Re: What's the Ducks Guts about HD audio.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Roger_Nickel, Jun 29, 2011.

  1. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:23:26 +1200, Robert Cooze wrote:

    > At the Beginning of the year I bought a new Motherboard. And seing as I
    > had had some success with the on-board audio I decided to use the
    > on-board audio.
    >
    > A little bit later and a few questions answered Im left with the
    > question.
    >
    > What's the difference with the regular front panel connectors and the
    > HD-audio module for the front of the case?
    >
    > If there is a difference are the ones on the back HD?
    >
    > Is there any practical difference?
    >
    > Or is it for the surround sound which I am not interested in.
    >
    > Or is it just one word MARKETING and just that.
    >
    > As for what I am playing the sound through set up one a Preaux and
    > Lambert combination or a small 20W home made amp and some NAD or Mission
    > speakers.
    >
    > <history>
    > A long time ago I used to use a DA converter to play music trough the
    > computer. now I just use the line out and its Ok it Don't sound like the
    > expensive CD player or the cheep DVD player(both sound different). It
    > does have its own sound and it is not bad. </history>


    Intel HD chipset supports multiple concurrent HD streams. It would be
    possible, for instance, to use the "HD module" to drive a home theatre
    sound system while using a headset connected to the front panel sockets
    to chat during an online video game while simultaneously streaming a
    separate high resolution sound file out through the rear panel
    connectors. The chipset has 8 192/32 channels (yeah,right!) but in any
    event ought to be good enough. Sound quality is going to be limited by
    electrical noise and by the quality of the analogue signal path rather
    than by the DAC. I have an old Sounblaster Audigy card which puts out a
    pretty good sound on AKG K600 headphones but the Musicstreamer USB DAC
    wins because it is dead quiet. Best $300 I ever spent. If you want to
    know how the HD chipset has been used on your particular motherboard then
    you will need to Read The Fine Manual.
    Roger_Nickel, Jun 29, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roger_Nickel

    Me Guest

    On 29/06/2011 3:19 p.m., Roger_Nickel wrote:
    > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:23:26 +1200, Robert Cooze wrote:
    >
    >> At the Beginning of the year I bought a new Motherboard. And seing as I
    >> had had some success with the on-board audio I decided to use the
    >> on-board audio.
    >>
    >> A little bit later and a few questions answered Im left with the
    >> question.
    >>
    >> What's the difference with the regular front panel connectors and the
    >> HD-audio module for the front of the case?
    >>
    >> If there is a difference are the ones on the back HD?
    >>
    >> Is there any practical difference?
    >>
    >> Or is it for the surround sound which I am not interested in.
    >>
    >> Or is it just one word MARKETING and just that.
    >>
    >> As for what I am playing the sound through set up one a Preaux and
    >> Lambert combination or a small 20W home made amp and some NAD or Mission
    >> speakers.
    >>
    >> <history>
    >> A long time ago I used to use a DA converter to play music trough the
    >> computer. now I just use the line out and its Ok it Don't sound like the
    >> expensive CD player or the cheep DVD player(both sound different). It
    >> does have its own sound and it is not bad.</history>

    >
    > Intel HD chipset supports multiple concurrent HD streams. It would be
    > possible, for instance, to use the "HD module" to drive a home theatre
    > sound system while using a headset connected to the front panel sockets
    > to chat during an online video game while simultaneously streaming a
    > separate high resolution sound file out through the rear panel
    > connectors.

    LOL. Death by featuritis.
    > The chipset has 8 192/32 channels (yeah,right!) but in any
    > event ought to be good enough. Sound quality is going to be limited by
    > electrical noise and by the quality of the analogue signal path rather
    > than by the DAC. I have an old Sounblaster Audigy card which puts out a
    > pretty good sound on AKG K600 headphones but the Musicstreamer USB DAC
    > wins because it is dead quiet. Best $300 I ever spent. If you want to
    > know how the HD chipset has been used on your particular motherboard then
    > you will need to Read The Fine Manual.

    I've got some (pre-Harmon Kardon era) JBL speakers, a very cheap MOSFET
    class B amp made in china, and after several tests, decided that out of
    CD players, my NAD was worst, the $49 DVD player purchased at countdown
    marginally better, and a $200 bluray player best. I like it!
    My next door neighbour has Krell Evolution CD/SHCD, preamp, and 2x 600w
    class A monoblock power amps (which draw 3kW each), connected with
    perhaps 10 metres of their special $600/metre digital cable, connected
    to a pair of B&W Nautilus Signature 800s.
    It does sound very good, but I doubt that there's any field more full of
    absolute BS than the high-end hifi business.
    Me, Jun 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:44:43 +1200, Robert Cooze wrote:

    > On 29/06/11 15:19, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:23:26 +1200, Robert Cooze wrote:
    >>
    >>> At the Beginning of the year I bought a new Motherboard. And seing as
    >>> I had had some success with the on-board audio I decided to use the
    >>> on-board audio.
    >>>
    >>> A little bit later and a few questions answered Im left with the
    >>> question.
    >>>
    >>> What's the difference with the regular front panel connectors and the
    >>> HD-audio module for the front of the case?
    >>>
    >>> If there is a difference are the ones on the back HD?
    >>>
    >>> Is there any practical difference?
    >>>
    >>> Or is it for the surround sound which I am not interested in.
    >>>
    >>> Or is it just one word MARKETING and just that.
    >>>
    >>> As for what I am playing the sound through set up one a Preaux and
    >>> Lambert combination or a small 20W home made amp and some NAD or
    >>> Mission speakers.
    >>>
    >>> <history>
    >>> A long time ago I used to use a DA converter to play music trough the
    >>> computer. now I just use the line out and its Ok it Don't sound like
    >>> the expensive CD player or the cheep DVD player(both sound different).
    >>> It does have its own sound and it is not bad.</history>

    >>
    >> Intel HD chipset supports multiple concurrent HD streams. It would be
    >> possible, for instance, to use the "HD module" to drive a home theatre
    >> sound system while using a headset connected to the front panel sockets
    >> to chat during an online video game while simultaneously streaming a
    >> separate high resolution sound file out through the rear panel
    >> connectors. The chipset has 8 192/32 channels (yeah,right!) but in any
    >> event ought to be good enough. Sound quality is going to be limited by
    >> electrical noise and by the quality of the analogue signal path rather
    >> than by the DAC. I have an old Sounblaster Audigy card which puts out a
    >> pretty good sound on AKG K600 headphones but the Musicstreamer USB DAC
    >> wins because it is dead quiet. Best $300 I ever spent. If you want to
    >> know how the HD chipset has been used on your particular motherboard
    >> then you will need to Read The Fine Manual.

