I just want accurate-sounding music!

[[email protected]]

OK, I'm reading posting after posting, web page after web page,
regarding what's the best equipment for music, what's best for home
theater, what's best for surround. Everyone has a different opinion or
a favorite brand -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and trying
out different speakers and amps.

All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front
of me playing their instruments. I want a recording of a symphony
orchestra to sound like I'm seated in the theater. I want a recording
of a jazz combo to sound like I'm seated in the front row of the
nightclub. I want a Norah Jones CD to sound like she's sitting across
the room and singing to me. I want a recording of me playing the
trombone to sound like me playing the trombone. I want live music to
sound like live music. I know that a lot depends on the recording
technique, but let's set that aside for now and assume as perfect a
recording as possible.

So... is this a lot to ask? Isn't it really the *only* thing to ask?
Is sound reproduction that subjective that no one can agree on a
particular system that will do this? Or maybe, are we talking about a
$100,000 system here to be able to be that accurate?

All I want to know is, with my measly $500-$750 (or less?), isn't there
a specific receiver/speaker combination that will produce what I want
to hear? Or am I just searching in vain at this price point? Maybe
I'm just too idealistic and the ability to reproduce live music is too
expensive to consider.

Thanks,
Bryan

[MINe 109]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> OK, I'm reading posting after posting, web page after web page,
> regarding what's the best equipment for music, what's best for home
> theater, what's best for surround. Everyone has a different opinion or
> a favorite brand -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and trying
> out different speakers and amps.
>
> All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front
> of me playing their instruments. I want a recording of a symphony
> orchestra to sound like I'm seated in the theater. I want a recording
> of a jazz combo to sound like I'm seated in the front row of the
> nightclub. I want a Norah Jones CD to sound like she's sitting across
> the room and singing to me. I want a recording of me playing the
> trombone to sound like me playing the trombone. I want live music to
> sound like live music. I know that a lot depends on the recording
> technique, but let's set that aside for now and assume as perfect a
> recording as possible.

You'll need implanted dental speaker drivers to reproduce bone
conduction for the trombone. There was an RAO lurker who would do such
things...

> So... is this a lot to ask? Isn't it really the *only* thing to ask?
> Is sound reproduction that subjective that no one can agree on a
> particular system that will do this? Or maybe, are we talking about a
> $100,000 system here to be able to be that accurate?

The system closest to what you describe wasn't nearly that expensive
until one considered the cost of design and the special recordings.

> All I want to know is, with my measly $500-$750 (or less?), isn't there
> a specific receiver/speaker combination that will produce what I want
> to hear? Or am I just searching in vain at this price point? Maybe
> I'm just too idealistic and the ability to reproduce live music is too
> expensive to consider.

At that price, you're choosing among compromises. You stand a chance at
enjoyable small-scale reproduction with limited frequency range: better
for Norah than for Renee Fleming. Or to put it another way, a back-row
balcony seat instead of center orchestra at the symphony hall.

And your room has to let this all happen. Are you asking for a specific
recommendation or just whether it's possible to get good sound cheap?

Stephen

Stpehen

[[email protected]]

Hi Stephen, thank you. I guess you answered my most pressing question
-- is it possible to reproduce live music accurately for $500-$750 --
and the answer seems to be "no."

So, that being said, I suppose I am now asking for a specific
recommendation. Or is sound reproduction so subjective that anyone's
recommendation outside my own experience is irrelevant? Maybe I need
to find someone with similar musical tastes (live jazz, classical,
acapella vocals, theater) on a similar budget.

I guess a good followup question would be -- can you buy sound
reproduction components based on specs alone and expect the result to
match the specs? I'm thinking that if that's true, then Consumer
Reports recommendations are as good as any, and better than a
salesman's.

Thank you again!
Bryan

[dave weil]

On 14 Feb 2005 10:09:55 -0800, wrote:

>Hi Stephen, thank you. I guess you answered my most pressing question
>-- is it possible to reproduce live music accurately for $500-$750 --
>and the answer seems to be "no."
>
>So, that being said, I suppose I am now asking for a specific
>recommendation. Or is sound reproduction so subjective that anyone's
>recommendation outside my own experience is irrelevant?

Not irrelevant, just not absolute. Everyone perceives music
differently, which is what makes the whole search for "appropriate"
reproduction a very personal thing. Others can help quantify and
narrow the search though. The thing is, you have to do the heavy
lifting yourself.

>Maybe I need
>to find someone with similar musical tastes (live jazz, classical,
>acapella vocals, theater) on a similar budget.

Well, that might help. Especially if they have something set up that
you can listen to.

>I guess a good followup question would be -- can you buy sound
>reproduction components based on specs alone and expect the result to
>match the specs? I'm thinking that if that's true, then Consumer
>Reports recommendations are as good as any, and better than a
>salesman's.

You can certainly get something that's acceptable in your price range.
The key component is going to be the speaker. The speaker's voice
needs to be compatable with what you value most in music.

Considering your musical choices, you want to look for something that
offers a modicum of transparency, even if it sacrifices ultimate
dynamic range. I'm sure that there are people who have some
experiences that they can bring to bear, but I'm not current enough to
offer any concrete suggestions.

Buying speakers "on spec" is a dicey proposition at best. I'd go out
and try to hear as many speakers in your price range as possible and I
think you'll begin to see some clear leaders after only a few
sessions. Keep in mind though, as Stephen said, you will have to take
your room into consideration. Hopefully you can audition a few things
in the actual room where you will be listening to music, although it's
getting harder and harder to do that.

[MINe 109]

In article om>,
wrote:

> Hi Stephen, thank you. I guess you answered my most pressing question
> -- is it possible to reproduce live music accurately for $500-$750 --
> and the answer seems to be "no."
>
> So, that being said, I suppose I am now asking for a specific
> recommendation. Or is sound reproduction so subjective that anyone's
> recommendation outside my own experience is irrelevant? Maybe I need
> to find someone with similar musical tastes (live jazz, classical,
> acapella vocals, theater) on a similar budget.

Sure, especially if you can find someone with a room similar to yours.
Read some online reviews to see if there's a common thread in the
descriptions. One place to start could be Robert Reina's budget speaker
reviews at stereophile.com.

I've seen positive mention of PSB, Epos, and Magnepan, but there are
many more: Energy, Paradigm, NHT, etc.

> I guess a good followup question would be -- can you buy sound
> reproduction components based on specs alone and expect the result to
> match the specs?

The published specs are the best you can expect, but do you know what
the specs mean for the subjective experience? OTOH, I bought my main
speakers without audition and they do have okay numbers.

To mention the room again, if you are going to put your speakers close
to the wall, you would need to be careful with rear-ported speakers.

> I'm thinking that if that's true, then Consumer
> Reports recommendations are as good as any, and better than a
> salesman's.

Not necessarily. Specs will so similar as to be meaningless, and the
recommendations are not necessarily based on your criteria (does CR
still mark down for not having tone controls?). You also may not share
CR's biases for speakers (flattest might not sound the best and you
might not care about sound away from the listening position).

If I might offer my example, for my main system, I bought a second-hand
NAD integrated for about the price of a CR-approved commodity receiver.
Since my listening room sounds pretty good, I had the luxury of knowing
that most any speaker would work well, except corner speakers, that is.

So, cheap out on electronics, and hedge your bets on speakers.

Stephen

[Sander deWaal]

said:

>Hi Stephen, thank you. I guess you answered my most pressing question
>-- is it possible to reproduce live music accurately for $500-$750 --
>and the answer seems to be "no."
>
>So, that being said, I suppose I am now asking for a specific
>recommendation. Or is sound reproduction so subjective that anyone's
>recommendation outside my own experience is irrelevant? Maybe I need
>to find someone with similar musical tastes (live jazz, classical,
>acapella vocals, theater) on a similar budget.
>
>I guess a good followup question would be -- can you buy sound
>reproduction components based on specs alone and expect the result to
>match the specs? I'm thinking that if that's true, then Consumer
>Reports recommendations are as good as any, and better than a
>salesman's.

My advice to you would be:
Look around in the second-hand market, especially for speakers.
In this budget range, I'd say the speakers are the most important
factor.

More money buys you mostly more bass.
Knowing this , you could start out with some good 2-way speakers ( not
staellites!), and add a subwoofer later.

I have lived with Epos ES-11 two-way speakers for years and was very
happy with them. Used them with a variety of amps, even tubes.
They still serve as "monitors" in my little home studio.

Speakers should be auditioned at home, whenever possible.
I doubt you'll find any second-hand seller allowing this, but in case
you're planning to buy new, it's certainly something to ask of the
salesman.

Speakers are very person-dependent.
I now have Magnepans, which I'll never trade for anything else.
People visiting me have opinions all over the map, though.
Some love' em, some hate' em.
No telling.

The rest:
Add in a small Rotel or NAD amp and CD player and you have a basic 2
channel system.
If you're after multichannel, I have to pass on advice.

Good luck in your search!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[[email protected]]

Thank you, Dave -- I appreciate your help. I think you're right about
buying speakers "on spec," since so much is dependent on the cabinet
design and materials, the driver quality, the crossovers, etc. and of
course all of this changes from model to model and year to year. Geez,
you'd figure that after over 100 years of sound reproduction, someone
would have figured out the "perfect" speaker design by now and there
would only be one choice in speakers. :-)

I just looked at Cambridge Soundworks web site. They have a Cambridge
SoundWorks Ensemble 208 Subwoofer/Satellite Speaker Package for $399.
It's in my price range and has decent reviews. Bose has the
Acoustimass 3 Series IV for a little less. I already have three BIC
Venturi V52 bookshelf speakers that I could use for rear and center
channels, so I figure I only need the sub and mains. Hopefully the
BICs being as accurate as they are will match the rest of the system.
Even BIC America has a three-piece set, but I don't know how good they
are. I don't know, it seems so confusing for such a simple goal. ;-)

I usually listen to acoustic or vocal music at "natural" sound level -
meaning at or maybe a little above the dB level of a live performance.
The system will be installed in my home office, which is carpeted and
is about a rectagular 19'x23'. So I'm thinking I don't need a lot in
the way of power - maybe 50W/channel or so. I'll need to buy a
surround receiver/amp, DVD player and the three-piece speaker set. I'd
spend the most on the speaker set, maybe even postponing the other
components until later to spend as much as needed on good speakers.

