or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 97

post #2881 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
Haven't you noticed how similar the two speakers being compared are, in terms of both components and measured performance?

Yes I'm looking at the frequency response charts. Heinrich did mention the Contour 1.4 and not the 1.3. Are there any polar response charts? Maximum SPL charts? Distortion etc between these speakers or is the sum total of your investigation limited to just the frequency response charts?

Given that the drivers are so similar, the polar response and maximum SPL should be about as close as two peas in a pod. The similarity of the on-axis response suggests that the same crossover was used.

If Heinrich wanted to show two speakers that measured the same on-axis but sounded as different as possible he might have compared two speakers with the same front drivers, but one of the speakers had also had active drivers on the rear.
post #2882 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
But weight does not prove improved build quality in ways that are sonically signfiicant. The same logic would prove that a 1959 Cadillac

No, it only proves the cabinet is much stiffer. A stiffer cabinet will simply color the sound less. Unless you feel cabinet colouration does not exist and cannot be audible? Is that what you believe?
post #2883 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
Given that the drivers are so similar, the polar response and maximum SPL should be about as close as two peas in a pod. The similarity of the on-axis response suggests that the same crossover was used.

Well the drivers aren't similar. Two 6.5" drivers, one 4" and a 3/4" tweeter. The Sophia has a completely different driver arrangement. "The polar response and maximum SPL should be as close as two peas in a pod" - that's just an unsupported assertion. "Same crossover was used" - another unsupported assertion.
post #2884 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
But weight does not prove improved build quality in ways that are sonically signfiicant. The same logic would prove that a 1959 Cadillac

No, it only proves the cabinet is much stiffer.

Again the same logic would prove that the 1959 Cadillac body was stiffer than that of the Ferrrari, which is most definitely not the case.

Weight does not equal stiffness unless all other things are equal.

If you argued that the shape of the Wilson suggested that it was stiffer, then I would agree with that. But stiff and heavy don't always go together.

I've driven a 1959 Caddy, and it had the body stiffness of overcooked pasta. A Ferrari will be very stiff because that is part of the equation for precise handling.
post #2885 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
Given that the drivers are so similar, the polar response and maximum SPL should be about as close as two peas in a pod. The similarity of the on-axis response suggests that the same crossover was used.

Now you are just speculating.

No, I cited the descriptions of the drivers in the two systems from a reliable source.
post #2886 of 3048
At what point does cabinet resonance become audible if present? Is it a constant, or does it increase with SPL? If it's the latter wouldn't it be a case of adding a "within its' limations" caveat to the comparsion?
post #2887 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

At what point does cabinet resonance become audible if present?

Spurious sound generation by the cabinet shows up in the measured frequency response of the speaker.
Quote:
Is it a constant, or does it increase with SPL?

It is probably linear, which means that it increases smoothly with SPL. It is probably a constant percentage of the response.
post #2888 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
No, I cited the descriptions of the drivers in the two systems from a reliable source.

I assumed we were discussing the Wilson and Primus? Are you discussing something else?
post #2889 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Weight does not equal stiffness unless all other things are equal.

Isn't that the reasoning behind companies like Paradigm using curved enclosures, increase stiffness without increaseing weight? The eggshell effect...
post #2890 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
Given that the drivers are so similar, the polar response and maximum SPL should be about as close as two peas in a pod. The similarity of the on-axis response suggests that the same crossover was used.

Well the drivers aren't similar. Two 6.5" drivers, one 4" and a 3/4" tweeter. The Sophia has a completely different driver arrangement. "The polar response and maximum SPL should be as close as two peas in a pod" - that's just an unsupported assertion. "Same crossover was used" - another unsupported assertion.

We are mixing up two different pairs of speakers. I had been mostly talking about the two Dynaudios.

However, the driver configurations in the Primus and the Sophia are somewhat similar. Both are 3 way, both use smaller midranges than woofers. The ratio between 10 and 7 (Sophia) is not that much different than the ratio between 6.5 and 4 inch (Primus). The 10 inch woofer in the Sophia is larger than the 6.5 inch in the Primus but the Primus has two 6.5 inch woofers.

The Sophia seems to want to point its tweeter towards the ceiling which may make its high end a little softer. Depends on the room and where you sit with respect to the speaker.

The Primus is generally smoother on axis over the most audible portion of the frequency range than the Sophia.

No way does the Sophia sound 75 times better. The Primus may come out ahead in a blind listening comparison for the reasons given.
post #2891 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Weight does not equal stiffness unless all other things are equal.

Isn't that the reasoning behind companies like Paradigm using curved enclosures, increase stiffness without increaseing weight? The eggshell effect...

Frankly the curvature probably has more to do with looks. If the stiffness mattered some cheap square lumber hastily glued into the back side corners of the enclosure would be at least as stiff. A few cross braces made out of cheap lumber can really stiffen things up!
post #2892 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
Again the same logic would prove that the 1959 Cadillac body was stiffer than that of the Ferrrari, which is most definitely not the case.

I don't think any reasonable person would claim the Sophia does not have significantly improved build quality over the Infinity Primus you referenced earlier. The cabinet weighs in at over 70 kg each. It must surely be incredibly braced and stiff - regardless of the shape, the additional mass should push any resonances well outside audibility range. I don't think the same could be said for the Primus.
post #2893 of 3048
Quote:
However, the driver configurations in the Primus and the Sophia are somewhat similar. Both are 3 way, both use smaller midranges than woofers. The ratio between 10 and 7 (Sophia) is not that much different than the ratio between 6.5 and 4 inch (Primus). The 10 inch woofer in the Sophia is larger than the 6.5 inch in the Primus but the Primus has two 6.5 inch woofers.

There is no reason to assume the driver components in the Primus are anywhere in the same stratosphere compared to the Sophia. I think it is quite likely that 10" woofer will have rather substantial linear excursion which can't be said for the dual 6.5" woofers on the Primus. Also, the cabinet dimensions are completely different, the tuning frequencies are therefore completely different. Low bass performance will therefore be completely different. The Sophia, based on tuning, should be able to hit significantly lower. There is no reason to think the Sophia uses drivers that offer similar technical performance compared to the Primus.
post #2894 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
The ratio between 10 and 7 (Sophia) is not that much different than the ratio between 6.5 and 4 inch (Primus). The 10 inch woofer in the Sophia is larger than the 6.5 inch in the Primus but the Primus has two 6.5 inch woofers.

Yes, the Primus has 2 x 6.5" woofers but the cone surface area of a 10" woofer is larger still. More importantly, I think the linear excursion on that 10" woofer will be significantly higher than those 6.5" woofers in the Primus. Of course that is an assumption, but I think it is a reasonable one to make given the cost differential.
post #2895 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Same reason I don't accept that the moon is made out of blue cheese.
Well, nobody believes that. See The Moon is made of green cheese.
Quote:
The phrase "green cheese" in this proverb simply refers to a young cheese (indeed, sometimes "cream cheese" is used), though modern people may interpret the color reference literally.

Edited by GregLee - 4/1/13 at 5:16pm
post #2896 of 3048
A = pi*r^2 = 3.14159 * r * r

10" woofer = pi*5*5 = 78.5" sq

2 x 6.5" woofer = 2*pi*3.25*3.25 = 66.4" sq
post #2897 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View PostThat is hard data!

But weight does not prove improved build quality in ways that are sonically signfiicant. The same logic would prove that a 1959 Cadillac



 

I love that car I want one :)

post #2898 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Enjoy your set ups

+1
post #2899 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Same reason I don't accept that the moon is made out of blue cheese.
Well, nobody believes that. See The Moon is made of green cheese.
Quote:
The phrase "green cheese" in this proverb simply refers to a young cheese (indeed, sometimes "cream cheese" is used), though modern people may interpret the color reference literally.

Dual meaning. Yes, green cheese sometimes mean very young cheese but it also covers things like cheese with pesto added to the curds.
post #2900 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post



I love that car I want one smile.gif

Reminds me of some girls I hung out with in college. Looks great sitting there, but rotten as a daily driver. ;-)
Edited by arnyk - 4/2/13 at 7:32am
post #2901 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Reminds me of some girls I hung out with in college. Looks great sitting there, but rotten as a daily driver. ;-)

Yes not so good to drive around on the freeway but on highway one in California!
post #2902 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Reminds me of some girls I hung out with in college. Looks great sitting there, but rotten as a daily driver. ;-)

Yes not so good to drive around on the freeway but on highway one in California!

Yeah, the PCH.
post #2903 of 3048
Unfortunately, there is no universal standard for speaker measurement required of manufacturers. That is a problem for consumers with a spec fetish.

Speaker manufacturers usually advertise frequency response within a decibel range, but rarely offer a chart. No information concerning SPL is provided. When a chart is supplied, it is unknown whether the plot is smoothed. Though measurement in an anechoic chamber is ideal, there is no measurement standard that requires its use. In the event that measurement in an anechoic chamber is advertised, frequencies below a couple hundred hertz are unlikely (if ever) to have been obtained in the chamber due to the lack of resources needed to construct a capable chamber.

Ultimately consumers are offered a murky idear of how the frequency sweep measurement was completed and the numbers are of minimal value anyway. How well does a driver perform when tasked with replication of highly varying signals... multiple frequencies simultaneously, rapidly changing intervals, and widely varying voltage levels.

Other useful measures such as off axis, spectral decay, impedence curves, and cabinet resonance are virtually non-existent in manufacturer advertisement. According to Polk Audio's website, loud and low subwoofer measures were rejected by the audio community. These seem to be worthwhile measures for the savy consumer.