    > the fine print in manual? not a lot of real descriptive about 1/2 a
    > paragraph.
    >
    > think I might have stumbled on to the answer kind of what you said and
    > being able to do the 7.1 sound.
    >
    > All I seem to find is lots of gibberius on boards by pimple faced teens
    > that is almost unreadable :(


    If you open Windows Control Panel=>System=>Device Manager and look for
    the Multimedia/Sound devices you should find which sound devices are
    installed and which chipset and which drivers they use. The Control
    Panel=> Sounds window should take you to a window which lets you assign
    particular sound devices to particular I/O connectors and to send out
    test signals. Should be able to work out quickly whether the front and
    rear panel connectors are paralleled or separate. This part of the
    Control Panel also accesses the Windows Mixer which lets you balance the
    levels of the connected devices; best to mute the devices you are not
    using. Should be no problem using these controls as volume controls---you
    have 32 bits to play with, so aren't exactly short of dynamic range.
    Roger_Nickel, Jun 29, 2011
    #3
  4. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:55:20 +1200, Robert Cooze wrote:

    > On 29/06/11 22:14, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:44:43 +1200, Robert Cooze wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 29/06/11 15:19, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:23:26 +1200, Robert Cooze wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> At the Beginning of the year I bought a new Motherboard. And seing
    >>>>> as I had had some success with the on-board audio I decided to use
    >>>>> the on-board audio.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A little bit later and a few questions answered Im left with the
    >>>>> question.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What's the difference with the regular front panel connectors and
    >>>>> the HD-audio module for the front of the case?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If there is a difference are the ones on the back HD?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Is there any practical difference?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Or is it for the surround sound which I am not interested in.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Or is it just one word MARKETING and just that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As for what I am playing the sound through set up one a Preaux and
    >>>>> Lambert combination or a small 20W home made amp and some NAD or
    >>>>> Mission speakers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <history>
    >>>>> A long time ago I used to use a DA converter to play music trough
    >>>>> the computer. now I just use the line out and its Ok it Don't sound
    >>>>> like the expensive CD player or the cheep DVD player(both sound
    >>>>> different). It does have its own sound and it is not bad.</history>
    >>>>
    >>>> Intel HD chipset supports multiple concurrent HD streams. It would be
    >>>> possible, for instance, to use the "HD module" to drive a home
    >>>> theatre sound system while using a headset connected to the front
    >>>> panel sockets to chat during an online video game while
    >>>> simultaneously streaming a separate high resolution sound file out
    >>>> through the rear panel connectors. The chipset has 8 192/32 channels
    >>>> (yeah,right!) but in any event ought to be good enough. Sound quality
    >>>> is going to be limited by electrical noise and by the quality of the
    >>>> analogue signal path rather than by the DAC. I have an old
    >>>> Sounblaster Audigy card which puts out a pretty good sound on AKG
    >>>> K600 headphones but the Musicstreamer USB DAC wins because it is dead
    >>>> quiet. Best $300 I ever spent. If you want to know how the HD chipset
    >>>> has been used on your particular motherboard then you will need to
    >>>> Read The Fine Manual.
    >>> the fine print in manual? not a lot of real descriptive about 1/2 a
    >>> paragraph.
    >>>
    >>> think I might have stumbled on to the answer kind of what you said and
    >>> being able to do the 7.1 sound.
    >>>
    >>> All I seem to find is lots of gibberius on boards by pimple faced
    >>> teens that is almost unreadable :(

    >>
    >> If you open Windows Control Panel=>System=>Device Manager and look for
    >> the Multimedia/Sound devices you should find which sound devices are
    >> installed and which chipset and which drivers they use. The Control
    >> Panel=> Sounds window should take you to a window which lets you
    >> assign particular sound devices to particular I/O connectors and to
    >> send out test signals. Should be able to work out quickly whether the
    >> front and rear panel connectors are paralleled or separate. This part
    >> of the Control Panel also accesses the Windows Mixer which lets you
    >> balance the levels of the connected devices; best to mute the devices
    >> you are not using. Should be no problem using these controls as volume
    >> controls---you have 32 bits to play with, so aren't exactly short of
    >> dynamic range.

    >
    > From what I can see they are Individual just one problem I don't have
    > front panel connectors I do have the header pins on the Main Board, That
    > was never the question.
    >
    > I can make a front panel connector but not for the HD? as although it
    > uses the same front panel header it uses different pins.
    >
    > It looks like I can steer different programs to use different outputs.


    It wouldn't surprise me if the "HD module" contained a DTS decoder
    supplied by its own separate digital output channel on the motherboard.
    The other outputs will all be high resolution analogue. 192/32 is better
    than the AES studio standard of 96k 24bit samples per second. 32 bit
    conversion implies nanovolt resolution into the analogue signal chain.
    Good luck with that but it's still more than enough even if eight of the
    low bits are swallowed up in noise.
    Roger_Nickel, Jun 30, 2011
    #4
  5. Roger_Nickel

    Richard Guest

    On 6/30/2011 12:50 PM, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>
    >> From what I can see they are Individual just one problem I don't have
    >> front panel connectors I do have the header pins on the Main Board, That
    >> was never the question.
    >>
    >> I can make a front panel connector but not for the HD? as although it
    >> uses the same front panel header it uses different pins.


    an AC97 front panel will work but without jack detection, you will need
    to install the full audio driver suite to get the codecs control
    application to set the front inputs to disable jack detection and task
    them to what you want them to do, the norm is mic and headphones but
    most codecs let you change them into 2 mics or 2 headphones or whatever.

    >> It looks like I can steer different programs to use different outputs.

    >
    > It wouldn't surprise me if the "HD module" contained a DTS decoder
    > supplied by its own separate digital output channel on the motherboard.
    > The other outputs will all be high resolution analogue. 192/32 is better
    > than the AES studio standard of 96k 24bit samples per second. 32 bit
    > conversion implies nanovolt resolution into the analogue signal chain.
    > Good luck with that but it's still more than enough even if eight of the
    > low bits are swallowed up in noise.


    No decoders done in hardware - why would you when you have an assload of
    processing power there to do it in software?

    32bit audio is in floatingpoint not integer so can go way past 0dB and
    then bought back with DSP, whereas signed linear samples will clip at
    around 0dB. Windows 7 is smart enough to limit things when they go past
    0dB which means you just get pumping and not horrid clipping when you eq
    up the bass.
    Richard, Jul 1, 2011
    #5
  6. Roger_Nickel

    Richard Guest

    On 7/3/2011 9:00 AM, Robert Cooze wrote:

    > Ok so the on board sound should be way better than an PCI card or
    > somthing like that of the generation around and before AC97(inconsumer
    > grade gear).


    Not really, they use the crappest lousiest codecs possible on
    motherboards with no power conditioning or filtering so you get squeeks
    and bleeps when doing stuff. PCI cards are normally furthur away from
    the rest of the stuff and have at least some basic filtering on the DC
    lines to remove all the crap from everything else

    > Now as for doing the eq Thing why would you bother if you have good
    > speakers and a good Amplifier? As for the little bit of Sound editing
    > That I have done this limiting would be a pain in the ass.


    Any amplifier will not need equalization unless it has some in it
    already, like many mini systems do. The crazy idea of trying to
    physically build a speaker with a flat response is thankfully going
    away, and the speaker has no idea of the room response either which is
    quite significant depending on the location of the woofer and the wall
    and floor materials.

    Also I was using a software crossover for a while between some nice 12"
    sealed floorstanders that had great bass once extended with some EQ, and
    some bookshelfs that were really detailed but had no bass at all and
    would bottom out if you gave them signifigant power below 120Hz or so
    (stupid ported design)


    If you are doing sound editing then you would be watching your meters in
    the software so not pushing it past 0dB. I have only really seen it
    happen when I am adding signifigant bass extension and dont have the
    gain turned down and an already bass heavy track comes up in the
    playlist. Better some pumping than having it clip to hell.

    > Now the interesting question is where can I get the HD front panel
    > instead of the AC97.


    Not found one for sale seperate other than a 3.5" bay module which had
    the crap wires on it so would be useless for a mic input which is what I
    wanted it for.

    > Yep did find the jack detection had a interesting quirk. When using
    > Linux the audio driver (module) it thought the line in from a sound
    > source I had plugged in though it was the rear speakers of a 5.1 set-up.
    >
    > Very easy to fix. just untick a check-box in the mixer I was using
    Richard, Jul 5, 2011
    #6
  7. Roger_Nickel

    Me Guest

    On 15/07/2011 7:25 p.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    > On 15/07/11 10:32, Me wrote:
    >> On 29/06/2011 7:54 p.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The market seems to be all hype and misdirection these days

    >>
    >> Not helped (IMO) by "fanboi" bias, product/brand bashing, and shill
    >> posts and reviews in many online forums. A common factor seems to be
    >> condemning lower cost products as crap(TM), or automatically
    >> recommending something very expensive and high end - without bothering
    >> to ask what the original poster intended to use the product for, and
    >> what their budget is. Cameras, audio gear, cars, big TVs, phones seem to
    >> be things which excite the most passionate and outrageous misdirection.
    >> Boy toys. I don't see women carrying on like that - but perhaps I don't
    >> look in the right places.
    >>

    >
    > Too true some of the online reviews or forums seem to be who can shout
    > the loudest. I read one that was so bad the misnomers and assumptions
    > where so bad. I just did not bother posting at all or reading the rest...
    >

    OTOH, most compact HD audio systems are crap(TM), even and especially
    some well-known and high cost ones:
    Satellite speakers with drivers way too small to reproduce voice
    frequencies efficiently.
    So-called subs with crossover at 200hz - one octave too high for a
    single sub system, and with a very peaky response.
    If you try to eq out the deficiencies, then you get low spl, high
    distortion, or usually both.
    Like automobile engines, ultimately there's just no substitute for cubic
    inches.
    Me, Jul 19, 2011
    #7
  8. Roger_Nickel

    Richard Guest

    On 7/19/2011 6:00 PM, Robert Cooze wrote:

    >
    > I got a TA2024 based Amplifier and with the good speakers I already had
    > Im in stereo heaven and can drive a set of head phones or drive the big
    > amp independently Got it working and it is musical is it as good as a
    > good CD player I don't know....



    Hmm, the two 2024 amps I have tried have been noisy and ridiculously
    underpowered. Had to go for a much larger "4x100w" amp module that took
    more voltage to get it to acceptable levels, but still had a noise problem.

    They certainly sound really harsh when driven to near their limits - no
    clipping but just a real awful aspect to the sound (insert any of the
    negative BS audiofool words here like "unrefined" and "harsh")
    Richard, Jul 19, 2011
    #8
  9. Roger_Nickel

    Me Guest

    On 20/07/2011 8:22 a.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    > On 19/07/11 22:48, Richard wrote:
    >> On 7/19/2011 6:00 PM, Robert Cooze wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I got a TA2024 based Amplifier and with the good speakers I already had
    >>> Im in stereo heaven and can drive a set of head phones or drive the big
    >>> amp independently Got it working and it is musical is it as good as a
    >>> good CD player I don't know....

    >>
    >>
    >> Hmm, the two 2024 amps I have tried have been noisy and ridiculously
    >> underpowered. Had to go for a much larger "4x100w" amp module that took
    >> more voltage to get it to acceptable levels, but still had a noise
    >> problem.
    >>
    >> They certainly sound really harsh when driven to near their limits - no
    >> clipping but just a real awful aspect to the sound (insert any of the
    >> negative BS audiofool words here like "unrefined" and "harsh")
    >>

    >
    >
    > Must have got lucky with mine.... ok not a match for the 200W Perreaux I
    > have. But not as harsh as 70's Receiver I have or used to use. And the
    > last amp I used before was so lush but all the volume base treble and
    > balance pots where Very noisy.
    >
    > From what I read about them got reviews from Good to Bad.
    >
    > With mine I did find the input volume was critical as if it had clipped
    > (a Linux distro can do that) the sound it very nasty from that point on.
    >
    > Either way it sounds different to what I have around the place and so
    > far it has driven the NAD speakers that I have as well as the mission
    > and lambert ones with out any problems. Not bad for what in essence is a
    > switch-mode power-supply.
    >
    > but this is out side of the thread I would have to say.

    It's called "thread drift" and quite normal.

    OK, so I don't get why people would use Class D for low power (20w)
    audio amplification, unless saving power in a battery-powered device was
    the objective.
    I have some class D active speakers, but these are relatively powerful
    300wRMS and 600w RMS output with efficient large drivers. Hf drivers
    have separate 100w class A/B amps. Conceptually the antithesis of
    high-end hifi design.
    They should sound like crap (TM) in a domestic setting. But they don't.
    They just look a bit ugly.
    Me, Jul 19, 2011
    #9
  10. Roger_Nickel

    Me Guest

    On 20/07/2011 9:32 a.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    > On 20/07/11 09:00, Me wrote:


    >> They should sound like crap (TM) in a domestic setting. But they don't.
    >> They just look a bit ugly.

    > I think the words are horses for courses....

    Perhaps... but that's a market position statement based on what's
    available, not what could (or IMO should) be available.
    I'm not convinced that the slow "advances" in design using old
    technology (combined it seems with ever more exotic and expensive
    engineering materials) has kept up with advances possible using active
    design.
    They are different approaches, say B&W with expensive "tested by ear"
    design of passive audio crossovers, combined with speaker driver
    placement to minimise effects of time alignment with HF/mid/lf drivers.
    That's a lot of R&D money being poured in to trying to solve problems
    which can be solved simply, very effectively, and cheaply using DSP in
    active designs. (this isn't old "active" - actually probably better just
    called "powered" designs which just added an amp or two to what would
    have been passive speakers)
    The established high end home audio manufacturers don't seem to be going
    down that path (except with subs perhaps) - it's probably not in their
    interests to do so. I don't think it's sound quality driving this. The
    technology is used widely in professional studio (monitors), PA/SR
    applications etc, arguably much more critical than home entertainment.

    >
    > I still remember the amplifier's I made with 2N3055's That is all I used
    > and it was class A rough and ready would be how I describe them. Alas I
    > don't have them any more, and I have forgotten more about electronics
    > than I care to remember but those where the days.
    >

    I used to make my own audio gear (amps, speaker cabinets) too. It was fun.

    > No mater what you use the system should disappear and only the music
    > should be heard. that is all I go by these days.
    >

    I'd just say that it should sound good.
    Me, Jul 21, 2011
    #10
  11. Roger_Nickel

    Richard Guest

    On 7/21/2011 12:35 PM, Me wrote:
    > On 20/07/2011 9:32 a.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    >> On 20/07/11 09:00, Me wrote:

    >
    >>> They should sound like crap (TM) in a domestic setting. But they don't.
    >>> They just look a bit ugly.

    >> I think the words are horses for courses....

    > Perhaps... but that's a market position statement based on what's
    > available, not what could (or IMO should) be available.
    > I'm not convinced that the slow "advances" in design using old
    > technology (combined it seems with ever more exotic and expensive
    > engineering materials) has kept up with advances possible using active
    > design.
    > They are different approaches, say B&W with expensive "tested by ear"
    > design of passive audio crossovers, combined with speaker driver
    > placement to minimise effects of time alignment with HF/mid/lf drivers.
    > That's a lot of R&D money being poured in to trying to solve problems
    > which can be solved simply, very effectively, and cheaply using DSP in
    > active designs. (this isn't old "active" - actually probably better just
    > called "powered" designs which just added an amp or two to what would
    > have been passive speakers)
    > The established high end home audio manufacturers don't seem to be going
    > down that path (except with subs perhaps) - it's probably not in their
    > interests to do so. I don't think it's sound quality driving this. The
    > technology is used widely in professional studio (monitors), PA/SR
    > applications etc, arguably much more critical than home entertainment.


    Well home audio peddlers say the source is the most important part of
    the chain, and then tell you that its the bloody CD player or whatever.

    There seems to be this whole desire in audio to mix and match power amps
    and speakers, and a reluctance to move even just the crossover to before
    the poweramps, hell, they believe that simply doubling up on the wires
    to the speaker will make a huge improvement, but talkabout something
    that doubles up on amps and removes the imprecice passive crossover and
    you are suddenly talking dirty words.

    >> I still remember the amplifier's I made with 2N3055's That is all I used
    >> and it was class A rough and ready would be how I describe them. Alas I
    >> don't have them any more, and I have forgotten more about electronics
    >> than I care to remember but those where the days.
    >>

    > I used to make my own audio gear (amps, speaker cabinets) too. It was fun.


