or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › There is no perfect speaker . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

There is no perfect speaker . . . - Page 3

post #61 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

.

In a recent DIY installation of a JBL Synthesis® Array One system at my place, augmented by paying a few grand to a HT designer for consultation and two grand for a real JBL DACS calibration, I learned a lot about the pursuit of perfection.

1. Synthesis® Array Monitors are amazing out of the box and beg the question, "Can these really sound any better?"

2. Putting acoustical panels on the front wall changes the room in astounding ways.

3. Putting diffusers (even cheap ones like I used) and absorbers at the right places on the sides and rear brings the room to life.

4. Actively bi-amping through networked Parametric EQ processors with pinpoint crossover control takes a speaker from amazing to stunning--I mean literally stunning, as in "Migosh, what just happened? I need a minute to get my wits back."

5. An honest 150-200W per channel from an amp that could double as an arc welder is more impressive than 500W/ch from any big consumer amp I'm familiar with, both in terms of volume and clarity.

6. Running dedicated power circuits (in this case two 20A circuits) really does make everything sound better, measurably better.

7. There are some things experienced professionals with the right equipment can do that you just ought to pay for, such as a calibration. I could never take this system to its current level on my own.

8. Size matters in unexpected ways. I never imagined how much of an improvement 18" drivers would be over 15" drivers with regard to LF clarity and articulation.

Of course I learned a lot more than this, but for the purposes of this discussion, that's most of what's relevant. All these things contributed to taking me closer to perfection than I've ever been, both for movies and for music, especially MCH.

However, I know it's not yet perfect.

Without taking all this (and probably more) into consideration, it's unlikely that the full potential of any great speaker can be realized.

Cool post. I'm coming over to listen to this at your earliest convenience.

Is it even easier to hear the shortcomings of the recording now that your system is at this level?

On the other hand, have you played some crappy stuff thru this system and still are impressed with it? I ask because I did a poor DVD rip of a song by U2 and even though it's squelchy my Revel F32's STILL throw a wonderful soundstage of it.

The converse is also true: I have a song by Eisley that used to sound good to me but the vocals drive me nuts on that one particular song and I think its the fault of the recording (or whatever mic or effects they put on the vocals).
post #62 of 496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

You're a different man now then when you bought those Aerial's Tim. Now were you to reevaluate the same ones once more, knowing what you now know, having built what you've now built, would you have changed your earlier perceptions?

Quite possibly, and looking back at it, I was used to rather bright speakers before I bought the Aerials, so I may have needed some time to adjust. I would like the opportunity to hear them again today, but distribution is limited and no-one floors them for demo here. I'm also thinking that I probably could have done some Room EQ to get a more pleasing frequency response balance from them, but the EQ tech was not available at the time that I owned them.

I still find it odd though, that the Aerials and the Revels measured so closely, yet one sounded somewhat dark and the other somewhat bright. I've read that the closer a speaker gets to having flat FR, that the more magnified the small deviations from flat become. So maybe this played a part in what I heard?
post #63 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

Cool post. I'm coming over to listen to this at your earliest convenience.

Is it even easier to hear the shortcomings of the recording now that your system is at this level?

On the other hand, have you played some crappy stuff thru this system and still are impressed with it? I ask because I did a poor DVD rip of a song by U2 and even though it's squelchy my Revel F32's STILL throw a wonderful soundstage of it.

Curiously, less well-recorded stuff sounds better, but not so much because of the speakers. I think it's the improvements to the room really.

With all the ringing taken out of the room by the acoustical panels and with the tendency for poorly mastered tracks to beam reflective noise around the room now broken up by the diffusers, even crappy tracks are much less offensive.

Yeah, the soundstage is better and the highs and lows are cleaner, but if the bass line sucks, it still sucks in a cleaner way. So when I say it's better, it's relative to how it sounded before and doesn't really mean it suddenly sounds great. It might be more accurate to write it is far less annoying.

Well-recorded material is a joy on this system, and even average recordings sound better with the active EQ.

