Nklipsch

Great PWT pic ! http://www.leesound.com/bw_photos/photo15.jpg :-)

My 256ks struggling too! Example of thumbnails,saves on bandwidth,uses IRFANVIEW free good program. http://www.geocities.com/basshornguy/pics/pura/pura.html [link will probably break due to BW use] Or http://www.geocities.com/xobt/rajeev/rajaudio.html Mike.e

The majority of people would probably click 'yes' to the installation of 'music playing software',just look at the proliferation of malware elsewhere. The funny thing is,it encourages people to rip it,and then burn their own copy without protection.

I use Qcad 1.5(old free version) for 2D stuff. Works well for somethings but not others. I found it extremely intuitive unlike autocad.

Depends on what frequency is being produced,what will happen. Consider acoustical sizes. 40hz being 8metres long the baffles will do nothing at all. at 2khz there will be some lobing from the large woofers,and the lobes will cross each other like two fingers. http://www.burton-manor.co.uk/Audio/LAthoughts.htm

$/dB I think it comes out to about the same...but I guess it depends on your goals. Mounting four $300 drivers in the cieling doesn't cost too much beyond the cost of the drivers (so let's call it $1500) - I bet you could easily drop $1500 on a huge bass horn (a sheet of plywood costs like $40-$80 depending on how nice you want it - multiplied by 10 is pusing $600, then add a $300 driver which comes to $900 and then a few hundred for finishing and nails and all that). I think the few hundred dollar difference makes up for itself when you take into account the amount of floor space you save (perhaps we should include the average price per square foot of our houses too) 4 15"s in the ceiling wont acheive the same SPL. Their sensitivity will be about 90dB/1watt vs 105dB/1watt for the one hornloaded driver.. Ofcourse the sealed box response will roll off nicely to give about 80dB/1watt at 20hz. I wouldnt use ply,its not going to move. For the LF I wouldnt consider basshorns,they approach ROOM size.. For the midbass,yes. Most of use dont need it that loud anyway. Apples vs oranges. Would be cool to integrate it with the design of a new house though!

Not all of us have an attic that we own to cut holes into :-)Actually,I disagree. Try it. For $/dB horn is the best anyway. I wont bother comparing 14 x 8"s to the six 12" business. Im not advocating compromised pipe horns for 20hz,I think that sticking horns to an octave higher is a more practical idea,eg edgar horns. edit : we both own 2226 for sub duty :-) Mike.e

we all want 20hz-20khz but is it really required? I find ~32hz a decent cutoff for music,I listen to DnB. A 650litre labhorn sized unit will only reach ~27hz in room. With a 1.2m flare extender it will go a little bit lower. http://www.geocities.com/xobt/basshorns/basshorns.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20000610064936/http:/www.arl.mil/ARL-Directorates/ISTD/aat/MOAS.htm

Ive only ever seen 3D balloons of polars on renkus-heinz I think,showing lateral and verticle info is great! But most people dont want to display this info so its of no importance to them ;-) (nasty holes in cone driver xover points etc) regards Mike.e

www.allaboutcircuits.com or http://www.bcae1.com Using a pc with moderately linear sound card,and sine wave generator software,a plot can be created. Use a 1k in series,and you can also use a large resistor for calibration. Cant find the value right now!(lent a book to a mate,who moved house!) Then you hope your DMM is accurate from in the range your requiring-for subs probably their ok.

---------------- On 8/19/2005 6:14:39 AM consistent wrote: Hi there, I'm currently playing around with caps and resistors in my pre-amp and believe me these have an effect on the sound of the sssssssssssss's. Use female voices they tend to 'test' your system as to its harshness, brightness and sweetness. I agree that it starts with the recording but ends up through your speakers. You just have to make sure your system doesn't add anything to the recording. Cheers ---------------- Hello, It would be useful to people if you wrote up your method,results and conclusions.Im interested in objective vs subjective effects of these issues. Mike.e

BIG horns,that probably are only just CIR=1 IE largely resistive but still not ideal. http://www.geocities.com/xobt/

Oh,very good!Id only heard of this paper,didnt realise the content was so interesting Shows very clearly the improvements made with CE HF horns! The abberations in Directivity are greatly improved.

JJK : The physics constants which control this universe havent changed in the last few years. That horn length will also have a certain mouth size. The optimal St and Vrc will be dependant on the driver itself.

Ah yes I remember that image stating which reflections and which action to be taken. What is it from? An online pdf I think Mike.e

Heh nice Front page. Gif 16colour is good for small filesize text but true colourjpg for images,not good if theres text + images on the same page. Regularly,atleast once a week I go to the local club with MARTIN AUDIO sound system installed, Two WSX 18" hornloaded subwoofers with ~2.5metre path length re arrange my insides(small club ~100-200ppl crammed)

Exactly,people who havent heard better will simply enjoy the average sound. The more critical market,music lovers,'audiophiles' etc will speak of the subjective effects under sighted testing while the abxers will assemble some testing...I think it will be a gradual infiltration of a/b but not a complete take over. The final question is how does it sound?It might not sound warm enough to analog fiends.

heh that is really classic.Printed it out!

