Speakers ~$10K for rock, alternative and some pop. Not Jazz or Classical. - Page 7

LOL, Danley Synergy horns are for large stadiums, halls, ballrooms etc.......typical home AV setup with seating for what? 4-8 typically? LOL! Waste of money. These products are designed for rooms that are typically much larger than the average AVS forum members house a few times over, LOL!

What the hell are you talking about? And who is saying or implying Kef or Harman sucks? Instead of making assumptions and rolling the eyes why don't you just grow a set and bluntly state whats on your mind? Be the Hulk Mr. Banner.

Oh so the danley synergy thread in this very forum is full of people who own stadiums?? thats interesting.

Harman, you mean the company that designs all their pro gear around directivity and power response??



http://www.pispeakers.com/ssdm_99.pdf

Page 28 of this pdf.. read up.

What Im saying is that is its use in a typical home theater is basically just a waste of their design intentions.

The only thing that may go unused is their maximum output capability depending on model. Beyond that I'm not seeing any "waste" by using Synergy Horns in a home environment.

I wasn't referring to you.

I know you love KEF, as do I.

Anyway, perhaps I misinterpreted a previous post by someone else.

ntrain96,

Have you ever measured your system for compression/distortion? I know of hardly ANY monitor sized speakers that can reproduce 110db flat at the MLP without distortion.

Measuring peaks of 110db with an SPL meter is one thing, but regardless of how accurate the SPL meter is, you won't know how much the system is distorting to do that unless you specifically measure for it.

With my previous system, Boston Acoustics E100 89db sensitivity, 400watt power handling (driven by XPA-1's, 2.5' from front wall, 10' from the MLP, crossed at 40Hz to a Seaton Submersive HP, I measured full frequency sweeps at 75db, 85db, 95db and 105db at the MLP to see if I was getting compression/distortion. All the graphs traced each other so I knew the setup could play flat at 105db at my listening position 10 feet away.

With other setups that I've measured though, by the time you get to 95db 10' away, the 95db sweep does NOT trace the 75db sweep, much less 105 or 110db. An SPL meter may show the setup hitting peaks that high, but the system is nowhere near flat any longer. You need higher efficiency and more volume the lower the frequency you desire to be able to play loud.

Sure, I've measured bookshelf/monitors that could play flat down to 45Hz,... at 75db. At 85db, they weren't flat down to 45Hz any longer.

As for localizing the subs, it varies from individual to individual. Some folks can't seem to localize anything even at 120Hz, some folks like me can localize below 80Hz. Whether the sub fires down has nothing to do with it except perhaps for which direction the draft is created with a ported sub.



Max

Oh, well then I apologize for my previous comment, the timing of it made like seem like it was directed at me, lol........why didnt you just quote whoever made the comment or insinuation then?

I do not understand why so many people are jumping on Ntrain96 for his suggestions about going active. I personally think that would be a great idea and not only save the user some of his hard earned cash, but also, it would be a fun way to tweak his system, you know, get more personal with it. I also completely understand that not everyone feels comfortable doing the necessary mods to convert a passive speaker to an active speaker.

With that being said, he has peaked my curiosity about what I could possibly accomplish with my own Sierra-1 monitors by going active. I would love to be able to squeeze some more performance out of these speakers. Iv even been on the fence about whether or not I wanted to sell them and pursue other options as to my 2 channel system, but, I think I will just keep them and see what kind of sound quality inprovements I can get by doing some mods.


Ntrain96, you have a pm from me!

Responded, btw....if you have had your 1's for awhile, best way to get new life out of them is to add a sub or pair of subs first if you havent already. Those are very good monitors, using a good above average built cabinet and drivers, worth dialing into your environment without question. Depending on how hands on you want to get you would need to add a second set of binding posts besides removing the passive xover to run actively. If you dont want to do this you can still pick up a management system like the DCX2496(assuming you have XLR outputs on your source and inputs on your amp)and use alot of the features before cracking into the monitors themselves. Just having a nice pair of subs and the ability to EQ them out accurately in your room will give a potential huge performance increase.

The irony of life. I didn't want to offend one person (by quoting him), but ended up offending everyone.

No matter how much I disagree with anyone, I truly do not want or mean to offend them.

I would recommend that the OP give someone like Zaph, RJB, Curt Campbell $10K, their room setup, and let them design a speaker. They get to pick the drivers, pick the X-Over (passive or active) and make a cool $3-4K for themselves.

Thanks a lot for the compliment. Man, the speaker I would build (all active) for $10K. Man oh man oh man.

The XO is the brains of any speaker. It's the most important component of any speaker.

Unless you are a talented speaker designer/builder, I don't think altering the speaker's XO will improve the sound.

Even if you could improve, how much could you squeeze out of it? 5%, 10%? Is that even worth the trouble?

For most of us who are not professional & talented speaker builders, altering an already well designed and built XO is something we will never want to mess with.

For some of us, like myself, who cannot even build a box (meaning I suck at building things), it's out of the question.

Problem with xover designs is that on many occasions they are built with the intent as to keep them as cheap as possible. Even on the "expensive" speakers. And when you add passive components you degrade the signal. More components in line means driver to driver tolerances in signal reproduction become more skewed, dynamics compressed especially as the xover components heat up during use etc etc. By going active you now have a the ability to tighten up the dirver to driver leveling which will improve imaging, dynamics increased etc. You dont need to necessarily change the slopes or xover points, and can keep those intact if desired without any of the potential drawbacks.

THe only drawback to going active is that you need to spend more money for at least one more pair of amp channels and an active xover/signal processing unit.

Whether or not this is worth it, will vary from end user to end user. For me it was well worth it. Having full control of my speakers individual drivers and their in room response made a night and day difference for me.

Quite possibly true. Can you supply scientific data to show the correlation between "cheap" parts and audio sound quality? You are implying effect on soundwaves, correct?


Degrade the signal audibly, or in some other way? Can you supply scientific data to support this assertion? Listening test statistics would suffice. Thanks.


Do you have data to support these claims? How did you do a spatial comparison between your modified and unmodified KEFs? What method was used?


What about ground loop potential from the extra amplifier(s)? No possibility?


How did you separate the modified in-room response being responsible for the changes you heard, vs the mere fact that you went active? I noticed you couldn't supply any data to support your claim of maximum SPL from your KEFs when asked earlier. Can you provide any data to support any of your claims here? Thanks.

cheers,

AJ

I'll hit this in order:

A. One of the big differences in parts "quality" is the tolerance %. If say one crossover is using 10% tolerance parts vs. another that might use a lower 5% tolerance rating as to how the signal integrity is affected. On simple 1st order corssovers its less critical, but on steeper slope/more complex crossovers with more parts, you now becomes more critical how good the parts are as you add up the compnents used. So say you have a driver that is 3db more efficient than a 2nd one that it will be matched up with. You put a resistor in line to decrease its amplitude of the first, but if the tolerance of the resister used is poor and not spot on to its impedance rating it could mean the output of the 1st driver is a bit too muted or still has too much output compared to the 2nd driver.

On complex crossovers you have alot of parts, all of which have % tolerance ratings........the more parts inline, the greater the chance for signal alteration/smearing from driver to driver as an example.

B. Again, if say between you have 4 drivers(2 each per speaker)on your main monitors with a +/- 3db rating from X to Y frequency response, thats a big window for error at countless points in the frequency spektrum in amplitude in which you can have a 6db swing more at any given frequency. If you have one tweeter thats +3db at 10khz on the left side, but its down 2db on the right side thats a 5db swing. Now say also at 5khz that same tweeter that is hot again at 2db vs. -2db on the other side's tweeter, it can all add up to image being shifted and smeared. When your able to bypass the passive xovers and actively level match each individual driver to each other in room, and then EQ out each individuals driver at multiple frequency points to match them up tighter, you end up with a speaker with a more focues sound and image. Im sure you can understand the logic in this.

C. I have quite a few pair of Kef's, only one pair was modified though(the one I used for listening to music) for 2 channel music. BUt the direct difference in response using pink noise and signal sweeps was significant. I was able to match the left and right speakers/drivers at all frequencies to within 1-3db(+/- .5-1.5db)through the spektrum vs originally a +/- 8-9db in room difference(And the passive xovers alone accounted for a 2db difference on the midrange driver matching L/R and a full db on the tweeters as well). Via use of course driver level matching and EQing. The biggest noticeable difference is the pinpoint placement of sounds, vocals and instruments. Not a small difference, but a starting one.

D. Ground loop issues? Not for my setup.

E. Measured. And repeatable with good measuring equipment(Audiocontrol SA3055), Dayton Omnimic V2 and multiple set up/testing discs Ive had from my IASCA days, along with a multitude of Stereophile's own testing discs and various other pieces of software.

I personally think that possibly going active is a great idea, based on what I know about it. Like for instance with my Ascend Sierra-1's that I am now considering making active. I realize that these speakers might have measured flat at the factory or where ever they were designed and built, but in my room they are not flat. There are variations in the frequency responce due to the acoustical issues with my room. I am guessing that it would be better to try and fix those issues that are due to my room, by being able to time align and EQ my drivers to the room that I have them in. I am new to this and am still learning so please forgive me if I am wrong in this assumption. I already own a 6 channel amp that is just sitting in the box. All I would have to do is have someone do the physical mods to the speakers them selves, purchase the DCX2496, and that is it. Then by using the equipment that I already have purchased to measure everything, I could tweak them to sound better. Anything wrong with this?

