[JohninCR]

That's it.  I got a package deal on the works, and now I see there's been
a price increase with the 1.0 version release.  I'll make the switch to 1.0
in the next couple of days, and if a few little bugs are gone then I'll be able
to recommend it wholeheartedly.

I use the M-Audio Firewire 410, which is an offboard soundcard with 8 analog
outs giving me the ability to control 3-way speakers and stereo subs. 

I was already using WindowsXP and my 3Ghz Pentium 4 machine allows me to
do anything I want and play music at the same time without any bleeps.

[goo]

Thx John,
Did you catch the desperation
I just ordered the MAudio and will get the rest soon
goo

[JeffB]

lizardBrain pointed to these in a thread on 'B200 + 2 15" woofers', they might suit you and are amazingly cheap:
http://www.musicsupplycenter.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=100%2D186 .

Thanks for the link.  For $20 each, I took my chances and ordered 2.

[AJinFLA]

I don't recall mentioning Linkwitz, so please don't put words in my mouth.

Linkwitz is a "measurement geek" along with Geddes, Toole and Danley. Why don't you want to prove them wrong also?

I meant measurement geeks like yourself.

Ah, I didn't realize I was part of this personal quest of yours. Can you remind me how I got involved? I seem to have forgotten.

Again, I didn't say anything about Linkwitz, Geddes, or Toole.

You said "measurement geeks". What are they?

What I dispute is that measurements are the be all to end all.

Dispute with who? Who said that?

Many fine speakers are designed and built without scientific measurements ever being done.

"Fine"? Depends on who you ask or your definition of "fine" I suppose. If one gets lucky, "decent", maybe. Unless Beranek was wrong?

If the 2496 was as perfect as you seem to think then it's lack of transparency
wouldn't be so commonly mentioned.

When did I say perfect? "Commonly mentioned" = Fact? You been hanging out with GW? Ghosts (and WMDs) are "commonly mentioned" too. You believe in those?
Possibly faulty units, user incompetence and vivid imaginations don't make a product non transparent. On the contrary, since I and others have experienced the units transparency in high resolution driver systems, shows that the units can be transparent, unless we are all liars or lack the "golden ears" of the chosen, self-appointed few.

My opinion is that what I'm using is far superior.

Fair enough. My opinion is that it isn't.

I have the capacity of unlimited outs vs being limited to a 3-way with the 2496.

You are blissfully unaware of the DCX's capability. Does this look like a 3-way to you?
http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12126
You think that "measurement geeks" system "lacks transparency" 

My filters use 64 bit processing vs 24 bit with the 2496.

So? Audibly, this means?

The 2496 has far less flexibility in it's XO and EQ's.

True. But it has enough for a well designed in the first place system.

The 2496 can't address phase correction.

It can't do (close to) zero phase shift FIR. Audibly, this means?

These factors plus the fact that I found the Behringer to be less than totally transparent are how I justify my opinion.

Or the non-factors. Plus your opinion may have been different had you listened to something like Jack's system rather than your own handiwork, but as I have stated before, different strokes for different folks.

If you insist on arguing for argument's sake, I'm not going to participate.  I went
down that road with you before, and you were proved wrong, so I'm not wasting
my time again.

I was not proved wrong by you. DJK showed JBL's spec (and myself) to not be infallible. What does that prove? That the DCX is not transparent?

As long as you're happy with your own system, that's all that really matters, and I
wasn't knocking your system in any way.  I'm sorry that you took my comments so
personally.

I didn't take anything personally. I saw speculation spiced with falsehoods...

I'm able to really use the system, I'm sure I'll be recommending it, because it's far superior
to the Behringer boxes.... no multiple digital/analog conversions, total flexibility with
real computing power behind the filters and everything is handled in the digital domain,
so I'm finding it totally transparent.

..with no mention of opinion...and decided to differentiate it from fact. You have now made it clear that it is only your opinion, after my commentary.
Enjoy your new computer. If one could improve the sound of my system, "commonly mentioned" or not, I would use it too. I don't, even though I'm looking for the best possible sound.
Maybe I'm just a luddite like Bouska, SL, Earl & Tom. Or maybe there is more to great sound than computers.

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

lizardBrain pointed to these in a thread on 'B200 + 2 15" woofers', they might suit you and are amazingly cheap:
http://www.musicsupplycenter.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=100%2D186 .

Thanks for the link.  For $20 each, I took my chances and ordered 2.

