Bass speed - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If you take the words at face value, the phrase bass speed is like jumbo shrimp in the sense that it means something if we agree on it, but as just words it doesn't work.
Hey, I like jumbo shrimp..and, I believe in army intelligence..
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If someone wanted to do something crazy like use terminology that was consistent with the traditional art of audio and could be taken af face value, they would talk about bass transient response.
Bingo. And one of the first questions of the op should have been: When you say bass "speed", did you mean transient response? Way too much energy has been spent here either bashing "audiophools", or arguing semantics..we all agree a standard nomenclature is helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Now, we have a question that doesn't give one a headache just trying to understand it: Does bass transient response have more to do with frequency response or resonances?
I'm going to drop the reference to system Q because if you are familiar with with the traditional audio terminology as related to speakers, system Q can either relate to resonances or speaker directivity which are two vastly different things.
Agree in general. However, aren't we speaking about bass? I wouldn't expect much discussion about directivity at 20 to 60 hz. So Q obviously is meant as a measure of frequency width to absolute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

good transient response for tone bursts is our most logical abstract criteria.

Which has been exactly my point. Glad we are in agreement.

I'm marking my calender...

jn

Some discuss because they can. Others attack because they cannot. (unknown attribution)
A good man knows his own limitations...(Dirty Harry)
Lead, follow....or get out of the way..
jneutron is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
I think I'm with Ethan on this. If you take the words at face value, the phrase bass speed is like jumbo shrimp in the sense that it means something if we agree on it, but as just words it doesn't work.
I agree, the terms make no sense. I could say that the bass sounds "tighter" vs "faster" or "boomy" vs "slow" if that helps. wink.gif
No. Those descriptors also do not help much, as they aren't technical enough.

What I was describing in my terms, and what arny described in his terms, is more appropriate. But I like his term better. Bass transient response..

jn

Some discuss because they can. Others attack because they cannot. (unknown attribution)
A good man knows his own limitations...(Dirty Harry)
Lead, follow....or get out of the way..
jneutron is offline  
post #33 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

I think perhaps your (dragonfyr) attitude is in need of adjustment.
Perhaps??? Shirley you jest..
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Furthermore, if I misinterpreted what you said then it is not the end of the world. Goodness.. rolleyes.gif
Nah, you didn't misinterpret him...he's not very nice.

cheers, jn

Some discuss because they can. Others attack because they cannot. (unknown attribution)
A good man knows his own limitations...(Dirty Harry)
Lead, follow....or get out of the way..
jneutron is offline  
post #34 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 02:03 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
And while it may indeed also exhibit a magnitude peak, the resonance/persistence is what creates the subjective impression of 'muddiness' or boominess' or whatever other nifty non-physics terms used as slang that you wish to employ. But the magnitude itself does not make the bass seem any more 'muddy' or 'boomy' than would increasing the gain of a properly designed subwoofer in a properly treated room.

Most people use nifty non-physics terms to describe subjective qualities they experience. I have to disagree with you that the magnitude of the peaks don't have any effect. Of course they have an effect. If I cut those very same peaks there is a very noticeable change to the quality of bass.


They have an "Effect"! rolleyes.gif. Sure, OF COURSE they do, but not in the amorphously defined characteristics you stated!! ...as if "faster' bass is the ONLY effect possible! The apparent effect is that those frequencies, if the magnitude is greater than a certain degree, will seem louder! A mid bass peak will also cause the signal to seem more pronounced at those frequencies. But this has nothing to do with the velocity of the signal! You will have to stick with new tennis shoes to make you feel 'faster'. And the causal factor that makes the bass sound less distinct in the case of modal peaks is due to the causal factor which is the PERSISTENCE IN TIME due to the local presence of a standing wave resonance, NOT the magnitude in gain - ALL of which would be more apparent if you used the PROPER measured response to evaluate the behavior, which would be the waterfall or cumulative spectral decay, and NOT simply a frequency response that shows only magnitude relative to frequency. And then read up on modal behavior. And if you happen to encounter a low level persistence such as a 60 Hz 'hum' you will note that this is often noticeable due to its steady state persistence in TIME rather that its low level gain - which contradicts your assertion that such resonance effects, n order to be noticeable, must be accompanied by high gain peaks.