Well, that's my story. Thank you for your opinions!

Bryan

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> OK, I'm reading posting after posting, web page after web page,
> regarding what's the best equipment for music, what's best for home
> theater, what's best for surround. Everyone has a different opinion
> or a favorite brand -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and
> trying out different speakers and amps.

> All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front
> of me playing their instruments.

In general this is mission impossible. There are a number of prerequisites
for this experience, and unless you make your own recordings, you don't have
them all.

> I want a recording of a symphony
> orchestra to sound like I'm seated in the theater. I want a recording
> of a jazz combo to sound like I'm seated in the front row of the
> nightclub. I want a Norah Jones CD to sound like she's sitting across
> the room and singing to me. I want a recording of me playing the
> trombone to sound like me playing the trombone. I want live music to
> sound like live music. I know that a lot depends on the recording
> technique, but let's set that aside for now and assume as perfect a
> recording as possible.

It's not a matter of the perfection of the recording, its a matter of taste
and circumstance.

> So... is this a lot to ask?

In specific cases, probably not. In general, its a lot to ask for.

> Isn't it really the *only* thing to ask?

Not everybody thinks that "in-your-face" is where the musicians should be.
In many cases, an acoustic perspective of the musicians "in-your-face",
spread from left to right and front to back is something that never happened
in the real world. IOW, the musicians never all played together in the same
room. Even if they did, they may were probably not set out the way you would
like them to be.

> Is sound reproduction that subjective that no one can agree on a
> particular system that will do this?

In many senses, yes. First, we would need some kind of agreement about what
should be reproduced.

> Or maybe, are we talking about a
> $100,000 system here to be able to be that accurate?

I suspect that it might not take that much money to do it well enough, if
enough basic parameters could be agreed-upon.

> All I want to know is, with my measly $500-$750 (or less?), isn't
> there a specific receiver/speaker combination that will produce what
> I want to hear?

I seriously doubt it. For one thing the original recording would be very
important. I don't think there is any extant standard recording format that
would in general do what you seem to want.

About as close as we might be able to come to what you seem to want, would
probably require a new recording format that would include one or more
discrete channels for every sound source. For example, there might be 4, 5,
or 6 channels for every musician - the sounds the musician makes in the
four, five or six ordinal directions. Then there would have to be a device
in your stereo that modified the sound in those channels in such a way that
each would sound appropriate to your chosen location, given your choices
about how the musicians would be arranged in some virtual space. It is
possible that there might be as few as one channel per musician or small
group of musicians of a kind, and the rest might be synthesized.

[[email protected]]

Hehe... Arny, I like you; you're a literal as I am. :-) You're right,
to get every nuance of say, a solo violinist, you would want several
microphones picking up all of the hamonics, the player's breathing, the
rustle of his/her clothing, the fingers on the fretboard. Of course in
a live performace you'd have to be nose-to-nose with the player to hear
all that. OK OK, I give... let's get realistic. :-) I don't want
"in-your-face" as much as I want "in the audience."

I think what I meant to say by "assume as perfect a recording as
possible" is just that. Assume that I have found the best recording
available of what I want to listen to. This may be a 5.1 Dolby
DVD-Audio recording, or a mono vinyl LP (yes, I still have my Dual 502
turntable!). I don't want the sound system to add or subtract anything
from what the recording engineers created. How's that? :-)

Are there any web sites that have suggestions/recommendations of setups
for people who desire to hear a certain kind of sound, hopefully
bracketed by budget levels? Thank you MINe for the stereophile.com
suggestion.

Bryan

[[email protected]]

Hey, thank you for that reference to stereophile.com! I found a
reviewer there that I immediately liked. Robert Reina reviews the PSB
Image B25 speakers and he listens to and appreciates the same type of
music I do -- woohoo! Now this is what I'm looking for in a speaker:

"The entire midrange was dead neutral, liquid, and holographic-but
when this was combined with an extraordinary level of detail
resolution, perfectly articulate transients, and a broad, continuous,
organic presentation of the entire dynamic envelope, the overall sonic
picture inspired me to strip-mine my music collection for well-recorded
acoustic instruments."

Cool -- my kind of guy. :-) This makes me want to go out and buy
these speakers sight-unseen. I hope he's not a salesman for PSB. hehe
If you read the rest of his review, he tests the speakers on mostly
jazz piano, vocals and classical. And even some Sade -- nice; my kind
of music. I only hope his reference system isn't a $20K setup and that
I can use speakers like these with a modest receiver -- maybe in the
$200-$400 range. It even sounds like these speakers don't really need
a subwoofer for the kind of music I like.

Bryan

[[email protected]]

Just a quick link to those of you who are wondering the same things I
am. At stereophile.com, there was a vote taken that answers my
question about whether live performance can be reproduced faithfully.
The question was:

"Have you ever heard an audio system that faithfully reproduced the
sound of real, live musicians? What was it?"

There are some insightful and informative answers here:

http://cgi.stereophile.com/cgi-bin/showvote.cgi?393

Enjoy!

[mick]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:59:23 -0800, bryan_cass wrote:

> OK, I'm reading posting after posting, web page after web page, regarding
> what's the best equipment for music, what's best for home theater, what's
> best for surround. Everyone has a different opinion or a favorite brand
> -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and trying out different speakers
> and amps.
>
> All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front of
> me playing their instruments. I want a recording of a symphony orchestra
> to sound like I'm seated in the theater. I want a recording of a jazz
> combo to sound like I'm seated in the front row of the nightclub. I want
> a Norah Jones CD to sound like she's sitting across the room and singing
> to me. I want a recording of me playing the trombone to sound like me
> playing the trombone. I want live music to sound like live music. I know
> that a lot depends on the recording technique, but let's set that aside
> for now and assume as perfect a recording as possible.
>
<snip>


May I make a suggestion? Before you start to spend a lot of money on
equipment go out and listen to as much *live* music as possible. You can't
aim for a target that you can't see.

My personal recommendation is to listen to a reasonable valve amp into
some sensitive speakers. It may not measure well, and may not produce
truly "realistic" sound, but for sheer "exuberance" in music some of these
setups take a lot of beating. This isn't just bull... Low power amps into
sensitive speakers (especially horns) can give almost frighteningly
"immediate" results (I nearly wrote "frighteningly realistic" but that
would have been inaccurate given the title of this thread!) - even if
there isn't a lot of bass and the top end is ragged!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[[email protected]]

Thanks Mick. I think I have enough listening experience already to
know what I like. I have played trombone and tuba in concert bands for
about 12 years now. I have played trombone in orchestra pits for
musicals over the past 8 years. I played trombone and sang in a big
band from 1995 to 2003. I played piano and sang for our church from
1998 to 2003. I have been in marching bands and orchestras since jr.
high school and played piano since I was 9. Not to mention just
playing instruments at home as well, and of course attending
professional concerts. I'm 43, and I want to finally buy a sound
system that I can immerse myself in, rather than making price the
driving factor as it has since my first Realistic stereo in 1975. I
want to enjoy my hearing while I still can! ;-)

Bryan

[mick]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:12:25 -0800, bryan_cass wrote:

> Thanks Mick. I think I have enough listening experience already to know
> what I like. I have played trombone and tuba in concert bands for about
> 12 years now. I have played trombone in orchestra pits for musicals over
> the past 8 years. I played trombone and sang in a big band from 1995 to
> 2003. I played piano and sang for our church from 1998 to 2003. I have
> been in marching bands and orchestras since jr. high school and played
> piano since I was 9. Not to mention just playing instruments at home as
> well, and of course attending professional concerts. I'm 43, and I want
> to finally buy a sound system that I can immerse myself in, rather than
> making price the driving factor as it has since my first Realistic stereo
> in 1975. I want to enjoy my hearing while I still can! ;-)
>

Lol! Yep - I can go with that... :-)
Thanks for the link (next thread) by the way, there were some interesting
responses.

I have tried recording my own acoustic guitar playing & playing it back as
a test but never really satisfactorily. Ok, my gear is very limited but I
don't think we can actually obtain *realism*. We can get *apparent
realism* though - sometimes. I'm not sure that you can just nip to the
shop and buy a system that does what you want though. Specifications don't
tell you how it sounds; the shop has different accoustics to your
listening room; you had something different for breakfast. I dunno, there
are a thousand reasons why sometimes you get that WOW! feeling and other
times it just doesn't work. It certainly isn't just based on price, the
number of watts or the THD% though. It seems to work better when you are
relaxed, in a comfortable chair and holding a glass of something warming
though. :-)

If you appreciate brass (dunno why I should think that...) then *please*
try to listen to a valve amp as I suggested. I think you'll like it!

