Question on bi-amping - Page 31 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #901 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 08:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

One of the more interesting (at least to me) pieces of research I did lately is to compare the bass extension and distortion of one of the better circa $300 econo subwoofers to that of ca. $12,000 floorstanders with an impressive woofer complement and reputation.

Aside from the fact that people like Dr. Hsu can (and did) make a good and inexpensive product, and others can extract massive amounts of cash from gullible customers, what exactly does that prove?

If you followed my posts you'd know that I tend to deny the existance or necessity for proof. ;-)

I believe that the evidence above tends to question the opinions of those who say "I don't need a subwoofer because I have floorstanders" and others who run their floorstanders set to large with a good subwoofer in the system.
arnyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #902 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 08:47 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 710
Arny, Genelec are the cat's PJ's. Any studio that doesn't use them pretty much covets them. They are ungodly pricey, probably because they make an overly broad product line aimed at a very small market so there isn't much going for them in terms of economies of scale. You can look on them as the high end of pro audio monitors. I've heard some of them and they pretty special.
FMW is online now  
post #903 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 08:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,802
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1346 Post(s)
Liked: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Don't believe that affects Audyssey to change crossover or large/small speaker settings since that's the avr's doing.....so don't believe rerunning Audyssey will be necessary.

I could be wrong as I've never owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I understood it would calibrate relative to speaker size, crossover etc. If you change those parameters I think you would need to rerun Audyssey...?

 

Yes - the usual advice is that if something significant in the system or room has been changed, then Audyssey needs to be run again.  You don't need to run Audyssey again if all you did was change the crossovers though. I’d never advise running speakers as Large as it disables bass management when you do that, and in a HT system bass management is very important IMO.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #904 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 08:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Arny, Genelec are the cat's PJ's. Any studio that doesn't use them pretty much covets them. They are ungodly pricey, probably because they make an overly broad product line aimed at a very small market so there isn't much going for them in terms of economies of scale. You can look on them as the high end of pro audio monitors. I've heard some of them and they pretty special.

Farbeit from me to question Genelecs without ever having heard them or being unfamiliar of where they fit in the constellation of professional audio.

I know a lot of studio owners who don't covet Genelecs, probably on the grounds that they are interested in good working tools not audio jewelry.
Speed Daemon likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #905 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Don't believe that affects Audyssey to change crossover or large/small speaker settings since that's the avr's doing.....so don't believe rerunning Audyssey will be necessary.


I could be wrong as I've never owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I understood it would calibrate relative to speaker size, crossover etc. If you change those parameters I think you would need to rerun Audyssey...?

Yes - the usual advice is that if something significant in the system or room has been changed, then Audyssey needs to be run again.  You don't need to run Audyssey again if all you did was change the crossovers though. I’d never advise running speakers as Large as it disables bass management when you do that, and in a HT system bass management is very important IMO.

Thanks Keith was hoping you'd comment. If he ran the Audyssey originally with that same sub and speakers without moving them in the room, he would still need to re-run Audyssey just for changing them from large to small?

lovinthehd is offline  
post #906 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 08:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

This would be another one of Amir's facts. I suspect that either Behringer or Mackie have sold more speakers for professional/post production work by accident than Genelec has sold on purpose. The Genelec speakers are pricey and there is no reliable technical evidence that I am aware of that shows that their price performance is competitive.
I have to laugh. None of those brands are considered anything near the pinnacle of the industry. They make nice cheap stuff for amateurs and semi-pros, but no true professional would consider them top shelf. Nobody's giving up their Westlake or ATC speakers for Genelec...or any other brand in that class.

Quote:
Here is the line card for a little A/V house in the Seatlle area known as "Madrona Digital""

http://www.madronadigital.com/Products/HomeTheater.html

"For 30 years Genelec has been setting the standard for accurate sound reproduction in recording studios and broadcast facilities around the world. Genelec pioneered the active loudspeaker concept in which integrated power amplifiers and active crossover circuitry are used to create sound that is accurate, powerful and low in distortion. This makes them an excellent fit for home theater applications where clean and highly dynamic sound is desired."
1967: Klein-Hummel OY on sale.
1978: Genelec company founded.