Oh and Ntrain96, I already own a very capable sub, the AV123 MFW-15. I might purchase another one some day, if one came along at the right price. Right now I can't even use the one I already got, due to the fact that my neighbor does not like her pictures to be rattled off the way

Ok, so A, B, C, E...zero data, zero verification/correlation of claim as related to audibility, via scientific listening tests.
D - single data point, your system, unaware of such variable prior.
Thanks.

Yup. Are you surprised?

You'll notice the OP hasn't posted much lately because the thread has been derailed, and suggestions of DIY, monitors or active designs, which he doesn't want, are now being discussed. It's just too difficult for certain people to stay on topic I guess...

ntrain, how about you answer AJ's questions with proof and scientific data?

Well said. The phase issues near the crossover region are less problematic with larger tower speakers too. This is all moot, though, as the OP has stated numerous time he does not want bookshelf speakers. Certain people need to accept.that.

I think he might be referring to the accounting department getting into the cost cutting phase of a a speakers development. There are plenty of passive x-over guru's that have taken apart multi-thousand dollar speakers only to find the the x-over design in and of it's self was a cost cutting measure and non-optimal.


Reasonably speaking issues of wild impedance swing and phase angles get put to rest. Plus more amp power makes it to the transducer.


Potential always exists. I think with all the amplification on one circuit though that hand may be a bit over played.


In the area of adjusting BSC or adding EQ to taste doesn't need data to support the premise of going active. It's simply a fact of going active.

I think his points have been reasonable and I wouldn't want his points 'Amir'd' to death any more than you would

Except the OP does not give a rip about active or DIY. This topic belongs elsewhere, as we should keep the topic focused on the jima4a's wishes.

Jima4a, do find out if you can get out of work obligations and attend RMAF. I'll be attending for sure, as will a bunch of other guys that would enjoy meeting you and hanging out a bit. Keep us posted.

You are going to have to respond same to others, so don't respond to me about keeping it on track when it is others who have taken it off track before me. No one likes a hypocrite.

I still think taking $10K and paying a well respected designer to do a custom set of speakers would be one very potential way to go to get the most for the $$.

Quote honestly if you want to verify data or experiment, then DIY. What I did with my system can be duplicated with ANYONE's system and room enviroment.

As for the pros/cons of passive vs. active setups, googling any of this information will yield hundreds of links.

But hey, a few links for you: http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=180885

http://www.deqx.com/crossovers.htm

http://sound.westhost.com/lr-passive.htm#s4.3

And Im sure each link can garner hundreds of more links for "research", whitepapers etc........

Terms like insertion loss, poor transient response, audible ringing, phase disparity and efficiency matching among the drivers, are not issues you hear about when using an active xover setup. If people want to doubt what I state, or think no real world auidble improvments can be had, thats fine..........but you can only garner so much reading up on the internet etc. Only way you will know the real world differences for yourself is through DIY experiementation.

AJinFLA: SInce I assume your the 1 man crew/owner of "Soundfield Audio" just curious where your getting your Kef drivers from? Are you gutting B stock speakers or buying drivers through Corey at Kef America? Are you using Kef's hi/mid xover boards as well?

Do you even realize who you are saying that to?

Edit - Now you do, but did you at the time of your original post quoted here in mine?

Yep, the description in his page states he is an avid DIY speaker builder(Or modder?). I have no issues with that. Looks like a beefed up R300 replacing the passive/ported 6" driver with an 8" active one run sealed. Interesting monitor he has. Id like to know specifics. Though I think he needs to upgrade his measuring mic for his software. (200hz-15khz?) Missing a few octaves of posted info there or how the measurements were derived even since were on the data kick, lol.

"I" don't have to verify anything or determine where your goal posts have shifted to. That is logic 101 failure. You made claims. The onus rests squarely on you to support them.


We have zero data and thus nothing about about your system parameters or any correlation to subsequent claims.


...all of which are hypothetical (or worse, frivolous) and have zero to do with your specific/audibility claims about "cheap" parts affecting real loudspeakers as a generality.


Ok and you claimed to have done just that. So where is your data? Please be specific in how these "audible" benefits were correlated, by you. No more links to hypothetical benefits. Tangible ones as shown by your experimentation. Thanks again.

cheers,

AJ