I think the most startled that I have been by audio gear was when someone
switched a radio chat show on in a large shop (many years ago now). The
loudspeakers were the Quad "electrostatic radiators". The sheer clarity
had me looking round for the speaker for a few moments... I also once
heard a demo at a hi-fi show in a hotel. The Linn setup there was terrible
and did no justice to the gear at all. What stole the show for me was a
system using "The Rock" turntable and some very nice (expensive) valve
monoblock amps (I've a feeling that they may have been Krell). The
demonstrators had stuck to fairly simple material (wisely IMHO) and the
effect was stunning. Unfortunately I have no Idea what the rest of the
stuff was now!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Hehe... Arny, I like you; you're a literal as I am. :-) You're
> right, to get every nuance of say, a solo violinist, you would want
> several microphones picking up all of the hamonics, the player's
> breathing, the rustle of his/her clothing, the fingers on the
> fretboard.

Actually the several mics would be more likely required to capture the fact
that the energy given off by a violin player varies considerably along the
ordinal directions.

>Of course in a live performace you'd have to be
> nose-to-nose with the player to hear all that.

????

> OK OK, I give...
> let's get realistic. :-) I don't want "in-your-face" as much as I
> want "in the audience."

My point is that what you really want is what you want, when you want it.
One time you may want in-your-face and another time you may want
in-audience-over-here and then the next time you might want in-the-audience
over there. The methodology I outlined might possibly deliver such a thing.
It seems to me that little else would.

> I think what I meant to say by "assume as perfect a recording as
> possible" is just that. Assume that I have found the best recording
> available of what I want to listen to. This may be a 5.1 Dolby
> DVD-Audio recording, or a mono vinyl LP (yes, I still have my Dual 502
> turntable!). I don't want the sound system to add or subtract
> anything from what the recording engineers created. How's that? :-)

Without begging the point, what you might want is a system largely composed
near-field monitors.

> Are there any web sites that have suggestions/recommendations of
> setups for people who desire to hear a certain kind of sound,
> hopefully bracketed by budget levels?

In all of our dreams...

> Thank you MINe for the stereophile.com suggestion.

Stereophile is overtly dedicated to audio's high end, as in the high priced
segment of any particular product segment. IOW in the produce segment area
of near-field-monitors they have posted reviews of expensive near-field
monitors (e.g. Genelec), but not good inexpensive ones (e.g. Behringer).

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> OK, I'm reading posting after posting, web page after web page,
> regarding what's the best equipment for music, what's best for home
> theater, what's best for surround. Everyone has a different opinion or
> a favorite brand -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and trying
> out different speakers and amps.
>
> All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front
> of me playing their instruments. I want a recording of a symphony
> orchestra to sound like I'm seated in the theater. I want a recording
> of a jazz combo to sound like I'm seated in the front row of the
> nightclub. I want a Norah Jones CD to sound like she's sitting across
> the room and singing to me. I want a recording of me playing the
> trombone to sound like me playing the trombone. I want live music to
> sound like live music. I know that a lot depends on the recording
> technique, but let's set that aside for now and assume as perfect a
> recording as possible.
>

But that's not the real world. Most recordings are not live ensemble
performances. But you want them to sound as if they were. That's
fine, that's what I like, too. But it isn't accuracy. **** accuracy.
I want to enjoy my listening experience.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Tecumseh]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hey, thank you for that reference to stereophile.com! I found a
> reviewer there that I immediately liked. Robert Reina reviews the PSB


I was going to suggest PSB to you and now you mentioned it.
That is the way I went. Years ago I bought book-shelf PSB's(Alpha series)
and they are beyond description. They also came in at a tidy $200 Canadian!
Just last month I bought the older model 5T tower Psb's and the matching
centre channel. They have brought out their new models with better drivers
etc....and as a result, I got what I think is a good speaker pair for
$699CDN.
Problem is I have yet to use them.
Anyways, you can't go wrong with PSB and if you have any questions just
phone them up and they take real time to help you out.
Good Luck
Tec

[Bryan]

OK, I'll bite. What's a valve amp? Sounds like some kind of
water-cooled equipment. :-) I wasn't considering components, if
that's what that is, nor tube equipment. I don't think I really want
to sink a lot of time, energy and capital into finding the perfect
sound system. So I gather from this thread that we really can't
reproduce "realism" consistently, so just find something that you're
satisfied with. Maybe in 100 more years or so, technology will have
advanced far enough to be able to consistently do what I'm asking for.
Just tell your holodeck "I want Diana Krall to sing to me" and it
happens. I think I'm living in the wrong century. ;-)

Anyhow, since this is an opinion group, I'll give my opinion about
music reproduction. I think we are so used to heavily processed,
and/or badly recorded or played-back music, that we as a culture have
almost forgotten what live music sounds like. Live music was the
*only* music until about 100 years ago. But we've become so removed
from the performance that we're satisfied with the electronic version.
Geez, even live concerts are heavily processed though electronics.
That's OK I guess... until holodecks are invented anyway. :-)

All of this stems just from my own preference to acoustic instruments
and vocals. I understand that people like synthesized music -- and
after all, music is music no matter what the medium. I suppose I'm
just complaining that those who like synthesized music have an easier
time than I finding a satisfying sound system. ;-)

Bryan

[Bryan]

I guess by "accuracy" I mean "what the recording engineer intended to
produce." If your sound reproduction system taints what the recording
engineer created, then that's not "accurate" in my opinion. Now, we
can discuss whether or not it's even *possible* to record a live
instrument or voice so that it's exactly reproducible.

Geez, is this rec.audio.philosophy? :-)

[Bryan]

Quality, yes. But accuracy?

[Bryan]

hehe... no. :-) I take it you don't agree?

[Bryan]

I'm sorry, but I don't know you and your wit eludes me. I figured you
might post your opinion in response. Oh well.

[Bryan]

OK, yes I am replying to my own post. :-) But I wanted to give those
of you on a similar quest a nice web site link I found.

http://www.stereo-speaker-buyers-guide.com/index.html

Some of the text is elementary and tedious, but there's interesting
information there and also recommendations for speakers within various
price ranges. Enjoy!

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi Stephen, thank you. I guess you answered my most pressing question
> -- is it possible to reproduce live music accurately for $500-$750 --
> and the answer seems to be "no."
>
> So, that being said, I suppose I am now asking for a specific
> recommendation. Or is sound reproduction so subjective that anyone's
> recommendation outside my own experience is irrelevant? Maybe I need
> to find someone with similar musical tastes (live jazz, classical,
> acapella vocals, theater) on a similar budget.
>
> I guess a good followup question would be -- can you buy sound
> reproduction components based on specs alone and expect the result to
> match the specs? I'm thinking that if that's true, then Consumer
> Reports recommendations are as good as any, and better than a
> salesman's.

Quite true. You will not be able to transport yourself aurally to the
recording venue for any amount of money. At least not with the recordings
that are currently for sale. The closest you can come is a binaural
recording played back through headphones. Such recordings exist--but just
barely.

You can do a lot worse than following Consumer Reports recommendations.

Norm Strong

[Joseph Oberlander]

wrote:

> OK, I'm reading posting after posting, web page after web page,
> regarding what's the best equipment for music, what's best for home
> theater, what's best for surround. Everyone has a different opinion or
> a favorite brand -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and trying
> out different speakers and amps.
>
> All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front
> of me playing their instruments. I want a recording of a symphony
> orchestra to sound like I'm seated in the theater. I want a recording
> of a jazz combo to sound like I'm seated in the front row of the
> nightclub. I want a Norah Jones CD to sound like she's sitting across
> the room and singing to me. I want a recording of me playing the
> trombone to sound like me playing the trombone. I want live music to
> sound like live music. I know that a lot depends on the recording
> technique, but let's set that aside for now and assume as perfect a
> recording as possible.

IMO, with modern equipment, 90% of all sound "quality"
and "accuracy" comes from the speakers. I suggest that
the original poster take a look at planar or electrostatic
speakers.

> All I want to know is, with my measly $500-$750 (or less?), isn't there
> a specific receiver/speaker combination that will produce what I want
> to hear? Or am I just searching in vain at this price point?

Magnepan makes their MMGs, but they lack bass below 50-60hz
and need a subwoofer. Their larger models are superb, though.
Almost any modern receiver will power a pair in stereo mode.
$550 a pair, though, makes it defiantely in your price range.

Surround is a whole other ball of wax and requires at least
$4000-$5000 to do correctly.(about $1500 for the receiver,
about $1000 for the sub and the rest for 6-7 speakers)

Magnepan also makes a surround setup of smaller speakers,
but they require two small subs mated with the front speakers
as they only go down to 100hz. These sound superb, though,
and are only $299 a pair.($2000 total - $900 for a 5.1 setup
plus $1100 for two small subs)

http://www.magnepan.com/index.php

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1111247138
Of course, used, there are great deals to be had. This is
essentially a full range speaker. It would knock your socks off
and into the neighbor's kitchen. :)

So, no, you don't have to spend $100,000 to get good sound -
for stereo, $2000 will get you 95-98% of the sound quality.

[mick]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:20:08 -0800, Bryan wrote:

> OK, I'll bite. What's a valve amp? Sounds like some kind of water-cooled
> equipment. :-) I wasn't considering components, if that's what that is,
> nor tube equipment. I don't think I really want to sink a lot of time,

<grin> Ahh... you arn't in the UK are you? lol!
Sorry, Bryan, its a "tube" amp. They don't *have* to be super-expensive
and esoteric you know! Some of them are actually cheaper than many
transistorised (or IC'd...) amps. They are not "clean" amps. They
introduce distortion. However, they tend to do this in a manner that
sometimes makes the music sound "smooth" and as if it has real dynamics.
Some say that this isn't "hi-fi", but it certainly makes for comfortable
listening.