    I have bought a couple of 350w kits off ebay, still have to find
    heatsinking for them to get them up and working.
    Richard, Jul 21, 2011
    #11
  12. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:35:37 +1200, Me wrote:

    > On 20/07/2011 9:32 a.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    >> On 20/07/11 09:00, Me wrote:

    >
    >>> They should sound like crap (TM) in a domestic setting. But they
    >>> don't. They just look a bit ugly.

    >> I think the words are horses for courses....

    > Perhaps... but that's a market position statement based on what's
    > available, not what could (or IMO should) be available. I'm not
    > convinced that the slow "advances" in design using old technology
    > (combined it seems with ever more exotic and expensive engineering
    > materials) has kept up with advances possible using active design.
    > They are different approaches, say B&W with expensive "tested by ear"
    > design of passive audio crossovers, combined with speaker driver
    > placement to minimise effects of time alignment with HF/mid/lf drivers.
    > That's a lot of R&D money being poured in to trying to solve problems
    > which can be solved simply, very effectively, and cheaply using DSP in
    > active designs. (this isn't old "active" - actually probably better just
    > called "powered" designs which just added an amp or two to what would
    > have been passive speakers)
    > The established high end home audio manufacturers don't seem to be going
    > down that path (except with subs perhaps) - it's probably not in their
    > interests to do so. I don't think it's sound quality driving this. The
    > technology is used widely in professional studio (monitors), PA/SR
    > applications etc, arguably much more critical than home entertainment.
    >
    >
    >> I still remember the amplifier's I made with 2N3055's That is all I
    >> used and it was class A rough and ready would be how I describe them.
    >> Alas I don't have them any more, and I have forgotten more about
    >> electronics than I care to remember but those where the days.
    >>

    > I used to make my own audio gear (amps, speaker cabinets) too. It was
    > fun.
    >
    >> No mater what you use the system should disappear and only the music
    >> should be heard. that is all I go by these days.
    >>

    > I'd just say that it should sound good.


    Lots of food for thought here :-
    http://www.linkwitzlab.com/
    Roger_Nickel, Jul 21, 2011
    #12
  13. Roger_Nickel

    grum Guest

    On 21/07/2011 12:35 p.m., Me wrote:
    > On 20/07/2011 9:32 a.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    >> On 20/07/11 09:00, Me wrote:

    >
    >>> They should sound like crap (TM) in a domestic setting. But they don't.
    >>> They just look a bit ugly.

    >> I think the words are horses for courses....

    > Perhaps... but that's a market position statement based on what's
    > available, not what could (or IMO should) be available.
    > I'm not convinced that the slow "advances" in design using old
    > technology (combined it seems with ever more exotic and expensive
    > engineering materials) has kept up with advances possible using active
    > design.
    > They are different approaches, say B&W with expensive "tested by ear"
    > design of passive audio crossovers, combined with speaker driver
    > placement to minimise effects of time alignment with HF/mid/lf drivers.
    > That's a lot of R&D money being poured in to trying to solve problems
    > which can be solved simply, very effectively, and cheaply using DSP in
    > active designs. (this isn't old "active" - actually probably better just
    > called "powered" designs which just added an amp or two to what would
    > have been passive speakers)
    > The established high end home audio manufacturers don't seem to be going
    > down that path (except with subs perhaps) - it's probably not in their
    > interests to do so. I don't think it's sound quality driving this. The
    > technology is used widely in professional studio (monitors), PA/SR
    > applications etc, arguably much more critical than home entertainment.
    >
    >>
    >> I still remember the amplifier's I made with 2N3055's That is all I used
    >> and it was class A rough and ready would be how I describe them. Alas I
    >> don't have them any more, and I have forgotten more about electronics
    >> than I care to remember but those where the days.
    >>

    > I used to make my own audio gear (amps, speaker cabinets) too. It was fun.
    >
    >> No mater what you use the system should disappear and only the music
    >> should be heard. that is all I go by these days.
    >>

    > I'd just say that it should sound good.
    >

    Interesting discussion guys, we think alike.
    After a long search I finally found a pair of active speakers (yes, the
    *real* active) from an established high end audio manufacturer, that are
    living room friendly in both size and style - Dynaudio Focus 110a Piano
    Black. They look and sound fantastic.
    I also have "powered" (Audioengine) and "passive" (Kef/Cyrus) setups,
    which sound...good but less fantastic.

    Agree with your comments about most home audio manufacturers not going
    down the active path, more's the pity.

    Also re ways of judging a system, here's another - I have had more than
    one person, on hearing the Dynaudios, offer to buy them on the spot!
    grum, Jul 21, 2011
    #13
  14. Roger_Nickel

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs grum wrote:
    > On 21/07/2011 12:35 p.m., Me wrote:
    >> On 20/07/2011 9:32 a.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    >>> On 20/07/11 09:00, Me wrote:

    >>
    >>>> They should sound like crap (TM) in a domestic setting. But they
    >>>> don't. They just look a bit ugly.
    >>> I think the words are horses for courses....

    >> Perhaps... but that's a market position statement based on what's
    >> available, not what could (or IMO should) be available.
    >> I'm not convinced that the slow "advances" in design using old
    >> technology (combined it seems with ever more exotic and expensive
    >> engineering materials) has kept up with advances possible using
    >> active design.
    >> They are different approaches, say B&W with expensive "tested by ear"
    >> design of passive audio crossovers, combined with speaker driver
    >> placement to minimise effects of time alignment with HF/mid/lf
    >> drivers. That's a lot of R&D money being poured in to trying to
    >> solve problems which can be solved simply, very effectively, and
    >> cheaply using DSP in active designs. (this isn't old "active" -
    >> actually probably better just called "powered" designs which just
    >> added an amp or two to what would have been passive speakers)
    >> The established high end home audio manufacturers don't seem to be
    >> going down that path (except with subs perhaps) - it's probably not
    >> in their interests to do so. I don't think it's sound quality
    >> driving this. The technology is used widely in professional studio
    >> (monitors), PA/SR applications etc, arguably much more critical than
    >> home entertainment.
    >>>
    >>> I still remember the amplifier's I made with 2N3055's That is all I
    >>> used and it was class A rough and ready would be how I describe
    >>> them. Alas I don't have them any more, and I have forgotten more
    >>> about electronics than I care to remember but those where the days.
    >>>

    >> I used to make my own audio gear (amps, speaker cabinets) too. It
    >> was fun.
    >>> No mater what you use the system should disappear and only the music
    >>> should be heard. that is all I go by these days.
    >>>

    >> I'd just say that it should sound good.
    >>

    > Interesting discussion guys, we think alike.
    > After a long search I finally found a pair of active speakers (yes,
    > the *real* active) from an established high end audio manufacturer,
    > that are living room friendly in both size and style - Dynaudio Focus
    > 110a Piano Black. They look and sound fantastic.
    > I also have "powered" (Audioengine) and "passive" (Kef/Cyrus) setups,
    > which sound...good but less fantastic.
    >
    > Agree with your comments about most home audio manufacturers not going
    > down the active path, more's the pity.
    >
    > Also re ways of judging a system, here's another - I have had more
    > than one person, on hearing the Dynaudios, offer to buy them on the
    > spot!


    Hmmm.... I'd love to hear those Dynadios paired with my Klipsch 15" / 600W
    active sub. As it is I'll have to make do with my little ~15 y/o Jamo
    bookshelfs and the Jamo passive dual 8" driver band-pass sub (to fill in the
    mid/low-bass that niether the Jamos or the Klipsch manage to reproduce). The
    Klipsch is great for ~60Hz and lower but anything over 70 or so and it gets
    'boomy'.

    Getting them 'balanced' was a bear but the combo sounds pretty sweet now.
    It'll have to do me for the foreseeable future. I love the soft dome tweeter
    sound that the Jamos share with the Dynadios. The Danes sure know how to
    build a good speaker. I have some Harmon-Kardon era JBLs that have
    titanium-dome tweets. <shudder> Horrible metalic hiss, nothing like highs
    should sound like but most 'consumers' wouldn't know the difference.
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
    ~misfit~, Jul 22, 2011
    #14
  15. Roger_Nickel

    Me Guest

    On 22/07/2011 1:49 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs grum wrote:
    >> On 21/07/2011 12:35 p.m., Me wrote:
    >>> On 20/07/2011 9:32 a.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
    >>>> On 20/07/11 09:00, Me wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> They should sound like crap (TM) in a domestic setting. But they
    >>>>> don't. They just look a bit ugly.
    >>>> I think the words are horses for courses....
    >>> Perhaps... but that's a market position statement based on what's
    >>> available, not what could (or IMO should) be available.
    >>> I'm not convinced that the slow "advances" in design using old
    >>> technology (combined it seems with ever more exotic and expensive
    >>> engineering materials) has kept up with advances possible using
    >>> active design.
    >>> They are different approaches, say B&W with expensive "tested by ear"
    >>> design of passive audio crossovers, combined with speaker driver
    >>> placement to minimise effects of time alignment with HF/mid/lf
    >>> drivers. That's a lot of R&D money being poured in to trying to
    >>> solve problems which can be solved simply, very effectively, and
    >>> cheaply using DSP in active designs. (this isn't old "active" -
    >>> actually probably better just called "powered" designs which just
    >>> added an amp or two to what would have been passive speakers)
    >>> The established high end home audio manufacturers don't seem to be
    >>> going down that path (except with subs perhaps) - it's probably not
    >>> in their interests to do so. I don't think it's sound quality
    >>> driving this. The technology is used widely in professional studio
    >>> (monitors), PA/SR applications etc, arguably much more critical than
    >>> home entertainment.
    >>>>
    >>>> I still remember the amplifier's I made with 2N3055's That is all I
    >>>> used and it was class A rough and ready would be how I describe
    >>>> them. Alas I don't have them any more, and I have forgotten more
    >>>> about electronics than I care to remember but those where the days.
    >>>>
    >>> I used to make my own audio gear (amps, speaker cabinets) too. It
    >>> was fun.
    >>>> No mater what you use the system should disappear and only the music
    >>>> should be heard. that is all I go by these days.
    >>>>
    >>> I'd just say that it should sound good.
    >>>

    >> Interesting discussion guys, we think alike.
    >> After a long search I finally found a pair of active speakers (yes,
    >> the *real* active) from an established high end audio manufacturer,
    >> that are living room friendly in both size and style - Dynaudio Focus
    >> 110a Piano Black. They look and sound fantastic.
    >> I also have "powered" (Audioengine) and "passive" (Kef/Cyrus) setups,
    >> which sound...good but less fantastic.
    >>
    >> Agree with your comments about most home audio manufacturers not going
    >> down the active path, more's the pity.
    >>
    >> Also re ways of judging a system, here's another - I have had more
    >> than one person, on hearing the Dynaudios, offer to buy them on the
    >> spot!

    >
    > Hmmm.... I'd love to hear those Dynadios paired with my Klipsch 15" / 600W
    > active sub. As it is I'll have to make do with my little ~15 y/o Jamo
    > bookshelfs and the Jamo passive dual 8" driver band-pass sub (to fill in the
    > mid/low-bass that niether the Jamos or the Klipsch manage to reproduce). The
    > Klipsch is great for ~60Hz and lower but anything over 70 or so and it gets
    > 'boomy'.
    >

    This can be a problem with many home hifi subs, presumably designed with
    LFE home theatre specs in mind, rather than music. The SR sub I'm using
    is also 600W rms and 15" driver. Response is flat from 120-45hz, then
    falls off. But max spl is >125dB continuous - perhaps 10dB more than
    domestic hifi. It would not meet THX specs - yours possibly does. Low E
    on a standard bass is 41hz. Standard crossover range for SR (and that's
    from 12" or 15" drivers above) is usually set at 100-120hz.
    Most domestic hifi sub vendors, while they may specify response and spl
    specs, do not specify 2nd and 3rd harmonic specs - because that's
    usually poor given size constraints. That, as well as sub room
    placement results in boominess.
    AFAIK, Klipsch don't make a domestic powered 15" sub - is it an old one?

    >
    > Getting them 'balanced' was a bear but the combo sounds pretty sweet now.
    > It'll have to do me for the foreseeable future. I love the soft dome tweeter
    > sound that the Jamos share with the Dynadios. The Danes sure know how to
    > build a good speaker. I have some Harmon-Kardon era JBLs that have
    > titanium-dome tweets.<shudder> Horrible metalic hiss, nothing like highs
    > should sound like but most 'consumers' wouldn't know the difference.
    >

    Riiiight....
    So my friend's B&W nautilus 800 signatures have a sound - "a horrible
    metallic hiss" that most "consumers wouldn't know the difference".
    Congrats - you're the first in this sub-thread to present the emperor's
    new clothes.
    JBL make some great gear, some of their titanium dome drivers are
    excellent. Like most makers, they also use their brand name to sell
    ordinary low cost stuff.
    Me, Jul 22, 2011
    #15
  16. Roger_Nickel

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:
    > On 22/07/2011 1:49 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:

    [snip]
    >> Hmmm.... I'd love to hear those Dynadios paired with my Klipsch 15"
    >> / 600W active sub. As it is I'll have to make do with my little ~15
    >> y/o Jamo bookshelfs and the Jamo passive dual 8" driver band-pass
    >> sub (to fill in the mid/low-bass that niether the Jamos or the
    >> Klipsch manage to reproduce). The Klipsch is great for ~60Hz and
    >> lower but anything over 70 or so and it gets 'boomy'.
    >>

    > This can be a problem with many home hifi subs, presumably designed
    > with LFE home theatre specs in mind, rather than music. The SR sub
    > I'm using is also 600W rms and 15" driver. Response is flat from
    > 120-45hz, then falls off. But max spl is >125dB continuous - perhaps
    > 10dB more than domestic hifi. It would not meet THX specs - yours
    > possibly does. Low E on a standard bass is 41hz. Standard crossover
    > range for SR (and that's from 12" or 15" drivers above) is usually
    > set at 100-120hz. Most domestic hifi sub vendors, while they may specify
    > response and
    > spl specs, do not specify 2nd and 3rd harmonic specs - because that's
    > usually poor given size constraints. That, as well as sub room
    > placement results in boominess.
    > AFAIK, Klipsch don't make a domestic powered 15" sub - is it an old
    > one?



    Hmmm, my bad. Seems my sub is 'only' 12". The confusion probably arises from
    the fact that it's a bloody huge box weighing 20kg and my previous subs were
    8" (home-made box), then 10". Oh, and now that I check the amp is rated at
    300W continuous, 650W peak.

    Yeah, you hear / feel it in HT mode, with the LFEs but when I set the amp in
    'direct stereo' mode you don't really hear the sub as such. You just notice
    that you can distinctly hear the kick drum as if you were up front at a live
    gig. (Actually feel more than hear.)

    As I mentioned, I have another sub in the system but I think of it more as a
    woofer that goes down really low than a subwoofer. It's a Jamo 4th order
    bandpass 'pass-through' design with two drivers, one for each channel,
    facing each other. (Obviously out-of-phase to each other.) The speaker
    outputs from my amp go to this woofer, through a crossover and go out again
    to the (bookshelf Jamo) main speakers.

    It's essentially a three-way speaker system but with the woofers in a
    seperate cabinet to the mids and tweets. It sounds very nice but just
    doesn't have that really low-frequency oomph. At a guess I'd say that it
    goes down to around 80Hz nicely before starrting to taper off.

