RAAL tweeters - Page 16 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 597Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 554 Old 09-08-2019, 08:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,335
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.”

-Socrates
gajCA, BluesDaddy56 and echopraxia like this.

Lyngdorf MP-50 | Yamaha MX-A5200 | Ascend Sierra Towers | Ascend Sierra Horizon | Ascend Sierra Lunas | Ascend HTM-200SE | SVS SB-13 x4
duckymomo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 554 Old 09-08-2019, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
gajCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 19,392
Mentioned: 224 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9087 Post(s)
Liked: 6229
“Intelligent individuals learn from every thing and every one; average people, from their experiences. The stupid already have all the answers.”

― Socrates

Geoff A. J., California
gajCA is online now  
post #453 of 554 Old 09-08-2019, 01:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
BluesDaddy56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 815
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 566 Post(s)
Liked: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckymomo View Post
Ah, the irony, huh?

Display: Vizio P55-E1l Pre-pro: Marantz 7703; Amps: Emotiva XPA-2 Gen 2, Emotiva XPA-3 Gen 1, H/K AVR 520 (direct in to amps); Sources: Sony UBP-X700; X-box 1 S; Technics 1200 Mk II; Win10 PC for digital; Phono Preamp: Emotiva XPS-1; Speakers - LR: Philharmonic BMR LR; Center: Selah Audio BMR-CC; Surrounds: Wharfedale Reva-2; Rear Surrounds: Wharfedale Diamond 220; Atmos: TF - Monoprice Alpha 8; TR - BIC VI-38; Subwoofers: dual Rythmik L22s
BluesDaddy56 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #454 of 554 Old 09-08-2019, 01:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
BluesDaddy56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 815
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 566 Post(s)
Liked: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.”

-Socrates
"Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words." Proverbs 23:9, NASV.

Display: Vizio P55-E1l Pre-pro: Marantz 7703; Amps: Emotiva XPA-2 Gen 2, Emotiva XPA-3 Gen 1, H/K AVR 520 (direct in to amps); Sources: Sony UBP-X700; X-box 1 S; Technics 1200 Mk II; Win10 PC for digital; Phono Preamp: Emotiva XPS-1; Speakers - LR: Philharmonic BMR LR; Center: Selah Audio BMR-CC; Surrounds: Wharfedale Reva-2; Rear Surrounds: Wharfedale Diamond 220; Atmos: TF - Monoprice Alpha 8; TR - BIC VI-38; Subwoofers: dual Rythmik L22s
BluesDaddy56 is offline  
post #455 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 08:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
Rick Craig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Garner, NC
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Echopraxia - would you mind me commenting on your question to Floyd Toole about the spin-o-rama of the Ascend speaker?

Selah Audio

Thinking Inside the Box...
Rick Craig is offline  
post #456 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 09:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post
Echopraxia - would you mind me commenting on your question to Floyd Toole about the spin-o-rama of the Ascend speaker?
I certainly hope you do. I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say about it, as I'm sure many others would.
D33vious is offline  
post #457 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 11:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
Rick Craig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Garner, NC
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Here are a some measurements taken by a REW user with a 3-way I designed using the RAAL 70-10D. The first graph is 0-15-30-45-60-75 degrees off-axis horizontally. The lower graph is the average of those curves.

https://imgur.com/a/wuh1UBp

Selah Audio

Thinking Inside the Box...
Rick Craig is offline  
post #458 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 12:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluesDaddy56 View Post
Honestly, it should be apparent that Aaron has an ax to grind. He doesn't really understand the science being applied, misinterprets both Toole and the designers who have responded to him, and changes his assertions based on rebuttals given. He's intent on undermining RAAL based designs and impugning the designers of same.
After digesting Dr. Toole's latest quote on resonances, do you or anyone else still feel I'm "misinterpreting" Toole and/or "The Science"? Let's disect his quote because it really is a wealth of information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole
This discussion has drifted into an area of literal interpretations of classical definitions with some semantics thrown in. If there is a shallow hump in a frequency response, in literal terms it is a very low-Q resonance, implying a mechanical, electrical or acoustical system with a "favored" frequency range. In a physical system as complex as a loudspeaker it may sometimes be difficult to decide what is happening.

Achieving a desirable flat on-axis sound using passive or active networks can result in non-flat off-axis behavior because transducers have frequency-dependent directivity. In a room the result is that even with flat direct sound, the early reflected and later reflected sounds may exhibit emphasis over a range of frequencies that could forgivably be interpreted as a low-Q resonance.

So, don't get hung up on semantics. Deviations from a linear frequency response are all describable as "resonances" if one chooses to. Broadband trends are very low-Q, narrower trends, medium Q, and so on.