> energy and capital into finding the perfect sound system. So I gather
> from this thread that we really can't reproduce "realism" consistently, so
> just find something that you're satisfied with. Maybe in 100 more years
> or so, technology will have advanced far enough to be able to consistently
> do what I'm asking for. Just tell your holodeck "I want Diana Krall to
> sing to me" and it happens. I think I'm living in the wrong century. ;-)
>

erm... maybe... :-)
With a suitable system it is *easier* to fool your ears - making it easier
to convince yourself that you are listening to reality. You don't really
need to obtain realism in order to believe that you are hearing it. The
brain is quite willing to fill in the missing info and "correct" what it
gets from the ears with enough lies to make it believable... At least for
some of the time!

> Anyhow, since this is an opinion group, I'll give my opinion about music
> reproduction. I think we are so used to heavily processed, and/or badly
> recorded or played-back music, that we as a culture have almost forgotten
> what live music sounds like. Live music was the *only* music until about
> 100 years ago. But we've become so removed from the performance that
> we're satisfied with the electronic version. Geez, even live concerts are
> heavily processed though electronics. That's OK I guess... until holodecks
> are invented anyway. :-)
>
> All of this stems just from my own preference to acoustic instruments and
> vocals. I understand that people like synthesized music -- and after all,
> music is music no matter what the medium. I suppose I'm just complaining
> that those who like synthesized music have an easier time than I finding a
> satisfying sound system. ;-)
>

It isn't easy finding music with *no* electronics added nowadays, is it?
There is usually a PA at least.

Don't listen to the stereo system - listen to the music.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[mick]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:52:55 -0800, Bryan wrote:

> Quality, yes. But accuracy?

How do you intend to get it accurate without being able to read the
recording engineer's mind? ;-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[Bryan]

Not sure I follow. You mean, how do I know what the recorded
performance is supposed to sound like? It should sound like I am
present at a live performance, naturally. :-) But since I probably
wasn't there during the recording, I can only compare to what I know
the instruments should sound like in my own experience.

Or, are you saying that it's vanity to use this criteria to evaluate a
sound system?

[Bryan]

I think you are right on the money, Mick. This little discussion has
come full circle. It all comes back to what *I* think sounds like what
I want to hear. You, nor the salesman, nor any web site, can tell me
what equipment will produce what I want to hear, because you're not me.
At least I think you're not me. Maybe you are me but in another
dimension. Anyhow, I digress. :-)

We're back to me going to a real hifi store and listening to music I
know and like in an A-B format. I'm getting more convinced that you
shouldn't buy speakers over the internet unless you have done this kind
of testing first.

And to think I was just going to settle on someone else's opinion of
what I like! ;-)

Bryan

[mick]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:06:13 -0800, Bryan wrote:

> Not sure I follow. You mean, how do I know what the recorded performance
> is supposed to sound like? It should sound like I am present at a live
> performance, naturally. :-) But since I probably wasn't there during the
> recording, I can only compare to what I know the instruments should sound
> like in my own experience.
>
> Or, are you saying that it's vanity to use this criteria to evaluate a
> sound system?

No, just that only the recording engineer knew what he was trying to
achieve. It wasn't necessarily the sound of a live performance. Phil
Spector's "wall of sound" could never be realistic! In a case like that if
you produce a "realistic" sound then you have it set up all wrong! :-) I
realise that a recording of live instruments should sound right - I was
only being awkward for the hell of it... ;-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[Clyde Slick]

"Bryan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I guess by "accuracy" I mean "what the recording engineer intended to
> produce." If your sound reproduction system taints what the recording
> engineer created, then that's not "accurate" in my opinion. Now, we
> can discuss whether or not it's even *possible* to record a live
> instrument or voice so that it's exactly reproducible.
>
> Geez, is this rec.audio.philosophy? :-)
>

Who are we to know what he intended to produce. We are not mind readers.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, I'm reading posting after posting, web page after web page,
>> regarding what's the best equipment for music, what's best for home
>> theater, what's best for surround. Everyone has a different opinion or
>> a favorite brand -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and trying
>> out different speakers and amps.
>>
>> All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front
>> of me playing their instruments. I want a recording of a symphony
>> orchestra to sound like I'm seated in the theater. I want a recording
>> of a jazz combo to sound like I'm seated in the front row of the
>> nightclub. I want a Norah Jones CD to sound like she's sitting across
>> the room and singing to me. I want a recording of me playing the
>> trombone to sound like me playing the trombone. I want live music to
>> sound like live music. I know that a lot depends on the recording
>> technique, but let's set that aside for now and assume as perfect a
>> recording as possible.
>
> IMO, with modern equipment, 90% of all sound "quality"
> and "accuracy" comes from the speakers. I suggest that
> the original poster take a look at planar or electrostatic
> speakers.
>
>> All I want to know is, with my measly $500-$750 (or less?), isn't there
>> a specific receiver/speaker combination that will produce what I want
>> to hear? Or am I just searching in vain at this price point?
>
> Magnepan makes their MMGs, but they lack bass below 50-60hz
> and need a subwoofer. Their larger models are superb, though.
> Almost any modern receiver will power a pair in stereo mode.
> $550 a pair, though, makes it defiantely in your price range.
>
> Surround is a whole other ball of wax and requires at least
> $4000-$5000 to do correctly.(about $1500 for the receiver,
> about $1000 for the sub and the rest for 6-7 speakers)
>
> Magnepan also makes a surround setup of smaller speakers,
> but they require two small subs mated with the front speakers
> as they only go down to 100hz. These sound superb, though,
> and are only $299 a pair.($2000 total - $900 for a 5.1 setup
> plus $1100 for two small subs)
>
> http://www.magnepan.com/index.php
>
> http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1111247138
> Of course, used, there are great deals to be had. This is
> essentially a full range speaker. It would knock your socks off
> and into the neighbor's kitchen. :)
>
> So, no, you don't have to spend $100,000 to get good sound -
> for stereo, $2000 will get you 95-98% of the sound quality.
>

Hmmm, that's a new spec to measure, percent of sound quality.
That ought to keep you obs yapping fo a few more years.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Bryan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Not sure I follow. You mean, how do I know what the recorded
> performance is supposed to sound like? It should sound like I am
> present at a live performance, naturally. :-) But since I probably
> wasn't there during the recording, I can only compare to what I know
> the instruments should sound like in my own experience.
>
> Or, are you saying that it's vanity to use this criteria to evaluate a
> sound system?
>


Having a sound system present a musical reproduction as you
would expect it to or want it to sound is a terrible idea, isn't it?
how could you do such a nonsensical thing?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[mick]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:14:06 -0800, Bryan wrote:

> I think you are right on the money, Mick. This little discussion has come
> full circle. It all comes back to what *I* think sounds like what I want
> to hear. You, nor the salesman, nor any web site, can tell me what
> equipment will produce what I want to hear, because you're not me.
> At least I think you're not me. Maybe you are me but in another
> dimension. Anyhow, I digress. :-)
>

hmm.... lol!

> We're back to me going to a real hifi store and listening to music I know
> and like in an A-B format. I'm getting more convinced that you shouldn't
> buy speakers over the internet unless you have done this kind of testing
> first.
>

Even if you have, its a dodgy thing to do...

> And to think I was just going to settle on someone else's opinion of what
> I like! ;-)
>

Get one or two CDs that you really know (and, if possible, like!) and take
them with you to a suitable emporium. Get them to set up a decent player
and amp (and if they can't do that then go and find somewhere else) then
try about 6 pairs of speakers - preferably not piled up in the shop as
they don't sound right. Don't be afraid of listening to el cheapo junk
boxes. You need to be able to recognise their weaknesses. You should also
listen to some that are *way* out of your price range as you need to know
what compromises to make. Don't let the dealer set the volume up too loud.
You can't concentrate if your ears are hurting! Don't be afraid of leaving
empty-handed either. There's no reason to think that your chosen dealer is
the right one for you.

Remember that an A-B comparison compares the differences between A and B,
not between either of them and reality! Aim to choose for maximum
enjoyment. If you can find a system where a solo grand piano sounds
realistic and a saxaphone sounds right and an acoustic guitar sounds right
then you are probably getting there... - but that won't be easy.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[Ruud Broens]

"mick" > wrote in message
.. .
: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:12:25 -0800, bryan_cass wrote:
:
: > Thanks Mick. I think I have enough listening experience already to know
: > what I like. I have played trombone and tuba in concert bands for about
: > 12 years now. I have played trombone in orchestra pits for musicals over
: > the past 8 years. I played trombone and sang in a big band from 1995 to
: > 2003. I played piano and sang for our church from 1998 to 2003. I have
: > been in marching bands and orchestras since jr. high school and played
: > piano since I was 9. Not to mention just playing instruments at home as
: > well, and of course attending professional concerts. I'm 43, and I want
: > to finally buy a sound system that I can immerse myself in, rather than
: > making price the driving factor as it has since my first Realistic stereo
: > in 1975. *I want to enjoy my hearing while I still can! ;-)

*Hmm, well, indeed. http://orkestengehoor.nl/achtergrond/downloads/r816_3_ra.pdf
is a dutch report from 2003 : brass section players are on average exposed to 88
dbA
SPL dayly average over a 260 day working year .

K. Kähäri (Linholmen Development, Göteborg) reported in 2003 that
only 26 % of classical orchestra performers had no hearing impairements
;
within the remaining 74 %:
41 % suffered diminished hearing capabilities
43 % suffered tinnitus
39 % suffered hyperacuses

Rudy

[Bryan]

I can vouch for that. I'm not a professional musician and I only play
maybe once or twice a week. But when I played in a big band in front
of the trumpet section, I actually wore earplugs sometimes because it
hurt! I do have tinnitus (ringing in the ears), but it doesn't seem to
interfere with "normal" hearing ... yet.


