timbley

---------------- On 5/19/2005 8:28:59 PM robkirby wrote: Am I crazy or would this be a really killer way to go?? Rob ---------------- That sounds like something I would try. So yes, you are crazy.

I got into the EQ thing because as I tried different equipment in my system, I started to get the impression that a lot of the differences I was hearing came down to frequency response. Now that I have the DEQ with it's RTA, I know that's true. I liked my LPs better because the high frequencies are more attenuated. Something with my soundcard was causing a treble roll off when I used 96kHz sampling rate in consumer mode. I liked it. Pro mode sounded too bright, but it turns out that it's actually perfectly flat, correct response. Now that I've got a better handle on what's happening, I'm not so convinced that there's any benifit of 96kHz over 44.1, or LP over CD. I guess that automatically disqualifies me as an audiophile. It's not that the records, SACD or DVD-A sound any worse now on my system. It's just that the good CDs sound so good with some EQ that it's hard for me to find any audible fault with the format.

I think Behrigner should remarket this gear for home use, giving it standard RCA outputs, a different look, and of course a much higher price tag so that it will sell.

---------------- On 5/12/2005 6:32:45 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- One of these days I'll bring over some heavy duty gear and show you what you're missing... ---------------- Don't do that! You'll ruin everything. No, really I'd love to hear some other equipment, and will certainly take you up on that offer. I'm always game to listen to new gear, regardless of the risk.

If I were going to spend the big bucks, I head straight for the DEQX. www.deqx.com It looks like the DEQX is the best of breed for home DSP right now. Either that, or perhaps TACT. DEQX looks more interesting, although I don't like the fact that I'd have to run a Windows PC to interface with it, or run Virtual PC on my Mac. It's a pain, and makes it that much more expensive. The DEQX was what I originally lusted after. But I'm smug with this cheap Behringer crap. If it doesn't fizzle out on me, I'll be using it for a long while.

Looking at the Blauert and Laws report on audible group delay, it would seem that the RF-7 really shouldn't need any delay correction. The report says that at 8kHz, delay becomes barely audible at about 2msec. That's equivalent to about 2 feet. At 2kHz it's about 1 foot, which appears to be the worst case. Even with the horn's driver set back, I don't see how it's acoustic center could be more than 5 or 6 inches behind the upper woofer. I wouldn't want the two woofers operating with differing delay because they're in the same box together and would be out of synch.

I read about a study done in Japan where they had people listen to music with and without the ultrasonic frequencies. They were measuring brain activity, and there was noticeably different brain activity with the higher frequencies present. People didn't comment that it sounded better in any specific way, but did report that they enjoyed the listening session more.

---------------- On 5/6/2005 7:12:48 PM MrMcGoo wrote: Kathy, The close miked response of the RF-7s does not look that good. When you get farther away, they look much better on an RTA graph. Bill ---------------- I posted the in room RTA results I got when close mic'd and when further away on this thread: http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=62156&sessionID={6EA3E4F8-A36C-46A6-9272-FC74CBFE0AB4} It's actually interesting for me to look at those curves now because that was before I went to active crossovers and moved my speakers. The response looks much smoother than that now, although it's still bumpy when close mic'd. Perfectly flat isn't where it's at. But it needs to be smooth, without any sudden jaggies in the midrange or treble. I've found that if I adjust for close to flat using the simplest EQ approach possible (minimum number of parameters), and then backing off from those settings a bit, I get what sounds best to me. I don't even look at the curve anymore after I start adjusting by ear. It's really hard to know what it's supposed to look like. If you've ever used a histogram on a digital camera, you get the idea that it's only a guideline to give you an idea of what's happening in the picture. There's really no such thing as a good histogram curve. It depends on the picture. An RTA response curve depends on the speakers, room and associated equipment. Whew, it's taken me a long time. But I think I've finally reached a point of diminishing returns with the EQ and active crossover. It sounds very balanced and natural to me, so I think the work is done. I put the calibrated microphone away last night and breathed a sigh of relief as I listened to music blissfully, without analyzing the sound.

Ouch! They should have put a warning about that in your car's owners manual.

I listened to a radio program where they interviewed people at different income levels. They started at about $150,000/year and ended up at $1,000,000/year. Not one of them felt they were really that well off. They all knew somebody who made more doing something they felt was similar or easier. The million a year person was asked what would constitute being well off. To her, it'd be having 30x10^6 dollars free and clear in the bank. Then she could have a life.

The JVC F10 allows for automatic setting of speaker distance by using the speakers as microphones to listen for a hand clap from the main listening position. Pretty nifty. But they also include a warning: "Do not clap your hands so hard that it may hurt your hands." Have any of you ever clapped this hard?

They really do sound wonderful, even without any modifications. I didn't take any other pictures while I had them open. But I've seen some others posted. The big 10"s have magnetic sheilding enclosures just like you see on the horn. There's plenty of bracing to make the cabinets rigid, and the veneer is on the inside and the outside, which helps prevent warping. These speakers are made to last.

