Speakers ~$10K for rock, alternative and some pop. Not Jazz or Classical. - Page 4

Um, you've "played" with a DEQ................which we arent even talking about here. I used the DCX as an example. The DEQ is an entirely different piece altogether....................

Ad you have yet to disprove anything either. I love it, you love showering people with your "opinions" and statements, but when you get backed into a wall and cannot disprove what I state(which is the simple way of acknowledging Im right without admitting it)you go back to the crying "prove it" statement. With all my opinions and statements that supposedly are not true or have no merit, you continue to time and time again post no links or facts on your own to disclaim what I state. LOL!

BTW, how was your "play time" on the DEQ, LOL!

It isnt that hard.

Hey I do change my own oil. That is I buy the oil and let my driver do the deed

Trust me it wouldn't be 5 mins as you mentioned...

Get off it already, you're killing this formerly interesting thread. This is not a DIY forum. Try the tech talk at PE or the DIY forums here. No one on this thread other than you wants to take their speakers apart.

Yeah, I know. I've played with a DCX2496 too. Don't assume, ntrain, because we all know how assuming makes you look.

Clarify please......

Yup...part of their business model. Great speakers too. Just one example though.

Trust me, you havent played with either of them. Your own posts show that 100%........all in your head. Nice try though.

One example was all thats needed...........you stated its impractical to the mass market....obviously its not. I implement a similiar system on my setup. Yep it cost money but I paid alot less for my setup(monitors,stands,subs,amps,rack processors) than most people do for just a pair of supposed "high end" towers.

Maybe Im just proficient with a screwdriver and pick, but 4 screws to remove doesnt seem too hard to me...........

Love how you only reply to posts where you have a good answer.

I wonder how much products would cost with well designed passive crossovers.

One thing to keep in mind is DSP crossovers may be used because the drivers have flaws that can not be corrected with a passive XO......

Wha? Did you just insult me without even trying to find out how to reach the crossover in the speaker I mentioned. Wow just wow...

Someone might want to call the moderator and get this guy off this thread. It's been derailed by him long enough.

I'm not quite sure why he's allowed to post here at all. He gets reported often but is still allowed to harass people and derail topics.


Prove it. We're still waiting. I have already proven you wrong by quoting from Toole and Olives case studies. How about you go read them and get back to me. Also, did you miss my post about off axis performance be crucial to a non controlled directivity design?

Show me a horn speaker that measures the same as an electrostatic speaker and I'll believe you, but for now these two statements are contradictory and incredible. Speakers that measure the same will sound the same. Measurements are many and varied. Resonance, phase, linearity, and FR being equal will result in similar sound.

If I missed a post.....feel free to re ask the question, Im not avoiding anything here at all.

And as far as driver flaws that cannot be corrected with a passive xover, but can be correct with a DSP processor, sure, I fully agree 100%.......it just pushes my point along further how useful a tool these management systems can be towards improving SQ. Nothing wrong with that at all.


Also, one point I did forget to mention. It was stated can a speaker be improved STILL without pulling the passive xover or tearing apart the speaker. THe answer to that is YES.

Many of these speakers come with double or triple binding posts allowing you bi amp or tri amp each individual driver seperately. So yes you can technically "fix" these types of speakers without pulling them apart since you can still tweak and fix time alignment,level match each individual driver more precisely and eq the individual drivers to near perfection in your room listening environment.

The right tool for the right job. Hsave you ever gutted a pair of Salon's? Individual crossovers, not easy to reach some of them, but with the right tool its still not a hard job at all. Thats why flex/right angle extensions are for.

So insult you? No, not at all. Only you know your own hand skill level. For me with the correct tools, no its not hard at all.

Because its only a few select people who "report" me and its over frivolous things. You can get someone kicked off a forum because he has a differing view, or opinion on a subject thats not in agreement with your own. Again time to grow up from where I sit. Regardless the only person IMO who has the right to say if the thread is dereailed is the OP. He might very well find alot of useful information that helps him along in his question for his retirement setup. If he feels my posts and comments are not in his best interests(whether he agrees with me or not in any shape or form)with useful knowledge and insight then he can let me know via PM and I'll move along.



And btw,feel free to disprove anything I state.....it shouldnt be that hard as you try to imply.....you'd be surprised but quite a few people are waiting for this too. People who do their own research though will figure out what I state is spot on.

move on now please: many members may be subject to Moderator actions....

