HT: Yamaha RX-V565 | 3 X Energy Take FPS, 2 X VS Surround, 2 X Take LCR | DIY Subs: SDX12 APR15 & TRIO12 Dual APR 12's | 47" LCD
Music: Yamaha RX-V863 | 2 X Energy RC-70 | MA RXw12 Sub
Bathroom: 2 X Energy Take LCR
Car: Sony Xplod HU, Xplod 6X9s, Kenwood 4"s, Alpine 12" Type-S, Rockford Amp,...
Test, I'm just coming into this research as I just got my first HT sub 2 weeks ago. I also had followed BD's information at the BR forum. So many people trying the risers and saying what a huge difference they make. I'm still tempted to try one just for grins.
First, thanks for all the testing you did. I'm not that into "numbers", so don't enjoy dissecting them to see what they mean. But I do appreciate the efforts of those who do.
It's been almost two years since the last post. Did you do any further testing? If so, what were the outcomes and determinations? Or did you finally just get to the point that it just wasn't going to answer any specific questions and stop?
To all....I thought it was very interesting that for so many to jump on the band wagon that wanted specific scientific proof, no one else seemed interested in making their own tests. In fact, in 21 months, none of you have even questioned Test to see if he had any other findings.
Having multiple people test could show if the perceived changes/improvements might really be there, but be different or dependent on different sized/furnished rooms. We all know that speakers sound differently to different people. Otherwise, there would be one speaker made, period.
You know what else we know? That if people are doing a fair comparison of speakers...that is, by sound alone.... their preferences tend to converge on speakers with similar measured characteristics:
Don't want to bring an old post back to life but I gotta say, real data from real world situations from other people would have been nice when doing this "experiment".
Your always a bit uncertain of your own results.
Others, especially those espousing risers from the Big Daddy camp would have been nice.
Most of them did what I first did, said hell yea ! Sounds great! not realizing that they misinterpreted a CHANGE in audible sound as better....
It clearly wasn't. Did it sound different? Yes, but not necessarily for the better.
I had to finally give up. It was quite apparent that room physics and money to spend on more appropriate equipment was never gonna allow me to have what I was really looking for.
You can put make-up and lipstick on an ugly chick as much as you want but the bones under all that dictate how HOT she can ever look...
No amount of room treatment, EQ, REW graphs, tweaks was ever gonna change that.
I was looking for a sound that my equipment would never ever achieve.
If you want fidelity, you have to have the the right equipment to accomplish what it is your after.
THEN these other things can help.
You can't expect $1500 to sound like $10,000. It isn't gonna happen.
So, I decided to buy an Anthem, Studio 60's and call it a day.
Last edited by test4echo101; 06-12-2014 at 06:20 PM.
I say your conclusion is faulty, and that $1500 with skill and ignoring labor, $1500 of cleverly chosen stuff can sound as good as $10k worth of poorly or mediocrely chosen stuff, no problem. Of course with the $10k you could get it to sound better if you were clever... but if you were truly clever you wouldn't spend the $10k because there would be so little improvement in audio, usability, and other measures beyond $5k (depending on the scope we're talking about here) that you would have stopped and had $5k left over for beer. That'll go far as beer money! In fact it'll get you plenty of beer and several season's worth of tickets to your local symphony. Now THERE is good sound. Nothing gives you the right perspective like the real thing. With all that said, OF COURSE I can get poor sound for $1500... I mean, I can get poor sound for $10k. See where I'm going here?
Please, PLEASE don't send people down the equipment-worshipping one-upmanship that characterizes most audiophilia after all the progress made here for science, logic, common sense, and the sniff test.
The right conclusions here, other than that your ears deceive you, are that you have to have the right KNOWLEDGE (or helpers, even hired, with knowledge) to accomplish what you're after. THEN the cash can help.
Actually, simply diving in with the cash is WORSE than the riser deal IMO, since the riser costs nearly nothing to fool yourself. I'd rather pay very little for the right to fool myself any day than to have to pay $5k for the same.
Don't get me wrong, giving up the idea that you can have "perfect fidelity" at home is great. Fact: stereo will never reproduce something approaching a real soundfield. It's an illusion, an attempt to create something pleasant, possibly even interesting, period. Even multichannel, while it gets closer, isn't fully replicating a real soundfield. But giving up doesn't mean stopping improving one's sound, or trying to make it as pleasing (to you) as reasonably possible. It doesn't have to stop dedication to task, or study of how to get there. What it should mean is a commitment to stop fooling yourself, to stop overly valuing the illusory, and to be able to say "It's good, and I'm happy" (and in truth there are many roads to get there, though those roads are fewer in number than the self-deceptive ones) and then go have a beer.
I'm Sorry but you missed the point. Somehow you did.
Yea, you can play with $1500 equipment all day. .
Once your room is as good as you can get it, after all the tweaking and graphs and whatever else you choose to do, you are never gonna get it to perform past what its capable of.
No matter what you do or how you do it, will NEVER change the fact that you can't make (For example) Paradigm 7SE MK III's sound like Studio 60 V5's.
Or turn an HK 254 into An Anthem MRX with a MC50 on top of that.
Maybe you say you like the sound of the 7's better than the 60's. That's ok, but if you did, I'd say you were in the minority.
OF COURSE you can give an expert the older stuff and a novice the new stuff and find out the old stuff sounds better......
That comparison can be made for ANYTHING. Race car drivers\Cars, Pilots\Airplanes,etc..
However, given a moderately experienced person, in the same room, same environment, the pricier equipment generally will win everytime. (Unless you paid $2,000 for White Van Speakers)
I spent a lot of time with my older stuff, got it to sound fantastic (to me anyway and the graphs I created proved that it was working well).
