[Davey]

John,

I'm not sure who you're quoting, but I didn't say "this driver plays 3.6db louder, we must use it."  I said "it has the advantage of approximately 3.6db more output capability (assuming the same excursion,)" and I thought I clearly outlined a couple of the trade-offs.
Anyway, it wasn't me that mentioned the larger driver, it was Val in a previous post.  (I happen to think they DID make the correct choice with the 5.25" driver.)

Cheers,

Davey.

[John Ashman]

nt

[John Ashman]

nt

[John Hidley]

The actual XdA hardware has a microphone input and USB port to allow use of the room correction software. The XdA currently ships without any software of any kind. There are four preset filters programmed into it for the XdS satellite. Each filter is designed to compensate for the XdS placed in a different environment. The four settings are 4pi (free field), 2pi (against a wall), 1pi (in a corner) and on top of a large television as a center channel.
When the room correction software is available, it will be licensed to trained installers and dealers on a per installation basis. It will not be sold with the Xd product to the consumer.

The consumer will be able to download different filter sets for the XdA from our website. We will provide optional filter sets for particular applications. For example, if you want higher output from the system, you can use two of the XdW bass modules placed very close to the XdS speakers and install a filter set that raises the crossover frequency to 180Hz. This will allow the XdS speakers to play quite a bit louder.

Currently the DEQX software only does linear corrections to the frequency and phase response. We are working on some new techniques that will allow it to do nonlinear correction. This will allow us to reduce the actual THD that the driver is producing.

The following link has some more information about the product. Go to the link and scroll down until you see 2004_NHT_Xd_WhitePaper.pdf. You can right click on this and save it or left click and open it in your browser.

http://www.nhthifi.com/scripts/nhttech.cfg/php.exe/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=171&p_created=1088456399

[Davey]

I didn't say that you did say that.  ...

Yes, I misunderstood your quoted quote, and then you replied so quickly I couldn't fix it in time.

Sorry about that.

Davey.

[John Ashman]

nt

[doug s.]

...The only reason that they might not succeed in the marketplace is the absence of a number of familiar distortion charcteristics that
audiophiles are used to hearing and have come to expect from reproduced music via conventional speakers. Lip service is frequently given to desiring
accurate music reproduction that is faithful to the source. Many people
don't want it when they hear it for the first time because it does not sound
like what they are used to. Any real advance in accuracy will sound different from
what we have heard before and may require a learning curve before it is understood or appreciated....

sorry, this sounds extremely patronizing to me.  imo, most, if not all audiophiles prefer accurate musical reproduction, and can easily identify it when they hear it.  i *do* know that some folks are hung up on cost (not yust audiophiles, btw!), & they *will* get bent outta shape if their multi-kilobucks baby is outperformed by something relatively cheap.  but this doesn't mean they don't like better, more accurate reproduced sound!    

ymmv,

doug s.

[Val]

Anyway, it wasn't me that mentioned the larger driver, it was Val in a previous post.  (I happen to think they DID make the correct choice with the 5.25" driver.)

Of course NHT/DEQX weren't thinking about me, they have chosen what they thought will be best for them and they are probably right from their point of view; I am open minded and can't wait for the Xd to dazzle me.

Anyway, John is preaching to the choir as far as I am concerned. I have followed DEQX for years and I'm convinced they are opening doors to the future. Contrary to some posters here, to me the DEQZ is a preamp and DAC that allows me to place a CD transport close to the listening seat and the rest of the equipment behind the speakers, a bargain at $3,500 compared with what is out there; the other goodies it offers are just icing on the cake!

Val

[csero]

sorry, this sounds extremely patronizing to me.  imo, most, if not all audiophiles prefer accurate musical reproduction, and can easily identify it when they hear it.  i *do* know that some folks are hung up on cost (not yust audiophiles, btw!), & they *will* get bent outta shape if their multi-kilobucks baby is outperformed by something relatively cheap.  but this doesn't mean they don't like better, more accurate reproduced sound!    

ymmv,

doug s.