Ruud Broens wrote:
> "mick" > wrote in message
> .. .
> : On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:12:25 -0800, bryan_cass wrote:
> :
> : > Thanks Mick. I think I have enough listening experience already
to know
> : > what I like. I have played trombone and tuba in concert bands
for about
> : > 12 years now. I have played trombone in orchestra pits for
musicals over
> : > the past 8 years. I played trombone and sang in a big band from
1995 to
> : > 2003. I played piano and sang for our church from 1998 to 2003.
I have
> : > been in marching bands and orchestras since jr. high school and
played
> : > piano since I was 9. Not to mention just playing instruments at
home as
> : > well, and of course attending professional concerts. I'm 43, and
I want
> : > to finally buy a sound system that I can immerse myself in,
rather than
> : > making price the driving factor as it has since my first
Realistic stereo
> : > in 1975. *I want to enjoy my hearing while I still can! ;-)
>
> *Hmm, well, indeed.
http://orkestengehoor.nl/achtergrond/downloads/r816_3_ra.pdf
> is a dutch report from 2003 : brass section players are on average
exposed to 88
> dbA
> SPL dayly average over a 260 day working year .
>
> K. K=E4h=E4ri (Linholmen Development, G=F6teborg) reported in 2003 that
> only 26 % of classical orchestra performers had no hearing
impairements
> ;
> within the remaining 74 %:
> 41 % suffered diminished hearing capabilities
> 43 % suffered tinnitus
> 39 % suffered hyperacuses
>=20
> Rudy

[Bryan]

I would invite the guy over and we'd drink some ale and he'd listen to
my system and say "Hey, you know that's exactly what I intended to
reproduce. Nice job on the equipment selection, my man!" And we'd
high-five and part company.

Really though, my line of reason is that if one can find a sound system
that is able to reproduce the original intent of a recording, then it's
pretty darn close to "perfect," no?

[Bryan]

You know what would be cool? Have a sound booth with a live musician,
say a pianist, on the same soundstage as the speakers you're testing.
Have him play "live", then shut the soundproof door and mike him with a
perfect mike and amp and have him play the same thing again through the
speakers. I think I'll open a Hifi Emporium! :-)

[Ruud Broens]

"Bryan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
I can vouch for that. I'm not a professional musician and I only play
maybe once or twice a week. But when I played in a big band in front
of the trumpet section, I actually wore earplugs sometimes because it
hurt! I do have tinnitus (ringing in the ears), but it doesn't seem to
interfere with "normal" hearing ... yet.

..........
Some recommendations are to put the trumpet section on a platform,
and a little further to the back - this will end up in regulations in the EU.
It appears orchestra's acoustical output has been going up by several dB
the last 20 years.
Rudy

[Bryan]

I'm curious to know what you think sound reproduction perfection would
be.

[George]

I can give you my opinion for what you are looking for "on the cheap"
as it were. Great price without compromising quality. I had a similar
budget and after doing much research, hours and hours of it, on various
consumer review sites and dedicated audio web sites, I was lead to
audition the Athena AS-B2 bookshelf speakers.... I am telling you,
for the price that these little gems are going for, they are worth
every penny. I listened to these next to JBL, and Infinity bookshelves
of similar size and specs, and these sounded the best, with at least a
hundred dollar less price tag to boot. If you can go check these
speakers out, it will be well worth it. Takes a few hours to break
them in, but they sound wonderful.

I bought the AS-B2's for $225.00 Can. and then went for a quality
cheap A/V receiver and settled on the Denon 1602 which I purchased for
$450.00 on sale as well. This will be your best bang for your buck in
my honest opinion. And will cover your budget even with taxes
included. (I am assuming you already have a CD player or DVD)

I have since then picked up the matching center channel and two rears
plus the AS-P300 subwoofer. Just pick up parts at a time and build
the system you desire, Just be satisfied with your purchase. You will
set yourself crazy trying to acheive perfection. Rearranging your new
equipment is a lot cheaper than a new system every two years. You can
always do little tweaks here and there.

I hope this helps you a little.

[jeffc]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> -- most recommend going to a hifi dealer and trying
> out different speakers and amps.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

> All I want is to hear music as if the musicians were standing in front
> of me playing their instruments.

Oh, is THAT all. Why didn't you say so? Ahem. You're asking the
impossible, or at least very expensive, depending on how discriminating you
are.

> So... is this a lot to ask?

Yes.

> Isn't it really the *only* thing to ask?

No.

> Is sound reproduction that subjective that no one can agree on a
> particular system that will do this?

It's not really subjective. See the magazine The Absolute Sound. Absolute.
Pretty objective.

> Or maybe, are we talking about a
> $100,000 system here to be able to be that accurate?

Right.

> All I want to know is, with my measly $500-$750 (or less?), isn't there
> a specific receiver/speaker combination that will produce what I want
> to hear?

Like I said, it depends on how discriminating you are. But at any price
below a couple thousand dollars you're going to have to make some serious
compromises. The trick in audio is to figure out what your priorities are,
and pay only for those things. For example, is the bottom octave very
important to you? (20-40Hz) In some music it doesn't even show up. Is
concert level volume (massed strings of a full orchestra playing fff)
important to you? Is detail or dynamics more important? etc. Then you can
pick something that sounds close enough, depending on your wallet.

[jeffc]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I guess a good followup question would be -- can you buy sound
> reproduction components based on specs alone and expect the result to
> match the specs?

No.

> I'm thinking that if that's true, then Consumer
> Reports recommendations are as good as any, and better than a
> salesman's.

Oh god no. Consumer Reports is good for some things, but not what you're
looking for. Unless you truly can't spend more than $700 for your entire
system. Then they might actually be reasonable.

[jeffc]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Are there any web sites that have suggestions/recommendations of setups
> for people who desire to hear a certain kind of sound, hopefully
> bracketed by budget levels?

The Absolute Sound. Both magazines have yearly "Recommended Components"
issues, for most price ranges.

[Arny Krueger]

"jeffc" > wrote in message

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Are there any web sites that have suggestions/recommendations of
>> setups for people who desire to hear a certain kind of sound,
>> hopefully bracketed by budget levels?
>
> The Absolute Sound. Both magazines have yearly "Recommended
> Components" issues, for most price ranges.

The problem is that both lists are essentially anti-science fiction.

[Bryan]

I think you're right Jeff, thanks. I have really gained a lot from
this discussion and I hope others will too when they find this in the
archives. I think what I will do now with all this information is 1)
have a price range in mind of what I'm willing to spend, 2) go to an
audiophile dealer with some familiar CDs in hand and plan to spend some
time listening to various speakers in my price range - I am gathering
some names on the internet of what I'd like to try: PSB Image B25, Polk
Audio LSi7, Axiom Millenia M22ti. . 3) Visit a couple other stores
and hear what they have. 4) Make a decision on the speaker model I
like most. 5) Look online for the best price on that model, or look
for lightly used. 6) Go back to dealer and make offer.

After the speakers are decided on, the next step is the receiver and
DVD player, and maybe a subwoofer. I think I can rely on Consumer
Reports reviews for these components. The Onkyo TX-SR701 was rated
highest, but is on the expensive side. The Panasonic SA-HE100 was just
below that, though, and is almost 1/4 the price. I think it's only
5.1, but for music I really don't need 6.1 or 7.1. DVD players are a
commodity now and so finding something good for around $100 is not
hard; the Panasonic DVD-S47 was top rated at $100.

Thank you all for your input!
Bryan

[Bryan]

Yes George, thank you, that does help a lot. I will audition the
Athenas too when I'm out and about. How is the subwoofer? I'm not
interesting in anything below 40Hz (not much in music is below that
octave), but I think the sub would deliver some "punch" to otherwise
bass-weak bookshelf speakers.

Thanks!
Bryan

[Bryan]

Hey, Rui Salgueiro sent me some information and a link that I wanted to
share. At www.harman.com someone has written some white papers on
audio theory and how it applies to sound reproduction in the home. For
you academics out there, it's pretty interesting reading!

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=default

[mick]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:53:40 -0800, Bryan wrote:

> Hey, Rui Salgueiro sent me some information and a link that I wanted to
> share. At www.harman.com someone has written some white papers on audio
> theory and how it applies to sound reproduction in the home. For you
> academics out there, it's pretty interesting reading!
>
> http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=default

Yep, cheers Bryan. There is some interesting stuff there...

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[[email protected]]

Arny prefers using only genuine science fiction as a guide. If people
like Arny would forget about audio and work on warp drive technology
we'd all be ahead. I want to fly to Alpha Centauri and back in my
lifetime, I'd give every vacuum tube on earth for that.

[Bryan]

Apparently my taste exceeds my budget -- gee, that's probably a
familiar tune. :-) I'm actually considering building my own speakers.
I've read quite a bit about this over the past couple days and it
seems like you can build a really excellent system for not much money.
And you have the added benefit of being able to tweak the crossover,
cabinet, baffling, insulation, etc. to get the sound you want.

There is a plan for speakers at www.audioreview.com that seems pretty
well-received. Parts for two speakers run about $300. That, and a
subwoofer (could I build one of those too?), and I'm set for speakers.
Now for the amp and DVD player.

Bryan

[Lionel]

In om>, Bryan wrote :

[snip]

> There is a plan for speakers at www.audioreview.com that seems pretty
> well-received. Parts for two speakers run about $300. That, and a
> subwoofer (could I build one of those too?), and I'm set for speakers.
> Now for the amp and DVD player.

This is a very good idea. There are a lot of very good design available
around $300-400.

Forget the stupid suggestion of this idiot of George M. Middius to repair a
pair of "damaged" speakers.
In the end it will cost you more than $300 and will cause you much more
stress and troubles.

