Hearing is believing....WOW! - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 290 Old 05-07-2013, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
caper_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cape Breton, Canada
Posts: 1,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
You are talking inches when compared to long wavlengths

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,...

caper_1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 290 Old 05-07-2013, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolmeadow Kid View Post

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:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-3-relationship-between-loudspeaker.html
krabapple is offline  
post #273 of 290 Old 06-12-2014, 07:17 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
test4echo101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
yea, its been a long time since I went through that ordeal...lol: grin:

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.

test,

Mpray1983- "User error due to sneeze or fart occurred during measurement"

Last edited by test4echo101; 06-12-2014 at 07:20 PM.
test4echo101 is offline  
post #274 of 290 Old 06-12-2014, 09:40 PM
Senior Member
 
aackthpt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the mitten, USA
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post
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.
Actually in the case of the riser, it didn't actually sound any different. You anticipated a difference, heard one, and concluded the sound was better based on nothing -- not on interpreting a difference as an improvement.

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.
CruelInventions likes this.
aackthpt is offline  
post #275 of 290 Old 06-12-2014, 10:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 200
... well said.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #276 of 290 Old 06-12-2014, 11:33 PM
Senior Member
 
aackthpt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the mitten, USA
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
... well said.
Thanks! I didn't even get to the part about the $1500, or $5k, not even going entirely toward "equipment" as it were! LOL. Especially when I'd only consider "equipment" to mean things that are pre-built. Gotta keep money in the budget for lumber, fabric, fiberglass, drivers... depending on the situation. Ahh, teh quietz. Then mmm, BOOM.
aackthpt is offline  
post #277 of 290 Old 06-13-2014, 06:17 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,336
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
... well said.

Indeed, very well said.
FMW is offline  
post #278 of 290 Old 06-13-2014, 02:15 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
test4echo101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by aackthpt View Post
Actually in the case of the riser, it didn't actually sound any different. You anticipated a difference, heard one, and concluded the sound was better based on nothing -- not on interpreting a difference as an improvement.

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..

Test,

Mpray1983- "User error due to sneeze or fart occurred during measurement"

Last edited by test4echo101; 06-13-2014 at 05:56 PM. Reason: home from work....finally
test4echo101 is offline  
post #279 of 290 Old 06-15-2014, 07:53 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,336
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post

But, that's where it stops.
If you want more, you pay for it..
It is even more nonsensical to think that spending more money will provide better sound quality. Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not. Price has little to do with sound quality for anything other than speakers.
FMW is offline  
post #280 of 290 Old 06-15-2014, 08:28 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
test4echo101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post

But, that's where it stops.
If you want more, you pay for it..
It is even more nonsensical to think that spending more money will provide better sound quality. Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not. Price has little to do with sound quality for anything other than speakers.
Well, that's really not fair of you to cover BOTH bases now is it.....(sometimes it will sometimes it won't?)
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!

Mpray1983- "User error due to sneeze or fart occurred during measurement"
test4echo101 is offline  
post #281 of 290 Old 06-15-2014, 09:51 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,336
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post
BUT...its not always about the sound is it? Its about quality, inputs, the hardware itself.

For that, you have to spend more.
Your premise is about sound quality. So, in this case, yes, it is all about the sound.
FMW is offline  
post #282 of 290 Old 06-15-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post

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)
If that receiver isn't able to drive a particular set of speakers at a volume level you prefer at your seating distance, then yes, adding an amp can make a positive difference. But, "almost certainly" they will (make a difference for the better)? No. I would say the majority of users will be very well served by the amp in their receiver and would receive absolutely no audible benefit from upgrading to an expensive amp.

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.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #283 of 290 Old 06-15-2014, 07:38 PM
Senior Member
 
aackthpt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the mitten, USA
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
It is even more nonsensical to think that spending more money will provide better sound quality. Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not. Price has little to do with sound quality for anything other than speakers.
Price has little to do with sound quality for speakers as well. I'd would agree to a slightly better correlation than with, say, amplifiers -- but the correlation is still weak at best.
aackthpt is offline  
post #284 of 290 Old 06-15-2014, 08:03 PM
Senior Member
 
aackthpt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the mitten, USA
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post
I'm Sorry but you missed the point. Somehow you did.
Actually, it seems you have missed MY point, in epic fashion. I understood your point, and I disagreed with it. I disagreed with it, in fact, partly on the basis of what you should have learned in this thread.

Quote:
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.
Yet, if the $1500 rig is capable of the SAME THING that the $10k rig is, you seem to be suggesting it is still inferior.

Quote:
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.
In actual fact I'd argue that the sound differences you may or may not hear are mostly related to (a) the room (b) the speaker's interaction with the room (c) your biases, predilections, and preconceptions. And when I say "your" that goes for ANY HUMAN LISTENER.

Quote:
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)
Exactly my point of disagreement... the idea that the pricier equipment will "generally" win every time is incorrect.

Quote:
And you call that Equipment worshipping??
I call it upgrade-itis.

Quote:
What the hell is wrong with buying Studio 60's, an Anthem MRX 310 and couple of Paradigm PDR 12's?
I argued with your philiosophical point, not with your choice of what or whether to purchase.

Quote:
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.
Simply because you believed it would.

Quote:
I get what what your trying to say, I respect it, but, you fall into the same trap many here do.
No you don't, and no you don't. And if I fall into the same "trap" as other objectivitists with an engineering mindset, then I'm happy to do so.

Quote:
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.
Not quite what I said. I said generally you can probably get a $1500 system to perform as well as a $10k system, and almost certainly you can get a $5k system to perform as well as a $10k system. I'm NOT saying I can take white van speakers and make them sound as good as properly designed gear. That's not remotely reasonable. But suggesting that one has a budget to spec out a system from scratch, someone clever and knowledgeable can get most of the $10k performance from the $1500 rig.

Quote:
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....
These numbers you are stating are absolutely ridiculous. One can get truly excellent multichannel sound for WAY less than $7k much less then $9.5k you later suggest you need to achieve what you want. But perhaps I'm cheating, because I'd include DIY subs in the equation, which is honestly not too difficult, and my "brand name" choices include names at which you will probably scoff. Trust me, if you listen blind you'd never know I wasn't powering with Krell amps or something.

Quote:
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.
YOU made this discussion about SOUND. Not about creature comforts, usability, or aesthetics. If you want to buy equipment as art, or it's easier to use, those are perfectly valid reasons. I don't have a problem with anyone suggesting they need to buy something more expensive to achieve that type of goal... go right ahead! But let's not delude ourselves or anyone else into thinking that, within the range of well-engineered brands, a $2k (new)receiver SOUNDS any better than one I can get for $600 (which might be refurbished, clearance, etc).

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.
aackthpt is offline  
post #285 of 290 Old 06-15-2014, 08:22 PM
Senior Member
 
aackthpt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the mitten, USA
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post
a good Amp (which are expensive)
Let me create a practical example, and note/demonstrate that I don't think a good amplifier has to be expensive. If you have a conventional-ish setup (e.g. crossing at 80) and don't have unusual speakers, it won't improve the sound over the receiver's amplifiers..... but at least we seem to agree on that point.

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 08:22 PM. Reason: Change wording to clarify
aackthpt is offline  
post #286 of 290 Old 07-19-2014, 03:30 AM
Member
 
Tappits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
These topics are always a good read… I always come to the conclusion of if it was better to be sat 2ft off the floor (or any distance) it would: 1: tell you to do it in the instructions 2: the cabinets would be built to sit higher to start with or you could buy the stands from the manufacturers and i am not on about things like Maple Platform with Isoblock Suspension from places like maple shade lol
3: stupid people will always believe in dumb crap.
Tappits is offline  
post #287 of 290 Old 07-19-2014, 05:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by aackthpt View Post
Price has little to do with sound quality for speakers as well. I'd would agree to a slightly better correlation than with, say, amplifiers -- but the correlation is still weak at best.
One area where that is IME much less true is subwoofers. While there have been dramatic improvements in the price performance of subwoofers, it still takes a goodly pile of not-cheap hardware to develop high SPLs below 30 Hz. And if you are going for response below 30 Hz, you need high SPLs for them to be heard at all because the ears dramatically loose their sensitivity at those frequencies.

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.
arnyk is offline  
post #288 of 290 Old 07-19-2014, 05:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tappits View Post
These topics are always a good read… I always come to the conclusion of if it was better to be sat 2ft off the floor (or any distance) it would: 1: tell you to do it in the instructions 2: the cabinets would be built to sit higher to start with or you could buy the stands from the manufacturers and i am not on about things like Maple Platform with Isoblock Suspension from places like maple shade lol
3: stupid people will always believe in dumb crap.
IME rooms are variable enough that it is hard to set up global rules for where speakers sound the best.

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.
aackthpt likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #289 of 290 Old 09-12-2014, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 307
fyi - whenever people ask about subwoofer risers I always do a search, and post link to this thread....IMO it should be out into a sticky or onto the Home Theater 101 post
mtbdudex is offline  
post #290 of 290 Old 09-15-2014, 11:33 AM
Senior Member
 
aackthpt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the mitten, USA
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
[snip]it still takes a goodly pile of not-cheap hardware to develop high SPLs below 30 Hz.

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.
Surely we agree on the need for lots of LF and how to get there, Arny. The points that could be argued (and really are not worth arguing about) are (a) what counts as "costly" and (b) whether even the Outlaw you suggested is cost-effective. Also, it depends on factors such as the size of the room needing teh bass as well as lowest frequency accurately reproduced, at which you hint a bit.

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.
aackthpt is offline  
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Tags
subwoofer management , subwoofer riser

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off