| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
exterior doors, acoustics ?
Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
asymetrically placed. The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area. Wall is mahogany veneer. Likely acoustic impact? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote: Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door, asymetrically placed. The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area. Wall is mahogany veneer. Likely acoustic impact? Depends on the details. What speakers? What room dimensions? Where are the speakers specifically placed? What room treatment is being used? Scott Wheeler |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door, asymmetrically placed. The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area. Wall is mahogany veneer. Likely acoustic impact? That door is petty much a broadband reflector. Of course, its apparently behind the speaker. If the rest of the wall is plastered, you've got a reflector with some diffusive edges wrapped around it, in a wall that is also mostly a reflector. IOW, the door is probably a small influence compared to the wall. I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how their radiation pattern is. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny,
I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how their radiation pattern is. Pardon me for hijacking the thread, but this reminds me of something I've been trying to find for a while. I have searched the 'net high and low for loudspeaker polar plots. Nobody seems to publish them! Maybe because they're all so terrible? :-) The only two I've found are 1) for a huge PA horn, and 2) an estimate for a "typical" speaker shown as a crude drawing in a text book. Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical bookshelf style speakers? --Ethan |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
hi guys
it never ceases to amaze me how much the sound changes in different rooms in my house ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh ive found getting the wife and her friend round ...to hold the speakers while you test the sound works well  hope it all goes well j7 www.audioorigami.co.uk The home of tonearm repairs |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door, asymmetrically placed. The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area. Wall is mahogany veneer. Likely acoustic impact? That door is petty much a broadband reflector. Of course, its apparently behind the speaker. If the rest of the wall is plastered, you've got a reflector with some diffusive edges wrapped around it, in a wall that is also mostly a reflector. IOW, the door is probably a small influence compared to the wall. I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how their radiation pattern is. Unipolar, front radiator, moderate directionality. My impression is that the door is actually denser than the wall. The glass is very rigid as well. My guess is that the door is less of a problem than a typical hollow-core interior door, which is light, flexible, and vents between the door and the floor. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Conzo (or whomever he's masquerading for) sneers:
In article , "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote: Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical bookshelf style speakers? Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker. It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove this point is correct. Hmmmmmmmm. Two posts out of the blue from a "new" (probably just a torresists variant) poster, and two insult filled idotic false claims. And this is the new RAO flamer who pretends to know about people skills? If anybody believes, that "Mike" will be glad to see you a brand new Edsel, that runs on fertilizer grown in his back yard. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Conzo wrote: In article , "audio_origami" wrote: ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc. You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS the room. No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a good room is just more obviously crap. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms. Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and marketing. They don't make very good speakers by and large. OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the non-enthusiast. It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state of the art. It is a safe assumption that hard core enthusiasts who persue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that are designed with no comprimises mandated by "average rooms." Scott Wheeler |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Wheeler wrote:
Michael Conzo wrote: In article , "audio_origami" wrote: ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc. You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS the room. No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a good room is just more obviously crap. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms. Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and marketing. They don't make very good speakers by and large. OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the non-enthusiast. It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state of the art. It is a safe assumption that hard core enthusiasts who persue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that are designed with no comprimises mandated by "average rooms." Scott Wheeler The previously unheard of and undocumented Mr. Conzo has made a fairly large number of outrageous and unsubstantiated false claims about both people and various other subjects since his brief appearance here. Apparently, he specializes in making antagonistric comments about others with no evide4ence to support them. His agenda is pretty obvious, as our his prejudices. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Conzo" wrote in message ... In article , "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote: Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical bookshelf style speakers? Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker. It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove this point is correct. "Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on rec.audio.marketplace. I suggest we not respond to him. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Conzo" wrote in message ... In article , "audio_origami" wrote: ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS the room. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms. "Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on rec.audio.marketplace. I suggest we not respond to him. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Michael Conzo (or whomever he's masquerading for) sneers: In article , "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote: Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical bookshelf style speakers? Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker. It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove this point is correct. Hmmmmmmmm. Two posts out of the blue from a "new" (probably just a torresists variant) poster, and two insult filled idotic false claims. And this is the new RAO flamer who pretends to know about people skills? If anybody believes, that "Mike" will be glad to see you a brand new Edsel, that runs on fertilizer grown in his back yard. Bruce J. Richman Bruce, it's Brian L. McCarty. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein a écrit :
"Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on rec.audio.marketplace. I suggest we not respond to him. ****, this was the first time I read something interesting from him !!!! ;-) |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Michael Conzo wrote: In article , "audio_origami" wrote: ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc. You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush. As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and vacuum tube dust? The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS the room. No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a good room is just more obviously crap. So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and utter high end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology. Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you want to exclude. Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl, and good solid state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate. The combination of mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi speakers is working and winning combination. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms. In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its easier to just use our ears. Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and marketing. If people don't know you have it for sale, why would the run out to buy it? They don't make very good speakers by and large. I dunno about that. Bose might be an example of group that is financially successful, but sells lesser home consumer speaker systems for greater prices. OTOH, the Harman group, PSB, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, etc., etc do sell a goodly volume of really pretty good speakers and seem to turn a goodly profit. So much for Scott's broad and biased brush which strokes against reasonably-priced audio gear. OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the non-enthusiast. I'm trying to figure out how one would make an optimal speaker for an average room that wasn't SOTA. Can't be done. I think this might be another one of Scott's misapprehensions. It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state of the art. How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is? Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but this discussion is about now. It is a safe assumption that hard core enthusiasts who pursue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that are designed with no compromises mandated by "average rooms." If it was only that simple. If all dedicated listening rooms had equal or comparable acoustical properties, perhaps. In the real world there is very little consistency. If accuracy is the goal, (accuracy being a concept that Scott's EFX-laden system has no chance of addressing) then the best approach for the speaker designer is to make the speaker function more independently of the room, rather than being more dependent on the room. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Conzo" wrote in message
In article , "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote: Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical bookshelf style speakers? I went around turning over the usual rocks, and came up empty. Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. So it seems. Plan B might be to build a system with professional type speakers (e.g. EV ZX-5s) so at least the speakers wouldn't be mystery meat. Some pro monitors actually sound pretty good. For example, I have heard some speakers made by B&C that at first glance were stage monitors, but are also sold with appropriately redesigned cabinetry, etc., as high end home speakers. For those who are unfamiliar with B&C they are sort of like the Italian JBL. It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker. I've heard the difference that controlled directivity can make in a home setting, and I often like it. As long as listening rooms are at least somewhat reverberent off-axis response contributes to what the listener hears at his "sweet spot". I can point to a number of papers from Toole etc, that correlate poor subjective scores with poor off-axis response. Listeners tend to put their sweet spots right around the critical distance, where there is a balance between direct on-axis response from the speaker, and room reverberent response that has signfiicant contributions from the off-axis response of the speaker system. It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove this point is correct. There's some big glitches in the polar response of just about every speaker but full-range waveguides. Loudspeakers are quite directional at high frequencies, and nearly omnidirectional at low frequencies. This implies that the off axis response is anything but uniform. I don't know off-hand what the ideal off-axis response curve would be, but I suspect that it isn't optimal unless there is a known goal that is sucessfully engineered into the system design. Lately, I've heard two examples of multi-driver approaches for controlling directivity. One creates a cardioid speaker and the other creates a hypercardioid speaker. There are also the bi-directional designs of Linkwitz, a man whose thoughts should not be easily dismissed. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure we won't find it by means of osmosis or letting the chips fall where they may. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:23:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com Michael Conzo wrote: In article , "audio_origami" wrote: ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc. You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush. As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and vacuum tube dust? The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS the room. No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a good room is just more obviously crap. So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and utter high end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology. Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you want to exclude. Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl, and good solid state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate. The combination of mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi speakers is working and winning combination. Why would you argue with what he said? Is it just because it's Scott? Because I suspect that if Tom Nousaine said exactly the same thing, you'd be jumping on board with both feet. Or do you really believe that a great room can turn a "crap" system into something great? Also, Mr. Conzo's statement right before that one is incorrect in one respect - the room is probably the most PREDICTABLE (and constant) factor, and the one that can be adjusted for the easiest. It's certainly the one factor that one might be able to make good predictions "on paper" as long as all of the room variables are described. It's far easier to do that than to try to describe the sound of a hi-fi system solely based on spec sheets. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Robert Morein a écrit : "Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on rec.audio.marketplace. I suggest we not respond to him. ****, this was the first time I read something interesting from him !!!! ;-) For additional reading material, I suggest the warning notices on cans of rat-poison |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... [snip] Lately, I've heard two examples of multi-driver approaches for controlling directivity. One creates a cardioid speaker and the other creates a hypercardioid speaker. There are also the bi-directional designs of Linkwitz, a man whose thoughts should not be easily dismissed. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure we won't find it by means of osmosis or letting the chips fall where they may. Anecdotally, I have found the Kef Uni-Q design to be the most tolerant of wall placement and off-axis listening of the various speakers in my stable. The Kefs have concentric tweeters and large mid drivers. The least tolerant are a NEAR 50me, which have very small metal cone mids. Both speakers subjectively perform well off-axis, but the NEARs seem to do best with extremely wide spacing, around 120 degrees. There is nothing in the design of these speakers that would make the conclusion intuitive before listening. However, the large mid size of the Kefs probably limits dispersion. With multi-driver systems, it's obviously a complex problem, where the ear is tolerant of defects in some bands, and intolerant in other bands. I question whether bidirectional designs have a place in the modern world. All geniuses explore the limits of reason, and I suspect this is Linkwitz's example. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Michael Conzo wrote: In article , "audio_origami" wrote: ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc. You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush. As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and vacuum tube dust? Your raving mad nonsequitor is noted. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS the room. No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a good room is just more obviously crap. So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and utter high end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology. You are not making sense at all Arny. I suggest that you check the oxygen levels in your basement. Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you want to exclude. What are you raving about? Where in my post did I exclude anything? You are not making any sense. Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl, I have heard 24/96 recording sound as fgood or better. I have yet to hear it from any CD on any CD player in direct comparisons. and good solid state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate. That's nice. Did I say otherwise? get a grip dude. You are babbling about things that weren't said. The combination of mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi speakers is working and winning combination. Tell me something I didn't already know dude. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms. In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its easier to just use our ears. Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and marketing. If people don't know you have it for sale, why would the run out to buy it? Another weird nonsequitor. They don't make very good speakers by and large. I dunno about that. Maybe because you are near deaf? Bose might be an example of group that is financially successful, but sells lesser home consumer speaker systems for greater prices. Bose is the most successful speaker manufacturer on the earth. they don't make very good speakers. That was my point. OTOH, the Harman group, PSB, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, etc., etc do sell a goodly volume of really pretty good speakers and seem to turn a goodly profit. So much for Scott's broad and biased brush which strokes against reasonably-priced audio gear. So much for Arny understanding the difference between pretty good and very good. OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the non-enthusiast. I'm trying to figure out how one would make an optimal speaker for an average room that wasn't SOTA. Can't be done. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer so it's no surprise that this idea would ellude you. I think this might be another one of Scott's misapprehensions. No, just another example of your hatred and distrust towards those seeking excellence. It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state of the art. How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is? Obviously the answer is over your little pin head. Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but this discussion is about now. You are babbling again Arny. Where in your bizarre brain did you come up with that date though? It is a safe assumption that hard core enthusiasts who pursue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that are designed with no compromises mandated by "average rooms." If it was only that simple. It actually is Arny. If all dedicated listening rooms had equal or comparable acoustical properties, perhaps. I see, you don't understand the word "tailored." In the real world there is very little consistency. As if you were the least bit in touch with the real world. If accuracy is the goal, (accuracy being a concept that Scott's EFX-laden system has no chance of addressing) then the best approach for the speaker designer is to make the speaker function more independently of the room, rather than being more dependent on the room. I suggest you talk some speaker designers before making such an ass of yourself. In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room. Scott Wheeler |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Michael Conzo wrote: In article , "audio_origami" wrote: ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc. You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush. As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and vacuum tube dust? Your raving mad nonsequitor is noted. What a cogent, insightful response! The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS the room. No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a good room is just more obviously crap. So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and utter high end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology. You are not making sense at all Arny. I suggest that you check the oxygen levels in your basement. So you have no relevant response but to make incorrect claims about where sit when I post? Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you want to exclude. What are you raving about? Where in my post did I exclude anything? You are not making any sense. Scott it appears that your lack of personal insight is preventing you from seeing your excluded-middle argument. Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl, I have heard 24/96 recording sound as fgood or better. I have yet to hear it from any CD on any CD player in direct comparisons. You use one of those high end players that has poorer audio performance than a $49 DVD player, right Scott? and good solid state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate. That's nice. Did I say otherwise? Sure many times. get a grip dude. You are babbling about things that weren't said. Scott it appears that your lack of personal insight is preventing you from seeing your bigoted claims about sonic superiority for obsolete technology like tubes and vinyl. The combination of mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi speakers is working and winning combination. Tell me something I didn't already know dude. Well thanks for agreeing with me Soctt. If mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fispeakers are a working and winning combination, then it sort of makes a travesty out of high end electronics, doesn't it? That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms. In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its easier to just use our ears. Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and marketing. If people don't know you have it for sale, why would the run out to buy it? Another weird nonsequitor. Just adressing your negative envious posturing about sucessful manufacturers. Scott. They don't make very good speakers by and large. I dunno about that. Maybe because you are near deaf? Derlusions of omniscience, noted. Bose might be an example of group that is financially successful, but sells lesser home consumer speaker systems for greater prices. Bose is the most successful speaker manufacturer on the earth. they don't make very good speakers. That was my point. Since you didn't mention them by name, but instead indicted a broad range of speaker manufacturers, we have to take the total meaning of what you said, which is considerably broader than this. OTOH, the Harman group, PSB, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, etc., etc do sell a goodly volume of really pretty good speakers and seem to turn a goodly profit. So much for Scott's broad and biased brush which strokes against reasonably-priced audio gear. So much for Arny understanding the difference between pretty good and very good. Inability to interpret a common figure os speech noted. Desire to create a straw man by splitting haris noted. OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the non-enthusiast. I'm trying to figure out how one would make an optimal speaker for an average room that wasn't SOTA. Can't be done. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer so it's no surprise that this idea would ellude you. Attempt to substitude a childish insult for a cogent response, noted. I think this might be another one of Scott's misapprehensions. No, just another example of your hatred and distrust towards those seeking excellence. Since you have such a bad-sounding CD player Scott, how can you honestly be talking about excellence? It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state of the art. How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is? Obviously the answer is over your little pin head. Attempt to substitude a childish insult for a cogent response, noted. Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but this discussion is about now. You are babbling again Arny. Where in your bizarre brain did you come up with that date though? Tubes and vinyl, which you tell us is the be-all and end=-all of high performance audio, Scott. It is a safe assumption that hard core enthusiasts who pursue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that are designed with no compromises mandated by "average rooms." If it was only that simple. It actually is Arny. Lack of substantiation noted. OSAF noted. If all dedicated listening rooms had equal or comparable acoustical properties, perhaps. I see, you don't understand the word "tailored." Tailored to what, Scott? In the real world there is very little consistency. As if you were the least bit in touch with the real world. Attempt to substitude a childish insult for a cogent response, noted. If accuracy is the goal, (accuracy being a concept that Scott's EFX-laden system has no chance of addressing) then the best approach for the speaker designer is to make the speaker function more independently of the room, rather than being more dependent on the room. I suggest you talk some speaker designers before making such an ass of yourself. I get it, this is just like the over-the hill retro-technology recording engineers that you usually rant about, right Scott? In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room. Delusioins of omniscience noted. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its easier to just use our ears. substitute 1. amplifier for room: "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier, but sometimes its easier to just use our ears." This of course ruins the truth of my statement, because as a rule rooms sound different, but good amps don't. .................................................. ... substitute 2. loudspeaker for room: "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good loudspeaker, but sometimes its easier to just use our ears." This is closer to the truth because as a rule, all speakers sound different. It's takes a major effort to even make two supposedly identical speakers sound close to each other. One reason for this is the fact that merely relocating a speaker a few feet makes it sound different due to room effects. What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ? That's pretty well known. In cases where the differences are likely to be subtle, listening tests should be level-matched and double blind. However, the audible differences between rooms and speakers are likely to be highly non-subtle. How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is? Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but this discussion is about now. We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD format, no? 44/16 is a fine distribution format. One can level-matched, double blind compare it to so-called hi-rez formats all day long and find not one audible difference. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : : Just adressing your negative envious posturing about sucessful : manufacturers. Scott. : : Derlusions of omniscience, noted. : : Inability to interpret a common figure os speech noted. : : Desire to create a straw man by splitting haris noted. : : Delusioins of omniscience noted. : No worries, Arny, we can still interpret - takes some heavy equipment, though :-) Rudy |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny,
I can point to a number of papers from Toole etc, that correlate poor subjective scores with poor off-axis response. Yes, and these days with home theaters, versus one person sitting listening, there are three or more seats side by side that all need to receive the same sound quality. This implies that the off axis response is anything but uniform. I'm sure! I'll explain more about my reasons for wanting this in my reply to Michael/Brian. --Ethan |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael,
It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker. I would dispute that off-axis response is unimportant, and Arny gave some good reasons. But here's my real motive for wanting to have a better idea of what most speakers really do: A lot of audiophiles treat their entire front wall with thin absorption, like 1-inch 703 rigid fiberglass, because they are told that loudspeakers radiate mids and highs out the rear so that's another point of first reflections. I know intuitively, and by listening, that lows are much more omnidirectional than mids and highs. But in order to determine how much thickness is needed on the front wall - or if any absorption is even needed there at all - I need to know at what frequency most speakers "cross over" from sending out the front to radiating omnidirectionally. I don't even care about the specific lobing patterns at higher frequencies, so much as the frequency at which a basic change in directionality occurs. I would test this myself but it's a huge pain in the butt to run a bunch of really long wires outside, borrow a tall ladder to place a speaker on, put a microphone on a long pole, and so forth. I mean, someone somewhere must have already done this properly in an anechoic chamber! --Ethan |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : : : "Arny Krueger" wrote in message : ... : : In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can : measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but : sometimes its easier to just use our ears. : : substitute 1. amplifier for room: : : "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can : measure the difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier, : but sometimes its easier to just use our ears." : : This of course ruins the truth of my statement, because as a rule rooms : sound different, but good amps don't. : : .................................................. ... : substitute 2. loudspeaker for room: : : "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can : measure the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good : loudspeaker, but sometimes its easier to : just use our ears." : : This is closer to the truth because as a rule, all speakers sound different. : It's takes a major effort to even make two supposedly identical speakers : sound close to each other. One reason for this is the fact that merely : relocating a speaker a few feet makes it sound different due to room : effects. : : What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ? : : That's pretty well known. In cases where the differences are likely to be : subtle, listening tests should be level-matched and double blind. However, : the audible differences between rooms and speakers are likely to be highly : non-subtle. : : How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like : tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is? : Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was : then, but this discussion is about now. : : We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD : format, no? : : 44/16 is a fine distribution format. One can level-matched, double blind : compare it to so-called hi-rez formats all day long and find not one audible : difference. hmm, is that one of Randy's million buck challenges ? That could be interesting... |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room. Delusions of omniscience noted. I've heard your brand of speakers Arny. Which brand might that be, Scott? |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room. Delusions of omniscience noted. I've heard your brand of speakers Arny. Which brand might that be, Scott? If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth in the future. Scott Wheeler |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room. Delusions of omniscience noted. I've heard your brand of speakers Arny. Which brand might that be, Scott? If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth in the future. Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that even though you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers, you don't actually know what brand of speakers I listen to. You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California Superior Court and your libel suit against, right? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room. Delusions of omniscience noted. I've heard your brand of speakers Arny. Which brand might that be, Scott? If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth in the future. Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that even though you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers, you don't actually know what brand of speakers I listen to. No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim to own. I don't know that you are telling the truth. You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California Superior Court and your libel suit against, right? Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in the real world. Your delusions are a source of amusement for me not a source of despondence. When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this tactic of yours. Scott Wheeler |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lionel wrote: a =E9crit : When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this tactic of yours. Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ? I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt. Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ? No. Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ? Depends on who is wrestling. Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the meeting. I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think it will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't. Do you think anything more than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio? I don't. Scott Wheeler |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lionel wrote: a =E9crit : Lionel wrote: a =E9crit : When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this tactic of yours. Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ? I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt. Yes it's often the case but in this case I think it would be interesting to let the things go naturally before to throw the baby out with the bath water. Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ? No. Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ? Depends on who is wrestling. Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the meeting. I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think it will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't. Fair enough. Do you think anything more than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio? I don't. Most of the time I am very nasty but sometime I'm naively idealist... ...But I am not waiting that this meeting change people perspective about audio but just that it contributes (at least for few of the attendees) to make the antagonisms a little bit less exacerbate and a little bit more human. That is a very nice sentiment. I don't share your optimism but I am not against pleasant surprises. I have seen nothing in Arny that makes me think he can rise to this level. It is often the case that such advisaries are polite in face to face meetings only to resort to the uglyness when back on line. Now that would be boring and fruitless. I'll settle for the entertainment. Scott Wheeler |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room. Delusions of omniscience noted. I've heard your brand of speakers Arny. Which brand might that be, Scott? If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth in the future. Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that even though you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers, you don't actually know what brand of speakers I listen to. No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim to own. I don't know that you are telling the truth. Well Scott, here's your second chance. If you've heard my brand of speakers, tell the nice people what brand my speakers are. You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California Superior Court and your libel suit against, right? Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in the real world. Oh Scott, so you're telling us that I lost that lawsuit that you filed against me about a year ago? Or, are you saying that no such lawsuit was never filed? Because if it was filed, and you didn't win it, then I won. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt. I see it as a win /win situation. How self-contradictory can Scott get in the same post? |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt. I see it as a win /win situation. How self-contradictory can Scott get in the same post? Are you really this stupid or are you just bored and trolling? Really? Scott Wheeler |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ... Michael, It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker. Your response is thoughtful. But it is characteristic of Brian L. McCarty that he never responds to a reply. The way his brain works, all his posts must be unsolicited and confrontational. Anything else would smack of cooperativeness, but his subconcious mind is in perpetual rebellion. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FA: 4 Boston Acoustics CX6 car speakers | Car Audio | |||
| small room acoustics | Pro Audio | |||
| FS: Gershman Acoustics Cameleon | Marketplace | |||
| Positive experience with Boston Acoustics | Audio Opinions | |||
| Positve experience with Boston Acoustics | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