Does B stand for Bagby? (If so, are you considering using them OB instead of the JBL's?)

cheers,

AJ

[JeffB]

The B stands for something else.  It is my last initial, but I prefer some anonymity on the net.
I do plan to use them in OB.
My skills are limited though, so I just plan to mount them to my existing board.
No isolation of two drivers on different boards.  The top driver is a B200.

[AJinFLA]

My apologies. There is a Jeff B over on some other boards. I had you confused with him. Never mind the JBL comment .

cheers,

AJ

[JohninCR]

Everyone,
I'm sorry.  I said I wouldn't, but it's a slow night and I can't help myself.

AJ,

 

I said "prove some of the "measurement geeks" wrong", so not only
should you not put words in other people's mouth, but you should also be more
careful about taking things out of context.

Your meaningless points are just that, so I won't waste time addressing those.

If you don't know, or can't hear the significant impact of phase shift caused by
crossovers, then you obviously can't appreciate the significant advantage of
phase correction not to mention its clear audibility.

It goes without saying that whatever I post is my opinion.  When warranted I quote
facts or opinions of others in support of my opinions.  When I speculate, I clearly say
so.  I think it's silly for people to go out of their way to include "this is my opinion" or
similar wording in their posts.

Regarding the JBL issue, you acted like you knew everything, and I was one of
those who disagreed.  I didn't say I proved you wrong, but you were, so live
with it.  This case is a bit different.  You step in to argue a matter of opinion,
but when I state the facts that support my view, all you make are meaningless
or irrelevant points of rebuttal.  That makes you 0 for 2.

I've speculated about a number of issues that are pretty far away from mainstream
thinking related to OB's, so next time why don't you choose one of those topics?  That
could make for some meaningful discussion instead of this pointless tit-for-tat debate.

Have a nice day!

John

[Bob in St. Louis]

It goes without saying that whatever I post is my opinion

As far as I'm concerned, this is my outlook on every post I read, on every forum, by every member.
Nothing is fact when you're reading an internet forum. Unless you're wanting to take it that way.
Jesus people. This isn't life ending stuff here.

Let's have some fun folks.  aa

......AJ, pardon me for being ignorant, please. But how is it that you're just over a half dozen posts and are in this situation? Do you guys know each other from elseware?

Bob - always happy 

[goo]

Ok, who needs a hug  aa

[Bob in St. Louis]

Ok, who needs a hug  aa

 

[AJinFLA]

It goes without saying that whatever I post is my opinion

As far as I'm concerned, this is my outlook on every post I read, on every forum, by every member.
Nothing is fact when you're reading an internet forum. Unless you're wanting to take it that way.
Jesus people. This isn't life ending stuff here.

Let's have some fun folks.  aa

Bob - always happy 

Quite correct. But this may also assume that everyone else reading may also think this way. What if someone regards this "opinion"

I'm able to really use the system, I'm sure I'll be recommending it, because it's far superior
to the Behringer boxes.... no multiple digital/analog conversions, total flexibility with
real computing power behind the filters and everything is handled in the digital domain,
so I'm finding it totally transparent.

as fact? Perhaps because they are a newbie or simply unaware of the details? What if they see Johns post as meaning that the DCX cannot process strictly in the digital domain, must utilize multiple D/A conversions or is less than transparent when functioning/implemented properly? What if John doesn't know this (a distinct possibility)? He was unaware they could be cascaded (among a great many other things).
Should I ignore this, or be a voice of dissent? Is it better to have falsehoods perpetuated unchallenged for the sake of group harmony and happiness?
I understand that many audiophiles like to embelish the reason that they do things, but if they are going to do so, should they not be prepared to defend their position (if truthful) when challenged by someone not part of the "commonly mentioned" flock?
I would hope that what I raised might at least get some to see that there are "alternate" facts to those being stated as "opinion".
Fact 1) The DCX processes in the digital domain.
Fact 2) The DCX does not require multiple D/A conversions be performed. It has a digital input.
Fact 3) If non-defective: It is transparent when used competently, less than when not, just like a computer, an amplifier, a CD player, etc, etc, etc.

See, I can state my "opinion" also

......AJ, pardon me for being ignorant, please. But how is it that you're just over a half dozen posts and are in this situation? Do you guys know each other from elseware?

Yep, know him from elsewhere. He's been a "measurement basher" for a long time. You don't see the irony/humor the way I do, that he is now going to "measure to prove the measurement geeks wrong"
But it sure is a step in the right direction....IMHO
Now if he could just reveal the secret of what he is about to prove to those who respect and understand why Linwitz, Geddess, Toole, Danley, etc. all measure, measure, measure......well, I suppose that would spoil the suprise . I love suprises .
BTW, did you follow the link to the JBL forum? That's one heck of a system (using DCX's ) even though its not OB. I still have plenty to learn, so I fould it quite interesting, measurements and all.

cheers,

AJ

[Bob in St. Louis]

Quite correct. But this may also assume that everyone else reading may also think this way. What if someone regards this "opinion" as fact? Perhaps because they are a newbie or simply unaware of the details?