Middius is a troll. He doesn't know anything about speakers nor about audio
in general.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
>> Hehe... Arny, I like you; you're a literal as I am. :-) You're
>> right, to get every nuance of say, a solo violinist, you would want
>> several microphones picking up all of the hamonics, the player's
>> breathing, the rustle of his/her clothing, the fingers on the
>> fretboard.
>
> Actually the several mics would be more likely required to capture the
> fact that the energy given off by a violin player varies considerably
> along the ordinal directions.
>
>>Of course in a live performace you'd have to be
>> nose-to-nose with the player to hear all that.
>
> ????
>
>> OK OK, I give...
>> let's get realistic. :-) I don't want "in-your-face" as much as I
>> want "in the audience."
>
> My point is that what you really want is what you want, when you want it.
> One time you may want in-your-face and another time you may want
> in-audience-over-here and then the next time you might want
> in-the-audience over there. The methodology I outlined might possibly
> deliver such a thing. It seems to me that little else would.
>
>> I think what I meant to say by "assume as perfect a recording as
>> possible" is just that. Assume that I have found the best recording
>> available of what I want to listen to. This may be a 5.1 Dolby
>> DVD-Audio recording, or a mono vinyl LP (yes, I still have my Dual 502
>> turntable!). I don't want the sound system to add or subtract
>> anything from what the recording engineers created. How's that? :-)
>
> Without begging the point, what you might want is a system largely
> composed near-field monitors.
>
>> Are there any web sites that have suggestions/recommendations of
>> setups for people who desire to hear a certain kind of sound,
>> hopefully bracketed by budget levels?
>
> In all of our dreams...
>
>> Thank you MINe for the stereophile.com suggestion.
>
> Stereophile is overtly dedicated to audio's high end, as in the high
> priced segment of any particular product segment. IOW in the produce
> segment area of near-field-monitors they have posted reviews of expensive
> near-field monitors (e.g. Genelec), but not good inexpensive ones (e.g.
> Behringer).
>
>
Note that High End doesn't necessarily mean best. If it did things like the
Orion speaker system from Linkwitz Labs would be getting reviewed.

[[email protected]]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com
> >
> >> Hehe... Arny, I like you; you're a literal as I am. :-) You're
> >> right, to get every nuance of say, a solo violinist, you would
want
> >> several microphones picking up all of the hamonics, the player's
> >> breathing, the rustle of his/her clothing, the fingers on the
> >> fretboard.
> >
> > Actually the several mics would be more likely required to capture
the
> > fact that the energy given off by a violin player varies
considerably
> > along the ordinal directions.
> >
> >>Of course in a live performace you'd have to be
> >> nose-to-nose with the player to hear all that.
> >
> > ????
> >
> >> OK OK, I give...
> >> let's get realistic. :-) I don't want "in-your-face" as much as
I
> >> want "in the audience."
> >
> > My point is that what you really want is what you want, when you
want it.
> > One time you may want in-your-face and another time you may want
> > in-audience-over-here and then the next time you might want
> > in-the-audience over there. The methodology I outlined might
possibly
> > deliver such a thing. It seems to me that little else would.
> >
> >> I think what I meant to say by "assume as perfect a recording as
> >> possible" is just that. Assume that I have found the best
recording
> >> available of what I want to listen to. This may be a 5.1 Dolby
> >> DVD-Audio recording, or a mono vinyl LP (yes, I still have my Dual
502
> >> turntable!). I don't want the sound system to add or subtract
> >> anything from what the recording engineers created. How's that?
:-)
> >
> > Without begging the point, what you might want is a system largely
> > composed near-field monitors.
> >
> >> Are there any web sites that have suggestions/recommendations of
> >> setups for people who desire to hear a certain kind of sound,
> >> hopefully bracketed by budget levels?
> >
> > In all of our dreams...
> >
> >> Thank you MINe for the stereophile.com suggestion.
> >
> > Stereophile is overtly dedicated to audio's high end, as in the
high
> > priced segment of any particular product segment. IOW in the
produce
> > segment area of near-field-monitors they have posted reviews of
expensive
> > near-field monitors (e.g. Genelec), but not good inexpensive ones
(e.g.
> > Behringer).
> >
> >
> Note that High End doesn't necessarily mean best.



It certainly does includes the best but it also includes plenty below
it.




>If it did things like the
> Orion speaker system from Linkwitz Labs would be getting reviewed.



Nonsnense. What is high end and what is reviewed are independent
subjects.





Scott Wheeler

[Bryan]

Thanks, George. Actually, I have an old pair of Verit Heritage
speakers that I bought new in... hm, 1978? The woofers had gone bad
and I replaced them with Pyle woofers about 20 years ago. Then the
tweeters stopped working and I replaced them too. Then the Pyle's
cheap foam surrounds rotted and now one of the tweeters doesn't work
again. Thus, my search for "new" speakers.

But you bring up a good idea... The cabinets are still in decent shape.
I could get some good Dynaudio woofers and tweeters for it, and then
get or build a decent crossover and I'm back in business (as long as
the cabinet size and port tube are correct). :-) I still want to
build some speakers from scratch though. It sounds like a fun winter
project.

Thanks,
Bryan

George M. Middius wrote:
> Bryan said:
>
> > There is a plan for speakers at www.audioreview.com that seems
pretty
> > well-received. Parts for two speakers run about $300. That, and a
> > subwoofer (could I build one of those too?), and I'm set for
speakers.
>
> You might be able to pick up a pair of damaged speakers and repair
them.
> This would cost you less money and take less work.

[Bryan]

I think I will try Ed Frias' design. It seems simple, the parts are
available in a kit, and there is a lot of support on audioreview.com
for help building and tweaking the speakers. Ed also seems to be a
very nice and knowledgeable person who is willing to help. He
suggested to me that I find a good amp and preamp instead of a
receiver. I have never considered that before, but I may be on another
learning quest to find out! I'd be happy with used equipment if I can
find something of quality for a good price. Back to eBay! ;-)

Bryan

[marc]

Hi Bryan,
For $700 you can probably get some really good headphones and a headphone
amp to go along with the headphones. This might be the way to go for what
your looking for..

"Bryan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I think I will try Ed Frias' design. It seems simple, the parts are
> available in a kit, and there is a lot of support on audioreview.com
> for help building and tweaking the speakers. Ed also seems to be a
> very nice and knowledgeable person who is willing to help. He
> suggested to me that I find a good amp and preamp instead of a
> receiver. I have never considered that before, but I may be on another
> learning quest to find out! I'd be happy with used equipment if I can
> find something of quality for a good price. Back to eBay! ;-)
>
> Bryan
>

[Arny Krueger]

"marc" > wrote in message

> Hi Bryan,
> For $700 you can probably get some really good headphones and a
> headphone amp to go along with the headphones. This might be the way
> to go for what your looking for..

If you root around you can catch a pair of Sennheiser HD580s for about $180
new, and you might not need a headphone amp at all, depending on the rest of
your gear. By most accounts these are among the top headphones around today.
IOW there are no doubt some headphones that some people think sound better,
but they also satisfy tons of really pretty picky people.

HD580s have a relatively high impedance which means that they are less
critical of the circuitry that drives them.

[Bryan]

Good idea, but in my case, I like to play my trombone along with what
I'm listening to. Wearing headphones kind of diminishes that ability.
I have a pair of Sony MDR-V6 headphones though, which I am very happy
with. The ear pads have disintegrated, so I'd like to find
replacements for less than the $10 each that Sony charges. Regardless,
I'd like to find a surround speaker system that puts me right on stage
with the band. ;-) I'm still considering building my own front
speakers and sub, although at least one person from here is trying to
talk me out of it. What's your opinion?

Thanks!
Bryan

[marc]

How about micking your trombone and playing it back through the headphones
in real time along with your music or recording it and mixing it with your
music.

What about electric trombones?

"Bryan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Good idea, but in my case, I like to play my trombone along with what
> I'm listening to. Wearing headphones kind of diminishes that ability.
> I have a pair of Sony MDR-V6 headphones though, which I am very happy
> with. The ear pads have disintegrated, so I'd like to find
> replacements for less than the $10 each that Sony charges. Regardless,
> I'd like to find a surround speaker system that puts me right on stage
> with the band. ;-) I'm still considering building my own front
> speakers and sub, although at least one person from here is trying to
> talk me out of it. What's your opinion?
>
> Thanks!
> Bryan
>

[Bryan]

Hehe.... marc, that sounds much more complicated to me than just buying
or building some speakers. :-) I don't think I'm really that much of
an audiophile that I wouldn't be satisfied with a system that costs
less than $1000. But thank you for your suggestions!

[[email protected]]

Just build a starter pair of speakers with a simple crossover and when
their limitations really present problems with your playing over them
then upgrade. The neatest homebrew speakers that didn't cost much to
build that i have heard were built from a diagonally cut length of flue
tile, an inexpensive non-resonant cabinet for a pair of minis. They're
from some book somewhere but I forget which one. If you used the listed
drivers and crossover you were looking at roughly $150 for the pair.

[Bryan]

Thanks -- that sounds like an interesting design. ;-) You're right
though, the cabinets themselves will run about $90 for two, if I buy
them pre-made. I'm just afraid that I won't be able to match the
cabinet volume specs that are quite specific for the drivers and
crossover used in that AR.com DIY speaker. Plus, I'm not confident
that I could make the veneer and grill look very professional, at least
not on my first try. Now speaker stands... that's a different story
and I'll probably make those myself. I think I can do a reasonably
good job with MDF and real wood veneer - and the design is not so
critical. So anyway, I will likely buy the cabinets rather than make
them from scratch.