Let me disagre. Most of the audiophiles learned to listen and enjoy a pschychoacustically completely wrong setup, a very specific kind of distortion, namely the stereo reproduction. The idea of 2 loudspeaker, communicating with both ear, trying to produce virtual sound sources between them is completely unnatural, but most audiophile learned this kind of distortion so well, that wen they hear the real thing, the unamplified live music from the proper distance, they complain about the lack of this kind of distortion ( the soundstage flat, not well defined image, not enoug layering and all kind of other nonsense).
Listening to this mess ( the stereo) the brain always complaining that the different sonic clues are crontroversial, the created soundfield is not real. There are moments when the failures in the recording, reproduction chain, room acoustic can mask momentarily these faults, then the proud owner can claim, that he found the perfect record/gear/room treatment etc., but these moments are rare, non reproducible and non transferable to other environments, which is the base of the never ending audiophile nervosa and flame wars.
OTOH these pschychoacoustic inconsistencies make the audiophile reproduction less appealing for the masses. High-end systems while having less distortion, better FR, but they are still annoyingly not real or not different from a boombox for an "uneducated" ear.

Csero

[OBF]

Contrary to some posters here, to me the DEQZ is a preamp and DAC that allows me to place a CD transport close to the listening seat and the re ...

Are you thinking with a very long digital cable, or something wireless like a Squeezebox?

[Val]

Are you thinking with a very long digital cable, ...

Yes, a long digital cable to the DEQX.

[John Ashman]

nt

[doug s.]

Let me disagre. Most of the audiophiles learned to listen and enjoy a pschychoacustically completely wrong setup, a very specific kind of distortion, namely the stereo reproduction. The idea of 2 loudspeaker, communicating with both ear, trying to produce virtual sound sources between them is completely unnatural, but most audiophile learned this kind of distortion so well, that wen they hear the real thing, the unamplified live music from the proper distance, they complain about the lack of this kind of distortion ( the soundstage flat, not well defined image, not enoug layering and all kind of other nonsense).
Listening to this mess ( the stereo) the brain always complaining that the different sonic clues are crontroversial, the created soundfield is not real. There are moments when the failures in the recording, reproduction chain, room acoustic can mask momentarily these faults, then the proud owner can claim, that he found the perfect record/gear/room treatment etc., but these moments are rare, non reproducible and non transferable to other environments, which is the base of the never ending audiophile nervosa and flame wars.
OTOH these pschychoacoustic inconsistencies make the audiophile reproduction less appealing for the masses. High-end systems while having less distortion, better FR, but they are still annoyingly not real or not different from a boombox for an "uneducated" ear.

csero, no - i REFUSE to let you disagree!  

seriously, i do not disagree w/much of what you say re: the lack of ability of2-channel stereo to approach a real sonic ewent.  but, most audiphiles i know *do* prefer anything that helps get them closer to this.  

as far as soundstaging/imaging/layering, etc - for music that's recorded & mixed in a studio (which accounts for the vast majority of what is recorded), there IS no right or wrong, yust one's personal tastes.  as an example: in another thread, someone asked me if i had compared the magnepan 3.6's to the newform research 645r's.  i told him that i was not a good person to ask, for this kind of comparison, as i do not enjoy the soundstage presented by dipolar speakers such as magnepans.  some folk like this sonic signature, others do not.  it doesn't mean either is right or wrong.

as far as your statement re: hi-end systems being not different from a boombox to an uneducated ear, this is yust completely 100% different to what i have observed, in my experience.  EVERYONE who i have EVER observed listen to a hi-end system for the first time, has UNIVERSALLY  been flabbergasted about how amazing a good audio system can sound.  and, not, i am not only referring to uneducated ears listening to *my* system, but other people's systems, & well-set-up systems in commercial establishments.

regards,

doug s.

[doug s.]

I completely agree with you here, but that is a different thing than accuracy in a speaker.  Even Xd will still not be as ideal having three or five front speakers, but the good news here is that even hardcore audiophiles that are used to what I consider to be a high degree of speaker distortion and coloration felt Xd was amazing and wanted another crack at listening in their own homes.  So, I'm not counting out the audiophile crowd on this one, though many may feel that it is somehow necessary to wait for the "right" digital speaker with the "right" name brand and the "right" component parts.

your comment speaks to some "audiophiles", who aren't concerned about sonics, but are concerned only about status, as i mentioned earlier.  these aren't real audiophiles, imo...

regards,

doug s.

[Rick Craig]

The Xd system is designed to appeal to the average person who likes and wants to hear high quality music. It is definitely not targeted at the tweaker. Setting up a high quality audio system has become very difficult for a number of reasons. The Xd system is designed to be as simple as possible to setup without sacrificing performance.

The decision to use a 5.25" woofer in the XdS over a 6.5" woofer was driven by a couple of factors. One of the biggest goals in the design of Xd was having flat frequency ...

I went back and looked over your posts at the AVS Forum and I appreciate your solid scientific approach to engineering speakers. I think your objectives for this design are very good for both sound quality and form / function.