As an opening audition of MCH music after the calibration was done, we put on the Alan Parsons DVD-A of Dark Side of the Moon. We intended to listen to a bit, but ended up listening to the whole thing. One guest commented after the female solo on The Great Gig In The Sky: "That's the first time I ever listened to that without having to cover my ears. It's really loud, but you can actually hear the subtle intonation and control in her voice. No screech whatsover..."

The hastily recorded Quad mix was a little above average for the time, but not anything exceptional, especially compared to what the best engineers do today, but it sounded pretty darn good the day we played it. Having great speakers was important, but I think the room treatments really controlled the excesses of the recording.
post #64 of 496
Thread Starter 
On the subject of poor or less-than-great recordings, these were actually a big part of my criteria for my most recent speaker purchase. I listen to a broad range of music, and I wanted speakers that not only sounded great on well-recorded stuff, but that also didn't make the rest of my stuff unlistenable. So I created two audition discs. One with good recordings, and another of torture tracks. Thankfully, I was able to find a set of speakers that do really seem to make the most of what I have. No, bad recordings weren't made "better", but they are still listenable.

I often see comments in this forum that a particular speaker sounds great with audiophile recordings, but that it also made poor recordings worse. I've been there more than once. With certain recordings through high-end speakers, I would literally want to turn the system off.

I have a suspicion that many speakers that make mincemeat out of less-than-great recordings, are actually contributing to the problem, not just "revealing the flaws in the recording" and I think it may have to do with the crossover between the midrange and the tweet, as that is usually where I hear problems-- in the upper mids / lower treble.
post #65 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

Users will order this list differently, and I'm deliberately not putting it in any order here because that's a debate with no winners:

room
EQ/crossover/network
source
media (or source material if you prefer)
listening position
amplification
processor
system installation

All of these stand between a great speaker and perfection, either helping, hurting, or, rarely, staying out of the way.

In a recent DIY installation of a JBL Synthesis® Array One system at my place, augmented by paying a few grand to a HT designer for consultation and two grand for a real JBL DACS calibration, I learned a lot about the pursuit of perfection.

1. Synthesis® Array Monitors are amazing out of the box and beg the question, "Can these really sound any better?"

Love to hear those speakers!!!

2. Putting acoustical panels on the front wall changes the room in astounding ways.

1" wasnt much of a change 2" on front and reflection points on my HT walls was very cool, thanks the experts here on AVS home theater contstruction forum

3. Putting diffusers (even cheap ones like I used) and absorbers at the right places on the sides and rear brings the room to life.

havent done the diffusers but I have huge tri-corner bass traps, all DIY

4. Actively bi-amping through networked Parametric EQ processors with pinpoint crossover control takes a speaker from amazing to stunning--I mean literally stunning, as in "Migosh, what just happened? I need a minute to get my wits back."

Im a huge believer in Active design, in room EQing. I have DCX2496 for all that but soon I will get the Odyessey PRO kit in house, I have read and heard great things about that!

5. An honest 150-200W per channel from an amp that could double as an arc welder is more impressive than 500W/ch from any big consumer amp I'm familiar with, both in terms of volume and clarity.

Pro amps? Big fan

6. Running dedicated power circuits (in this case two 20A circuits) really does make everything sound better, measurably better.

I would like to see the measurements, I have dedicated 20 A circuits too but only line sag would matter....no??

7. There are some things experienced professionals with the right equipment can do that you just ought to pay for, such as a calibration. I could never take this system to its current level on my own.

very true but Im extremely stubborn about it and sadly the Pros that I read and learn from daily do not live near me erea....I have also had a bad experience in the past with some. Its hard to give the locals another shot after that.

8. Size matters in unexpected ways. I never imagined how much of an improvement 18" drivers would be over 15" drivers with regard to LF clarity and articulation.

It depends on the driver...its not the size as much as the Xmax and motor pushing, along with other parameters like inductance, etc.

Of course I learned a lot more than this, but for the purposes of this discussion, that's most of what's relevant. All these things contributed to taking me closer to perfection than I've ever been, both for movies and for music, especially MCH.