The effect of these in loudspeakers is an emphasized output over a range of frequencies, so feel free to call anything that has that effect a resonance. The perceptual system will never know nor care
I do agree that the Engineering definition of a resonance is probably not what is happening in the Sierra 2 EX, the ribbon is obviously not breaking up that early or doing anything nasty mechanically. What is most likely occurring is a directivity mismatch because of the largish woofer and .4" radiating surface in the horizontal plane. Either way, arguing about terminology is pointless because regardless of what is causing the bump, it is clearly there and will be audible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole
In the crossover between a 6- to 8-inch woofer and a 1-inch tweeter, a directivity mismatch at crossover is unavoidable. Above crossover, the tweeter has much wider dispersion than the woofer, so there is an energy rise over a wide frequency range. Is this a resonance? Technically not, in the dictionary definition sense. However, there is a broad hump in radiated energy, so perceptually it may appear to be so. Figure 4.13 shows such an example where even crude room curves were adequate to recognize the energy excess in an above-crossover energy excess and attenuate it. Because wide bandwidth (low-Q) phenomena are detected at very small deviations there was a clear improvement in perceived sound quality even though medium and higher-Q "real" resonances were essentially unchanged. Addressing all of the "resonances" was not surprisingly the best.
This is basically the same exact situation as a 2-way bookshelf with a 64-10 tweeter, a directivity mismatch caused by the Ribbon having much wider dispersion than the woofer causing "excess energy" over a wide frequency range. Remember when Dave grilled me for calling that range excess energy by the way? If there is any doubt that this is not a negative attribute, Dr. Toole even mentions that once the excess energy was attenuated, there was a clear improvement in sound quality.

I'm still not saying it's a bad speaker by any means, I have nothing against Ascend or the RAAL tweeter but 2-ways have their challenges and 2-ways with ribbons even more so. All I was trying to do is explain how they sound using measurements and not some magical property that some claim they have. I believe their sound can be described completely by the Spinorama but we all know people are going to believe what they want, regardless of how much evidence you show them.
aarons915 is online now  
post #459 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 12:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post
Here are a some measurements taken by a REW user with a 3-way I designed using the RAAL 70-10D. The first graph is 0-15-30-45-60-75 degrees off-axis horizontally. The lower graph is the average of those curves.

https://imgur.com/a/wuh1UBp
Those do look very smooth Rick, what size midrange did you use in that design out of curiosity?
aarons915 is online now  
post #460 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 01:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Rick Craig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Garner, NC
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
Those do look very smooth Rick, what size midrange did you use in that design out of curiosity?
A 2" Accuton inverted dome mid.
aarons915 likes this.

Selah Audio

Thinking Inside the Box...
Rick Craig is offline  
post #461 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 08:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ascend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
I do agree that the Engineering definition of a resonance is probably not what is happening in the Sierra 2 EX, the ribbon is obviously not breaking up that early or doing anything nasty mechanically.
Correct - but just as an FYI, RAAL ribbons do not have breakup modes like domes, they behave quite differently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
What is most likely occurring is a directivity mismatch because of the largish woofer and .4" radiating surface in the horizontal plane. Either way, arguing about terminology is pointless because regardless of what is causing the bump, it is clearly there and will be audible.

I have already explained to you (twice now) what is causing what you to perceive as a bump in the soundpower response. This new explanation of yours is also wrong and I find it disturbing that you are still trying to come up with some different reason to explain what you see. I explained in detail and even fully documented what you see and how it is not a "bump".


The directivity mismatch you mention occurs at crossover, which is the slight DIP you see around the crossover point (~3k) . The woofer is so far down in its response in the range you speak of, it has no measurable influence on the tweeter in that area. Once again, the "bump" isn't a bump -- it doesn't show in the on-axis response or the listening window response and I'm still waiting for your explanation of how that is possible, a question you conveniently ignored. You can see the evidence of the wide dispersion in this area in the DI, which is the point of the DI that you also ignore. If there was a directivity mismatch between tweeter and woofer, the DI would not be flat in this area. You can see the slight directivity mismatch at crossover in the DI at 3kHz, notice the small spike? You need to learn how to evaluate all 6 measurements in a spin - you cannot simply pick 2 measurements and ignore the others. One measurement explains another, you can't just come up with your own interpretations, grasping for straws due to your inability to admit you are wrong.

Does our Sierra-2 display more energy in it's soundpower response in the 5-8kHz range at extreme off-axis angles? Sure it does, by definition that is what wide horiz dispersion is because it is not evident unless measuring at extreme angles and comparing to tweeters with higher directivity - but I fully documented this to you already, it has more than some speakers, less than others - including those designed at Harman HQ. To call it "excess" energy is wrong, excess compared to what? Excess compared to a speaker that you claim to have an ideal soundpower response? Which speaker might that be and would Toole agree to what is the ideal downward soundpower slope? It doesn't exist...

If you want to criticize the speaker, criticize for what are the actual flaws. The slight directivity mismatch at crossover (the low Q dip in 3kHz range) and the steeper off-axis rolloff at ~9kHz due to the 10mm width of the faceplate slot opening. Without those 2 flaws, your perceived bump wouldn't appear as a bump but this doesn't match your narrative because you have now stated many times that "dips" are less audible than "bumps"....

The 64-10 has extremely wide horizontal dispersion, soundpower measurements are weighted such that the further off-axis the response, the more "weight" is given to the measurement during averaging. Do you understand that? The further off-axis, the more influence that measurement has on the overall soundpower response. Did you ignore the polar response I posted which shows nearly each individual horizontal off-axis measurement up to 90 degs off? The frequency range you keep focusing on doesn't bump up - it behaves exactly as I described to you multiple times -- wide dispersion, much less roll off in this frequency range compared to a dome.


It is also clearly evident with the spins of Dennis's BMR's - which are a 3-way with a very small diameter midrange.





Even more evident in the off-axis NRC measurements of the same speaker, of which you would likely call the same frequency range a "bump" but in fact, it is flat, but looks like a bump due to the crossover dip before it caused by the BMR crossing to the 64-10, and the same off-axis roll off at extreme horiz angles starting at 8.7kHz due to the faceplate design (of which I already mentioned to you and even provided you the math behind it)




Also no different than the same measurements of Rick's speaker that uses the 70-20 ribbon. Except that the 70-20 (ribbon being twice the width of the 64-10) will not have as wide dispersion as the 64-10, so while the 70-20 looks "bumped up" after the crossover dip - it is rolled off more in the 5kHz+ range compared to the 64-10, more similar in this range to the horizontal directivity of a dome.



Three completely different speakers, one a 3-way, one a 2-way, another a 2-way with a wider ribbon - behaving the exact same way in this frequency range while using RAAL ribbons. Please fully explain your reasoning how this is possible if you still simply cannot swallow the facts I have clearly laid out for you.


I believe you are simply too used to looking at spin measurements of speakers using dome tweeters, typically 1" - which produce much less energy at these extreme off-axis angles. In the frequency range of your so called "bump" - the 64-10 is not nearly as rolled off as a dome tweeter would be, thus you are seeing that in the soundpower response (due to the applying of more weight in the averaging to extreme off-axis angles) and you see it in the first reflections graph due to it also averaging extreme off-axis graphs.


You have never taken a single spin measurement and something tells me you might not have ever taken even a basic frequency response measurement, and that is perfectly fine - the vast majority have not. However, it is quite naive of you to sit there and publicly try to come up with your own explanations of what you see in a spin measurement that I took, of a speaker that I designed, and yet continue to ignore the indisputable answer to your own curiosity, unless this isn’t genuine curiosity Aaron


If you continue to be this stubborn, I will publish measurements of the same tweeter, but with no woofer, and you will see the same wide dispersion in that frequency range for which will then force you to come up with yet another reason to explain what you see, because with no woofer, you can then no longer claim directivity mismatch in this range between woofer and tweeter. You have gone from "excess energy" to "resonance" to "directivity mismatch" to explain what you claim to be a bump (they are all wrong). I am beyond curious as to what new explanation you will create next in order to simply avoid having to admit you got things wrong....


And as far as that area of wide dispersion being audible, it is what gives RAAL ribbons their spacious sound and in all honesty, it is too bad the Sierra-2/Sierra-2EX, Phil BMR or really any speaker using a modern and properly designed true ribbon didn't exist for Toole's tests so many decades ago. I could see these designs as possibly being an exception to Toole's/Olive's work on equating listening preferences to the "ideal" they came up with many decades ago (although the measurements of our speakers do hold very close to that ideal with the exception of what is being discussed, wider dispersion) We receive nearly daily feedback from owners who have compared and continue to compare our Sierra-2 to nearly every speaker out there - including Revel and other Harman brands, with the option to simply return our speakers if they so choose. Same with the BMR when it was being sold. My analysis of general listener preference relating to measurements comes from many, many thousands of our RAAL ribbon speaker customers, in every type of environment imaginable. Vast majority of these customers moving from dome tweeter speakers to our RAAL based products. You attributed this to marketing hype, which is laughable because we don't advertise or put any $$$ or even effort towards marketing, neither does RAAL - but you do have a habit of ignoring science that doesn't agree with your narrative.

I invite you to come have a listen (we can do double blind if you like) and bring any speaker you like with you, I'll even treat you to a nice lunch. With all of your reading, research and what I hope to be genuine curiosity, I would be most interested as to which speaker you would choose and why... Please don’t say you have already done this experiment – because you thinking that listening to Dennis’s mini-phil, and then another speaker with an inexpensive dome, same cabinet and same woofer and preferring the dome version - holds no weight whatsoever. With different crossovers and different designers, the two speakers are completely different.

Fact, had your experience with Dennis's mini-phils been different - had you actually liked them - we wouldn't even be having this discussion
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CNRC-BMR.gif
Views:	57
Size:	29.4 KB
ID:	2613280  

David Fabrikant

audio professional and soft spoken representative of www.AscendAcoustics.com

Ascend is offline  
post #462 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 08:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 633
The only thing I could possibly add to Dave's excellent post is to remind people that Aaron's problem with my mini Phil was that it was too laid back compared with the dome version. Somehow we've morphed from that belief to a discussion of bumps and resonances. Can you say Whip Lash?

Last edited by PhilharmonicDennis; 09-09-2019 at 09:01 PM.
PhilharmonicDennis is online now  
post #463 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 09:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ascend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilharmonicDennis View Post
The only thing I could possibly add to Dave's excellent post is to remind people that Aaron's problem with my mini Phil was that it was too laid back compared with the dome version. Somehow we've morphed from that belief to a discussion of bumps and resonances. Can you say Whip Lash?
Right, his original complaint was RAAL's were laid back - now he is stating they are bright, without even hearing the speaker he assumes is bright. I'll lay out another fact for him, we have done quite well with Sierra-2EX so far, not a single customer has described them as bright with one customer wishing they had more energy in the mid treble range.

I've had a crazy week, broke my clavicle on labor day (really feeling my age) - hope you are well!
Makav3li likes this.

David Fabrikant

audio professional and soft spoken representative of www.AscendAcoustics.com

Ascend is offline  
post #464 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 10:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Banks1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: S.C.
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Dave I have 4 different brands of speakers in my home and the Sierra 2 ex is definitely the best of the bunch.I love them.
psuKinger likes this.
Banks1 is offline  
post #465 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 10:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ascend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banks1 View Post
Dave I have 4 different brands of speakers in my home and the Sierra 2 ex is definitely the best of the bunch.I love them.
Happy to hear this and thanks for putting your confidence in us! I am curious, what are the other speakers and how would you characterize the treble response of the 2EX in comparison?

David Fabrikant

audio professional and soft spoken representative of www.AscendAcoustics.com

Ascend is offline  
post #466 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 10:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
The directivity mismatch you mention occurs at crossover, which is the slight DIP you see around the crossover point (~3k) . The woofer is so far down in its response in the range you speak of, it has no measurable influence on the tweeter in that area. Once again, the "bump" isn't a bump -- it doesn't show in the on-axis response or the listening window response and I'm still waiting for your explanation of how that is possible, a question you conveniently ignored. You can see the evidence of the wide dispersion in this area in the DI, which is the point of the DI that you also ignore. If there was a directivity mismatch between tweeter and woofer, the DI would not be flat in this area. You can see the slight directivity mismatch at crossover in the DI at 3kHz, notice the small spike? You need to learn how to evaluate all 6 measurements in a spin - you cannot simply pick 2 measurements and ignore the others. One measurement explains another, you can't just come up with your own interpretations, grasping for straws due to your inability to admit you are wrong.
I realize that dip is caused by the falling off of the woofer response and I realize it's hard to avoid in many 2-ways but that's not what I'm talking about. If you read what Dr. Toole wrote he said:

In the crossover between a 6- to 8-inch woofer and a 1-inch tweeter, a directivity mismatch at crossover is unavoidable. Above crossover, the tweeter has much wider dispersion than the woofer, so there is an energy rise over a wide frequency range. Is this a resonance? Technically not, in the dictionary definition sense. However, there is a broad hump in radiated energy, so perceptually it may appear to be so.

I can't say it better than that, it's not a resonance but there is so much energy (due to the strong off-axis response of the tweeter) that there is going to be an energy rise after the crossover and in the Sierra 2 EX Spin it is very evident and not because of any dips in the response, which aren't problems worth discussing. Now the question becomes is this energy rise more or less preferred than if it were to smoothly decline along with the woofers response? The Harman research says a smoothly declining early reflections curve is preferred, my experience agrees with that but I'm not saying they couldn't be wrong.

I'm not sure why you think a speaker can't have a flat on-axis response but a bump in the off-axis response, that's exactly what the Sierra 2 EX does because of the wide dispersion, unless you're operating under the premise that the ER curve should be flat, then I agree with you but again it's a difference in opinion over what the current thoughts are about that ideal response.