I don't see how an accurate comparison of the Infinity and Wilson speakers could be made with a simple frequency sweep measure.
post #2904 of 3048
Quote:
I don't see how an accurate comparison of the Infinity and Wilson speakers could be made with a simple frequency sweep measure.
Assuming they were both done the same way (i.e., by an outside tester), you would at least have some basis for comparison. If one was relatively flat through the critical range, and the other had an ugly dip somewhere, you could reasonably conclude that the former was likely to sound superior to most listeners.

Agreed that a spec sheet is not the place to look for this.
post #2905 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

you would at least have some basis for comparison.
And help to visualize the sound at least in basic level.
post #2906 of 3048
What are the main differences between monoblock and biamping? Monoblocking, to my understanding, means the amp is running the two amps in one box, bridged, this means it can swing double the voltage, but not double, or quadruple the current, so you shouldn't run low impedance heavy duty speakers. What I've been told is that bi-amping might be better if you can split the speaker into easier more drivable compartments, bridged if you cannot, and hopefully the impedance does not go much below 4 ohms... or you don't play very loud.
post #2907 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

We have been talking about concerts halls and live venues. In a large space like that, as soon as you go past the front few rows, you are in the so called "reverberant space" where all you hear is the reflections and not the direct sound. .

just what (specifically) concert halls have you been in of which you are well past the critical-distance (where the direct sound is "not heard") after only a few rows?
post #2908 of 3048
double post. see below. My apologies
post #2909 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieS View Post

What are the main differences between monoblock and biamping? Monoblocking, to my understanding, means the amp is running the two amps in one box, bridged, this means it can swing double the voltage, but not double, or quadruple the current, so you shouldn't run low impedance heavy duty speakers. What I've been told is that bi-amping might be better if you can split the speaker into easier more drivable compartments, bridged if you cannot, and hopefully the impedance does not go much below 4 ohms... or you don't play very loud.

Monoblock is simply a fancy way to say "single channel amp." Unlikely that typical monoblocks are internally bridged. You can take a bridgeable stereo amp and turn it into a monoblock by bridging it, rendering it capable of driving only a single channel. Adds stress ot the amp, making the attached speaker load "look" like its half of its nominal value to the output stage (which is why a 2 ohm specified amp can only run a load of 4 ohms or higher (in the solid state world). But bridging clearly increases available power from the amp, while cutting in half the number of chanels it can serve.

the idea is to eliminate the crosstalk that is inevitable (caused, IIRC, by capacitive coupling) between two amps sharing the same chassis and power supply. Unlikely to be of real sonic benefit from that perspective, unless you are replacing a badly designed amp. If you have to use thousand dollar a foot speaker cable, then siting a monoblock inches from each speaker could become cost effective, though. But cost effective isn't really an issue with folks who want to use megabuck cables.

Biamping is entirely different. Unless you rip the crossovers out of your speakers, and add line level outboard crossovers in front of the amps (active baimping) the benefits are dubious at best. AFAIK, typical speakers with double binding posts split between the tweeter, on one circuit, and the woofers/mid drivers, etc, on the second. My research suggests you can expect total energy required by the tweeter with real world content to be in the range of 25% of the total power. So even if you're maxing things out, you get only a 25% power increase. About one dB. Doubling the power would yield a 3 dB (generally thought of as "one notch" louder for most folks). If your amp isn't audibly distorting, there's no need to biamp unless you can actively biamp, but that's a different world, kinda.
post #2910 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View PostMonoblock is simply a fancy way to say "single channel amp." Unlikely that typical monoblocks are internally bridged. You can take a bridgeable stereo amp and turn it into a monoblock by bridging it, rendering it capable of driving only a single channel. Adds stress ot the amp, making the attached speaker load "look" like its half of its nominal value to the output stage (which is why a 2 ohm specified amp can only run a load of 4 ohms or higher (in the solid state world). But bridging clearly increases available power from the amp, while cutting in half the number of chanels it can serve.

the idea is to eliminate the crosstalk that is inevitable (caused, IIRC, by capacitive coupling) between two amps sharing the same chassis and power supply. Unlikely to be of real sonic benefit from that perspective, unless you are replacing a badly designed amp. If you have to use thousand dollar a foot speaker cable, then siting a monoblock inches from each speaker could become cost effective, though. But cost effective isn't really an issue with folks who want to use megabuck cables.

Biamping is entirely different. Unless you rip the crossovers out of your speakers, and add line level outboard crossovers in front of the amps (active baimping) the benefits are dubious at best. AFAIK, typical speakers with double binding posts split between the tweeter, on one circuit, and the woofers/mid drivers, etc, on the second. My research suggests you can expect total energy required by the tweeter with real world content to be in the range of 25% of the total power. So even if you're maxing things out, you get only a 25% power increase. About one dB. Doubling the power would yield a 3 dB (generally thought of as "one notch" louder for most folks). If your amp isn't audibly distorting, there's no need to biamp unless you can actively biamp, but that's a different world, kinda.

Great explanation :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?