Hmmm...dates don't really match the narrative, do they? Altec and JBL were doing biamplification since the 1950s, IIRC...

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #907 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 09:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,802
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1346 Post(s)
Liked: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Don't believe that affects Audyssey to change crossover or large/small speaker settings since that's the avr's doing.....so don't believe rerunning Audyssey will be necessary.

I could be wrong as I've never owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I understood it would calibrate relative to speaker size, crossover etc. If you change those parameters I think you would need to rerun Audyssey...?

I definitely set up my system with 80 Hz crossovers before I ran Audyssey, and Audyssey Multieq moved that down to 60 Hz. I don't know what it would take to stimulate Audyssey to set small speakers to large, or if it would do such a thing.

 

It's possible that after an Audyssey calibration the speakers could be set to Large. Audyssey doesn't actually set the XOs - all that Audyssey does is to 'report' the F3 of the tested speaker to the AVR. Using this info, the AVR then sets the XO. This can result in different XOs being set even for the same reported F3, when different AVRs use different criteria for setting the XOs. Onkyo, for example and IIRC, used to set any speaker to Large if the reported F3 was 40Hz. Anything that affects the F3, such as speaker positioning in room etc, can cause the AVR to set the speakers to Large after running Audyssey but it isn’t all that common. 



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #908 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 09:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,802
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1346 Post(s)
Liked: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Don't believe that affects Audyssey to change crossover or large/small speaker settings since that's the avr's doing.....so don't believe rerunning Audyssey will be necessary.


I could be wrong as I've never owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I understood it would calibrate relative to speaker size, crossover etc. If you change those parameters I think you would need to rerun Audyssey...?

Yes - the usual advice is that if something significant in the system or room has been changed, then Audyssey needs to be run again.  You don't need to run Audyssey again if all you did was change the crossovers though. I’d never advise running speakers as Large as it disables bass management when you do that, and in a HT system bass management is very important IMO.

Thanks Keith was hoping you'd comment. If he ran the Audyssey originally with that same sub and speakers without moving them in the room, he would still need to re-run Audyssey just for changing them from large to small?

 

If they were set to Large after running Audyssey, running Audyssey again will just set them to Large again (all existing settings are ignored by Audyssey during the calibration). Setting them to Small (or setting a XO for them which is the same thing) won't require running Audyssey again, nor would there be any point as explained). It is OK to raise the XOs after running Audyssey but not to lower them, so if he goes from Large to, say, 80Hz, then he will be fine as Audyssey will have created filters down to whatever F3 was detected which made the AVR set the speakers to Large.  Short answer: No, he wouldn't.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #909 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 09:37 AM
Member
 
stereoforsale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Depends on the avr I suppose. When I change mine manually they stay changed, there's only one place to see the settings and change them (goes for both small/large and crossover). What avr do you have? At least Audyssey themselves say that if you don't set your speakers to small no bass will go to the sub http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/how-to (towards the bottom).

I'm using Marantz sr7008.

Problem is once you change FL/FR from large to small, Audy still has them set as Full Range, so manually adjusting the XO simply adds double bass. I've been told by product experts that if the speaker is set by Audy as full range then increasing the XO simply sends more to the sub, but not less to the FL/FR.

That quote from Audy is not entirely true (at least for my AVR). If the sub is set to "LFE + main" (as opposed to just "LFE") then the sub is getting a signal even if the main speakers are set to large/full range. I've observe this with 2 ch music. My mains are set to large/full range, yet there is plenty of music coming from my sub too. All very confusing.
stereoforsale is offline  
post #910 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 09:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If you followed my posts you'd know that I tend to deny the existance or necessity for proof. ;-)
LOL...yes, but that's not going to stop me from foolishly blundering on. wink.gif

Quote:
I believe that the evidence above tends to question the opinions of those who say "I don't need a subwoofer because I have floorstanders" and others who run their floorstanders set to large with a good subwoofer in the system.
Well, my Paradigm Studio 80 speakers' design would no doubt put them squarely in the class of "floorstander", and I haven't felt the slightest need to augment them with a subwoofer. (They have no settings, and come in only one size, BTW.) I've actually seen fit to buy separate loudspeakers to use for late night TV viewing (leaving the Paradigms for music playback only) to keep the thumps and bumps toned down when others are sleeping.