I agree with this but I think donut might have been limiting the type of measurements taken or at least put them into a different context.

Very simple, room treatments, and the types used will control off axis response. Differing types of treatments can absorb, diffuse or diflect different sound wavelengths(frequencies). So to do this you need not touch your speaker at all. Just treat the room accordingly at the correct locations. Time consuming, but it can be done with no issues. All depends how much time and effort you want to put into it, and assuming the speakers you have are even worth doing it for.

You miss them because you want to miss them.

What you are saying is that SOME speakers can be fixed without opening the speaker, but not all. There are specific requirements if you are not to open them up.

By the way, those speakers that have double or triple binding posts, the signal still travels through the crossover.

One thing you do not do ntrain, is state the qualifiers that are needed...instead, you throw out a blanket statement.

I was simply indulging in a bit of hyperbole with that statement (this is the internet, whud you expect? ).


If you have that much faith in measurements, more power to you.

And btw, good luck trying to find all those measurements you listed on every manufacturer's website or brochure (were they all carried out under the same conditions? the same measurement gear?), so a fair comparison can be made.

So I will continue to believe measurements are secondary to actual listening when choosing between speakers.

Not everyone can or will do that, and you still missed my point about the listeners in the case studies that preferred lateral reflections because they add to the apparent source width. Not all reflections are bad. Most listening rooms aren't dedicated and are rooms that double as entertainment and living room spaces. In spaces such as this (which don't utilize room treatments), off axis performance, sound power response or controlled directivity is critical to good performance, and your active crossovers won't fix that. Even if they could, the average Joe cannot just go and rip open his speaker, remove the passive crossovers, instead utilize active crossovers and instantly achieve great performance. It takes a certain level of skill to impliment active crossovers.

I see you're still responding to our requests to prove what you claim by saying "you prove me wrong." We'll take that to mean you have no proof. How about this? Prove you're running Revel Salons with active crossovers. Posting a few pictures isn't a hard task, so lets see them without their passive x-overs. While you're at it, take pics of the internals and passive x-over so you can prove the materials in the Salon2's only add up to $300.00. I don't believe in fortune tellers, but I predict you won't be honoring my requests.

No, Im not avoiding anything intentionally at all. Honestly, some of the points just get jumbled up and lost in the debate, you should at least be willing to admit that.

Regardless, my statement is not necessarily a blanket statement, as I did point out that MANY speakers do have these accomadations, but your are correct not all of them do(and that was fully implied in my last post). Again though I did bring out this point.

And yes the signal still passes through the xover. But still you can adjust and correct, individual level settings per driver, correct time alignment and eq out each individual driver as well. Thats ALOT of speaker improvement flexibility right there in itself. And as you stated.....if a speaker has a good implemented xover, then the slopes and points shouldnt need much if any tweaking.

Very true...great point.

The person programming the DSP has to know what he/she is doing.

Nothing wrong with that. We all have our own opinions on the matter, and no one should tell you yours is wrong unless you're pushing it as a fact, which you did not do. I happen to agree with your quoted statement above, because we don't put the speakers in our room and stare at their cabinets and measured response; we listen to them. Measurements are great for those who know how to correlate them to perception, though, as they'll help weed out the bad designs. They won't tell you how the speaker will sound in your room, though, and isn't that the whole point of the journey?

Anyway, good post.

WHat are you talking about? I am contemplating modifying my Salons with a downfiring port for better room flexibility. My XQ20's are what I run actively. But I will gladly post pics of my Salon's gutted so you can see the glorious MDF cabinet and individual xover boards. But this is now without question off topic of your doing, so I think its best to take this over to the Revel thread if you want to continue it.

Its no harder than "programming" a typical home theater AVR. You still have alot of the same parameters to plug in like xover points, "speaker distance", at times a very limited "EQ" etc. In fact basically a HT AVR is nothing more than a highly gimped and disabled pro audio speaker management system. If your capable of navigating a decent AVR, then your more than capable of doing the same with a full blown management system. THe principles are essentially the same.

It is MUCH different and more difficult to program a DCX2496 than it is to set bass management in an AVR.

Pretty much convinces me you have not programmed a DCX to fix anything.