[marc]

"Bryan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thanks -- that sounds like an interesting design. ;-) You're right
> though, the cabinets themselves will run about $90 for two, if I buy
> them pre-made. I'm just afraid that I won't be able to match the
> cabinet volume specs that are quite specific for the drivers and
> crossover used in that AR.com DIY speaker. Plus, I'm not confident
> that I could make the veneer and grill look very professional, at least
> not on my first try. Now speaker stands... that's a different story
> and I'll probably make those myself. I think I can do a reasonably
> good job with MDF and real wood veneer - and the design is not so
> critical. So anyway, I will likely buy the cabinets rather than make
> them from scratch.
>

You don't have to use mdf . You can use many types of plywood, real wood
(sand it , and give it a nice finish).
You can use vinyl, tolex covers, etc, to cover your speakers. You can buy
the wood and some places will cut the pieces for you to your exact
dimensions.
If you plan on buidling your own box you need to buy some tools: Router with
a jig for making circles. A drill. Soldering irons,etc.

If your going to build some speakers. You might consider getting these books
on building loudspeakers.
Loudspeaker Design Cookbook
by Vance Dickason
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1882580338/qid=1109105272/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-6423319-8849724

He includes some designs for loudspeakers.

Designing, Building, and Testing Your Own Speaker System with Projects
by David B. Weems
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007069429X/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-6423319-8849724?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

Find a design in a book, buy a kit, or build your own design - but you need
to know what your doing:
Choosing the speakers, designing the speaker box speciafically for those
speakers, designing crossovers (these can make a huge difference in sound).


You can get software for designing your speaker box,etc:
http://home.earthlink.net/~etunstal/diy.htm
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/setup/loudspeakers/DIYspeakers.php
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=500-945&DID=7
http://www.linearteam.dk/default.aspx?pageid=winisd

[Lionel]

marc a écrit :
> "Bryan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Thanks -- that sounds like an interesting design. ;-) You're right
>>though, the cabinets themselves will run about $90 for two, if I buy
>>them pre-made. I'm just afraid that I won't be able to match the
>>cabinet volume specs that are quite specific for the drivers and
>>crossover used in that AR.com DIY speaker. Plus, I'm not confident
>>that I could make the veneer and grill look very professional, at least
>>not on my first try. Now speaker stands... that's a different story
>>and I'll probably make those myself. I think I can do a reasonably
>>good job with MDF and real wood veneer - and the design is not so
>>critical. So anyway, I will likely buy the cabinets rather than make
>>them from scratch.
>>
>
>
> You don't have to use mdf . You can use many types of plywood, real wood
> (sand it , and give it a nice finish).
> You can use vinyl, tolex covers, etc, to cover your speakers. You can buy
> the wood and some places will cut the pieces for you to your exact
> dimensions.
> If you plan on buidling your own box you need to buy some tools: Router with
> a jig for making circles. A drill. Soldering irons,etc.
>
> If your going to build some speakers. You might consider getting these books
> on building loudspeakers.
> Loudspeaker Design Cookbook
> by Vance Dickason
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1882580338/qid=1109105272/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-6423319-8849724
>
> He includes some designs for loudspeakers.
>
> Designing, Building, and Testing Your Own Speaker System with Projects
> by David B. Weems
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007069429X/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-6423319-8849724?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
>
> Find a design in a book, buy a kit, or build your own design - but you need
> to know what your doing:
> Choosing the speakers, designing the speaker box speciafically for those
> speakers, designing crossovers (these can make a huge difference in sound).
>
>
> You can get software for designing your speaker box,etc:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~etunstal/diy.htm
> http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/setup/loudspeakers/DIYspeakers.php
> http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=500-945&DID=7
> http://www.linearteam.dk/default.aspx?pageid=winisd

You can also find free softwares here :
http://www.pvconsultants.com/audio/frdgroup.htm

- "Unibox" is a very powerfull Excel spreadsheet
- SPL Tools (tracer and viewer) are very usefull for box and
xover simulation working with speakers manufacturers tech.
datas.
- passive crossover designer is also a powerfull Excel
spreadsheet.
- Passive Crossover Design Calculator has also interesting
features.

Wish you a lot of fun.

[Bryan]

Wow, thank you so much for all the info marc! I appreciate your help.
I will read up on speaker design because sound reproduction is
interesting to me. What I like about the AR.com DIY speaker, though,
is that it has already been designed, tested and tweaked. All I have
to do is put it together, eliminating the overhead and markup of a
manufacturer. And apparently these speakers have been compared side by
side with some pretty expensive and well known/liked brands and come
out ahead.

You're right about the speaker stands though. And I think I would
probably rather buy some nice birch or oak plywood and use that instead
of glueing veneer to MDF. Maybe I'd use the MDF for the base and
pedestal so I don't have to worry about edging, or maybe I'll make some
edging out of solid wood... hey, this is getting exciting. :-)

Bryan

[Bryan]

Thanks, Lionel! Just to round out this great list of links, here are a
couple more web sites for do-it-yourselfers:

www.speakerbuilder.net
www.diyaudio.com
www.partsexpress.com
www.madisound.com
www.speakercity.com

[Lionel]

Bryan a écrit :
> Wow, thank you so much for all the info marc! I appreciate your help.
> I will read up on speaker design because sound reproduction is
> interesting to me. What I like about the AR.com DIY speaker, though,
> is that it has already been designed, tested and tweaked. All I have
> to do is put it together, eliminating the overhead and markup of a
> manufacturer. And apparently these speakers have been compared side by
> side with some pretty expensive and well known/liked brands and come
> out ahead.
>
> You're right about the speaker stands though. And I think I would
> probably rather buy some nice birch or oak plywood and use that instead
> of glueing veneer to MDF. Maybe I'd use the MDF for the base and
> pedestal so I don't have to worry about edging, or maybe I'll make some
> edging out of solid wood... hey, this is getting exciting. :-)

I have seen some very nice speaker stand made with MDF +
veneer for the upper and lower plate and the "column" was
done with a brelan of copper pipes.
Each pipe has a different diameter, they are reinforced
inside with a threaded rod and fill up with very dry sand.
After cleaning them with the ad'hoc liquid for brilliance,
you just put a little bit of varnish on the copper pipes to
fix the tint.

If you can understand the above and if copper matches your
taste (WAF ?) and your room design... ;-)

[Bryan]

That sounds like a cool design, Lionel. I think I like the idea of
natural wood rather than copper, but some brass trim might look good
with a nice cherry or walnut stain. :-)

Bryan

[Joseph Oberlander]

Bryan wrote:

> Wow, thank you so much for all the info marc! I appreciate your help.
> I will read up on speaker design because sound reproduction is
> interesting to me. What I like about the AR.com DIY speaker, though,
> is that it has already been designed, tested and tweaked. All I have
> to do is put it together, eliminating the overhead and markup of a
> manufacturer. And apparently these speakers have been compared side by
> side with some pretty expensive and well known/liked brands and come
> out ahead.
>
> You're right about the speaker stands though. And I think I would
> probably rather buy some nice birch or oak plywood and use that instead
> of glueing veneer to MDF.

MDF works. It's cheap. Oh - and it works.

Seriously, though -MDF is far better than almost anything else
to build a speaker out of without breaking your bank. It also
comes in pre-veneered sheets if you order from the right sources.
(one side or both). Add in some veneer strips to cover the edges
and enjoy.

[[email protected]]

MDF does work but there are mechanically more rugged and pleasing
materials to work with. Laminated hardwoods can be a better choice. On
a really expensive speaker or for a homebuilder willing to put in the
time molding the hardwoods around a form is better than plywood even if
you use joinery like Fender guitar cabinets. You can use alternating
layers of lighter and denser woods which is also cosmetically
attractive.

The flue tile speakers were really remarkable and cost effective too.

[[email protected]]

I went to AR.com, it's a dead site. It took considerable Googling to
find out it was a Madisound deal,not a URL!

[Joseph Oberlander]

wrote:
> MDF does work but there are mechanically more rugged and pleasing
> materials to work with. Laminated hardwoods can be a better choice.

Actually, it's about resonance, or the lack thereof. Cement
works well, as does marble and Corian. MDF is the best affordable
material. Laminated and ply-woods are not even close and take
a lot more effort to design around to get flat response.

> On
> a really expensive speaker or for a homebuilder willing to put in the
> time molding the hardwoods around a form is better than plywood even if
> you use joinery like Fender guitar cabinets. You can use alternating
> layers of lighter and denser woods which is also cosmetically
> attractive.

Looks good. Sounds hopelessly homebuilt. It's a very common mistake
most DIYers make - they think "MDF is butt-ugly". Well, it is. But
good laminate takes care of it and you'd never know the difference
if you use 1/4 inch stuff instead of paper-thin junk most makers
tend to use(ie - you can sand and shape it, as well as stain/oil it
like real wood)

> The flue tile speakers were really remarkable and cost effective too.

Tile and marble is excellent, if heavy and prone to cracking during
the construction process. Also, special adhesives and joints need
to be utilized, which are a real PITA.

[marc]

If the box is designed solid so that it doesn't vibrate and if you use
dampen material inside the box to get the right resonance that's all that
matters. Not whether it's made of mdf or cement. Wood or plywood is fine.
Besides who's going to make a speaker out of cement? It's completely
impractical - how are you going to move it around?