However, I know it's not yet perfect.

Without taking all this (and probably more) into consideration, it's unlikely that the full potential of any great speaker can be realized.

Very nice setup, its awesome to have something like that!!
post #66 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I often see comments in this forum that a particular speaker sounds great with audiophile recordings, but that it also made poor recordings worse. I've been there more than once. With certain recordings through high-end speakers, I would literally want to turn the system off.


In most cases, I would say they say so because the speaker distort/color the sound. I listen to a LOT of crappy recordings, black metal, punk, etc. And I would say like this, a speaker that don't color the sound much and have very low distortion, will make both the audiophile recordings and poor recordings, sound as good as they can. Why? Because it is MUCH better to just hear the problem that the recording have than recording + speaker. In many cases, the bad recording and the speakers problem will give birth to a much bigger problem.

So, a rather compressed and bright recording will not sound better is the speaker also compress the sound or are a little brighter. If the speaker are a little muddy, then the recording with a little more muddy sound will sound even worse.
As you see, there is no easy way out, the best way is to have as good and true speaker as possible to start with.
post #67 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I still find it odd though, that the Aerials and the Revels measured so closely

I still hope you reconsider the assumption that you were actually looking at real measurements. I submit you were looking at pseudo-measurements, and incomplete ones at that. Toole, Olive, Voecks all talk about what a joke pseudo-anechoic measurements are. Patrick Hart also said as much in his posts on this forum.
post #68 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Very nice setup, its awesome to have something like that!!

Penngray, thanks. As for the dedicated circuits, it's mostly the freedom from interference.

As an example, I already had two 20A recept circuits plus a third circuit for lights on the lowest level. Before moving in, I forced the seller to install a Radon removal system, which the contractor wired into the existing circuit. It runs 24/7 pulling Radon from under the slab via a fan that ports the gas into the air above the third story. A quick Fourier (FFT) test shows that the fan motor creates some interference ("noise") in the line, and it tends very slowly to introduce more noise over time as it wears and ages.

Having a pair of independent 20A circuits passing through a 40A filter at the breaker box segregates these circuits from that infinitesimal noise and creates a much lower sound floor.

I don't worship at the altar of clean power, but I do respect it, and I think a perfect speaker would require as clean a power signal as possible, assuming everything else in the chain doesn't corrupt it.
post #69 of 496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

I still hope you reconsider the assumption that you were actually looking at real measurements. I submit you were looking at pseudo-measurements, and incomplete ones at that. Toole, Olive, Voecks all talk about what a joke pseudo-anechoic measurements are. Patrick Hart also said as much in his posts on this forum.

I've got to polish-up on my reading of Floyde and Toole's more recent writings. It's been a few years.

But I was under the impression that pseudo-anechoic were fine for frequencies above 400Hz or so.
post #70 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I've got to polish-up on my reading of Floyde and Toole's more recent writings. It's been a few years.

But I was under the impression that pseudo-anechoic were fine for frequencies above 400Hz or so.

Double-check me on this: I think what they said is relying on pseudo anechoic measurements misses a whole class of resonances, so if you only look at FR for a tiny fraction of a second, the curve will look one way. If you let the tone go on for more time (a second or two? more? I forget) you get a whole different view b/c certain resonances take a little time to show up.
post #71 of 496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

Double-check me on this: I think what they said is relying on pseudo anechoic measurements misses a whole class of resonances, so if you only look at FR for a tiny fraction of a second, the curve will look one way. If you let the tone go on for more time (a second or two? more? I forget) you get a whole different view b/c certain resonances take a little time to show up.

Ahh, that makes sense. I would still think that this would apply more to bass than mid/treble frequencies. I've looked at enough spectral decay plots to see a trend of diminishing decay as frequency rises. Not with all speakers, but most.
post #72 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

There is no perfect speakers but some are really good. What I want is a speaker that color the sound as little as possible, have very low distortion, don't compress easily, have high SPL, have a big sweetspot, and give a focused and real soundstage.
That is what I'm looking for, at least.