The TV speakers that I chose are the NHT Classic Three, which has a big brother (Four) consisting essentially of the Classic Three grafted to a 10" sub. So it is possible from a packaging standpoint. I get the feeling that people are mistaking social conformism and designs that are driven by marketing departments for actual laws of nature. Full range loudspeakers are entirely possible. Westlake studio monitors don't have companion subwoofers because they simply don't need them. They need a crane and/or forklift to install, but they don't need subs! They're no "floorstanders", although their "Hi Fi" versions are available in floor standing configurations.

Ever since the term was coined, subwoofers have been meant to augment small speakers that did treble and midrange well, but simply couldn't move enough air to generate bass frequencies. (In sound reinforcement, where 4-way or more is the norm, "subwoofer" means something else; it's just a name.) Recently it has become fashionable among certain people to strive for grossly exaggerated bass. I'm fine with that; live and let live. But I draw the line at the notion that exaggerated bass is somehow a necessity. It's not. It's an indulgence, not a necessity. And it's something that not everybody wants.

The bottom line is if a loudspeaker meets one's needs, it's not broken or lacking.

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #911 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 09:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Yes, a number of them, and once as an exhibitor.
Exhibitor is when you pay money to set up shop. You are claiming that is a notable thing? The exhibit area of AES is a side show anyway. The real jewel is the conference and journal.
Quote:
Counting universities, quite a few. But your error here Amir is that you don't have to go to conferences to know what papers are given there.
You don't but in the context I asked, this is a misdirection. I am asking what percentage of the papers are presented from non-profit organizations. BTW, I don't consider universities non-profit. They will apply for patents and sell the rights/collect royalties. Columbia University is one such example where they get paid royalties from every MPEG-2 license. This includes every DVD/BD player, cable and satellite set-top box, etc. They are also part of the MPEG-4 AVC patent pool so that brings them revenues from every modern device from phones to tablets and PCs. So no, you can't count universities. Let me know which year you attended and I can see how many non-profit orgs were there if you still dispute what I am saying.
Quote:
Heck I was one of them. And our paper passed peer review and made the Journal. But I didn't try to take advantage of that to lord it over people or justify making false claims, or at least I hope so.
Oh, congratulations Arny. Didn't realize you had a paper published in the journal. Love to read it. Can you provide a link to it on AES site? Much appreciated.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #912 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 10:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I don't consider universities non-profit.
That's painting with a mighty wide brush.

Obviously there are for-profit universities and colleges, but those typically don't do much research--they're all business. State universities are obviously part of state government, and government isn't a profit-making endeavor. Many private universities are incorporated as non-profits for tax purposes, and are legally forbidden from having shareholders or taking profits.
Quote:
Columbia University is one such example where they get paid royalties from every MPEG-2 license. This includes every DVD/BD player, cable and satellite set-top box, etc.
You mean like the VC-1 license, that nobody actually uses, but everyone must pay Microsoft royalties on? rolleyes.gif

The last time I checked, MPEG-2 is also covered by a patent pool. The only pool member that I can name off the top of my head is the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft of MP3 fame. Columbia University might be one of the many pool members, but hardly the only one.

http://www.mpegla.com/

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #913 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 10:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Columbia University might be one of the many pool members, but hardly the only one.

There was no claim that it was, "hardly the only one". The fact that it is as you claim, "hardly the only one" further supports that more then one university takes income from a patent pool, and hence, that brush might not look so wide now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

You mean like the VC-1 license, that nobody actually uses, but everyone must pay Microsoft royalties on? rolleyes.gif

No, I'm sure he meant MPEG-2, you know the one that everybody used and payed royalties on! rolleyes.gif
Audionut11 is offline  
post #914 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 11:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

This would be another one of Amir's facts. I suspect that either Behringer or Mackie have sold more speakers for professional/post production work by accident than Genelec has sold on purpose. The Genelec speakers are pricey and there is no reliable technical evidence that I am aware of that shows that their price performance is competitive.


