical content and quality over appearance and cost.


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

[Bill Graham]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>
>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
>>> > wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> I don't deny that the music contains these higher
>>>>> frequencies, but what I question is, what good are
>>>>> they if one can't hear them?
>>>
>>>> You may not be able to 'hear' a harmonic the freq of
>>>> which is ~18KHz, but you WILL hear the difference it
>>>> makes in the overall sound of the **complex** harmonic
>>>> structure you perceive as a "single note".
>>>
>>> It doesn't and you won't.
>
>> Yes you will, you're an idiot.
>
> Ah, its the prerequisite radical subjectivist personal attack. When people
> run out of logic, they can still use anger. Trouble is, it makes them look
> like a fool. I feel just like I'm back on RAO!
>

When I was 40 years old, and a door slammed on the TV, I could tell right
away that it was the Telly, and not any door in my house. Today, at 75, I
can't tell the difference, but my cats can without any trouble at all. So, I
know that my high frequency hearing has deteriorated to the point that the
necessary fidelity for me to tell the difference is no longer registering in
my brain......I can only attribute this to my inability to hear the higher
harmonics in the program material. I can still hear very well for a 75 year
old.....The sensitivity at the lower and middle frequencies is still there.
But the lack of the highs interferes with my ability to tell the difference
between reality and canned program material. My cats can tell the difference
easily, because their hearing extends upwards above 30 KHz. The TV doesn't
reproduce anything that high, so to them it's duck soup to know the
difference......It's just another dumb low frequency noise coming from that
box over there by the living room wall. When a real door opens and closes
somewhere in the house, they perk up immediately, because the highs they
hear in the close to thirty kilohertz range tell them it was a real
violation in the security of the house.

[Mr.T]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> > And IF you are a musician, I'll bet you wouldn't be happy playing in a
> > venue with a $1500 sound system!
>
> Oh, I wouldn't say that....I am perfectly happy playing a flugelhorn
through
> an AT PRO 35 R microphone ($125) to a TC Helicon Vocal processor ($150)
and
> a Behringer 45 Watt Amp ($175) to a dance floor containing around 20
couples
> every week.

Maybe, but you could probably do that without the amp, and sound better.


>Sure, the Rolling Stones couldn't use my equipment playing
> Hollywood Bowl, but not all musicians are in their league. The amateur
> musicians in this country outnumber the paid professionals by about 100 to
> 1, and many of them are a lot better than the pros, too.....AAMOF, I would
> call most professional musicians "Entertainers", and not musicians. The
real
> musicians in this world are practicing in their own living rooms, and not
in
> front of any crowd.


I've worked with thousands of musicians, and I'd have to say that comment is
just as silly as saying all professional musicians are better than all
amateurs. There is great talent (and crap) in both camps, and personal taste
has a lot to do with which ones YOU think are the best.


MrT.

[Bill Graham]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > And IF you are a musician, I'll bet you wouldn't be happy playing in a
>> > venue with a $1500 sound system!
>>
>> Oh, I wouldn't say that....I am perfectly happy playing a flugelhorn
> through
>> an AT PRO 35 R microphone ($125) to a TC Helicon Vocal processor ($150)
> and
>> a Behringer 45 Watt Amp ($175) to a dance floor containing around 20
> couples
>> every week.
>
> Maybe, but you could probably do that without the amp, and sound better.
>
>
>>Sure, the Rolling Stones couldn't use my equipment playing
>> Hollywood Bowl, but not all musicians are in their league. The amateur
>> musicians in this country outnumber the paid professionals by about 100
>> to
>> 1, and many of them are a lot better than the pros, too.....AAMOF, I
>> would
>> call most professional musicians "Entertainers", and not musicians. The
> real
>> musicians in this world are practicing in their own living rooms, and not
> in
>> front of any crowd.
>
>
> I've worked with thousands of musicians, and I'd have to say that comment
> is
> just as silly as saying all professional musicians are better than all
> amateurs. There is great talent (and crap) in both camps, and personal
> taste
> has a lot to do with which ones YOU think are the best.
>
>
> MrT.

No question.....It certainly has little to do with the money they
make......Unless you think that Michael Jackson is a better, "Musician" than
Issac Pearlman or Yo Yo Ma.

[Mr.T]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...
> > Hell I've never heard a pair of speakers that I'd be happy
> > with for that price, and the frequency response above 15kHz
> > is NOT a real consideration for me any more. BUT distortion
> > levels and bass response sure are. However for those who
> > are happy with their little systems, good luck to them,
> > they sure save a lot of money, but don't pretend they are
> > just as good.
> >
> > And IF you are a musician, I'll bet you wouldn't be happy
> > playing in a venue with a $1500 sound system!