Dito, and it's what I mostly found in my last choice. Now find me one that does all that, has drop-dead looks and doesn't break the bank, and now we're talking.

Your system is only good as your weakest link, and even then it will never be perfect; nothing is. Of course, there is a difference between the true definition of "perfect" and "perfect for you" or "me." Even then, the word perfect probably means you settled, because audio is all about balancing trade-offs, of which an individual needs to determine which they can and cannot live with. Perfect in the world of audio is...impossible.

Buy what YOU think sounds good. Fix your room, be sure you have the best front end and source components you can afford, and EQ to your liking if you still aren't happy. If you love this hobby then you need to realize one thing about attempting to achieve this "audio perfection": nothing is "wrong" as long as it gets you where you want to be as far as sound reproduction goes. And dont' let anyone else convince you otherwise.

A more fitting title for the thread would be: "Nothing is perfect in the world of audio reproduction." Speakers are just a small part of the grand equation.
post #73 of 496
Thread Starter 
Hey Nuance -

I was wondering when you would stop by.

Quote:


If you love this hobby then you need to realize one thing about attempting to achieve this "audio perfection": nothing is "wrong" as long as it gets you where you want to be as far as sound reproduction goes. And dont' let anyone else convince you otherwise.

Wise words. For the longest time I thought that if I get really accurate speakers, I shouldn't need to do anything to the sound. I had quite the mental hurdle to get over to accept that if I wanted to be happy, or something closer to it, that EQing is not "wrong". It isn't needed all that often, but it can push arecording in the right direction and now it is just another tool in my toolbelt.

Quote:


Even then, the word perfect probably means you settled, because audio is all about balancing trade-offs, of which an individual needs to determine which they can and cannot live with.

Also very true in my experience. Too many times a speaker "upgrade" was really just a shift in perspective and a new set of problems. One speaker might have the best midrange but the bass is a little loose, and another might have the best sounding treble, but the midrange is too laid back, etc., etc. etc.. Good luck finding one that gets it all right, even if that is just your personal definition of right. I loved something about every speaker I've owned, but it takes a while to get a set that gets most of it right and has flaws/character that you can live with.
post #74 of 496
It's funny how our different quests eventually lead us to the same conclusions - do whatever you can to ensure you're happy with the sound in your home, and forget everything else.

I used to be one of those "purists," but I've come to the light.
post #75 of 496
I find that a lot of poorly engineered rock music sounds much better in my car on the crappy stock system. I need to measure the FR of the car system and then create an EQ setting in my HT which mimics it.
post #76 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

It's funny how our different quests eventually lead us to the same conclusions - do whatever you can to ensure you're happy with the sound in your home, and forget everything else.

I used to be one of those "purists," but I've come to the light.

My coming to the light was realizing that competently designed amplification and 2 channel digital for all practial purposes sounds identical, and that the speaker/room interaction makes up the vast majority of what I like/dislike about my listening experience. After a person has spent $99 on a CD player and $299 on competently designed amplification, there is very little sound quality improvement to be had making lateral or incremental moves on source or amp. Same goes for biwiring, biamping, expensive cables, power conditioning, etc. Looking for big sonic improvements from electronics is a waste of time in the vast majority of cases. The big impact to be made is in speakers.

Another part of my 'coming to the light' is to completely discount the subjective portion of any magazine review of any audio equipment. I like to read the descriptions of the gear and read any notes about the company, but relying on a single magazine review for a purchase decision is a horrendous idea. I used to think that relying on magazine reviews made sense because those guys get to listen to a lot of gear and therefore they know what sounds good. Well, that seems logical but it hasn't worked out for me at all. Almost every speaker (and amp and CD player) I bought over the years was on the basis of a favorable review, and that was a collosal waste of time and money. When it comes to building the system I have now, the magazine reviews were worthless, as were the forum reviews. I've gotten the most benefit from discussions of R&D methodology, as well as basic philosophy. The comments by Patrick Hart (plhart - former speaker engineer at Harman) on this forum, as well as Paul Scarpelli, Sean Olive and Earl Geddes and some others have been the most informative. The best thing I've come across from the hi fi press are the interviews with designers themselves such as Kevin Voecks of Revel. Also worthy of mention are the NRC measurements from Soundstage. And I can't forget to include the holy sciptures themselves: the writings of Floyd Toole et al on Harman's and Infinity's website. Thoroughly understanding the NRC methodology and research results has freed me from more mythology than anything else. I'd highly recommend them to anyone who wants to learn more about audio.