Because they're nieve? I was.
Bought a lot of the "wrong" stuff, now I'm starting all over.

should they not be prepared to defend their position (if truthful) when challenged by someone not part of the "commonly mentioned" flock?
I would hope that what I raised might at least get some to see that there are "alternate" facts to those being stated as "opinion".

Yes.
I like a good fight now and then, but prefer that when I come here I'm learning. Hate to see mud throwing among respected members. I don't know you but I do know John from a few forums and I do respect him (although he's "over my head" most of the time). When things get "heated", people tend to go away. I don't want to see that. That's not productive for anybody.

BTW, did you follow the link to the JBL forum? That's one heck of a system (using DCX's ) even though its not OB. I still have plenty to learn, so I fould it quite interesting, measurements and all.

No. I'm OB all the way. I like the "pretty pictures" as much as the next guy, but the information contained in non-OB stuff just confuses me since it doesn't relate (usually) to OB.

Let's be gentile, tactful, happy, productive, and have a good time folks.
IT'S A HOBBY after all. Few of us here are relying on this for our livelyhood.

Bob

[hurdy_gurdyman]

Quite correct. But this may also assume that everyone else reading may also think this way. What if someone regards this "opinion" as fact? Perhaps because they are a newbie or simply unaware of the details?

Because they're nieve? I was.
Bought a lot of the "wrong" stuff, now I'm starting all over.

Bob, Don't feel to bad. We've all been there. At one time I used to believe all the stuff the mainstream audio press was saying. Ended up with very sterile sounding and boring audio rigs for many years. The underground audio press got me started back toward a musical sounding rig. I blame the internet for steering me toward what I enjoy today. I've learned to read others opinions with an open mind because sometimes people who are not great engineers come up with some of the most musical sounding ideas.
If it wasn't for people thinking outside the box of convention, none of us would be here reading anything on this forum. After all, it had been proven decades ago that open baffles weren't anywhere near as good as putting a speaker in a box. Someone decided to try them in spite of knowing they don't measure as well as conventional boxes as far as bass extension goes, not to mention the unique soundstage they have. Who would have guessed just how good they could be?

Sorry about this slight hi-jacking of this thread. I support the right of all to express/defend their "opinions".

Dave

[corloc]

lizardBrain pointed to these in a thread on 'B200 + 2 15" woofers', they might suit you and are amazingly cheap:
http://www.musicsupplycenter.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=100%2D186 .

Thanks for the link.  For $20 each, I took my chances and ordered 2.

I've been running a pair of these for several months.  They sound nice, but I would cross them lower than 200hz (at 6Db slope), because they tend to smeared the detail on upper freq.  I'm working on using them on a separate baffle from the  b200's, because the shake the baffle quite a bit.  I haven't successfully crossed the Warrior's with the b200's, when the B200's have had a notch filter on them.

John's solution sound interesting for source, filter, and crossing.  I've been nosing around at a new source. 

John do you use the computers volume control or a preamp arrangement?

Chris

[corloc]

As for measuring, (Hmm, I'm speaking as a novice), is very usefull.  To design and tweeking systems, but you have to define what your end goal is.  I've heard speakers, and rigs that were supposedly flat, and sounded like wonderfull recordings.  I've heard systems with a higher distorion and not ruler flat speakers sound more like the music was live.  These are generalizations not the rule, but you have to take into context what you are measuring and how it is being used.

If my memory serves, in the early days of using feedback.  Engineering used as much feedback as they could, because it measured well for distorion, but ended up sounding like ,well, not so good. 

In the realm of digital pictures, I listen to a article on PBS about digital images look more natural to human eyes with a little distorion.  If you cleaned it up it looked worse and if you added more it looked worse.  I have wondered if the same thing goes on with hearing.  Human ears may not be designed to like for pure tone.

My point is, What is the benchmark for measuring?  Ruler flat across frequency spectrum or sounds great to your ears.

Chris

I have a feeling this should be taken to a new thread if people are intrested.

[JohninCR]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the feedback on those Warriors.

I've just used the volume control on Music Monkey, my player/library.  I read
recently that those internal volume controls should be set a max and control
the volume elsewhere or else something is lost.  I need to get my room in order
to do some comparisons to find out for myself.