>
> Take off all the gold necklaces affecting your brain operation
> and you MAY realize that an amplifier (etc) for stage use is NOT
> quite the same as a hi-fi amplifier in the house.


Maybe IF you could actually read I specifically mentioned speakers, NOT
amplifiers (which CAN be had for little money these days, both HiFi and
pro-sound)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> No question.....It certainly has little to do with the money they
> make

No argument there!

MrT.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>Ah,

You'd know all about looking the fool, Kooger.

AZ's "It doesn't and you won't." wasn't a logical argument, and it
deserved none in response.

[dizzy]

Bill Graham wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>>>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>>>>>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>>>>>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....
>>>>
>>>> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
>>>> no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>>>
>>>Yes.....Barely audible, at least to me....I do notice that when I was
>>>younger, I had little or no trouble being able to tell the difference
>>>between real sounds, and sounds that came from some electronic
>>>reproductive
>>>device, but in recent years (I am 75)
>>
>> Doesn't excuse the above silly statement you made:
>>
>
>And what silly statement was that?


>>>>>Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>>>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much above
>>>>>that

[Bill Graham]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>>>>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much
>>>>>>above
>>>>>>that, either, but that's a whole different argument, and I probably
>>>>>>shouldn't open up that can of worms.....
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, you shouldn't. The are audible harmonics above 8 kHz,
>>>>> no matter what the fundamental frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics
>>>>
>>>>Yes.....Barely audible, at least to me....I do notice that when I was
>>>>younger, I had little or no trouble being able to tell the difference
>>>>between real sounds, and sounds that came from some electronic
>>>>reproductive
>>>>device, but in recent years (I am 75)
>>>
>>> Doesn't excuse the above silly statement you made:
>>>
>>
>>And what silly statement was that?
>
>
>>>>>>Also, the highest note on a piano is only around 8 Kilohertz, so
>>>>>>it's pretty much a waste of time to buy devices that operate much
>>>>>>above
>>>>>>that
>

Well, how silly that is depends on your (or my) definition of, "much". But I
will concede that three times the fundamental is a reasonable starting
point.
4x the fundamental is definitely overkill, in my opinion, and there isn't
much music that goes more than about 4 KHz, (which is one octave below the
highest note on the piano)

In any case, it's a matter of opinion.....Just having the range without
considering what's in that range is another question altogether.....Perhaps
the music might sound better without all the harmonics above 4 or 5 times
the fundamental. It's kind of like wine tasting.....Just because you can
taste the difference between wine from two different vineyards doesn't mean
that the most expensive one is going to taste better. A reasonable person
might like a cheap wine better than a very expensive one. In a similar vein,
music without all the higher harmonics may not be necessarily worse.....Some
of those harmonics might ruin the sound to those who can actually hear them.
A purist will probably like the harmonics, but there are a lot of people who
like what I call "pseudo-stereo", or artificially manufactured stereo which
is unlike what you actually hear when you go to the concert and sit front
and center. They prefer, (and are willing to pay a premium for) the gimics,
or the sounds manufactured by sound mixers playing some kind of game at the
mixing boards.

[thanatoid]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in
u:

> "thanatoid" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> Maybe IF you could actually read I specifically mentioned
> speakers, NOT amplifiers (which CAN be had for little money
> these days, both HiFi and pro-sound)

You said:

> And IF you are a musician, I'll bet you wouldn't be happy
> playing in a venue with a $1500 sound system!

OK, if "sound system" means speakers, so be it.


--
"Anytime I hear the word "culture", I get on the Internet."
- a 21st Century Moron

[Mr.T]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...
> > Maybe IF you could actually read I specifically mentioned
> > speakers, NOT amplifiers (which CAN be had for little money
> > these days, both HiFi and pro-sound)
>
> You said:



GO back and look at what YOU deliberately snipped!!!!!!!!!!
Only total ******s need to do that to try and prove some stupid point.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...
> **** off and die.

Ditto

> Plonk.

I'm SO heartbroken! :-)

MrT.

[dizzy]

Bill Graham wrote:

>music without all the higher harmonics may not be necessarily worse.....Some
>of those harmonics might ruin the sound to those who can actually hear them.

There's nothing more to discuss, silly person.

Sheesh.