Quote:
So how about spending a bit more time figuring out what was ACTUALLY said, and more importantly, Meant, and then responding to that, instead of simply restating your original confused assertion and attributing your misinterpretation to things I said!

I think perhaps your attitude is in need of adjustment. I might find it easier to grasp the concept if you would have a little patience instead of making snide remarks. Instead, you except me to understand what you MEANT without me even questioning you, as if you are the leading authority on the subject. rolleyes.gif If I misinterpreted what you said then it is not the end of the world.

I was straightforward in the initial response that identified the problem with terminology and then identified the fundamental issue as most likely being modal, as well as the salient characteristic that is the persistence of energy with respect to time - NOT the Magnitude, that is the primary problem. That has not changed and you apparently still are no closer to using the information to research and learn more about the issue. I am sorry that you are disappointed that we do not simply validate an ill formed question using misleading and incorrect terminology that you later insist is in fact a foregone conclusion.

And if only "transient response" was sufficient to analyze modal behavior...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #35 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 02:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
And by properly addressing modal peaks that tend to overly accentuate frequencies can indeed lead to the subjective sense of 'tightening' and increasing the definition of the perceived bass and reducing what is commonly referred to as "boomy" or "muddy" sensation. But this has nothing to do with the "velocity" or "speed" of anything.

Not sure how velocity or speed is relevant and why it was brought up given that I am discussing subjective qualities here. Tightness of bass, snappiness etc etc etc - these are terms used to describe subjective qualities. Those are just common descriptions. What I am trying to ascertain is what aids in this perception. Nothing more. You are telling me that frequency response has nothing to do with it.
goneten is offline  
post #36 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 02:13 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
I think I'm with Ethan on this. If you take the words at face value, the phrase bass speed is like jumbo shrimp in the sense that it means something if we agree on it, but as just words it doesn't work.

I agree, the terms make no sense. I could say that the bass sounds "tighter" vs "faster" or "boomy" vs "slow" if that helps. wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Not sure how velocity or speed is relevant and why it was brought up given that I am discussing subjective qualities here. Whether you feel "bass speed" as a subjective term is inaccurate is really just semantics. Tightness of bass, snappiness etc etc etc - these are terms used to describe subjective qualities. Those are the common descriptions and are good enough for the purposes of this discussion. What I am trying to ascertain is what aids in this perception. Nothing more. I never said bass was fast. Of course it isn't. Perhaps you should read what is written instead of forming your own opinion and then misinterpreting what was actually said.

which

Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

make no sense

Which way to Oz, Scarecrow?

"Mean what you say... say what you mean." The March Hare
dragonfyr is offline  
post #37 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
They have an "Effect"! rolleyes.gif. Sure, OF COURSE they do, but not in the amorphously defined characteristics you stated!! ...as if "faster' bass is the ONLY effect possible!

Replace "faster" with "tighter" or "more articulate". You would still claim that altering the frequency response would not have any influence on those subjective qualities. If that's your position then I would have to disagree.
goneten is offline  
post #38 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 02:20 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Disagree all you like.

If you knew the answer there would have been no need to post the question.

And OF COURSE we would ALL benefit from the original question being re-framed to actually say what was meant!

And still there is no reference to resonance or persistence with respect to time.

Read up on modal behavior.. There is more to this than simply magnitude. And you can still have variations in magnitude without the effects you so amorphously define. Otherwise simply turning up the gain of a subwoofer would necessarily result in muddy and boomy bass.