I commented about the ER DI curve in the other thread and no I don't think you conveniently ignored it, I assume you didn't see it. But what I said was I think something went wrong with your calculation because when you have a flattish on-axis response, the SP and ER DI curve should basically be an inverse of the ER and SP curves, the SP curve is but the ER DI definitely isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
Does our Sierra-2 display more energy in it's soundpower response in the 5-8kHz range at extreme off-axis angles? Sure it does, by definition that is what wide horiz dispersion is because it is not evident unless measuring at extreme angles and comparing to tweeters with higher directivity - but I fully documented this to you already, it has more than some speakers, less than others - including those designed at Harman HQ. To call it "excess" energy is wrong, excess compared to what? Excess compared to a speaker that you claim to have an ideal soundpower response? Which speaker might that be and would Toole agree to what is the ideal downward soundpower slope? It doesn't exist...
I agree and again I agree that it is caused by wide dispersion that the woofer can't keep up with off-axis, ie a directivity mismatch. Now you could say that you don't agree that matched directivity is important at these off-axis angles and that's fine, I realize not everyone prioritizes a uniform directivity above all else. I did ask for a "perfect" Spin of an ideal to try to work toward but didn't hear anything but based on the premise that the off-axis should be smoothly declining and that the in-room response of the top rated speakers are basically downward slopes that total about 4db from the bass to the treble, I would say currently the F228 would be the closest to that perfect speaker. Not soundpower though, actually the ER curve is the more important one because early reflections have been shown to be more important than later arriving ones and it is a very good predictor of what the in-room response is going to look like. The preference algorithm actually heavily relies on this PIR (Predicted in-room response) in correlating measurements to preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
If you want to criticize the speaker, criticize for what are the actual flaws. The slight directivity mismatch at crossover (the low Q dip in 3kHz range) and the steeper off-axis rolloff at ~9kHz due to the 10mm width of the faceplate slot opening. Without those 2 flaws, your perceived bump wouldn't appear as a bump but this doesn't match your narrative because you have now stated many times that "dips" are less audible than "bumps"....
Again, if you believe the ER curve should be flat then you have a point but like I said the current science doesn't show that. Those 2 "flaws" are minor and not worth discussing. It's not my "narrative" or opinion to explain what the current science says, Dr. Toole has stated many times that if the dip isn't there on-axis, our brains fill in the missing information when it occurs off-axis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
The 64-10 has extremely wide horizontal dispersion, soundpower measurements are weighted such that the further off-axis the response, the more "weight" is given to the measurement during averaging. Do you understand that? The further off-axis, the more influence that measurement has on the overall soundpower response. Did you ignore the polar response I posted which shows nearly each individual horizontal off-axis measurement up to 90 degs off? The frequency range you keep focusing on doesn't bump up - it behaves exactly as I described to you multiple times -- wide dispersion, much less roll off in this frequency range compared to a dome.
I do understand that and I told you I have the spec to reference. I also said those stereophile style polar measurements hide more than they reveal, that is part of the reason why the CTA-2034 style measurements are so much more informative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
Three completely different speakers, one a 3-way, one a 2-way, another a 2-way with a wider ribbon - behaving the exact same way in this frequency range while using RAAL ribbons. Please fully explain your reasoning how this is possible if you still simply cannot swallow the facts I have clearly laid out for you.
I agree, it is because the RAAL has extremely wide dispersion, that none of the midrange/midwoofers match up with off-axis, again assuming that uniform directivity is preferred.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
You have never taken a single spin measurement and something tells me you might not have ever taken even a basic frequency response measurement, and that is perfectly fine - the vast majority have not. However, it is quite naive of you to sit there and publicly try to come up with your own explanations of what you see in a spin measurement that I took, of a speaker that I designed, and yet continue to ignore the indisputable answer to your own curiosity, unless this isn’t genuine curiosity Aaron
I haven't taken a Spin or any kind of anechoic style measurement, only in-room measurements. To be fair, I'm not just making up explanations, Harman developed the Spinorama and we have decades of data on how the best loudspeakers measure in the format. Speakers with the RAAL ribbons deviate from that ideal due to the wide dispersion, what we really don't know is what is preferred and the only way to prove that would be a double blind listening test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
You have gone from "excess energy" to "resonance" to "directivity mismatch" to explain what you claim to be a bump (they are all wrong). I am beyond curious as to what new explanation you will create next in order to simply avoid having to admit you got things wrong....
As Dr. Toole said, don't get caught up in semantics, regardless of the why, the Early reflections curve clearly shows excess energy in the tweeter range, I think we've established it's due to the wide dispersion of the RAAL, the question is whether it is better or worse than a more uniform directivity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
And as far as that area of wide dispersion being audible, it is what gives RAAL ribbons their spacious sound and in all honesty, it is too bad the Sierra-2/Sierra-2EX, Phil BMR or really any speaker using a modern and properly designed true ribbon didn't exist for Toole's tests so many decades ago. I could see these designs as possibly being an exception to Toole's/Olive's work on equating listening preferences to the "ideal" they came up with many decades ago (although the measurements of our speakers do hold very close to that ideal with the exception of what is being discussed, wider dispersion)
Honestly, this is what I was saying very early on in the thread, I do believe that range is what gives the RAAL ribbons their signature sound. Somehow people took that as an attack on their speakers. Your thoughts are very interesting and is ultimately what I'm curious about as well, I would love to see a blind shootout between the Sierra 2/EX and what Harman claims is ideal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
You attributed this to marketing hype, which is laughable because we don't advertise or put any $$$ or even effort towards marketing, neither does RAAL - but you do have a habit of ignoring science that doesn't agree with your narrative.
With all due respect, the vast majority of stories I hear about Sierra 2 or similar speakers are very amateurish, most of them have been upgrading from terrible speakers so I would expect them to think they sound good. I don't think I've ever seen a remotely proper, level-matched comparison, certainly not blind either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
I invite you to come have a listen (we can do double blind if you like) and bring any speaker you like with you, I'll even treat you to a nice lunch. With all of your reading, research and what I hope to be genuine curiosity, I would be most interested as to which speaker you would choose and why... Please don’t say you have already done this experiment – because you thinking that listening to Dennis’s mini-phil, and then another speaker with an inexpensive dome, same cabinet and same woofer and preferring the dome version - holds no weight whatsoever. With different crossovers and different designers, the two speakers are completely different.

Fact, had your experience with Dennis's mini-phils been different - had you actually liked them - we wouldn't even be having this discussion
I used to live in Phoenix, so I did get to Southern California quite often but haven't in awhile, I'd definitely be interested in the offer the next time I come out though. I do think the Sierra tower is very well designed and am curious to hear it. I also realize the Mini Phil comparison wasn't fair but it was far and above what most people in this hobby do to try to compare speakers on a level playing field and both designers had similar design philosophies.

Just to be clear, I did like the Mini Phils, just not quite as much as the Zaph. Both speakers easily beat the ones I had at the time and had I bought the Mini Phils without building the Zaph version, I would have never known that. I would still have LS50's now though cause I had been wanting to audition them as well.

Last edited by aarons915; 09-12-2019 at 02:30 PM.
aarons915 is online now  
post #467 of 554 Old 09-09-2019, 11:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Aaron, F228Be the perfect speaker? I'd say by your standards the Dutch & Dutch 8C are much closer to the perfect speaker, those speakers have much flatter directivity throughout their entire operating range, and even below the transition frequency all the way down to the bottom of the speakers output.

Also how can you say a dome and cone is the perfect speaker when you even favored a coaxial (LS50) over the M105, arguably the best measuring bookshelf speaker Revel has?

Andrew Jones clearly has some disagreements with Toole, who largely dismisses coaxials, and Earl Geddes has some disagreements with Toole regarding ideal directivity curve, all very respected minds in this business. While the research is the research, there's still many differences in design philosophy even from people drawing from the same research.
Ascend, psuKinger and echopraxia like this.
Jakeshields is offline  
post #468 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 12:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
I did ask for a "perfect" Spin of an ideal to try to work toward but didn't hear anything but based on the premise that the off-axis should be smoothly declining
Actually what was said was the early reflections and sound power curves need to resemble the listening window, but that it did not have to be a flat line (smoothly declining being acceptable). So it can be either constant directivity (e.g. 705/8 from JBL) or gradually increasing directivity (typical cone/dome systems). I don't see a ribbon conflicting with those from a general pov.

And let's be honest, these are all nice measurements - much better than what is typically found on the market. I hope Ascend keeps putting up spins and other comprehensive data. It's a refreshing change.
Muza likes this.
TimVG is online now  
post #469 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 04:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakeshields View Post
Andrew Jones clearly has some disagreements with Toole, who largely dismisses coaxials, and Earl Geddes has some disagreements with Toole regarding ideal directivity curve
Just to point out that F. Toole does not dismiss coaxials, he merely pointed out that perfect vertical directivity behaviour is not necessary and that a coaxial is not inherently better than a standard multi-way loudspeaker. Same thing with regards to directivity. Toole merely conducted the research, showing whatever the tests concluded. It are findings of research conducted over quite a bit of time, conducted with a variety of audiences.
TimVG is online now  
post #470 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilharmonicDennis View Post
The only thing I could possibly add to Dave's excellent post is to remind people that Aaron's problem with my mini Phil was that it was too laid back compared with the dome version. Somehow we've morphed from that belief to a discussion of bumps and resonances. Can you say Whip Lash?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post
Right, his original complaint was RAAL's were laid back - now he is stating they are bright, without even hearing the speaker he assumes is bright. I'll lay out another fact for him, we have done quite well with Sierra-2EX so far, not a single customer has described them as bright with one customer wishing they had more energy in the mid treble range.

I've had a crazy week, broke my clavicle on labor day (really feeling my age) - hope you are well!
Dennis I thought the Mini Phil were slightly laid back in comparison but the BMR certainly aren't laid back and much of my thoughts are based on hearing them and seeing how similarly they measure to the Sierra 2 EX in the spins.

Dave I'm not necessarily saying they are bright, since they do fall off in the 2-3k range, the strong response from 4-10k could be heard as detail, like how many describe them. Sorry to hear about your collarbone, get well soon.
aarons915 is online now  
post #471 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banks1 View Post
Dave I have 4 different brands of speakers in my home and the Sierra 2 ex is definitely the best of the bunch.I love them.
Looks like you just volunteered to do a blind shootout between them lol. J/K but it would be awesome if you did this and I think you'd be surprised.
aarons915 is online now  
post #472 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakeshields View Post
Aaron, F228Be the perfect speaker? I'd say by your standards the Dutch & Dutch 8C are much closer to the perfect speaker, those speakers have much flatter directivity throughout their entire operating range, and even below the transition frequency all the way down to the bottom of the speakers output.

Also how can you say a dome and cone is the perfect speaker when you even favored a coaxial (LS50) over the M105, arguably the best measuring bookshelf speaker Revel has?
The 8c does look really good as well from what we can see, I'd like to see a Spinorama of it to compare apples to apples though. As far as the F228, I realize there may not be a "perfect" speaker but at this time it seems like the state of the art based on everything we know. Some have already preferred it to the Salon 2 in blind tests and I suspect the bass response is mostly responsible for most others preferring the Salon 2.

The LS50/M105 comparison shows I'm not just using measurements to tell me what speakers sound best but the great measurements were obviously what prompted me to try them in the first place. Even though the LS50 is a coaxial, KEF still has similar design goals as Harman and it is evident. If the M105 sounded badly I would be railing against Harman/Revel and calling out their research as BS but they actually sounded great and the driver integration was so good they almost match the LS50 as a point source. They were also so close with sighted testing that I had to set up a blind test to spot differences. So while I do love the LS50's, The M105 are still amazing speakers and matched their hype.
aarons915 is online now  
post #473 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
jsc79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Minnesota SW Metro Area
Posts: 691
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
Looks like you just volunteered to do a blind shootout between them lol. J/K but it would be awesome if you did this and I think you'd be surprised.
What would be the point of him doing the blind test? You wouldn't believe any of his conclusions anyway.
Spidacat and echopraxia like this.