[Bill Graham]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>music without all the higher harmonics may not be necessarily
>>worse.....Some
>>of those harmonics might ruin the sound to those who can actually hear
>>them.
>
> There's nothing more to discuss, silly person.
>
> Sheesh.
>
I'll go even further than that....Some of the modern music would be better
if there were no sounds at all......How many times have I said, "Thank God
for the mute button...."

[~misfit~[_2_]]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs GregS wrote:
> In article >, David
> Nebenzahl > wrote:
>> On 9/5/2010 10:02 PM Eeyore spake thus:
[snip]
>> My point was that the floor the speakers is placed on *could* easily
>> be carpeted. Certainly not my choice of floor covering here, but it
>> exists
>> in many places out there in the wild.
>>
>> And yes, I certainly wouldn't expect to see carpet in a studio
>> control room.
>
> I would say carpeting is mandatory in my view in any audio room. So
> is wall treatments, and ceiling treatments.

Ahh! I fondly remember the days of gluing egg-trays to the ceiling of the
lounge until it was completely covered from wall to wall.

Those were the days, when aesthetics took a back-seat to sound quality.
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:43:26 +1300, "~misfit~"
> wrote:

>Somewhere on teh intarwebs GregS wrote:
>> In article >, David
>> Nebenzahl > wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2010 10:02 PM Eeyore spake thus:
>[snip]
>>> My point was that the floor the speakers is placed on *could* easily
>>> be carpeted. Certainly not my choice of floor covering here, but it
>>> exists
>>> in many places out there in the wild.
>>>
>>> And yes, I certainly wouldn't expect to see carpet in a studio
>>> control room.
>>
>> I would say carpeting is mandatory in my view in any audio room. So
>> is wall treatments, and ceiling treatments.
>
>Ahh! I fondly remember the days of gluing egg-trays to the ceiling of the
>lounge until it was completely covered from wall to wall.
>
>Those were the days, when aesthetics took a back-seat to sound quality.

I think you mean those were the days when aesthetics and sound quality
took a back seat to urban myth.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"~misfit~" > wrote in
message
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs GregS wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> David Nebenzahl > wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2010 10:02 PM Eeyore spake thus:
> [snip]
>>> My point was that the floor the speakers is placed on
>>> *could* easily be carpeted. Certainly not my choice of
>>> floor covering here, but it exists
>>> in many places out there in the wild.
>>>
>>> And yes, I certainly wouldn't expect to see carpet in a
>>> studio control room.
>>
>> I would say carpeting is mandatory in my view in any
>> audio room. So is wall treatments, and ceiling
>> treatments.
>
> Ahh! I fondly remember the days of gluing egg-trays to
> the ceiling of the lounge until it was completely covered
> from wall to wall.
> Those were the days, when aesthetics took a back-seat to
> sound quality.

At university, my room was fairly small and some really neat egg trays were
available in large volumes from the dumpster behind the residence hall
kitchen. I obtained a large number of them, painted them tasteful colors,
fastened them together into large panels with stiff wire, and literally
covered the walls of my room with them.

They had virtually no beneficial acoustical effects, which measurements bear
out.

[~misfit~[_2_]]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Arny Krueger wrote:
> "~misfit~" > wrote in
> message
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs GregS wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> David Nebenzahl > wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2010 10:02 PM Eeyore spake thus:
>> [snip]
>>>> My point was that the floor the speakers is placed on
>>>> *could* easily be carpeted. Certainly not my choice of
>>>> floor covering here, but it exists
>>>> in many places out there in the wild.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, I certainly wouldn't expect to see carpet in a
>>>> studio control room.
>>>
>>> I would say carpeting is mandatory in my view in any
>>> audio room. So is wall treatments, and ceiling
>>> treatments.
>>
>> Ahh! I fondly remember the days of gluing egg-trays to
>> the ceiling of the lounge until it was completely covered
>> from wall to wall.
>> Those were the days, when aesthetics took a back-seat to
>> sound quality.
>
> At university, my room was fairly small and some really neat egg
> trays were available in large volumes from the dumpster behind the
> residence hall kitchen. I obtained a large number of them, painted
> them tasteful colors, fastened them together into large panels with
> stiff wire, and literally covered the walls of my room with them.
>
> They had virtually no beneficial acoustical effects, which
> measurements bear out.

Yeah, I don't think our egg trays did anything either. Still, it was a
talking point. :-)

I actually have one on the side of the 100+ year-old solid timber
chest-of-drawers in my bedroom right now. There is a downward-firing Klipsch
12" sub next to it with the port only around 120mm away and aimed right at
the side. I don't know if that does anything either but I didn't like the
idea of a big port like that breathing so close to a large flat (potentially
resonant) surface.
--
Cheers,
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche