or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Question on bi-amping
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question on bi-amping - Page 30

post #871 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

So if we apply your suggestion, double the power to the center channel, we arrive at what: a three decibel increase from the center channel. I'm sorry, but apparently I can't grasp the profoundness.
It is understandable. Arny made the same mistake of thinking this is about loudness. It is not.. It is about making sure channels don't distort. The levels are always correct for each channel. It is like a Honda and Porsche both going 70 miles per hour. Their speed is the same even though the porsche has a lot more power. Now try to pass another car and the Porsche will have more energy to more safely pass the Honda. Likewise, we need the power for the center channel for moments at a time. If it saturates the amp (or speaker) you will get distortion. That distortion is annoying and over time may damage your speaker. Again, if you have people saying your theater is loud, you have a problem. They are likely annoyed by poor fidelity. I can play SPLs that are extremely high and yet, even the people who are not into home theater don't complain that it is loud. That is because the system has proper response and unreachable limit.

Before you come back with an argument, please explain where that 3 db excuse ends. Is a 25 watt amp good enough because 50 is only 3 db higher?
Quote:
If we're short of hitting the desired room SPL, then adding more power is one solution.
Nope. The SPL meter does not care if the sound is clean and undistorted or not.
Quote:
Getting a more sensitive speaker would be the other (annoying emoticon with cocky smirk and black sunglasses).
As I explained, sensitivity numbers are marketing numbers for speakers. They are not comparable between brands.
Quote:
The argument follows: "the center channel is very busy during movies, therefore give the center channel more respect/money". Hardly a groundbreaking observation. I wouldn't rate Guttenberg's comment any higher than other vague generalizations concerning speaker systems, and most likely lower than any given advice on any given day.
Again, you are confused about the reasoning and recommendations. We are not concerned about how busy the center channel is. That only has merit for cooling requirements of the amp. What we care about is whether it can handle momentary peaks. Just to be clear, I am not saying any of this for your sake. Clearly no amount of evidence will convince you of anything. The mind is closed already (annoying emoticon with cocky smirk and black sunglasses). With no qualification in the field or industry, you put down expert opinion after expert opinion. Just how many post houses have you visited? How many theaters have you designed? What is the highest end theater you have created? Anyone in the industry ever review your work and give you a thumbs up or down?
Quote:
You're very unlikely to improve dynamics by spending more money on a center channel speaker, whether staying within a speaker product line or moving to the next higher. So Guttenberg's advice isn't very pragmatic. In fact, center channel speakers aren't much, if at all, inferior to other speakers in the same product line when movie watching, with a subwoofer employed and speaker level adjustments made.
What does "unlikely" mean? if it means it can happen then you have lost your case already since we are not describing all situations but the highest performing ones. And if you are letting the manufacturer pick your components for you as in "shopping for speakers in the line," then you have more technical deficiencies than this argument. You need to heed the advice of the experts in the industry and pick the largest center channel you can fit there. There is a ton of garbage speakers out there for center channel. The classic MTM configuration for example has very poor response. Turning an MTM on the side is easy but then you have screwed up frequency response. Yet the market is full of them.
Quote:
No, biamping or mono-block amping the center speaker for this guy. Keep working on those sales skills.
(annoying emoticon with cocky smirk and black sunglasses). So we are back to immature, non-technical comments. If you think bi-amping is sales pitch you have less understanding of the field than I assumed. The #1 speaker brand for professional/post production work is Genelec. Their speakers are bi and tri-amped. Here is a video that explains that:

Your entire post was argumentative and opinion expressed as facts devoid of any references, specifics, measurements or research data. Please make sure if you are going to reply, that you bring some element of science and engineering in your post.
post #872 of 1039
Quote:
Who says Left and Right are used to deliver musical scores? You are confusing the CD soundtrack with that of what is presented in multichannel in the movie. Fact that you don't like the answer doesn't make it a gross generalization especially when coupled with incorrect assumptions such as this not backed by any references or data.

I say, that's who. And not just the front channels. The rears too. And it wasn't a music CD. Yep, I've actually played DVD's and Bluray discs, without confusedly loading a CD instead, and heard music playing in each of the speakers. How about that. And I've also heard dialog spanning all three front speakers. What's up with me. Guess I'm just a "massive center channel dynamics" denier living in a reality backed without data.