I have to laugh. None of those brands are considered anything near the pinnacle of the industry. They make nice cheap stuff for amateurs and semi-pros, but no true professional would consider them top shelf.

I have to laugh. Here we have a no-name hiding behind an anonymous alias and favoring us with his pontifications on professional audio.

Could we veer back on topic?
Quote:
Nobody's giving up their Westlake or ATC speakers for Genelec...or any other brand in that class.

I guess we have yet another true believer in the idea that there is a linear relationship between price and quality.

Yup, you can always judge sound quality based on what, time spent in business and high prices?

LOL!
arnyk is offline  
post #915 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 11:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

That's painting with a mighty wide brush.
My comment is domain specific. Universities actually sue companies to collect royalties in this area contrary to whatever impression you may have regarding their profitability stance.
Quote:
Obviously there are for-profit universities and colleges, but those typically don't do much research--they're all business. State universities are obviously part of state government, and government isn't a profit-making endeavor.
What do you call UC Berkeley? I assume a state university. Here is one of the most famous technology patent suits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas

"Eolas (Irish pronunciation: [ˈoːl̪ˠəsˠ], meaning "Knowledge"; bacronym: "Embedded Objects Linked Across Systems") is a United States technology[1] company. It was founded in 1994 by sole employee Michael David Doyle.[2] His University of California, San Francisco team has claimed to have created the first web browser that supported plugins."

They go on to say about one of the settlements:
"The case with Microsoft over patent 5,838,906 was settled in 2007 for a confidential amount of money after an initial $565 million judgment was stayed on appeal, but the University of California disclosed its piece of the final settlement as $30.4 million."
Quote:
Many private universities are incorporated as non-profits for tax purposes, and are legally forbidden from having shareholders or taking profits.
That doesn't mean they give away their inventions. Royalties can be taken on a "cost recovery basis" to pay for work done up to that point. Profit is what is left after costs are taken out, not any royalty received.
Quote:
You mean like the VC-1 license, that nobody actually uses, but everyone must pay Microsoft royalties on? rolleyes.gif
You are way out of league on this snide remark. If it were not because of the efforts of my team and VC-1, Blu-ray would be an MPEG-2 only format and the royalties for MPEG-4 AVC would have been $2.50 with unlimited caps as was the case with MPEG-2 then. My team co-chaired the development of MPEG-4 AVC in addition to developing VC-1. And we held patents in MPEG-4 AVC. For that reason, we got a seat at the patent pool table to set the fees for MPEG-4 AVC. Since many of the MPEG-2 members are also in MPEG-4 AVC, what folks wanted was the same unlimited royalty to the tune of $2.50. But we managed to talk them down to 30 cents with a very reasonable per company/per year cap. We did that because we saw the usage on the Internet coming and could not see anything touching MPEG-4 AVC to cough up $2.50.

On the blu-ray side, due to such high fees for MPEG-2, the CE companies were determined to keep that royalty coming when the original BD format was introduced. The HD DVD however, was run by DVD Forum which created a double blind test to determine the best technology. VC-1 won that in two rounds, including beating MPEG-4 AVC. MPEG-4 AVC actually underperformed MPEG-2! This led to a revision of MPEG-4 AVC to make it competitive. DVD Forum adopted all three codecs for political/royalty reasons even though we only needed one. Clearly if one was to throw one codec overboard, it would be the expense, ancient and low performing MPEG-2. But that is not how the world turns in the industry.

Adoption of VC-1 and MPEG-4 AVC pressured BDA to add them to their then MPEG-2 only format.

VC-1 enjoyed strong support at the launch of HD format with studios like Warner exclusively using it. Alas, once I left Microsoft was reorganized and my groups that developed and supported the VC-1 encoder were disbanded. So post houses started to move away from it and adopt MPEG-4 AVC since they were companies that made money from it and hence could support it.

Sadly I do see VC-1 fading away as more time goes by. I think currently Netflix still uses it which means VC-1 has the number 1 share of for-free streaming on the web. Over time though I suspect they will phase it out in favor of MPEG-4 AVC. And that is fine.
Quote:
The last time I checked, MPEG-2 is also covered by a patent pool. The only pool member that I can name off the top of my head is the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft of MP3 fame. Columbia University might be one of the many pool members, but hardly the only one.

http://www.mpegla.com/
Last time you checked? How much work would it have been to actually go to that URL? Columbia University is part of the Patent pool for both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AVC. And I did not even imply let alone say Columbia university is the only company in the pool. If you want to complain about patents and codecs, you want to bark at a different tree. And that tree is the fact that same patent is used in multiple standards. You would think as a device maker you would pay once for that patent. But you are not. You are paying multiple times. It is called "field of use."

Do you have any technology that you and your team developed that has found itself in international standards?

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #916 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 11:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Oh, congratulations Arny. Didn't realize you had a paper published in the journal. Love to read it. Can you provide a link to it on AES site? Much appreciated.

I could provide a link to it on the AES site and will, but if you think hard you should already know its title...

Hints:

(1) The paper's title contains the phrase "High resolution"
(2) The paper was published in 1982
(3) My name appears in the paper as a contributor but not as a co-author.
(4) The paper was presented at the 1978 AES annual meeting (Anaheim) at my company's expense. I was present when it was presented.
(5) The paper is about a subject that is very close to my heart and I mean that in a good way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amir 
Do you have any technology that you and your team developed that has found itself in international standards?

One might say... ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #917 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 01:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I could provide a link to it on the AES site and will, but if you think hard you should already know its title...

Hints:

(1) The paper's title contains the phrase "High resolution"
(2) The paper was published in 1982
(3) My name appears in the paper as a contributor but not as a co-author.
(4) The paper was presented at the 1978 AES annual meeting (Anaheim) at my company's expense. I was present when it was presented.
(5) The paper is about a subject that is very close to my heart and I mean that in a good way!
Oh, I have already seen that paper. Here is the post I made about it last year:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have seen Arny post this graph a number of times but he never provides the actual reference or the text that went with it:

He [Arny] goes on to say "The way to read it is that this is the kind of matching that is required for no audible differences due to mismatching, and with a reasonable safety factor."

The paper is by David Clark, and is titled "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator." [...]Anyway the above graph is Figure 2 and this is the text in the paper:

"Fig. 2 shows the degree of level match for various bandwidths and center frequencies necessary to eliminate audible frequency response effects for most music sources. The curves are compiled from fairly limited double-blind testing of a limited number of individuals. The level used was approximately 85 dB unweighted. These curves are in general agreement with the findings of others [2], [4]. In a double-blind test, response differences greater than those allowed by the curves are likely to be responsible for audible differences. "

I have bolded some key sections. First, the testing and data was not designed to be comprehensive given its limited scope and applicability at one level (85 dB). Second, it doesn't say what is audible and what is not. It says that if you are going to run a double blind test, try to keep the variations below this level. As otherwise, it will "likely" impact the results. There certainly is no "reasonable safety factor" as my read is that it is the opposite: there is a chance there will be audible differences if you followed the graph.
Funny that you say you were the co-author yet were unaware of what was really in the paper and proceeded to exaggerate Clark's test conditions and criteria. Same tendency to exaggerate here where you implied that you were the co-author of a paper: "Heck I was one of them. And our paper passed peer review and made the Journal. But I didn't try to take advantage of that to lord it over people or justify making false claims, or at least I hope so."

The paper's only author is Clark. The mention of your name is thus:

i-fFQj5Mx-L.png

The acknowledgment of a co-worker does not rise up to the level of you being the co-author of said paper. Your contributions must not have been significant enough and/or you did not write the paper as to merit giving you credit.

If I did not have access to that paper and hadn't read it, no one would have called you on improper quotation. Even there, I had to work hard to find it because the paper is old and therefore it is scanned copy which cannot be searched (easily anyway). Instead of providing proper references so that anyone can read the source, you threw out a chart and misrepresented what it meant. It is this kind of stunt that gives objectivity a bad name. It makes it look like we are trying to pull the wool over people's head. I don't know why it is so hard to have this discussion devoid of such shenanigans.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #918 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 02:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I could provide a link to it on the AES site and will, but if you think hard you should already know its title...