Subwoofers: Dual Rythmik FV18
Speakers: L/R Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2 - Center - Horizon w/RAAL Surrounds: Sonance VP62R SST/SUR. Vinyl:Rega Planar 3
Video: Sony XBR65X900e 65" 4K - Sony UBP-X800 Blu Ray
Power and Processing: Yamaha RXA1030 - Monolith 7X Amp - Minidsp 2X4 HD/WI-DG
jsc79 is online now  
post #474 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Why is @aarons915 still going on about the 2EX’s tweeter having a uniquely problematic directivity mismatch with the woofer? Observe the polar response of the 2EX:

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/image...M2EX/POLAR.gif

Now compare this to Aaron’s image of perfection, the Revel 228Be’s polar response:

https://www.stereophile.com/images/119Revelfig5.jpg

Looks to me like the 228Be has quite a few problems of its own. In fact if you fit an ideal flat plane to these responses, the Sierra 2EX comes out objectively superior. But I suspect Aaron would say the treble directivity rolloff is “preferred” for no other reason than because he axiomatically holds the polar response of dome tweeters to be the ideal, because that’s what Revel uses.

This is all so silly. Aaron keeps trying to act the superior expert here, appealing to his interpretation of Dr. Toole’s research to explain how a speaker designed by Dave Fabrikant (a speaker Aaron has never even heard) sounds, against the actual explanations of Dave Fabrikant himself about how the speaker sounds and measures. I think Aaron just had a bad experience with one RAAL speaker that wasn’t to his liking, and has since been on a crusade against anything touching RAAL ever since.

Sorry to say Aaron, but your explanation of Ascend’s “signature sound” is worth exactly zero here. Dave’s explanation is the authority on the topic, because he designed the speakers. Your continued attempts to argue with him are bizarre. It’s like watching a teenager who starts to learn a bit about the world argue with vastly more knowledgeable and experienced adults on every topic possible to prove their teenager wisdom is superior.
gajCA and BluesDaddy56 like this.

Ascend Sierra Towers (RAAL) + Ascend Horizon (RAAL) + 2x Rythmik F18 | Ascend Sierra 2EX + JL Audio E112 | [Selling:] Bowers and Wilkins 702 S2
echopraxia is offline  
post #475 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Actually what was said was the early reflections and sound power curves need to resemble the listening window, but that it did not have to be a flat line (smoothly declining being acceptable). So it can be either constant directivity (e.g. 705/8 from JBL) or gradually increasing directivity (typical cone/dome systems). I don't see a ribbon conflicting with those from a general pov.

And let's be honest, these are all nice measurements - much better than what is typically found on the market. I hope Ascend keeps putting up spins and other comprehensive data. It's a refreshing change.
Yes but the Sierra 2 EX does neither of those things, it declines in the woofer range then goes back up almost to the same level as the on-axis sound due to the wide dispersion of the tweeter. As I said to Dave, maybe this is preferred but it's not how any of the best speakers measure currently.

I've said many times they do measure well generally and I totally agree about the Spins, it is a refreshing change and Ascend has always been one of the best about showing comprehensive measurements, hopefully it starts a trend.
aarons915 is online now  
post #476 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:36 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
Yes but the Sierra 2 EX does neither of those things, it declines in the woofer range then goes back up almost to the same level as the on-axis sound due to the wide dispersion of the tweeter. As I said to Dave, maybe this is preferred but it's not how any of the best speakers measure currently.
Your bias is showing through here to an absurd degree: On what grounds do you get to say “this is not how any of the best speakers measure currently”, where your definition of “the best speakers” seems to axiomatically exclude Ascend speakers and include Revel speakers?

Either measurements are objective or they’re not. And as objective measurements, one speaker is going to be better than the other given a fixed and unbiased definition of ideal measurements.

It’s ridiculously unfair for you to just choose a Revel speaker as the “gold standard” and using that choice to prove the inferiority of other speakers: you’re assuming the winner in your choice of a measurement standard, because no speaker can measure more like a Revel 228Be than a Revel 228Be!

Similarly, it is unfair to choose reference measurements characteristic of dome tweeters and all their flaws as the “ideal”, without solid evidence to backup the assertion that their flaws are preferred subjectively by humans (especially when there’s significant evidence to the contrary from Ascend).

Otherwise, you end up with what’s happening now: You are literally choosing the winner first, then measuring them and showing that the others don’t measure the same as your winner as your “proof” of them being inferior.

I don’t think it gets any more biased or less scientific than that.
BluesDaddy56 likes this.

Ascend Sierra Towers (RAAL) + Ascend Horizon (RAAL) + 2x Rythmik F18 | Ascend Sierra 2EX + JL Audio E112 | [Selling:] Bowers and Wilkins 702 S2

Last edited by echopraxia; 09-10-2019 at 07:45 AM.
echopraxia is offline  
post #477 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 07:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elihawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Posts: 6,070
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1940 Post(s)
Liked: 2084
All I have learned from this discussion is that the RAALs are excellent tweeter that a few people don't like...