Take a look at the chart audionut posted. Plenty of l/r front channel action.
...
Quote:
A lot of people make that recommendation. A lot also tell you to buy fancy cables. You want to have a scientific argument, you need to say more than some nameless company telling you some such thing. We had Anthem telling you the benefits of passive bi-amping. How come you don't believe that company but choose to believe another?

LOL! I posted an Audyssey recommendation (A famous audio technology company recommends using the same speakers in a surround setup with equal portions of power to each, and a subwoofer delivering low frequency effects below 80Hz). I thought you would have picked up on that right away since you were quoting from the Audyssey website. BTW The list of secrets I posted were written in the spirit of sarcasm.
...
Quote:
It is not "from" any channel. It can be any combination that the content producer wishes. And what they wish is to create a realistic experience. If the action is in the middle of the screen, they are not going to put that in the rear channel.

Whodda thunk it? I'll bet them there engineers can pretty much put that sound bout anywhere they wun it.

Sorry amirm, but your responses are just too big and messy to deal with. There seems to be a lack of coherence between the two of us. Curious, not trying to be mean-spirited, is English your second language?
post #873 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

Sorry amirm, but your responses are just too big and messy to deal with. There seems to be a lack of coherence between the two of us. Curious, not trying to be mean-spirited, is English your second language?
(annoying emoticon with cocky smirk and black sunglasses). Watch this movie clip and your answer may lie within:
post #874 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale View Post

Ok. But if I do that, will I lose Audy's MultiEQ adjustments??

Set the speakers to small yourself manual then rerun Audyssey and afterwards and see if Audyssey has kept them on small.

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.
post #875 of 1039
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...?
post #876 of 1039
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...?

It's room correction, not speaker correction. Bass management is the avr's thing. This is what I've understood in any case; I could be wrong as am not an Audyssey expert like someone like Keith B....
post #877 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

You implied no changes as you go up the AVR lines. I provided examples of what changes.
No, I had no hidden meanings. As others have confirmed, the overall power delivery across the AVR line doesn't vary significantly, within a decibel or two. The main difference is features. You can come up with other words, but that's what it boils down to. A "better" Dolby decoder, more bells and whistles...all features, and not overall power output.

If I stated some inconvenient truths that affect your income, I'm sorry for you. But I don't have any apologies for telling the truth.

I have no dog in this hunt. I have stated many times, including in this thread, in my previous response to you, that I do not believe the power increases are significant. Not sure what you are reading into my responses, but I think it's best we don't talk, I don't seem to be able to communicate with you. < insert disparaging comment here, I'll wait for it >
post #878 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

Take a look at the chart audionut posted. Plenty of l/r front channel action.

Indeed. And while it might be hard to see on the smallish scale, it's clear that the center channel has a much larger workload.

Here is center/left scaled to show more detail.


http://i.imgur.com/NJpLWVt.png

IMHO, all speakers should be exactly the same. Using smaller speakers for 1 or more parts of a surround system is done on merits that hold no relevance to sound quality. Cost/WAF are the only considerations for using a smaller center and/or rear speakers.

And for clarity, I have smaller center/rears on the sole basis of cost. I presently cannot afford to have larger center/rears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

When a home theater is done right, you will actually believe that you are watching that spaceship attack the enterprise as you stand next to captain Kirk. Or that you are in the middle of that wheat field as you hear the softest sound of wind or crickets around you. Yes, they are all synthetic and not "real" in any sense. After all, even if the sound was real, these are actors and fictional stories. But it is the job of the creative talent, post engineers and theater designers to make you think they are real if it is just for 90 minutes. This is a very hard thing to pull off as many factors need to be perfected. So I am not surprised you don't believe it, pun intended smile.gif. ...................................................But rather, understand the quality bar that can be achieved and use that as our measurement bar.

This. I will never forget watching "The Blair Witch Project" for the first time. Solely on the merits of the sound! I felt like I was in that tent.
My own personal goal of movie reproduction is the ability for the system to engross me without thinking. There is a big difference between feeling an explosion, and imaging what that explosion would be like.
post #879 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

And the serious answer is that clipping is a Boolean state; it's either happening or it isn't.
Okay. But maybe you should have stopped there, because....
Quote:
Amplifier clipping is the friend of many electric guitar players...
Well,...You did say "many" guitar players.

The more accomplished/experienced players prefer something like the classic Marshall stacks of vacuum-tube/output transformer amps which overload more gracefully (musically? -- even harmonics) -- when going from "10" to "11." Not a Boolean overload characteristic at all.