Hints:

(3) My name appears in the paper as a contributor but not as a co-author.

The acknowledgment of a co-worker does not rise up to the level of you being the co-author of said paper.

Amir, when questioned about being able to read English, do you respond in the affirmitive? If so I'd like to see you do that while attached to a lie detector. OTOH, perhaps you are unaware of your repeated gross difficulties with completing that task.

What's unclear about my statement:

"My name appears in the paper as a contributor but not as a co-author.'

How does that constitute a claim on my part that I was a a co-author? Or pehaps I should ask, in which alternative universe?

BTW, Amir I throw this out as a piece of raw meat for you to do with as you will:

I am not the president of the United States.

And, you can quote me on that! ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #919 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 03:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Amir, when questioned about being able to read English, do you respond in the affirmitive? If so I'd like to see you do that while attached to a lie detector. OTOH, perhaps you are unaware of your repeated gross difficulties with completing that task.

What's unclear about my statement:

"My name appears in the paper as a contributor but not as a co-author.'

How does that constitute a claim on my part that I was a a co-author? Or pehaps I should ask, in which alternative universe?
This is what constitutes that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Heck I was one of them. And our paper passed peer review and made the Journal. But I didn't try to take advantage of that to lord it over people or justify making false claims, or at least I hope so.

"Our paper?" The paper has only one persons name on it: Cark. Unless you are accusing him of unethical conduct, the paper is his, not yours. You worked in the same company building ABX boxes so he gave you some general credit. That does not rise to you giving yourself part ownership of the paper in an attempt to look important.
Quote:
BTW, Amir I throw this out as a piece of raw meat for you to do with as you will:

I am not the president of the United States.

And, you can quote me on that! ;-)
No you are not. But you have anointed yourself the president of audio objectivity and with conduct like above, soil anything good our party brings to the camp. For someone from the same camp calling you on these things means you have way crossed the line. Let's watch how you make this worse yet with your next response.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #920 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 302
Oh, will you girls just cut it out.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #921 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 04:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Oh, will you girls just cut it out.
Now you're just being silly. Of course they won't. Haven't you seen Mean Girls? (I gotta lotta daughters)
Speed Daemon likes this.
JHAz is offline  
post #922 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
(3) My name appears in the paper as a contributor but not as a co-author.

I wonder if Amir has not some reading comprehension difficulties.
Quote:
Let's watch how you make this worse yet with your next response.
Amir
Hmmm, the only one at present making it worse for himself is someone calling himself Amir.

Btw ... English is msl, being a native of krautland.
kraut is offline  
post #923 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 04:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Oh, will you girls just cut it out.

I admit it, I'm gloating. ;-)

It is obvious from his recent statements that Amir's dream is to "...have technology that he and his team developed that has found itself in international standards". Microsoft doesn't count because its not his team - he was just a johnny-come-lately middle manager. He knows this. It is obvious that something is gnawing at him, and it is probably this.

The ABX company which I cofounded introduced DBTs to the AES, which makes our team the gandpappies of the various international standards relating to DBTs.

My part of ABX Company as it finally came to be known was completely unintentional. I built the first ABX box to satisfy my own curiosity, no more and no less. The work to commercialize it was other people's vision. I did make a few technical contributions to the commercial version, but it was truly a team effort.
arnyk is offline  
post #924 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Re objectivity:
Quote:
One of my primary goals for this blog is to reinforce, strongly and frequently, the notion of neuropsychological humility – the understanding that our perceptions and memories are deeply flawed and biased. There appears to be almost no limit to the extent to which people can deceive themselves into believing bizarre things.
Quote:
There are many more examples of how one sense will influence another – essentially our brains integrate multiple sensory streams into one coherent narrative. What we experience is in no way objective, it is altered to make everything seem to fit together.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/12/02/champagne-tasting/#more-24815

I like the word: "neuropsychological humility" very much, considering the violations by so called audiophiles who think their senses are the cats meow and so superior that they are able to differentiate minute if at all existing differences by assessing the EUT under sighted conditions. Sighted meaning here having any info re: the EUT be it cost, visual cues, critiques etc.
kraut is offline  
post #925 of 1044 Old 12-02-2013, 09:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Depends on the avr I suppose. When I change mine manually they stay changed, there's only one place to see the settings and change them (goes for both small/large and crossover). What avr do you have? At least Audyssey themselves say that if you don't set your speakers to small no bass will go to the sub http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/how-to (towards the bottom).