A person who is looking to reduce the risk of buying poorly performing speakers would do well to look to those companies who employ a mix of rigorous objective measurements with double blind testing in scientfically controlled conditions. This is why I always look for information on development methodology on the websites of manufacturers that get mentioned in forums like this. I wouldn't bother with a manufacturer that doesn't care enough to explain their R&D methodology. I'm not going to place blind faith in their marketing claims.
post #77 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Dito, and it's what I mostly found in my last choice. Now find me one that does all that, has drop-dead looks and doesn't break the bank, and now we're talking.


I have found it
post #78 of 496
I liked your second and third paragraphs a lot. I didn't quite grasp the first, maybe my fault, but I agree especially on the subject of room/speaker dynamics.

Harkening back to one of my earlier posts, I'd add the importance of good first-person advice from a competent professional. TTTT, I got some bids from so-called high end installers whom I'm certain could have made a prettier room than I did, but the one-on-one experience I had with them in the beginning turned me off so much that I wouldn't work with them for free.

Arrogant, opinionated, motivated by greed, they shocked me by how unprofessional their demeanor was and how condescending they were in dealing with me. Everything was opinion and upsell.

Asking around, I was referred by the nice folks at JBL Synthesis® to Chris Neumann, formerly of JBL, who ended up being both my consultant and calibrator. (Paul Scarpelli might know him?) He's such a practical, down-to-earth guy who has hundreds of Synthesis® installs under his belt that I was really lucky he agreed to work with me on my DIY endeavor.

He understood my limitations and situation and really worked with me to get a result that was far beyond my expectations. He was simple and direct in telling me both the art and science of certain important things, backed up by his years at JBL/Harman's world-class facility in Northridge, CA. He pushed me a little bit when I balked or whined about extra work, but in each instance, he was right. After all, he actually knew and worked with some of the guys who are now quoted and referred to for their important work in acoustics, sound reinforcement, and speaker design.

Once the calibration was done, he made me feel like my DIY theater was world-class, and, of course, to my ears and heart it was.

The best part of all this was the reasonable cost for his expertise. I know some folks balk at paying even a few hundred dollars to have a capable professional work with them. I spent a couple thousand. However, when you spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on your system, it's foolish to get cheap on everything else: room treatments, speaker placement, proper EQ or calibration, and so on.

Like most audio fans, I like to tinker and experiment, including doing my own measurements, etc., but having gone through this experience, there's nothing like having an expert guide and goad you to do the right things and really get it right.

My conclusion is that there are various stages of "perfect." In 1970 my first new speakers were JBL L100s. They were perfect in my college dorm room. I still have them and love them, but they're far from perfect today.

Along the way, I've had a number of larger and better speakers, and I became more careful about placement and room interaction, and I moved from receivers to preamps and amps, to pre/pros and amps, to pre/pros and bridged amps and active parametric EQ, etc. Each seemed perfect at the time.

Today they seem far more flawed, though I still have and listen to many of them regularly and enjoy them. Now I have a new perfect speaker; well, actually I guess it's three speakers: HF, LF, and sub

As I get older (late 50s now), I realize how far I've come in this pursuit, certainly farther than I ever imagined in 1970. I wonder if I'll have the time, energy, and $$ to pursue the greater perfection that I know is down the road.
post #79 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

My coming to the light was realizing that competently designed amplification and 2 channel digital for all practial purposes sounds identical, and that the speaker/room interaction makes up the vast majority of what I like/dislike about my listening experience. After a person has spent $99 on a CD player and $299 on competently designed amplification, there is very little sound quality improvement to be had making lateral or incremental moves on source or amp. Same goes for biwiring, biamping, expensive cables, power conditioning, etc. Looking for big sonic improvements from electronics is a waste of time in the vast majority of cases. The big impact to be made is in speakers.