There is never a cure-all. Just another set of advantages and disadvantages. Something would be wrong with the universe if there was a free lunch. THD measurements by itself is useless for audio, see the cheever_thesis http://w3.mit.edu/cheever/www/main.htm Interesting topics such as THD Weightings applied to THD Negative feedback and distortion products Distortion products which are not only 'nice' to the ear,but masked by the ears own natural harmonic generation. More interesting is the transfer function,look at distortion vs power. Is it amazingly low then shoots up to some huge figure? Does it sound good? Or is it smooth with low order harmonics that dont sound so bad, and/or are masked by the ear/brain so you dont even hear them? "A Futurewithout feedback?" By: Martin Colloms (From: Stereophile 1/98) "Some defectsin amplifier performance not covered by standard specifications" By: Norman Crowhurst (From: JAES10/57) "Soundof the machine: The hidden harmonics behind THD" By: Lynn T. Olson & Matt Kamna(From: Glass Audio, No,4, 97) Mike.e

If your not making enemies with your beleifs,your probably too liberal I agree for the most part with that article,but not 100%.I actually enjoy debate among open minded but opinionated fellows. read the CHEEVER_THESIS.pdf for info about tubas/SS/natural ear distortion,and transistor,mosfet and tube distortion curves. Also zero feedback info. Audiocritics lies,are $terophiles truths, Which is correct?Does it matter? I respect others beliefs,because beliefs are subjective and you cant ignore them. You can have an open mind however, admitting that pyschoacoustics do occur for example. Personally,I dont argue,but debate,and like to see where measurements meet subjective experience. Dragon:did u get my email?

Conclusion : EQ cant fix problems in the time domain,the only fix is physical placement? Picture host - imageshack.us PM sent dragonfyr Nice articles,will read after ive done some CISCO

---------------- ---------------- This compensation is for use when measuring this frequencies with tones, or creating a contour response. But here is where I must express concern. ...But, as soon as you bring the EQ into the equation we are moving into the very domain of what you cannot equalize. You CANNOT correct for a non-minimum phase signal - meaning that EQ can ONLY correct for the minimum phase direct signal! It CANNOT correct a composite signal comprised of multiple signals resulting from superposition. As an EQ employs LRC filters, the LC components cause an shift in the signal phase response. And while you will feel that an EQ can change the apparent response at a point, it is simply due to the relative modification in the phase relationships of the component waveforms that comprise the composite signal. In other words, the comb filtering polar response shifts ever so slightly, simply moving the problem around and modifying the problem ever so slightly. It CANNOT fix the error! Thus, the fundamental problem is that the ultimate solution of using the EQ to try to correct for anything other then the DIRECT signal is an attempt to try to do something that the tools cannot accomplish. If they could, we could simply forego all the acoustic analysis and simply buy lots of EQs as have been done for so many years! And, ironically, this is precisely what we are again starting to see with so many of the ‘high (on drugs) end’ manufacturers who are beginning to incorporate this very technique into their units with lots of fancy names and claims regarding "room correction" And EVERY such claim ranks right up there with the best of the spurious claims that we so like to attribute to Monster and Bose! So get ready to see that rarified clique become significantly larger with more 'marketing over engineering' BS! Now lots of people persist in trying to do exactly this with a myriad number of variations! But it is a fundamentally flawed method. So to repeat, while the composite response is fine for identifying nulls and LF modal response, I would address this issue by relocating your subwoofer or analyzing the dimensions of your room in order to make a few Helmholtz resonators. But I would NOT waste my time with the EQ. You cannot correct for time based anomalies with such a frequency based tool. But again, you are welcome to spend your time doing whatever you might chose assuming that you aren't hurting others! But I suggest that you can find many more productive things to do with your time then this! http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/2.gif"> http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif"> http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif"> ---------------- In other words, the comb filtering polar response shifts ever so slightly, simply moving the problem around and modifying the problem ever so slightly. It CANNOT fix the error! What do you mean by 'comb filtering polar response'?Do mean acoustical axis shift do to phase differences? -> http://www.linkwitzlab.com/x-sb80-3wy.htm How does one acheive a minimum phase system with a loudspeaker system,then EQ fixes the FR abberation problem doesnt it. -> http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121 The math sends me to sleep,as its not up to scratch! ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonminimum_phase#Inverse_system Cheers Mike.e

-- beliefs -- Your welcome to buy expensive things and hear a difference if you wish,but I cant afford this luxury. My standpoint is that abx testing reveals the truth. This is my belief,its a cheaper belief than magic cables(haha),but as to which belief reflects reality,I dont know. Subjectivists say abx tests simply dont show whats actually happening,while objectivists state that well done abx tests are truthful, and pyschoacoustics explain alot of interesting things. -Im a student with large student loan so I attack the major distortion offendors first-room and speakers. In conclusion : aslong as we respect others beliefs,whether in audio or religion itself,people will get along ok,and this discussion will be an endless loop Mike.e

Aslong as it bears no resemblance to audio asylum thats fine

I too have respect for linkwitz - I agree with him on most counts. Id have to say that a horn loudspeaker when well designed eg JBL monitors will satisfy alot of audio cravings,and its where im heading when I can afford it(diy) But the badly designed horns are much worse than a designer who spend 3minutes designing a 2way TM systemIe its harder to get a good horn system. The controlled directivity is a huge plus by itself,one I simply cant ignore considering room effects on music.