In which case you can resolve your problem by simply turning the gain of the subwoofer. (and correspondingly drop the associated levels of the resonance/persistence.) rolleyes.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #39 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 02:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I trust my observations and the measurements in my room match what I'm experiencing. I'm allowed to ask questions and I am allowed to disagree especially if your answers are contradicting my observations. Even if I was wrong, your explanations have been anything but clear - you then act belligerently in basically every reply which compounds the matter so no, you haven't really been helpful in this thread at all.
goneten is offline  
post #40 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 03:08 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Maybe I'm wrong,...but


Looking back, included just in the first few posts....

In addition to discussing the freq domain and a balanced presentation;

1.) the OP used transient response, and very clearly utilized both "subjective" and "perception", with the original question put forth.

2.) poor modal behavior and methods to address it

3.) addressing the time domain via both acoustically and electronically

4.) phase coherency and dynamic linearity

5.) perceptual masking

6.) fast bass being an oxymoron

And many other elements as well, ....all in the initial few posts




Then along comes Dragon, eek.gif "you're doing it all wrong" ... blah blah blah...etc etc ETC E.T.C. wink.gif

But, I'm convinced there's more good than bad with that guy. Perhaps he's somewhat akin to some Johns Hopkins, or Mayo Clinic super physician, that's got the bedside manner of the abrasive Mike Wallace from 60min.

If I'm lyin' I'm dyin' ....

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #41 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 03:09 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post


Just want to get an idea from the experts in the field.

To my knowledge frequency response and transient response are intrinsically tied. If you flatten the room response it should lead to a subjectively quicker sounding, more tuneful bass.

If you apply parametric eq to cut several peaks that coincide with the bass notes in your music the difference in amplitude alone should affect the bass. Do you feel it sounds subjectively quicker?

There is someone who I know who claims that frequency response aberrations can't affect our perception of bass speed and/or timing. I don't agree with this whatsoever based on my own observations.

What are your thoughts?

"What are our thoughts", he asks, only to object to anyone who DARES disagree with his ill-formed assertion!


After after all is said and done, your carte blanche conclusions are still incorrect.

Given a relatively flat response, simply employing PEQ to randomly cut gain levels at particular frequencies would NOT "affect our perception of bass speed and/or timing" and result in tighter more defined bass..
Your assertion is wrong.

One only need provide one example to disprove an assertion.

If however you happen to focus on mitigating a modal antinode that simultaneously reduces both its magnitude, and more importantly, the associated resonance /persistence, the result you claim - provided a coherent translation and correction is employed, may very well occur.

On the other hand, 60 cycle hum often occurs at lower levels and die to its steady persistence which runs counter the the transient dynamics of program material is STILL prominent and creates a problem despite its relatively low magnitude.

You mistake the common association of a modal peak with the associated resonance, which while OFTEN the case, is not a NECESSARY condition.

Thus you mistake what is TYPICAL with what is NECESSARY.

I am sorry you miss the subtlety of the fundamental relationships. Magnitude may indeed accompany a resonant condition, but the magnitude need not be objectionable in order for a resonance to contribute to a less than optimal sense of definition.

The lack of a NECESSARY nexus invalidates your point - regardless of how common the nexus MAY occur. And unfortunately, EQ alone is not a satisfactory solution for such issues.

So again, rather than concentrate on anecdotal agreement based on simplistic frequency or SPL level measurements which ignore much of the pertinent behavior, try employing the proper tools to display the 'rest of the story' and increase your understanding of the complete behavior and the relationship of the various component factors.


...and with a bit of luck we can avoid the oft cited misstatements comparing 'fast' and 'slow' bass!


And then we have FOS who comes along and then falsely asserts that I have said Anything about the ETC response! Can we say "brain dead", or would the word "Liar", as in the Webster definition regarding "one who intentionally misrepresents facts" apply? Oh, but wait, I can make it all OK by adding a wink.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #42 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 03:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
"What are our thoughts", he asks, only to object to anyone who DARES disagree with his ill-formed assertion!