    Most people would probably be happy with that, it does sound quite nice.
    However, as someone who spent a couple of years soundmixing for a touring
    band, dragging bloody great bit "W-Bins" with 18" drivers in them around, I
    missed my 'tap you on your chest' bass. That's why I bought the Klipsch a
    while back. I have the lowpass pot set to around 70 (scale 40 - 120) and,
    with some recordings I don't think the Klipsch gets to move it's cone.

    Some would say that it's a lot of money to pay for a narrow bandwidth of
    sound, especially considering that I'm teetering on the bread-line. However,
    when I'm in a darkened room, listening to Pink Floyd's 'Animals' and the
    bass drum comes in at about 5:30 into 'Dogs' I reckon that it's worth every
    cent that it cost me. :) Also, when I listen to my original release Rickie
    Lee Jones CD it just sounds great and there's a lot of excellent double-bass
    on that album.

    (As a side-note, I recently saw Rickie Lee Jones in a clearance bin for $10
    and bought it thinking that it won't hurt to have another copy. Eeewww! It's
    *so* different from the original CD that I bought way back when. Horribly
    compressed, all the dynamic range taken out of it. Whoever re-mixed that
    [and authourised it] should be shot!)

    There doesn't seem to be any holes in the frequency response of the system
    with the Klipsch' pot set to 70Hz so, assuming that the scale is reasonably
    accurate, that's where I get my estimation of the Jamo woofer's response
    curve. I'm pleased that the Jamo goes so low because, as I mentioned, the
    Klipsch gets quite 'boomy' as it nears 100Hz. It might be fine for HT but
    it's certainly not musical at that frequency.

    As my system is milti-purpose I also get the benefit while watching movies
    or programmes. However that was most certainly not the primary reason for
    purchase. I know that there are better, more musical subwoofers out there
    but it was the best I could do stretching my finances and I'm well pleased
    with the result. :)

    A shame that my control gear and amp is so old. With the turn-off of analog
    TV I guess I'll need a new TV before too long and I bet that it won't have
    S-Video conectors. My sound system will likely have to become stereo-only.
    Bummer as I've got quite used to having a 'HT' system and find that the
    sound is a large part of the enjoyment of 'video'. :-( I guess I might be
    able to cobble something together.

    >> Getting them 'balanced' was a bear but the combo sounds pretty sweet
    >> now. It'll have to do me for the foreseeable future. I love the soft
    >> dome tweeter sound that the Jamos share with the Dynadios. The Danes
    >> sure know how to build a good speaker. I have some Harmon-Kardon era
    >> JBLs that have titanium-dome tweets.<shudder> Horrible metalic
    >> hiss, nothing like highs should sound like but most 'consumers'
    >> wouldn't know the difference.

    > Riiiight....
    > So my friend's B&W nautilus 800 signatures have a sound - "a horrible
    > metallic hiss" that most "consumers wouldn't know the difference".


    Dude, if you think that I said that, even by inference, you're not just
    putting words into my mouth, you have your hand up my arse and are making my
    lips move.

    > Congrats - you're the first in this sub-thread to present the
    > emperor's new clothes.


    I beg to differ. I gave an opinion on the sound of a particular pair of
    bookshelf JBL's high frequency response (and a general preference for
    soft-dome tweeters over titanium) and you twisted and turned it into
    something entirely different. Argumentative much?

    Do I *really* have to put 'IMHO' in a post about something as massively
    subjective as speaker preference? Surely it's tacit that I am only speaking
    for myself. <sigh> I suppose I can put it in my sig.

    > JBL make some great gear, some of their titanium dome drivers are
    > excellent. Like most makers, they also use their brand name to sell
    > ordinary low cost stuff.

    --
    Shaun. (IMHO)

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
    ~misfit~, Jul 24, 2011
    #16
  17. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:42:46 +1200, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:
    >> On 22/07/2011 1:49 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:

    > [snip]
    >>> Hmmm.... I'd love to hear those Dynadios paired with my Klipsch 15" /
    >>> 600W active sub. As it is I'll have to make do with my little ~15 y/o
    >>> Jamo bookshelfs and the Jamo passive dual 8" driver band-pass sub (to
    >>> fill in the mid/low-bass that niether the Jamos or the Klipsch manage
    >>> to reproduce). The Klipsch is great for ~60Hz and lower but anything
    >>> over 70 or so and it gets 'boomy'.
    >>>

    >> This can be a problem with many home hifi subs, presumably designed
    >> with LFE home theatre specs in mind, rather than music. The SR sub I'm
    >> using is also 600W rms and 15" driver. Response is flat from 120-45hz,
    >> then falls off. But max spl is >125dB continuous - perhaps 10dB more
    >> than domestic hifi. It would not meet THX specs - yours possibly does.
    >> Low E on a standard bass is 41hz. Standard crossover range for SR (and
    >> that's from 12" or 15" drivers above) is usually set at 100-120hz. Most
    >> domestic hifi sub vendors, while they may specify response and
    >> spl specs, do not specify 2nd and 3rd harmonic specs - because that's
    >> usually poor given size constraints. That, as well as sub room
    >> placement results in boominess.
    >> AFAIK, Klipsch don't make a domestic powered 15" sub - is it an old
    >> one?

    >
    >
    > Hmmm, my bad. Seems my sub is 'only' 12". The confusion probably arises
    > from the fact that it's a bloody huge box weighing 20kg and my previous
    > subs were 8" (home-made box), then 10". Oh, and now that I check the amp
    > is rated at 300W continuous, 650W peak.
    >
    > Yeah, you hear / feel it in HT mode, with the LFEs but when I set the
    > amp in 'direct stereo' mode you don't really hear the sub as such. You
    > just notice that you can distinctly hear the kick drum as if you were up
    > front at a live gig. (Actually feel more than hear.)
    >
    > As I mentioned, I have another sub in the system but I think of it more
    > as a woofer that goes down really low than a subwoofer. It's a Jamo 4th
    > order bandpass 'pass-through' design with two drivers, one for each
    > channel, facing each other. (Obviously out-of-phase to each other.) The
    > speaker outputs from my amp go to this woofer, through a crossover and
    > go out again to the (bookshelf Jamo) main speakers.
    >
    > It's essentially a three-way speaker system but with the woofers in a
    > seperate cabinet to the mids and tweets. It sounds very nice but just
    > doesn't have that really low-frequency oomph. At a guess I'd say that it
    > goes down to around 80Hz nicely before starrting to taper off.
    >
    > Most people would probably be happy with that, it does sound quite nice.
    > However, as someone who spent a couple of years soundmixing for a
    > touring band, dragging bloody great bit "W-Bins" with 18" drivers in
    > them around, I missed my 'tap you on your chest' bass. That's why I
    > bought the Klipsch a while back. I have the lowpass pot set to around 70
    > (scale 40 - 120) and, with some recordings I don't think the Klipsch
    > gets to move it's cone.
    >
    > Some would say that it's a lot of money to pay for a narrow bandwidth of
    > sound, especially considering that I'm teetering on the bread-line.
    > However, when I'm in a darkened room, listening to Pink Floyd's
    > 'Animals' and the bass drum comes in at about 5:30 into 'Dogs' I reckon
    > that it's worth every cent that it cost me. :) Also, when I listen to
    > my original release Rickie Lee Jones CD it just sounds great and there's
    > a lot of excellent double-bass on that album.
    >
    > (As a side-note, I recently saw Rickie Lee Jones in a clearance bin for
    > $10 and bought it thinking that it won't hurt to have another copy.
    > Eeewww! It's *so* different from the original CD that I bought way back
    > when. Horribly compressed, all the dynamic range taken out of it.
    > Whoever re-mixed that [and authourised it] should be shot!)
    >
    > There doesn't seem to be any holes in the frequency response of the
    > system with the Klipsch' pot set to 70Hz so, assuming that the scale is
    > reasonably accurate, that's where I get my estimation of the Jamo
    > woofer's response curve. I'm pleased that the Jamo goes so low because,
    > as I mentioned, the Klipsch gets quite 'boomy' as it nears 100Hz. It
    > might be fine for HT but it's certainly not musical at that frequency.
    >
    > As my system is milti-purpose I also get the benefit while watching
    > movies or programmes. However that was most certainly not the primary
    > reason for purchase. I know that there are better, more musical
    > subwoofers out there but it was the best I could do stretching my
    > finances and I'm well pleased with the result. :)
    >
    > A shame that my control gear and amp is so old. With the turn-off of
    > analog TV I guess I'll need a new TV before too long and I bet that it
    > won't have S-Video conectors. My sound system will likely have to become
    > stereo-only. Bummer as I've got quite used to having a 'HT' system and
    > find that the sound is a large part of the enjoyment of 'video'. :-( I
    > guess I might be able to cobble something together.
    >
    >>> Getting them 'balanced' was a bear but the combo sounds pretty sweet
    >>> now. It'll have to do me for the foreseeable future. I love the soft
    >>> dome tweeter sound that the Jamos share with the Dynadios. The Danes
    >>> sure know how to build a good speaker. I have some Harmon-Kardon era
    >>> JBLs that have titanium-dome tweets.<shudder> Horrible metalic hiss,
    >>> nothing like highs should sound like but most 'consumers' wouldn't
    >>> know the difference.