However, I knew I was never going to get what I wanted from what I had.
I had to SPEND MONEY to get what I wanted.
And you call that Equipment worshipping??
What the hell is wrong with buying Studio 60's, an Anthem MRX 310 and couple of Paradigm PDR 12's?
When I first setup my new equipment without even positioning the speakers or putting my room treatments back up, it simply made the older stuff look silly.
I get what what your trying to say, I respect it, but, you fall into the same trap many here do.
Which is, thinking that with enough science and tweaks and REW graphs you can somehow take a mediocre system and magically change it into something it cannot do.
YES!!! I agree those things can and do get the BEST out of whatever you have. But certainly there is a limit to what you can do with what you have .
I am a firm believer that MONEY (read...equipment whore) is absolutely necessary to further ones audio aspirations.
I used $10,000 as an example. Not a yard stick.
But, in reality, 2 pairs of fronts that will do the job?
At least $1600
A center? $1,000
2 rears? Lets say $ 800 for the pair on kijiji or ebay.
One sub or 2 ? I believe that 2 are required at least. $1600 easy
A great receiver? $2,000 easy.
Thats $7,000 without even blinking...
Want an Amp? 2.1 or Multi-channel? toss in $2,500 more....
Thats $9,500 just to start to have the equipment that will do what you want it to.
Or at least what I wanted it to.
Granted I'm talking new and I'm talking brand names. I'm sure there are off brands that could suffice for many.
Even at half the price, your still talking at $4500-$5000.
Stop tellin people that a few tricks and rooms treatments will somehow make up for that. It will NOT.
Don't tell people who have older or less quality equipment that they can achieve what is impossible.
As I said, Of course those tweaks and treatments can make the most of what it is you have. Fully take advantage of it.
But, that's where it stops.
If you want more, you pay for it..
Last edited by test4echo101; 06-13-2014 at 04:56 PM. Reason: home from work....finally
Your agreeing with me while at the same time defending the other position.
Speakers are the MAJOR influencing reason I posted what I did.
I am well aware that that different receivers\AVRs, (i.e more expensive vs cheaper) will not necessarily provide better sound.
BUT...its not always about the sound is it? Its about quality, inputs, the hardware itself.
For that, you have to spend more.
Adding a good Amp (which are expensive) to any decent but cheap receiver will almost certainly make a difference for the better.
Once again, gotta spend. (Unless you know how to make one)
Anyway, Happy Father's Day Everyone!
As far as "good" = "expensive", I guess it comes down to what you think is expensive. Pro amps can be very economical and provide just as good or better performance than more expensive consumer audiophile amps. Unless aesthetics are a concern or priority, pro amps are the route to go if you are among the minority of users who need to upgrade their amplification.
I didn't miss your point, I simply disagree with it. I'm not sure if you missed my point or simply disagree with it. In any case, I fear you didn't learn that much from your earlier adventure. Son, I am disappoint.
I'd put up this Alesis RA500 against any amp in a similar power class regardless of price. For example this Emotiva XPA-200 which most on the forum would STILL not say was expensive, and yet costs 2.5x the Alesis. And there are surely MANY amplifiers in the same power class going up in price from there. I bet there are a handful of amplifiers that would be less expensive and perform the same also.
When I say "put up", I mean we'd run a well-controlled, blinded test. If you decided to buy the Emotiva because it has blue lights on it... well great. I wouldn't, because I want it to competently drive speakers and I'm going to put it into a closet where I'm rarely going to see it, hopefully never touch it, I'm not going to show it off to my friends unless they ask (and probably then not after playing the system for them if they're equipmentphiles).
Last edited by aackthpt; 06-15-2014 at 07:22 PM. Reason: Change wording to clarify
3: stupid people will always believe in dumb crap.
we can argue all day long about response > 20 KHz, but good smooth response below 30 Hz is palpable.
There are also strong indications that multiple subwoofers are needed to provide smooth response in the bass range across a reasonably large sweet spot.
So, if you even if you decide to use highly cost-effective subwoofers like the $600 Outlaw LFM-1EX you may need 2-3 of them, and there you are on the front steps of $2K for just the subwoofers.
I find the instructions that most manufacturers provide for speaker positioning to be lightweight.
Using bookshelf speakers with subwoofers make a lot of sense, and that almost always means that they are optimal when put well above the floor.
Hyper expensive speaker stands are boutique items. Some of the best non-resonant speaker stands in the world can be found in the yard and garden department of a nearby big box home improvement store.
If you don't include the cost of your labor, surely DIY is the most cost-effective way to go. Take what I'm working on, I'll have (7) 12" drivers that cost $55 each, I have two B-stock amplifiers that cost about $300 for both, and about $120 for the miniDSP, I have let's say 4 sheets of 1/2' Arauco (let's say $100), and I'll probably need $50 in glue and fiberglass. My room is somewhere between 1300-1600 cuft. So I'm at about $950 and I expect the LF to be satisfying to say the least, given that a single 12" sealed sub is satisfying already. But hey, it might not be, if not I'll build a couple more boxes and go to 11 drivers... heh heh heh [rubs hands together].
I think that the price/performance curve is not as steep as you suggest, Arny, given that most who are serious about LF are not going commercial. However, I will also concede your basic point that due to the Hof, there's a stronger price-performance correlation with subs than with full-rangers. BUT it still doesn't change my basic point that it's entirely possible to pay way too much for something that underperforms - that goes for LF, fullrange, electronics, whatever. And the basic purpose of THAT point is to disprove OP's assertion that "to get better sound, you have to spend money". There may be domains in which that is more true than others, but that is splitting hairs -- there is absolutely no way it can be considered a valid general conclusion.
|subwoofer management , subwoofer riser|