I'm anxious to do some measuring myself, not only to compare my tuning by
ear results, but there are some things like edge diffraction using different
edge geometries where measurements are needed.  Plus having FDRs to input
into the XO software will give me nice graphics making fine tuning a snap.  My
more subjective approach in the past has taught me to use my ears and, like
you mentioned, flat response doesn't necessarily equate to better sound.

[AJinFLA]

As for measuring, (Hmm, I'm speaking as a novice), is very usefull. 

It is mandatory, to end up with an Orion or a NaO or an R909. Otherwise, the DIYer simply ends up obeying Beraneks law.

To design and tweeking systems, but you have to define what your end goal is.

The end goal of all such speakers is superb sound. I wasn't aware there were any other goals to something like an Orion. Is there?

I've heard speakers, and rigs that were supposedly flat

Supposedly flat where? How are you defining "flat"?

I've heard systems with a higher distorion and not ruler flat speakers sound more like the music was live.

Hmmm. Lets assume you mean frequency response, without stating as measured from where (critical). By this rational, could I increase the the "liveness" of my system by inserting a CD player with +/- 15db variation (not ruler flat) and high levels of distortion? Or does this only apply to speakers? Does your CD player or amplifier do this?

These are generalizations not the rule, but you have to take into context what you are measuring and how it is being used.

I would certainly hope the people who measure are aware of this.

If my memory serves, in the early days of using feedback.  Engineering used as much feedback as they could, because it measured well for distorion, but ended up sounding like ,well, not so good.

Is this a generalization or a rule? Do you disagree with Bob's papers? http://www.cordellaudio.com/papers/another_view_of_tim.pdf
http://www.cordellaudio.com/papers/another_view_of_tim_II.pdf

In the realm of digital pictures, I listen to a article on PBS about digital images look more natural to human eyes with a little distorion.  If you cleaned it up it looked worse and if you added more it looked worse.  I have wondered if the same thing goes on with hearing.  Human ears may not be designed to like for pure tone.

This is well known in psychoacoustics. Something that Linkwitz, Toole and Geddes, etc. are well aware of. Thats why Geddes is partnered with Lidia Lee. Are you familiar with her work http://www.gedlee.com/lidia_bio.htm ? Are the folks who aren't measuring as familiar with psychoacoustics?
Have you read all of Geddes papers, like this http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm ?
Certainly, as a OB fan, you have read this http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm

My point is, What is the benchmark for measuring?

An understanding of what you are measuring. And what to do with it's significance.

Ruler flat across frequency spectrum or sounds great to your ears.

Both.
If you correctly define "ruler flat" and its significance amongst a thousand other variables.
Since you keep mentioning "Flat", here you go http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf
I always hope that everyone who builds their own speakers are already intimately familiar with all the sites I have linked to, but its still worth reading a 2nd or 3rd time.

No. I'm OB all the way. I like the "pretty pictures" as much as the next guy, but the information contained in non-OB stuff just confuses me since it doesn't relate (usually) to OB.

I am OB "all the way" as well . As in OB loudspeakers. I found a tremendous amount of useful information about loudspeakers in the JBL link, even though he does not use open baffles. I'm sorry that you found nothing useful but the pretty pics. Here's one for you. At least I think its pretty



cheers,

AJ

[MJK]

AJ,

Why do you post responses basically attacking what others have posted?  Other than attacking what the poster says are you providing any added value in your response in the way of discussions or explanations.

It is mandatory, to end up with an Orion or a NaO or an R909. Otherwise, the DIYer simply ends up obeying Beraneks law.

So there is nothing in between complete measurement and using Beranek's law?  What is Beranak's law?  I guess I am not familiar with that expression.

I think your statement is way to restrictive, there are people who build very good speaker systems without complete measurement capabilities, there are also many examples of the opposite case.  Probably the most difficult part of speaker building is producing valid measurements and being able to understand and interpret what they are telling you and what they are not showing you.  Do you consider yourself an expert in the art of measuring speaker systems and all of the acoustics and digital math that takes place to produce the picture on the screen that you then still need to interpret? 

Other then referencing other people's work, do you have anything original to offer?  I will admit that I am not intimately familiar with all of the sites you have quoted, does that mean I should not be able to design and build speakers.  The sites you have provided represent positions and not necessarily absolute truths.  There are some people who disagree with some of what is presented by your references.

Martin

[JohninCR]

Beranek's law isn't even applicable to his arguments.  It simply says that, to you, "The best sounding speaker is the one that you just built."