Not relevant, of course, to the modern (non-audiophile) audio scene where solid state is 99.44% the case. But worth a footnote.
post #880 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

I have no dog in this hunt. I have stated many times, including in this thread, in my previous response to you, that I do not believe the power increases are significant. Not sure what you are reading into my responses, but I think it's best we don't talk, I don't seem to be able to communicate with you. < insert disparaging comment here, I'll wait for it >

I'm at a complete loss myself. You specifically stated an experience where a sales person was trying to up sell you on the basis of 125w vs 110w. And yet under attack for providing differences between AVR's in different price brackets. eek.gif
post #881 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

It is understandable. Arny made the same mistake of thinking this is about loudness. It is not.. It is about making sure channels don't distort. The levels are always correct for each channel. It is like a Honda and Porsche both going 70 miles per hour. Their speed is the same even though the porsche has a lot more power. Now try to pass another car and the Porsche will have more energy to more safely pass the Honda. Likewise, we need the power for the center channel for moments at a time. If it saturates the amp (or speaker) you will get distortion. That distortion is annoying and over time may damage your speaker. Again, if you have people saying your theater is loud, you have a problem. They are likely annoyed by poor fidelity. I can play SPLs that are extremely high and yet, even the people who are not into home theater don't complain that it is loud. That is because the system has proper response and unreachable limit.

Doubling up the amp power is going to provide an extra 3dB of undistorted SPL. We can bank on that. The rest of your explanation concerning distortion and listener fatigue is teetering on the brink of pseudo-science. Forget about Hondas and Porsches, given the run-of-the mill, vanilla-flavored 100wpc AVR, the vast majority of the center channel duties are at a walking pace, using nothing more than few watts of power. A busy action scene might entail a few tens of watts (jogging), and the need for 100 watts relegated to an occasional, very brief second or two (sprint). The very last scenario is the only place the added power could make an appreciable difference. Those are assumptions based upon a fairly typical room layout.
...
Quote:
Before you come back with an argument, please explain where that 3 db excuse ends. Is a 25 watt amp good enough because 50 is only 3 db higher?
Nope. The SPL meter does not care if the sound is clean and undistorted or not.

Gee amirm, when citing power and SPL it should be assumed that the rating is before distortion arrives. You ARE a special case sometimes. With 100 UNDISTORTED watts powering just one channel, SPL exceeding 100dB can be achieved. Given a fairly typical set of variables: nine ft distance between listener-speaker, 8ohm speaker with 88dB sensitivity, and a little room reinforcement to boot. This is a generalization, but a pretty accurate one. You can shift around a few numbers, break out the multimeters, benchtest a couple of amps laying around the garage, gripe about MTM design and speaker ratings, but, after seeing your explanations over the past couple of weeks, I'm pretty confident that we're going to arrive close to where we started.
...
My comment: You're very unlikely to improve dynamics by spending more money on a center channel speaker, whether staying within a speaker product line or moving to the next higher. So Guttenberg's advice isn't very pragmatic. In fact, center channel speakers aren't much, if at all, inferior to other speakers in the same product line when movie watching, with a subwoofer employed and speaker level adjustments made.

reply:
Quote:
What does "unlikely" mean? if it means it can happen then you have lost your case already since we are not describing all situations but the highest performing ones. And if you are letting the manufacturer pick your components for you as in "shopping for speakers in the line," then you have more technical deficiencies than this argument. You need to heed the advice of the experts in the industry and pick the largest center channel you can fit there. There is a ton of garbage speakers out there for center channel. The classic MTM configuration for example has very poor response. Turning an MTM on the side is easy but then you have screwed up frequency response. Yet the market is full of them.

"Unlikely" means just what you are ranting about. Most centers are not very large and a similar design. There isn't much selection and Guttenburg's suggestions regarding increased budget apportioning for a better center channel are fairly useless. You love arguing, but can't see that you are solidifying my point.
...
Quote:
The #1 speaker brand for professional/post production work is Genelec. Their speakers are bi and tri-amped.

So you advise use of self-powered studio monitors in the home theatre?
...
Quote:
Your entire post was argumentative and opinion expressed as facts devoid of any references, specifics, measurements or research data. Please make sure if you are going to reply, that you bring some element of science and engineering in your post.

I thought most of the information I was posting is pretty par for the course. However, since you criticized my comment reflecting Audyssey's suggestions, which I posted without reference, just after citing from Audyssey yourself, I suppose you would contradict anyone over anything, not excluding yourself. But for all my sins, do you see how much more concise my ideas are written. There is a purpose behind that.
post #882 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

(annoying emoticon with cocky smirk and black sunglasses). Watch this movie clip and your answer may lie within:
GOOD MORNING VIETNAM

You are from Thailand.

ps: another ancient oriental secret, eh ;-)
post #883 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

Indeed. And while it might be hard to see on the smallish scale, it's clear that the center channel has a much larger workload.

http://i.imgur.com/NJpLWVt.png

IMHO, all speakers should be exactly the same. Using smaller speakers for 1 or more parts of a surround system is done on merits that hold no relevance to sound quality. Cost/WAF are the only considerations for using a smaller center and/or rear speakers.

Audionut,
Thanks for posting the graph. Interesting to have visuals demonstrating the dynamics. Regarding same speakers throughout the surround system, I see speaker size in somewhat of a reverse perspective than you. I don't necessarily see a need for bigger center and surround speakers, but less of a need for large L/R front speakers in setups with a subwoofer.

As well, the subwoofer was a cost effective solution for commercial venues. No need to replace all speakers when LFE was introduced.
post #884 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

I don't necessarily see a need for bigger center and surround speakers, but less of a need for large L/R front speakers in setups with a subwoofer.

Either way is much of a muchness smile.gif The important part that I did not place enough emphasis on was that all speakers should be the same. There are reasons we use identical LR speakers for music reproduction. I don't understand why those values get reduced in a multi channel setup for movie reproduction.

Big speakers vs little speakers is another discussion entirely tongue.gif

HST, I think some people at least consider that low end systems have smaller centers and rears, and hence, their value in overall audio reproduction quality is less.

I'm pretty sure I'm getting into semantics though rolleyes.gif
Edited by Audionut11 - 12/1/13 at 10:25pm
post #885 of 1039

There is at least some reason to believe there are at least some potential benefits to passive biamping. But having said that, it is certainly not great enough for someone to double their budget to do it (note: if you're gonna double your budget, then get better equipment to start with! I think we can all agree on that!

post #886 of 1039
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.
post #887 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

So if we apply your suggestion, double the power to the center channel, we arrive at what: a three decibel increase from the center channel. I'm sorry, but apparently I can't grasp the profoundness.

Arny made the same mistake of thinking this is about loudness.

Amir is obviously up to tricks again. Out of the blue he makes something up with no quotes from me to support his fabrication, and stuffs errors he made up into my mouth so that he can play knight on a white horse and correct me.
Quote:
It is not.. It is about making sure channels don't distort.

It is actually about both, because the two are interrelated. An audio system should be capable of supporting having its channels set for proper loudness without the channels distorting at the desired listening levels.

I guess I should just sit here blithely and let these intentional false claims pass, but it can be hard to take ongoing defamatory comments of this kind.
post #888 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post

Take a look at the chart audionut posted. Plenty of l/r front channel action.

Indeed. And while it might be hard to see on the smallish scale, it's clear that the center channel has a much larger workload.

Here is center/left scaled to show more detail.


http://i.imgur.com/NJpLWVt.png

The greater detail seems to show that the channels are within an approximate 3 dB range. I don't know about the detailed functions of software being used, but the multichannel editing software that I use has a selectable analysis function that I use to make these kinds of judgements: I click and drag a range from 1 sample to the entire file, press a button and obtain a detailed report about peak and RMS levels.

Due to the dynamic nature of multichannel systems there should be some headroom, and the conventional means used to set them up provides about 20 dB or more of it.
Edited by arnyk - 12/2/13 at 4:51am
post #889 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrichowe View Post

There is at least some reason to believe there are at least some potential benefits to passive biamping. But having said that, it is certainly not great enough for someone to double their budget to do it (note: if you're gonna double your budget, then get better equipment to start with! I think we can all agree on that!

I think that there may be some theoretical benefits. They don't seem to support claims by some manufacturers that "You aren't getting the most possible out of your system if you don't biamp".

I think we've seen how these kinds of weird claims by manufacturers who shold know better glorifying tiny benefits have lead at least one participant in this thread to:

(1) Buy an 80 watt power amplifier to upgrade an AVR that might be able to deliver 160 watts to his speakers.