Rick

[csero]

csero, no - i REFUSE to let you disagree!  

seriously, i do not disagree w/much of what you say re: the lack of ability of2-channel stereo to approach a real sonic ewent.  but, most audiphiles i know *do* prefer anything that helps get them closer to this.  

Would they still prefer that if the solution is completely oppose to what they ever learned, claimed, believed, got used to in hi-fi reproduction?

as far as soundstaging/imaging/layering, etc - for music that's recorded & mixed in a studio (which accounts for the vast majority of what is recorded), there IS no right or wrong, yust one's personal tastes.

If I'd believe that sound recording is an art and the recording engineer/producer is the artist, than i'd be in an easy situation,  I just have to get similar gear/room they use to get as close to their art as I can.
But I believe the purpose of the hi-fi is to believable reproducton of a sonic event, or for for music that's recorded & mixed in a studio, to create a presentation, where your brain does not complain much about the artificial nature of the reproduction, and let's you concentrate to the musical happening - and I'm not speaking about adding pleasant colorations here.  The biggest problem with the present sound reproduction, that somewhere in the back of your brain, you allways know that the sound is artifical, and this does not let you fully enjoy the performance, but always force you to evaluate, appreciate the gear. From this point the whole high-end/home theater bandwagon is on the wrong track for me.

[John Ashman]

nt

[_scotty_]

But I believe the purpose of the hi-fi is to believable reproducton of a sonic event, or for for music that's recorded & mixed in a studio, to create a presentation, where your brain does not complain much about the artificial nature of the reproduction, and let's you concentrate to the musical happening - and I'm not speaking about adding pleasant colorations here

csero, Do you feel that this belief is in conflict with the goal of accurate reproduction
of the recorded waveform.  Shouldn't the burden of "believability" be on the  listener rather than on the hifi equipement.  Assuming of course that the equipement is reproducing the information as accurately as possible.
 
 The decisions made in the recording studio are a seperate issue from accurately reproducing the results of their efforts. Most of the recent studio recordings I have listened to have not been been an attempt to capture a live performance but were rather a completely artificial sounding creation that while entertaining could not in any way be interpeted as a realistic grouping of musicians playing in front of me.
     With a few exceptions producing a realistic sounding recording documenting the performance of the musicians has not been goal of recording in a studio for decades.
   Scotty

[JoshK]

Just thought I'd mention for the record, Csero's system, hand's down by no small margin is the most believeable system I have ever heard, ever.  His system is not filled with audiophile approved components, in fact totals less than a grand for the whole system.  However, not my system, nor systems I have heard that were in the six figures could touch the believeability and you-are-there experience that Frank's system produces.

It changed everything for me and helped me realize that no amount of money spent on audiophile equipment is going to get me to where the end goal is, I have to think outside the box and leave the crowd to learn where stereo REPRODUCTION goes fatally wrong.  There is a lot of good work on the subject that audiophiles have refused to realize or read over the last couple of decades.  The problem isn't the stereo recording, hell even mono recordings were wonderfully believeable on Frank's system.  The problem is stereo reproduction was a first attempt at using more speakers to match the spacial cues our ears hear and it stopped there.  However this is utterly wrong, and MCH music ala DVD-A and SACD are going further in the wrong direction.  

If this piques your interest at all, browse to ambiophonics.org and start a little bit of reading.  This isn't just another audiophile tweak, it is the real deal and once you hear it as I've had there is no going back if real reproduction of the even is the goal, not just audiophile hi-fi sound.

[doug s.]

i believe the purpose of hi-fi is to enjoy music.  to reproduce the musical ewent is a misnomer, in most cases.  sure, some music is live & unamplified.  but, unless yure listening only to classical music, this is not the majority of what yure gonna be hearing.  even if you go to a live music concert.  the "musical ewent" is usually amplified electronically, if live, or recorded from highly-proccessed multi-layered tracks from individuals in small soundproof rooms.  and, in many cases, the sound i hear from a hi-fi system is more enjoyable than what i've heard at a live concert.  does it "reproduce the musical ewent"?  not a relevant question, in most cases.

re: definition of an audiophile, i use it as a music lover.   of course, i know there are "audiophiles" who are more interested in equipment than music, and some of these are only interested in how *expensive* the equipment is.  which is why i put the term in quotes.  these people aren't audiophiles or music lovers.  they're egocentric snobs.  

these types of people exist in all hobbies, btw, not yust music reproduction.  ever been to an enthusiast car event?  

ymmv,

doug s.