I'm using Marantz sr7008.

Problem is once you change FL/FR from large to small, Audy still has them set as Full Range, so manually adjusting the XO simply adds double bass. I've been told by product experts that if the speaker is set by Audy as full range then increasing the XO simply sends more to the sub, but not less to the FL/FR.

That quote from Audy is not entirely true (at least for my AVR). If the sub is set to "LFE + main" (as opposed to just "LFE") then the sub is getting a signal even if the main speakers are set to large/full range. I've observe this with 2 ch music. My mains are set to large/full range, yet there is plenty of music coming from my sub too. All very confusing.

That's the thing, though, it's not Audyssey setting your speakers to large, it's your avr's manufacturer doing that as well as the crossover point. Just happens during the routine called Audyssey (just go through the threads on Audyssey's forum to see how many times they have to say that). Audyssey apparently would start you off with small (if you have a sub) and cross at 80 hz....

Weird you can't override the Audyssey settings in the Marantz, I can in my Onkyo....

lovinthehd is offline  
post #926 of 1044 Old 12-03-2013, 08:58 AM
Member
 
stereoforsale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

That's the thing, though, it's not Audyssey setting your speakers to large, it's your avr's manufacturer doing that as well as the crossover point. Just happens during the routine called Audyssey (just go through the threads on Audyssey's forum to see how many times they have to say that). Audyssey apparently would start you off with small (if you have a sub) and cross at 80 hz....

Weird you can't override the Audyssey settings in the Marantz, I can in my Onkyo....

For what it's worth here is what I've surmised about the Marantz sr7008:
- by running Audy calibration, the AVR (not Audy) assess the "capabilities" of your speakers and reports them as such.
- you can manually override the size and XO settings, but doing so won't change what is displayed in the Audy results
- there are 3 variables that need to be cooridnated to achieve the desired result:
1) sub setting: "LFE" vs. "LFE + MAIN"
2) speaker size: LARGE vs. SMALL
3) the impact of changing the crossover depends entirely on how you set #1 and #2 above.

If you set your speakers to SMALL, I think it's pretty much what everyone expects the XO to do, regardless of the sub setting (so long as there is in fact a sub, of course).

If you set your speakers to LARGE, and your sub to "LFE" then you effectively disable bass management, as everyone expects.

If you set your speakers to LARGE, and your sub to "LFE + MAIN" then it's unclear which of the following happens:
(a) a few people have said that both the sub and the speakers will play frequencies below the XO (aka "double bass") (note: there is no mention of this in the manual); or
(b) XO operates as expected... but I'm not sure how this is any different than setting speakers to SMALL. Maybe it's just a vanity thing to satisfy the owner's desire to have LARGE speakers!
stereoforsale is offline  
post #927 of 1044 Old 12-03-2013, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 6,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 261
Every AVR I have seen sends bass to both L/R and sub when placed in "plus" mode with "large" speakers. That said, I have not seen/heard your specific unit. Should be easy to find out, just play something with bass in it and see what happens.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #928 of 1044 Old 12-03-2013, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Seems the OP has left this thread 2 months ago, and did a nice summary before leaving.....is there still more to discuss?

Now the discussion has moved to Audyssey, and other banter......
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieS View Post

What I've learned so far :

Bi-amping is about driving the highs and lows independently using an active crossover. With this set up you can use appropriate amplification for both highs and lows for improved efficiency, and less wasted power since the woofer can be driven with an adequately sized amp and an smaller amp can be used for the tweeter.