    >> Riiiight....
    >> So my friend's B&W nautilus 800 signatures have a sound - "a horrible
    >> metallic hiss" that most "consumers wouldn't know the difference".

    >
    > Dude, if you think that I said that, even by inference, you're not just
    > putting words into my mouth, you have your hand up my arse and are
    > making my lips move.
    >
    >> Congrats - you're the first in this sub-thread to present the emperor's
    >> new clothes.

    >
    > I beg to differ. I gave an opinion on the sound of a particular pair of
    > bookshelf JBL's high frequency response (and a general preference for
    > soft-dome tweeters over titanium) and you twisted and turned it into
    > something entirely different. Argumentative much?
    >
    > Do I *really* have to put 'IMHO' in a post about something as massively
    > subjective as speaker preference? Surely it's tacit that I am only
    > speaking for myself. <sigh> I suppose I can put it in my sig.
    >
    >> JBL make some great gear, some of their titanium dome drivers are
    >> excellent. Like most makers, they also use their brand name to sell
    >> ordinary low cost stuff.


    But--but your 'subwoofer' is smaller than a washing machine!. Uh oh. Can
    it shake your chest and crack the windows?. What about the glorious
    bottom octave on the pipe organ?, the big bass drum?. You NEED a
    listening room at least 10 metres long and 6 metres wide with a good high
    ceiling. (Only kidding). Listening to the Saint Saens Organ Symphony on
    the good AKG 'phones right now. What a blast!; almost like being there. I
    can live with almost.
    Roger_Nickel, Jul 24, 2011
    #17
  18. Roger_Nickel

    Me Guest

    On 24/07/2011 8:42 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:


    >
    > Yeah, you hear / feel it in HT mode, with the LFEs but when I set the amp in
    > 'direct stereo' mode you don't really hear the sub as such. You just notice
    > that you can distinctly hear the kick drum as if you were up front at a live
    > gig. (Actually feel more than hear.)
    >

    Yep - that's the difference, but also the bassist doesn't sound like
    he's got missing strings.
    >
    > As I mentioned, I have another sub in the system but I think of it more as a
    > woofer that goes down really low than a subwoofer. It's a Jamo 4th order
    > bandpass 'pass-through' design with two drivers, one for each channel,
    > facing each other. (Obviously out-of-phase to each other.) The speaker
    > outputs from my amp go to this woofer, through a crossover and go out again
    > to the (bookshelf Jamo) main speakers.
    >
    > It's essentially a three-way speaker system but with the woofers in a
    > seperate cabinet to the mids and tweets. It sounds very nice but just
    > doesn't have that really low-frequency oomph. At a guess I'd say that it
    > goes down to around 80Hz nicely before starrting to taper off.
    >
    > Most people would probably be happy with that, it does sound quite nice.
    > However, as someone who spent a couple of years soundmixing for a touring
    > band, dragging bloody great bit "W-Bins" with 18" drivers in them around, I
    > missed my 'tap you on your chest' bass. That's why I bought the Klipsch a
    > while back. I have the lowpass pot set to around 70 (scale 40 - 120) and,
    > with some recordings I don't think the Klipsch gets to move it's cone.
    >
    > Some would say that it's a lot of money to pay for a narrow bandwidth of
    > sound, especially considering that I'm teetering on the bread-line. However,
    > when I'm in a darkened room, listening to Pink Floyd's 'Animals' and the
    > bass drum comes in at about 5:30 into 'Dogs' I reckon that it's worth every
    > cent that it cost me. :) Also, when I listen to my original release Rickie
    > Lee Jones CD it just sounds great and there's a lot of excellent double-bass
    > on that album.
    >
    > (As a side-note, I recently saw Rickie Lee Jones in a clearance bin for $10
    > and bought it thinking that it won't hurt to have another copy. Eeewww! It's
    > *so* different from the original CD that I bought way back when. Horribly
    > compressed, all the dynamic range taken out of it. Whoever re-mixed that
    > [and authourised it] should be shot!)


    That sucks.
    From about that era - I can remember getting an LP of Ry Cooder's "bop
    'til you drop". Digitally recorded and mastered, and only about 35
    minutes of music pressed on the LP. I guess that had me convinced that
    digital was the way to go - years before CDs arrived.
    >
    > There doesn't seem to be any holes in the frequency response of the system
    > with the Klipsch' pot set to 70Hz so, assuming that the scale is reasonably
    > accurate, that's where I get my estimation of the Jamo woofer's response
    > curve. I'm pleased that the Jamo goes so low because, as I mentioned, the
    > Klipsch gets quite 'boomy' as it nears 100Hz. It might be fine for HT but
    > it's certainly not musical at that frequency.
    >
    > As my system is milti-purpose I also get the benefit while watching movies
    > or programmes. However that was most certainly not the primary reason for
    > purchase. I know that there are better, more musical subwoofers out there
    > but it was the best I could do stretching my finances and I'm well pleased
    > with the result. :)
    >
    > A shame that my control gear and amp is so old. With the turn-off of analog
    > TV I guess I'll need a new TV before too long and I bet that it won't have
    > S-Video conectors. My sound system will likely have to become stereo-only.
    > Bummer as I've got quite used to having a 'HT' system and find that the
    > sound is a large part of the enjoyment of 'video'. :-( I guess I might be
    > able to cobble something together.
    >
    >>> Getting them 'balanced' was a bear but the combo sounds pretty sweet
    >>> now. It'll have to do me for the foreseeable future. I love the soft
    >>> dome tweeter sound that the Jamos share with the Dynadios. The Danes
    >>> sure know how to build a good speaker. I have some Harmon-Kardon era
    >>> JBLs that have titanium-dome tweets.<shudder> Horrible metalic
    >>> hiss, nothing like highs should sound like but most 'consumers'
    >>> wouldn't know the difference.

    >> Riiiight....
    >> So my friend's B&W nautilus 800 signatures have a sound - "a horrible
    >> metallic hiss" that most "consumers wouldn't know the difference".

    >
    > Dude, if you think that I said that, even by inference, you're not just
    > putting words into my mouth, you have your hand up my arse and are making my
    > lips move.
    >
    >> Congrats - you're the first in this sub-thread to present the
    >> emperor's new clothes.