(2) When that didn't work, buy another 80 watt amplifier to upgrade the 80 watt amplifier that didn't make the grade.
post #890 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The #1 speaker brand for professional/post production work is Genelec. Their speakers are bi and tri-amped. Here is a video that explains that:

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.

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."

Here is a listing of the principle people associated with that enterprise:

http://www.madronadigital.com/about/About.html

"Key Employees
Amir Majidimehr: President & Founder
As Corporate Vice President at Microsoft, Amir managed the Digital Media Division, creating the entire suite of entertainment technologies in Windows. Technologies developed in his group have not only shipped in billions of PCs but nearly as many consumer electronic devices from Sony PS3 to Verizon phones. Two of the most notable are "VC-1" video compression technology (mandatory in Blu-ray Disc format) and WMA audio compression codec. The accomplishments in his team were recognized by an Emmy award (the third one in his career) for innovations in digital delivery of content on the Internet. In addition to Microsoft, Amir has held executive positions at Sony, Pinnacle systems (now Avid), Abekas Video (broadcast TV equipment maker) among others. "

I believe that the relevant facts explain why some information posted on this thread may not be acceptable at face value due to overwhelming poster bias. ;-)
post #891 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Yes. I wish they had called it "Bass Management ON/OFF" instead of "small/large". Everybody feels theirs must be "large". smile.gif

This potential illusion seems to afflict many owners of floor-standing speakers.

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.

If I can believe published measurements that seem reasonable all by themselves, the $300 subwoofer could be part of a worthwhile upgrade to a system composed of the $12,000 floor standing speakers. Audible improvements in bass extension and clarity seem likely.
post #892 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

I have no dog in this hunt. I have stated many times, including in this thread, in my previous response to you, that I do not believe the power increases are significant. Not sure what you are reading into my responses, but I think it's best we don't talk, I don't seem to be able to communicate with you. < insert disparaging comment here, I'll wait for it >
I'm sorry that you still feel offended. I'm just having a nice conversation here. I hope you understand that I'm not going to be coerced into walking on eggs just because someone doesn't like what I have to say though. You're welcome to use logic to knock down my arguments if you can.
post #893 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrichowe View Post

There is at least some reason to believe there are at least some potential benefits to passive biamping. But having said that, it is certainly not great enough for someone to double their budget to do it (note: if you're gonna double your budget, then get better equipment to start with! I think we can all agree on that!

No. I don't believe there are any potential benefits. Theorectical benefits, yes. Real benefits, no. So I can't agree with all of that.
post #894 of 1039
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.

In the Manual Settings I changed the FL&FR speakers from "large" to "small". I then checked the Audy settings and the FL&FR speakers are still showing as "Full Range" and the crossover at 40Hz (or maybe 60hz, I forget now). So I'm thinking you do have to re-run Audy... I just hope that Audy won't change it back to "large".

Another interesting observation, even though my mains are set to "large" and "full range", when I listen to 2ch music, the subwoofer IS active and playing. Does this seems unusual? If I understood corectly, the sub should not be getting any info if the mains are set to large(other than the .1 LFE, which I assume there is none in 2ch music).
post #895 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale 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.

In the Manual Settings I changed the FL&FR speakers from "large" to "small". I then checked the Audy settings and the FL&FR speakers are still showing as "Full Range" and the crossover at 40Hz (or maybe 60hz, I forget now). So I'm thinking you do have to re-run Audy... I just hope that Audy won't change it back to "large".

Another interesting observation, even though my mains are set to "large" and "full range", when I listen to 2ch music, the subwoofer IS active and playing. Does this seems unusual? If I understood corectly, the sub should not be getting any info if the mains are set to large(other than the .1 LFE, which I assume there is none in 2ch music).

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).
post #896 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post

The more accomplished/experienced players prefer something like the classic Marshall stacks of vacuum-tube/output transformer amps which overload more gracefully (musically? -- even harmonics) -- when going from "10" to "11." Not a Boolean overload characteristic at all.
LOL...I'm sure that Jim Marshall's accountants would be delighted to learn that you equate the Marshall brand with traits like "accomplished" and "experienced"! But the fact of the matter is that anyone with cash money can buy one. Heck, even Jim Marshall is a drummer, not a guitarist!

And while it's true that Marshall brand products are designed to go nonlinear easily, that doesn't mean that power amplifiers are generally nonlinear. It's no secret that Jim Marshall blatantly ripped off the circuitry of Fender amplifiers. I have to chuckle when I read someone call a relative newcomer like Marshall "classic". People from the same era like Pete Cornish at least did original work. But back to the point: Leo Fender certainly never intended for his amplifiers to be overdriven! That overdriven sound that has been the hallmark of modern rock guitar was sheer coincidence!