Another part of my 'coming to the light' is to completely discount the subjective portion of any magazine review of any audio equipment. I like to read the descriptions of the gear and read any notes about the company, but relying on a single magazine review for a purchase decision is a horrendous idea. I used to think that relying on magazine reviews made sense because those guys get to listen to a lot of gear and therefore they know what sounds good. Well, that seems logical but it hasn't worked out for me at all. Almost every speaker (and amp and CD player) I bought over the years was on the basis of a favorable review, and that was a collosal waste of time and money. When it comes to building the system I have now, the magazine reviews were worthless, as were the forum reviews. I've gotten the most benefit from discussions of R&D methodology, as well as basic philosophy. The comments by Patrick Hart (plhart - former speaker engineer at Harman) on this forum, as well as Paul Scarpelli, Sean Olive and Earl Geddes and some others have been the most informative. The best thing I've come across from the hi fi press are the interviews with designers themselves such as Kevin Voecks of Revel. Also worthy of mention are the NRC measurements from Soundstage. And I can't forget to include the holy sciptures themselves: the writings of Floyd Toole et al on Harman's and Infinity's website. Thoroughly understanding the NRC methodology and research results has freed me from more mythology than anything else. I'd highly recommend them to anyone who wants to learn more about audio.

A person who is looking to reduce the risk of buying poorly performing speakers would do well to look to those companies who employ a mix of rigorous objective measurements with double blind testing in scientfically controlled conditions. This is why I always look for information on development methodology on the websites of manufacturers that get mentioned in forums like this. I wouldn't bother with a manufacturer that doesn't care enough to explain their R&D methodology. I'm not going to place blind faith in their marketing claims.

Great post! I completely agree. While some of the amps and cables and what not might make a small difference, it's usually a lateral move or too expensive to warrant the small difference in sound quality, at least for me. And sometimes the difference in SQ isn't for the better.

Like you said, ignore the opinions of the magazines (except a select few like Kal), and pay attention to the engineer's themselves and their white papers (Toole is king). Said information is very valuable. Finally, go listen for yourself with as little bias as possible. If you want zero bias, allow yourself to partake in double blind testing, though it's not always plausible.

Finally, the room acoustics play one of the biggest roles in what we hear, if not the biggest. When you audition speakers, you can guarantee that those speakers won't sound the same in your room, so try to get an in-home audition. If you're as anal as I am about sound and cannot get your room acoustics under control, don't fool yourself into thinking you'll achieve "perfection." Fortunately, my room is getting better with every change I make. I am very happy with the sound as of right now, and I am confident it will get better when I add more treatments. And that's all I could ever ask for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

I have found it

Sweet! What is it you've got again?
post #80 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

If you're as anal as I am about sound and cannot get your room acoustics under control, don't fool yourself into thinking you'll achieve "perfection."

What is it you've got again?

I've got Revel f32's.

My story: Got bit by hifi bug at age 14 or so. Desparate for hifi, but couldn't afford. Many many speakers, even some NRC-influenced ones...ignorance, high hopes, separates (amps, bi-amping), bi-wiring, cd players, read Toole's white papers, didn't understand them very well...near giving up on improving hifi situation, bought "last" pair of speakers, tried Audyssey in Denon 3806 - didn't provide nirvana - came across rumor about Infinity Primus 360's, bought a pair b/c they were so cheap, promptly got rid of "last" pair of speakers, read Toole's white papers again & started to understand, had money left over, tried several more speakers, none displaced 360's, got to visit Harman and spent hours & hours asking questions of engineers (they've since hired a bouncer and put up a no fanboys sign) ... found used Revel F32's for $1500, jumped on opportunity. No room treatments, unfortunately. Also have Infinity 2.6p's (and some leftover Primus models) in bedroom and office system. Working on Ocean's 11 style screenplay as star vehicle for Toole, Olive, Voecks, et al.
post #81 of 496
Be careful with iTunes EQ (or any EQ really). It is better to subtract from, than boost a frequency, otherwise you might end up with a clipped signal.
post #82 of 496
The F32's are a great speaker (so were the F30's). Sounds like you've got a great system, markwriter.
post #83 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

The F32's are a great speaker (so were the F30's). Sounds like you've got a great system, markwriter.