I only object to your assertions.
goneten is offline  
post #43 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 03:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
Given a relatively flat response, simply employing PEQ to randomly cut gain levels at particular frequencies would NOT "affect our perception of bass speed and/or timing" and result in tighter more defined bass..
Your assertion is wrong.

I beg to differ. Simply claiming that I am wrong does it not make it so. You can't even entertain the idea that I could be right, but I must concede the point and just accept that you are right because you are using more technical terms to describe a phenomenon. Right. No thank you. Simply regurgitating the same points and dressing them up in word salad does not give your position any credence on the matter!
goneten is offline  
post #44 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 03:57 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
You're right.

Its ONLY AMPLITUDE and not the resonance/persistence in time reinforced by mechanical resonance or a room's modal behavior that does it. Modal behavior isn't a standing resonance, its simply amplitude. So if I use a PEQ and boost a particular frequency I have just created a "mode". You are right! Its all simply amplitude and all that is needed is a PEQ to reduce peaks and our bass become "fast".

Now gain controls are the leading cause of "slow" bass.

Since you knew you were right and whomever disagreed with you was wrong, what were you looking for aside from the validation of your absolutely ill-stated original question as any difference in opinion - especially as it refers to the physics of sound - is incorrect?

Yes, and ALL we did was "claim" you were wrong, we didn't state ANY other qualifying information or behavior that would account for the behavior that one has to intimate that you describe due to misstated original question.. The fact is that you have utterly and COMPLETELY ignored any reference to ANY alternative variable to amplitude alone. COMPLETELY.

So, believe whatever you want. Who cares on the Anything But Science Forum?

Funny, you don't post ANY of your rock solid data nor even describe of what it consists...which apparently from your assertion is simply a magnitude frequency response. Why not list the temperature and the time as well as casual factors?

So, its whatever you want to believe is the cause. Believe whatever you like. And you might also want to check the color of the shirt you are wearing, as that may very well contribute to the subjective experience as well.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #45 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 04:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
If room resonances lead to frequency aberration and you address the peaks by either shifting them or cutting them via PEQ so that they do not coincide with a bass note in a piece of music, hence not being excited as much, you are saying that ones subjective impression won't change at all as far as the "tightness" of bass goes. So we must just ignore the magnitude of the peaks, as if they have no influence on our perceptions because you are apparently some self-enlightened guru. Right. Now I am supposed to give your argument credence, because?

I have ignored the time domain influence for now as I know that modal ringing is a contributing factor. I am not convinced by your word salad and belligerent, patronizing replies that frequency response is a non-issue entirely. You can claim I have little to no understanding all you like and you can dress up your replies with the fanciest technical terms and repeat those terms as if repetition is evidence, but I am not convinced yet. I would much rather get a second opinion, quite frankly.
goneten is offline  
post #46 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 04:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
Yes, and ALL we did was "claim" you were wrong, we didn't state ANY other qualifying information or behavior that would account for the behavior that one has to intimate that you describe due to misstated original question.. The fact is that you have utterly and COMPLETELY ignored any reference to ANY alternative variable to amplitude alone. COMPLETELY.

And you have ignored amplitude ENTIRELY as a variable that might influence the subjective qualities being discussed!
goneten is offline  
post #47 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 04:38 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
Yes, and ALL we did was "claim" you were wrong, we didn't state ANY other qualifying information or behavior that would account for the behavior that one has to intimate that you describe due to misstated original question.. The fact is that you have utterly and COMPLETELY ignored any reference to ANY alternative variable to amplitude alone. COMPLETELY.

And you have ignored amplitude ENTIRELY as a variable that might influence the subjective qualities being discussed!

Nope, but like with each of your errant synopses of what has been said amplitude is not THE causal factor that you so inelegantly misstated in the opening to the thread and for which you have been apologizing to just about everyone since.

Continue believing whatever you want.

...another Flatlander with an EQ...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #48 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 04:47 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Word salad is right, quite enjoyable none the less.