Passive bi-amping is sending full range signals to the highs and lows and so isn't technically bi-amping. What I've learned is that using identical amplifiers will result in worse efficiency as the amplifiers will limit available power to the woofer by driving the tweeter signal, robbing it, as it were. Since tweeters do not need nearly as much power as the woofer it is a waste of headroom as I understand it.

So it is a very inefficient connection scheme. That is what I've learned about bi-amping. I'm no expert and I've probably left out some details, but for a laymen like me, this is about as far as I'm going to get without cracking open a text book. tongue.gif

Edit : I looked up a few articles on the power distribution of audio signals for the highs and lows and that has given me an even clearer understanding about the whole tweeter/woofer power and why power is wasted with passive bi-amping.

Thx for sharing your lessons learned!
I've bookmarked this for future Q's on bi-amping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieS View Post

So anyways, I understand some of passive bi-amping but not all of it.

Why exactly are the full range signals routed to the highs and lows in this configuration? Can someone explain it in laymens terms? I know it has something to do with the passive crossover, but I don't know much about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtn-tech View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieS View Post

Have you guys ever heard of vertical bi-amping? Is that the same thing as just using separate amps to handle each speaker?

Yes, passive vertical bi-amping would be a separate amp for each speaker - one channel for the high frequency driver and the other for the low frequency driver(s). One advantage over passive horizontal bi-amping with different sized amps would be that there would be identical gain for both drivers (probably a real problem for horizontal bi-amping). Another might be better stereo separation though most modern amps have around -100dB crosstalk. Disadvantage would be that you would be "wasting" even more power on the tweeter and that you would need two identical more powerful / more expensive amps (advantage for retailers).

I never thought the reason for passive bi-amping was more power or headroom. Not saying that I believe it, but I've heard that it was to separate the woofer (and its "back EMF" which might cause small changes in the voltage at the back of the speaker) from the high pass section of the crossover. These voltage changes are supposed to cause small audible high frequency components which can pass through to the tweeter. The manual for my speakers says this (they also sell amplifiers).

Funny that everyone is also bashing active bi-amping - especially since most people advocate active bi-amping for subs - using an active crossover between the preamp and the amps for main speakers and subwoofer. One post even said active crossovers are no longer available - not true, I just bought a brand new one earlier this year. Of course, adjusting and blending at a sub crossover frequency is much easier than the crossover between drivers in a single, previously optimized speaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieS View Post

But how is that different from classic bi-amping? Wouldn't a monoblock be the same thing?

I read this here :

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize031998.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieS View Post

Sorry, one last question. In order to use an active crossover do you have to remove the passive crossover from the speaker? So there is some modification to be done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieS View Post

Sorry, one last question. In order to use an active crossover do you have to remove the passive crossover from the speaker? So there is some modification to be done?

Yes you do. This is not something to be undertaken lightly. It would also invalidate any warranty on the speakers of course.

Mike R,P.E. clickable DIY hot links:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
..
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
..
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
..
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
..
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
..
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mtbdudex is online now  
post #929 of 1044 Old 12-05-2013, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Every AVR I have seen sends bass to both L/R and sub when placed in "plus" mode with "large" speakers. That said, I have not seen/heard your specific unit. Should be easy to find out, just play something with bass in it and see what happens.

I was going to say with the speakers set to large - kill the power to the subs and play some 2ch music and then change the L/F crossover up and down and see if it makes a difference on them.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #930 of 1044 Old 12-05-2013, 01:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 16,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 68
If the crossover setting for the front channels is still available when the front speakers are set to LARGE and the double bass setting (LFE+Main, LFE+, LFE Plus, Plus, Double Bass) is engaged, it might control the low-pass frequency that is applied to the front channel bass that is duplicated at the subwoofer(s). It shouldn't still be there without the double bass setting engaged, though. If it is, it might just be a software oversight.

A different way to look at the double bass setting is that it sends to the sub(s) exactly what would be sent there were the front speakers set to SMALL (with a particular low-pass frequency on the front channel bass that is routed to the sub, which may or may not be controlled by the AVR's setting) while still sending the front speakers a full range signal.

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

Tags
Marantz Sr5007 Home Theater Av Receiver
Gear in this thread

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