Well, for kind of a low maintenance, can't go to any extremes, bang for the buck, can't do surround and don't play extremely loud, it's really been good. I keep trying to get some subwoofer action that really helps things, but that is much harder than it seems. I've been playing with two Infinty CSW-10's, the subwoofer designed by Patrick Hart. His design was turned into the Revel B12. My room is not cooperative. In one area I get some fantastic bass that is clearly below the range of the F32's, but I can't get that at the listening position. I have so little flexibility in where the subs go that it just doesn't work out. I'd love to hear FileCat's system b/c there has been a lot of time/money spent tuning the room in addition to the money spent on equipment.
post #84 of 496
Are you able to try the subwoofers stacked in a corner of the room? That should add some decent room gain and might get you lower extension at louder volumes. Also, have you taken measurements at the listening position to see what the in-room response looks like?
post #85 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

... there is very little sound quality improvement to be had making lateral or incremental moves on source or amp. ...

I've found the same, 5-10 amps later.

So did some other folks ...

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
post #86 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Are you able to try the subwoofers stacked in a corner of the room? That should add some decent room gain and might get you lower extension at louder volumes. Also, have you taken measurements at the listening position to see what the in-room response looks like?

I will try that. Unfortunately I can't get perfectly in the corner as there is a potted plant there.

I also need to get on the path to measurements -- should I start out with rat shack or plug in something to my pc and go with one of the measurement packages out there? I have a Behringer DEQ 2496 and a ECM8000 mic that I've not even taken out of the box. I suspect there's a whole world of measuring in there. I don't know how accurate the RTA is in that thing, though. I've had those for a long time but have never taken the time to unpack and start twiddling.
post #87 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpmct View Post

I've found the same, 5-10 amps later.

So did some other folks ...

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

It makes me cry when people talk about similarly priced amps as if they were like different wines. It puts newbies on an endless cycle of buying and selling 50-100 wpc amps, thinking each one will have significant differences that can be easily perceived.
post #88 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post

Be careful with iTunes EQ (or any EQ really). It is better to subtract from, than boost a frequency, otherwise you might end up with a clipped signal.

I hear ya on that. I have lackluster low bass at the listening position and I don't think any amount of EQ will "fill in" the hole.
post #89 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Sweet! What is it you've got again?


Ino audio i32s and Ino audio profundus Y-4. But I will maybe get i64s and profundus Y-8 instead, the will give me over 6 dB more to play with. And I did 120 dB at listningposition today!
post #90 of 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

I will try that. Unfortunately I can't get perfectly in the corner as there is a potted plant there.

I also need to get on the path to measurements -- should I start out with rat shack or plug in something to my pc and go with one of the measurement packages out there? I have a Behringer DEQ 2496 and a ECM8000 mic that I've not even taken out of the box. I suspect there's a whole world of measuring in there. I don't know how accurate the RTA is in that thing, though. I've had those for a long time but have never taken the time to unpack and start twiddling.

Well, you've already got the makings of most of what you'll need. I'd definitely use that Behringer mic, as it's more accurate than the radioshack meter and measures up to 20KHz. You've got a great EQ (2496), so all you need is a decent soundcard that will allow the mic connection. I use this and I love it. I snagged it for under $100.

As for the plant, put it on top of the subs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

Ino audio i32s and Ino audio profundus Y-4. But I will maybe get i64s and profundus Y-8 instead, the will give me over 6 dB more to play with. And I did 120 dB at listningposition today!

120dB? Nice!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › There is no perfect speaker . . .