---------------- On 5/1/2005 11:53:52 PM fini wrote: I love my wife's SET. ---------------- She must have a nice one. What is it you like about her SET so much? I can only imagine: it's smooth, warm... I'll let you go on.

---------------- On 5/2/2005 9:53:11 AM sunnysal wrote: the problem with my digital amp, is that as a "flea" digital amp it rolls off at high volumes I only get 3/4s and 1/2s instead of 1s and 0s...talking about clipping! tony ---------------- You need more digital amps, one for each driver, and some digital processing in the form of an active crossover. Since I got set up this way, I can hear each 1 and 0 so clearely that I could dictate every bit while listening to music if I could only type fast enough.

These old cars didn't measure well. But they did some things right that no piston powered, rubber tired car will ever be able to. For one thing, the acceleration was incredibly smooth. It wasn't particularly powerful, although not bad with Fred helping. These cars used muscle power, which is inherently smooth and liquid in nature. Piston engine cars can approach this smoothness by using more pistons, and with carefully design counter weights. But perceptive drivers can always feel the vibration. Stone wheels could reveal subtle irregularities in the road to a level no rubber tired vehicle will ever even get close to. I'll stand by that. See the look on Fred's face? That tells it all.

---------------- On 5/1/2005 10:14:31 PM NOSValves wrote: Now that is a Car! I don't drive 200 MPH often but hey its great when you can if the urge arises! ---------------- If we're going to talk about cars on a thread about PP, I think something like this would be more appropriate. This applies to SET as well.

---------------- On 5/1/2005 11:48:24 PM fini wrote: If your PP is getting bashed, your seat's too high. ---------------- I didn't realize what we were talking about here. I take back my previous post. I love my PP!

---------------- On 5/1/2005 11:11:23 PM jt1stcav wrote: So, where are all the PP bashers? ---------------- I hate mine! It doesn't sound digital enough. When I listen to CDs, I can't tell if I'm hearing a 1 or a 0. That's why I prefer digtal amplifiers, with lots of digital processing in the signal path.

In case I'm coming across wrong here, I just want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting you should actually do this modification. I'm just experimenting because I'm curious and because of the way I'm set up right now it's easy for me to try things like this. I hope somebody else finds it interesting. It doesn't sound better overall, and I doubt you'd be happy with it no matter how well it was implemented. it just does something really wonderful to the midrange, which confirms to me that in the future I'd like to get into a 3 way design, and preferably full horn.

Thanks! There must be some horn fans here in Oregon that get together once in a while too.

When is your next horn club event? I'd love to attend something like that.

We may have reached a point where cost of production has become quite low, so a heavily engineered and tested design can make it to market for an extremely low price with little sacrifice in audio quality. DIY may no longer make sense. Plug and play and blow your mind away.

It's day 2 now with this setup, and something really special is happening here. The midrange is honey sweet. I don't think I've ever heard a more captivating midrange. You can see that the midrange driver is covering a very narrow range of the audio spectrum. Yet the power level meters show that the middle driver is getting more than the tweeter, and usually as much as the bass driver, sometimes more, this despite the fact that I've boosted the bass. I don't know if the same wonderous midrange effect would happen with a passive implementation, because I'm not sure if it is due to a lack of driver overlap in the same frequency, or becuase the driver and amp have been unloaded from bass duties. I'm thinking the latter, because I've tried the 2 1/2 way configurations before without the same effect.

Wow! Kurt's got the same Behringer/JVC front end that I'm using now. It's great to hear somebody else's impression of this setup. "Absolute clarity and horn-like dynamics" is a good description for it. I hesitate to use the word detailed now because of some of the negative audio connotations that go with that word. But it really is amazingly detailed in the best way. The Behringer DCX/DEQ with cheap japanese chip amps is a killer combination. And it doesn't cost much.

Just out of curiosity, I checked this configuration out a little more. Suprising! I just looked at the RTA, and the bass response wasn't so bad after all. The tweeter really only needed 3db attenuation, with the bass needing a +3 db, 6 db/octave shelf at about 385 Hz. I've always measured a significant bump in response at about 630 Hz, so I crossed the two 10s over around that frequency, leaving a slight gap to cause the bump to come down. It works great, it sounds good to my ears, and it measures nice and smooth through the midrange. What's really intersting is that I used to notice a lot of lumpiness in response if I measured in stereo vs. measuring each speaker by itself. That is much, much less the case now. OK, I'm going to fess up, I thought this was a very bad idea when I first read your post. I simulated it with my active crossover because I thought I was going to be able to demonstrate with some imperical data just how bad it would be. But from what I've tried so far, I think this could work very well if you could somehow get the passive crossover designed correctly, and if you didn't mind some loss in effeciency. Now I must go back to fixing the @#$%#@ washing machine.