I did have to look up his usage on at least one occasion. However, "brain dead" and "liar" weren't elements of his contributions that needed clarification.

---

As the contributor of some marathon, verbose posts in my brief time here, I'm as bad as anyone for sure.



Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief.
~William Shakespeare, Hamlet


The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. ~Thomas Jefferson

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #49 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
I always favored the expression word diarrhea. Word salad is the nonsense some patients with neurological deficits produce. Word diarrhea is the resultant documentation a physician might produce about said patient that gets the essential facts correct while leaving 'a little's to be desired with respect to elegant use of the language. Just has a nice ring to it... sort of like those one note subs. smile.gif

Bigus is offline  
post #50 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 07:05 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Interesting Bigus. I'm truly not sharp enough to determine what's correct or not, as I'm quite the novice regarding much of which is discussed. Additionally, I'm currently somewhat compromised wrt intellect, so much so I gloss over the long, elaborate point/counter point posts,..I just can't keep up.

Now I have gleaned a great deal from many of Dragon's contributions, both here and elsewhere, ...but not this particular style of vitriol. I know many feed on it, and really enjoy sparring, not me. I concede, he's smarter than me, and he can slice and dice a forum adversary to pieces.

He has very politely offered via PM to help me with acoustic issues when the time is right, and I do appreciate that. He's an enigma wrapped in a paradox, kinda,...I think.

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #51 of 57 Old 07-12-2012, 07:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 6,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 283
Whilst hesitant to step into yet another pissing contest, many years ago I helped set up some tests and tested a variety of subwoofers, listening and measurements. We found that the ones most associated with the term "fast" were actually those that had the best impulse response, and in fact fast risetime was less important than fast decay. Ringing smeared the bass and made people call them "slow". That jives well with Ethan's explanation, fwiwfm. One of the outcomes was a servo design of mine that stood up pretty well; it took a very well-designed sub/amplifier system without a servo to sound "fast".

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #52 of 57 Old 07-13-2012, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randy Bessinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,316
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 58
I was surprised when I read the attached white paper and on page 2 saw "faster, leaner bass"

http://www.kefamerica.com/july12/LS50%20White%20Paper.pdf
Randy Bessinger is offline  
post #53 of 57 Old 07-13-2012, 12:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 754 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

I was surprised when I read the attached white paper and on page 2 saw "faster, leaner bass"
http://www.kefamerica.com/july12/LS50%20White%20Paper.pdf

What got to me is the fact that a speaker with a ca. 5 inch lower driver was considered to be a mini-monitor back in the day, but is now considered to be a regular bookshelf speaker. If memory serves, LS 3/5A type speakers were around $200 each when they were first introduced around here.

As far as "leaner faster bass" goes, that just KEF showing off the fact that the HK conglomerate that owns them now have a dedicated marketing guy. ;-) I doubt that Raymond Cooke or Laurie Fincham would write that way.
arnyk is offline  
post #54 of 57 Old 07-13-2012, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

As far as "leaner faster bass" goes, that just KEF showing off the fact that the HK conglomerate that owns them now have a dedicated marketing guy. ;-) I doubt that Raymond Cooke or Laurie Fincham would write that way.

they should do a VH1's "where are they now" for all those that have since been "harmonized"
localhost127 is offline  
post #55 of 57 Old 07-13-2012, 01:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 754 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

they should do a VH1's "where are they now" for all those that have since been "harmonized"

Don't you mean "Harman-ized" ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #56 of 57 Old 07-13-2012, 01:54 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

they should do a VH1's "where are they now" for all those that have since been "harmonized"

Don't you mean "Harman-ized" ;-)

technically, yes.

But when one realized the nature of this euphemism, does spelling really matter? wink.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #57 of 57 Old 07-14-2012, 04:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Inspired by a regular verbose poster here at AVS, I google searched 'bass speed' and came up with 12mph cruising and up to 20mph in bursts.

450
A9X-308 is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

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