Set up #1: EMP e5Ti, e5Ci, and EMP e5Bi surrounds, Outlaw LFM1 Plus sub, SVS NSD SB12 sub, Marantz Slimeline 1504 AV receiver
Set up #2: Def Tech SM450, CLR2002, SLS Qline surrounds and EMPtek10i10i sub, Denon 1910 AV receiver
Set up #3: Philharmonics- BMR in a 2.0 system, music only, Yamaha RXV-363 AV receiver
Elihawk is offline  
post #478 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 09:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by echopraxia View Post
Your bias is showing through here to an absurd degree: On what grounds do you get to say “this is not how any of the best speakers measure currently”, where your definition of “the best speakers” seems to axiomatically exclude Ascend speakers and include Revel speakers?
Really? You did just read that I don't own Revel speakers right? Also, I am one of the only ones with the guts to pit my speakers blind against what many consider one of Revel's best speakers in the M105. I recall you wanting to compare Ascend to the F206, why didn't you? Why not order a pair of M106 and compare to your Sierra 2? I think you and others are afraid their favorite speakers will lose and I completely get it, I was afraid my LS50 were going to lose, I wouldn't care other than the fact that I really like how the LS50 look and are built. I also built the closest speaker I could find(identical cabinets, woofers) to the Mini Phil to compare them. Then I compared the BMR to my LS50, I'd say I have done much more work than most people trying to find the perfect speaker for me.

I also didn't say Ascend speakers are automatically excluded from the best speakers but Harman claims that no speaker has ever beat the Salon 2 in blind tests, even speakers well over $100,000 so if you believe that claim as I do, you then can dissect their measurements and see what makes them so good. You do realize the entire reason for the Spinorama and correlating measurements to preference is for them to build the best sounding speaker they can right? If you've never heard the Salon 2 you should really hear it, it might give you a bit of a reality check.

Someone mentioned in this thread: http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/sho...vel-F208/page2

That Dave said you would have to move up to the Ultima 2 series for a "better comparison" which was quickly shutdown by a poster who said "Got a link to that? I would consider that a pretty crazy claim. As a disclaimer I've owned the entire Ultima 2 series and every speaker Ascend has made other than the Sierra Tower (which I have on order) and the Horizon."

Then he later said: "With all that said, I did have the opportunity to listen to the Gem2s directly against the Sierra 2s and had them in the same room for several months and I would be very surprised anyone claiming they were comparable products performance-wise (and at 7 times the cost they better be, because the Gem2s are butt ugly)."

Quote:
Originally Posted by echopraxia View Post
Either measurements are objective or they’re not. And as objective measurements, one speaker is going to be better than the other given a fixed and unbiased definition of ideal measurements.
Agreed, the only difference of opinion at this point is which measurements are better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by echopraxia View Post
It’s ridiculously unfair for you to just choose a Revel speaker as the “gold standard” and using that choice to prove the inferiority of other speakers: you’re assuming the winner in your choice of a measurement standard, because no speaker can measure more like a Revel 228Be than a Revel 228Be!
Again, they measure that way because it's what Harman believes most people prefer, which is backed up with decades of research and blind listening tests. If we want to prove them wrong then some people need to step up and start conducting their own blind listening tests for some dissenting opinions.

Last edited by aarons915; 09-10-2019 at 10:15 AM.
aarons915 is online now  
post #479 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 10:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
BluesDaddy56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 815
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 566 Post(s)
Liked: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post
All I have learned from this discussion is that the RAALs are excellent tweeter that a few people don't like...
Or that one or two people seem to a some kind of vested interest in attempting to discredit them as much as possible. It is curious. I don't think I've ever seen any such dogged determination to submarine products with near universal acclaim from their owners. It makes one curious regarding motives.
smurraybhm, gajCA, Elihawk and 1 others like this.

Display: Vizio P55-E1l Pre-pro: Marantz 7703; Amps: Emotiva XPA-2 Gen 2, Emotiva XPA-3 Gen 1, H/K AVR 520 (direct in to amps); Sources: Sony UBP-X700; X-box 1 S; Technics 1200 Mk II; Win10 PC for digital; Phono Preamp: Emotiva XPS-1; Speakers - LR: Philharmonic BMR LR; Center: Selah Audio BMR-CC; Surrounds: Wharfedale Reva-2; Rear Surrounds: Wharfedale Diamond 220; Atmos: TF - Monoprice Alpha 8; TR - BIC VI-38; Subwoofers: dual Rythmik L22s
BluesDaddy56 is offline  
post #480 of 554 Old 09-10-2019, 10:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc79 View Post
What would be the point of him doing the blind test? You wouldn't believe any of his conclusions anyway.
Actually I would because he has many different brands and has never appeared to be biased toward any. Why don't you think I would believe his conclusions? I am one of the only people here that has apparently done detailed comparisons with many of the speakers we're talking about including KEF, Revel and a few RAAL bookshelves.
aarons915 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off