If you want to draw parallels between the properties of Class A vacuum tube musical instrument amplifiers and push-pull transistor amplifiers used for sound reproduction, I'll have to award you the Harvey Rosenberg dunce cap. In his book, the New York Audio Labs owner claimed that vacuum tubes sounded inherently better than transistors, but his "proof" was that (non push-pull) Class A operation sounded better than Class B / push-pull, and even then it only applied during nonlinear operation. The simple fact is that unlike Marshall brand products, that amplifiers built for audio reproduction purposes were never intended to be operated outside of the linear envelope.

Finally, sorry to burst your bubble, but even on a Marshall amp, there still is a linear range, where clipping does not occur. Just because it's easier to reach clipping does not mean that they always reach clipping. And the numbers around the volume knob: painted on. They could use any arbitrary number.

You probably should have stopped where your scope of knowledge ended. IJS
post #897 of 1039
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?
post #898 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

No. I don't believe there are any potential benefits. Theorectical benefits, yes. Real benefits, no. So I can't agree with all of that.
To be fair and precise, the benefits are real. It's just that they are very small, and the cost of getting them is arguably not worth the effort.
post #899 of 1039
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.
For DIY and home studios, maybe. But for professional film soundtrack production? Folks would not be caught dead with those brands. They need very high SPL performance which those brands don't even have products for let alone be competitive. But sure, you provide some data to back how many movies are mixed with those brands. Here is mine from the AES Paper, The Quality of Professional Surround Audio Reproduction, A Survey Study, by Genelec:

"A total of 372 loudspeakers in 164 professional monitoring rooms around the world have been measured after acoustical calibration."

There is 164. How many can you cite Arny for the brands? Again we are talking about professional movie production rooms. Shouldn't be hard given your understanding that they ship a ton more than Genelec.
Quote:
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.
You being aware of it sets a pretty low bar for something being factual Arny. But we will test that once you show the above statistics. For now, it is clear that as with consumer audio, your experience in pro audio also seems to be at the low end and "good enough" level. Pretty predictable I guess but good to note anyway.
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."

Here is a listing of the principle people associated with that enterprise:

http://www.madronadigital.com/about/About.html

"Key Employees
Amir Majidimehr: President & Founder
As Corporate Vice President at Microsoft, Amir managed the Digital Media Division, creating the entire suite of entertainment technologies in Windows. Technologies developed in his group have not only shipped in billions of PCs but nearly as many consumer electronic devices from Sony PS3 to Verizon phones. Two of the most notable are "VC-1" video compression technology (mandatory in Blu-ray Disc format) and WMA audio compression codec. The accomplishments in his team were recognized by an Emmy award (the third one in his career) for innovations in digital delivery of content on the Internet. In addition to Microsoft, Amir has held executive positions at Sony, Pinnacle systems (now Avid), Abekas Video (broadcast TV equipment maker) among others. "

I believe that the relevant facts explain why some information posted on this thread may not be acceptable at face value due to overwhelming poster bias. ;-)
Let me understand this: you are telling me I should not talk about any product my company carries? How would that make sense? Surely what I believe here, I practice there. How about you? We can easily say you have a bias to promote ABX testing. Should we dismiss anything you say due to that? I hope not. I have no problem with you promoting ABX tests. I look past you to the technical merits. I would have thought you do the same rather than falling for superficial reasons to not believe in science. What are you fond of saying? Denial is not just a river in Egypt?

Have you been to an AES conference Arny? How many papers did you see presented from non-profit organizations? DId you walk out in protest when you found out vast majority of the technical papers are presented by companies that stand to make money from them? A person who is keen on learning and knows enough about the fundamentals of the field can easily look past any commercial interest and learn from the topic. Excluding that would mean you will never learn anything.

But sure, I am not here to judge your prejudices. You are welcome to it.
post #900 of 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post



Have you been to an AES conference Arny?

Yes, a number of them, and once as an exhibitor.
Quote:
How many papers did you see presented from non-profit organizations?

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.

http://www.aes.org/publications/conferences/
Quote:
DId you walk out in protest when you found out vast majority of the technical papers are presented by companies that stand to make money from them?

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.
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 › Question on bi-amping