    >
    > I beg to differ. I gave an opinion on the sound of a particular pair of
    > bookshelf JBL's high frequency response (and a general preference for
    > soft-dome tweeters over titanium) and you twisted and turned it into
    > something entirely different. Argumentative much?
    >

    No - but I read it as "titanium dome tweets <shudder>" as if it the
    material used, not the particular speakers you were referring to. If I
    got that wrong as you say, then I apologise - no offence intended.
    But I find B&W's move to "diamond" (coated?) domes amusing. Unobtanium
    would surely be better.

    >
    > Do I *really* have to put 'IMHO' in a post about something as massively
    > subjective as speaker preference? Surely it's tacit that I am only speaking
    > for myself.<sigh> I suppose I can put it in my sig.
    >
    >> JBL make some great gear, some of their titanium dome drivers are
    >> excellent. Like most makers, they also use their brand name to sell
    >> ordinary low cost stuff.


    For low cost conventional stereo, I bought a "digitech" chinese made amp
    years ago on trademe. I think Jaycar still sell them. Digitech as a
    brand seem to have moved away from stereo, to make low cost
    mixers/effects pedals etc. I don't know what this gear is like. But
    the stereo amp is remarkably good. Toroidal power transformer, mosfet,
    very low noise, 100wRMS x 2, and seems to be well made. Even has a mic
    input (unbalanced) with separate volume control - my son was using it
    for an amp for vocals for band practice through home stereo speakers -
    it was fine. Cost about $150, I think Jaycar charge a little more, but
    still very good value.
    Me, Jul 25, 2011
    #18
  19. Roger_Nickel

    Me Guest

    On 25/07/2011 10:18 a.m., Roger_Nickel wrote:

    >
    > But--but your 'subwoofer' is smaller than a washing machine!. Uh oh. Can
    > it shake your chest and crack the windows?. What about the glorious
    > bottom octave on the pipe organ?, the big bass drum?. You NEED a
    > listening room at least 10 metres long and 6 metres wide with a good high
    > ceiling. (Only kidding). Listening to the Saint Saens Organ Symphony on
    > the good AKG 'phones right now. What a blast!; almost like being there. I
    > can live with almost.


    All I want at this very moment is a sub big enough to shake the snow off
    my roof. A good aftershock would do it - but no thanks.
    Jeesh, I thought this might have started clearing by now, but it's
    dumping down really hard ATM.
    Me, Jul 25, 2011
    #19
  20. Roger_Nickel

    Richard Guest

    On 7/24/2011 8:42 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:
    >> On 22/07/2011 1:49 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:

    > [snip]
    > Hmmm, my bad. Seems my sub is 'only' 12". The confusion probably arises from
    > the fact that it's a bloody huge box weighing 20kg and my previous subs were
    > 8" (home-made box), then 10". Oh, and now that I check the amp is rated at
    > 300W continuous, 650W peak.
    >
    > Yeah, you hear / feel it in HT mode, with the LFEs but when I set the amp in
    > 'direct stereo' mode you don't really hear the sub as such. You just notice
    > that you can distinctly hear the kick drum as if you were up front at a live
    > gig. (Actually feel more than hear.)
    >
    > As I mentioned, I have another sub in the system but I think of it more as a
    > woofer that goes down really low than a subwoofer. It's a Jamo 4th order
    > bandpass 'pass-through' design with two drivers, one for each channel,
    > facing each other. (Obviously out-of-phase to each other.) The speaker
    > outputs from my amp go to this woofer, through a crossover and go out again
    > to the (bookshelf Jamo) main speakers.
    >
    > It's essentially a three-way speaker system but with the woofers in a
    > seperate cabinet to the mids and tweets. It sounds very nice but just
    > doesn't have that really low-frequency oomph. At a guess I'd say that it
    > goes down to around 80Hz nicely before starrting to taper off.
    >
    > Most people would probably be happy with that, it does sound quite nice.
    > However, as someone who spent a couple of years soundmixing for a touring
    > band, dragging bloody great bit "W-Bins" with 18" drivers in them around, I
    > missed my 'tap you on your chest' bass. That's why I bought the Klipsch a
    > while back. I have the lowpass pot set to around 70 (scale 40 - 120) and,
    > with some recordings I don't think the Klipsch gets to move it's cone.


    most of the real bass is stripped out or massivly attenuated on pop
    music since they assume people will play it back on pieces of shit and
    turn on "mega super bass" or whatever, and removing it or screwing with
    its waveform massivley means they have more room to put the
    hypercompressed midrange and overenhanced trebble.

    > Some would say that it's a lot of money to pay for a narrow bandwidth of
    > sound, especially considering that I'm teetering on the bread-line. However,
    > when I'm in a darkened room, listening to Pink Floyd's 'Animals' and the
    > bass drum comes in at about 5:30 into 'Dogs' I reckon that it's worth every
    > cent that it cost me. :) Also, when I listen to my original release Rickie
    > Lee Jones CD it just sounds great and there's a lot of excellent double-bass
    > on that album.
    >
    > (As a side-note, I recently saw Rickie Lee Jones in a clearance bin for $10
    > and bought it thinking that it won't hurt to have another copy. Eeewww! It's
    > *so* different from the original CD that I bought way back when. Horribly
    > compressed, all the dynamic range taken out of it. Whoever re-mixed that
    > [and authourised it] should be shot!)


    I stick with downloading the japanese releases of things, they seem to
    be less tollerant of crap like that on the re-releases of things.

    Compilation discs are the other thing that piss me off. Always butchered
    in the name of consistancy between tracks.

    > There doesn't seem to be any holes in the frequency response of the system
    > with the Klipsch' pot set to 70Hz so, assuming that the scale is reasonably
    > accurate, that's where I get my estimation of the Jamo woofer's response
    > curve. I'm pleased that the Jamo goes so low because, as I mentioned, the
    > Klipsch gets quite 'boomy' as it nears 100Hz. It might be fine for HT but
    > it's certainly not musical at that frequency.


    Yeah, but in setting the crossover on the sub you are limiting what it
    will produce in LFE mode when playing movies, best to do the filtering
    on the reciever so you still get the fullrange of the LFE going into it
    but just the lowpassed content from the other channels.

    > A shame that my control gear and amp is so old. With the turn-off of analog
    > TV I guess I'll need a new TV before too long and I bet that it won't have
    > S-Video conectors. My sound system will likely have to become stereo-only.
    > Bummer as I've got quite used to having a 'HT' system and find that the
    > sound is a large part of the enjoyment of 'video'. :-( I guess I might be
    > able to cobble something together.


    Its at the point now where most of the slim screens just have a pair of
    3.5mm jacks for the analog inputs, composite and the audio on one, and
    component on the other so you cant even use the TV to switch between
    composite and component sources since they share the audio input. Even
    VGA is going away because of connector size.

    >> Congrats - you're the first in this sub-thread to present the
    >> emperor's new clothes.

    >
    > I beg to differ. I gave an opinion on the sound of a particular pair of
    > bookshelf JBL's high frequency response (and a general preference for
    > soft-dome tweeters over titanium) and you twisted and turned it into
    > something entirely different. Argumentative much?


    Its not the driver, its just a mismatched crossover etc that causes that
    response. the joys of cost engineered speakers and the obsession that
    most manufacturers have with focusing on the on axis response only cause
    things like that to happen.

    JBL does stand for junk but loud ;)
    Richard, Jul 25, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Marriott

    ducks

    Peter Marriott, May 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    662
    Paddy
    May 2, 2004
  2. Bryan

    On a lighter ....errrr...<ducks>

    Bryan, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    427
    trout
    Nov 11, 2004
  3. James

    OT: Go Ducks

    James, May 3, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    89
    Views:
    2,210
  4. LEICA

    CF CARD GUTS

    LEICA, Dec 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    425
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Dec 21, 2004
  5. Mark²

    Glass Ducks

    Mark², May 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    384
    RW+/-
    May 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page