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> wrote:
>> MDF does work but there are mechanically more rugged and pleasing
>> materials to work with. Laminated hardwoods can be a better choice.
>
> Actually, it's about resonance, or the lack thereof. Cement
> works well, as does marble and Corian. MDF is the best affordable
> material. Laminated and ply-woods are not even close and take
> a lot more effort to design around to get flat response.
>
>> On
>> a really expensive speaker or for a homebuilder willing to put in the
>> time molding the hardwoods around a form is better than plywood even if
>> you use joinery like Fender guitar cabinets. You can use alternating
>> layers of lighter and denser woods which is also cosmetically
>> attractive.
>
> Looks good. Sounds hopelessly homebuilt. It's a very common mistake
> most DIYers make - they think "MDF is butt-ugly". Well, it is. But
> good laminate takes care of it and you'd never know the difference
> if you use 1/4 inch stuff instead of paper-thin junk most makers
> tend to use(ie - you can sand and shape it, as well as stain/oil it
> like real wood)
>
>> The flue tile speakers were really remarkable and cost effective too.
>
> Tile and marble is excellent, if heavy and prone to cracking during
> the construction process. Also, special adhesives and joints need
> to be utilized, which are a real PITA.
>

[Bryan]

I'm sorry, AR.com is a shortened version of AudioReview.com. I'm not
sure why people say "AR.com", but it seem to be a common nickname for
the site.

Bryan

[Bryan]

Fork lift? ;-)

I have heard of subwoofers made of sonotubes used for concrete piers.
It seems a tube that's upwards of 8' in length makes a really good
subwoofer enclosure.

[Joseph Oberlander]

marc wrote:

> If the box is designed solid so that it doesn't vibrate and if you use
> dampen material inside the box to get the right resonance that's all that
> matters. Not whether it's made of mdf or cement. Wood or plywood is fine.
> Besides who's going to make a speaker out of cement? It's completely
> impractical - how are you going to move it around?

Yeah, cement IS impractical. Lol.

The problem is, stuffing the cabinet with deadening material does
nothing versus lower frequencies. I've heard many DIY speakers
(usually at trade shows from small start-up firms) that resonate
somewhere in the 40-80hz range due to thinking that plywood or
laminated layers is good enough.

At $30-$35 a 4*8 sheet, just use MDF and put a nice veneer on it.

[[email protected]]

A 300 pound speaker is okay if you make it so that a small cart or even
a hand truck can be used with it. A really high end design would have
jackpoints for use with a dedicated cart resembling a Segway: indeed,
I'd use Segway wheel/tires, they are designed for nonmarking properties
and Segway needs money, so should be willing to deal.

Of course, in the Wilson Audio price class, they should have their own
Segway built in.

[[email protected]]

Sonotubes are much lighter than the cement they usually form: and can
build a good speaker in part because their circular cross-section is
self-reinforcing in that axis. I remember now that the guy who built
the flying car invented a material called paperglass, which was kraft
paper with a resin similar to regular fiberglass resin. Perhaps
Sonotubes could be impregnated with such a resin to make them even more
suited to speaker service.

[marc]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> marc wrote:
>
>> If the box is designed solid so that it doesn't vibrate and if you use
>> dampen material inside the box to get the right resonance that's all that
>> matters. Not whether it's made of mdf or cement. Wood or plywood is fine.
>> Besides who's going to make a speaker out of cement? It's completely
>> impractical - how are you going to move it around?
>
> Yeah, cement IS impractical. Lol.
>
> The problem is, stuffing the cabinet with deadening material does
> nothing versus lower frequencies.

What problems is this?
What do mean deadening material does nothing versus lower frequencies?

The object of designing the right sized box and the right amount of
dampening (and this depends on the specs of the driver) is to balance driver
damping with a smooth low-frequency response and a good transient response.
There are many materials you can use to make the box including wood and
plywood. What you have to be concerned with when designing the box is
whether the box is the right size for the specific driver, has the right
amount of dampening, does the box vibrate, is it air tight - are there air
leaks, etc.

I've heard many DIY speakers
> (usually at trade shows from small start-up firms) that resonate
> somewhere in the 40-80hz range due to thinking that plywood or
> laminated layers is good enough.

A vented box is designed to resonate.
A closed box is not designed to resonate and should not resonate.
This has nothing to do with whether the box is made out of plywood or wood.
It has to do with the speaker not being designed properly.

>
> At $30-$35 a 4*8 sheet, just use MDF and put a nice veneer on it.
>

[[email protected]]

Maybe they should get ar.com or ar.net or ar.org if ar.com is too
expensive. Acoustic Research apparently doesn't want ar.com or can't
afford it and Audio Research prefers ARC-which I find confusing only
with the old Aircraft Radio Co,who built a few test boxes before
becoming house avionics for Cessna.

[Joseph Oberlander]

marc wrote:

>>(usually at trade shows from small start-up firms) that resonate
>>somewhere in the 40-80hz range due to thinking that plywood or
>>laminated layers is good enough.
>
> A vented box is designed to resonate.
> A closed box is not designed to resonate and should not resonate.
> This has nothing to do with whether the box is made out of plywood or wood.
> It has to do with the speaker not being designed properly.

The problem is excessive resonance, which is another
term for distortion. If you *like* boomy bass, go ahead
and make a speaker out of plywood or even pine boards.

Just don't say I didn't warn you.

[Ruud Broens]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
:
:
: marc wrote:
:
: > If the box is designed solid so that it doesn't vibrate and if you use
: > dampen material inside the box to get the right resonance that's all that
: > matters. Not whether it's made of mdf or cement. Wood or plywood is fine.
: > Besides who's going to make a speaker out of cement? It's completely
: > impractical - how are you going to move it around?
:
: Yeah, cement IS impractical. Lol.
:
: The problem is, stuffing the cabinet with deadening material does
: nothing versus lower frequencies. I've heard many DIY speakers
: (usually at trade shows from small start-up firms) that resonate
: somewhere in the 40-80hz range due to thinking that plywood or
: laminated layers is good enough.
:
: At $30-$35 a 4*8 sheet, just use MDF and put a nice veneer on it.


Resonance problems can be dealt with in several ways. Most effective
is a through and through supporting of the side walls of the enclosure
in the way B&W pioneered with the matrix loudspeakers bracing.
You can also add a layer of steel scrapnel to the insides of the panels,
it is available in easy-glue-on format 'steel cushion filled' mats.

Rudy

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...

> Resonance problems can be dealt with in several ways. Most effective
> is a through and through supporting of the side walls of the enclosure
> in the way B&W pioneered with the matrix loudspeakers bracing.
> You can also add a layer of steel scrapnel to the insides of the panels,
> it is available in easy-glue-on format 'steel cushion filled' mats.

What is "scrapnel"? Interesting word, but I can't find it in the
dictionary.

Thanks,

Norm Strong

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
:
: > Resonance problems can be dealt with in several ways. Most effective
: > is a through and through supporting of the side walls of the enclosure
: > in the way B&W pioneered with the matrix loudspeakers bracing.
: > You can also add a layer of steel scrapnel to the insides of the panels,
: > it is available in easy-glue-on format 'steel cushion filled' mats.
:
: What is "scrapnel"? Interesting word, but I can't find it in the
: dictionary.
:
: Thanks,
:
: Norm Strong

I meant this:
"Hawaphon Stahlschrott Matten",
available at http://www.hifisound.de/zubehoer/zubehoer.html
item # ZDI-8030850 , 730x570x5 MM at EUR 49,50

Rudy
btw scrapnel gives me over 1600 hits in Google..

[Ruud Broens]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
:
: > wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: : ...
: :
: : > Resonance problems can be dealt with in several ways. Most effective
: : > is a through and through supporting of the side walls of the enclosure
: : > in the way B&W pioneered with the matrix loudspeakers bracing.
: : > You can also add a layer of steel scrapnel to the insides of the panels,
: : > it is available in easy-glue-on format 'steel cushion filled' mats.
: :
: : What is "scrapnel"? Interesting word, but I can't find it in the
: : dictionary.
: :
: : Thanks,
: :
: : Norm Strong
:
: I meant this:
: "Hawaphon Stahlschrott Matten",
: available at http://www.hifisound.de/zubehoer/zubehoer.html
: item # ZDI-8030850 , 730x570x5 MM at EUR 49,50
:
: Rudy
: btw scrapnel gives me over 1600 hits in Google..
:
...update: they now use -Kugeln-. "scrapnel", sort of a cross between
shrapnel and schrott, i guess :-) A DIY solution could be done presumably
using fishing lead beads embedded between suitable foam layers - the
problem to solve is then, to hold them balls in position on a vertical ;-)
Rudy

[Bryan]

> ..update: they now use -Kugeln-. "scrapnel", sort of a cross between
> shrapnel and schrott, i guess :-) A DIY solution could be done
presumably
> using fishing lead beads embedded between suitable foam layers - the
> problem to solve is then, to hold them balls in position on a
vertical ;-)
> Rudy

This being an opinion group, my opinion is that there is a point of
diminishing returns with most things. I think that having a
double-walled speaker with the cavity filled in with lead shot is
getting to that point. ;-)

Bryan

[Ruud Broens]

"Bryan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: > ..update: they now use -Kugeln-. "scrapnel", sort of a cross between
: > shrapnel and schrott, i guess :-) A DIY solution could be done
: presumably
: > using fishing lead beads embedded between suitable foam layers - the
: > problem to solve is then, to hold them balls in position on a
: vertical ;-)
: > Rudy
:
: This being an opinion group, my opinion is that there is a point of
: diminishing returns with most things. I think that having a
: double-walled speaker with the cavity filled in with lead shot is
: getting to that point. ;-)
:
: Bryan

Heh. Kinda reminds of the <shredded car> - table stuff.
It doesn't have to be _that_ thick, 15 mm or so will do nicely.
If you like to cut out a hole, well, lot:"sz, actually, horizontal panels with
60 % of the area cut out holes, snugly fitting between the sidewalls and
glued in place, every 20 cm of vertical panel hight will do as lowest weight
solution - something for Howards shed :-)

Rudy