Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philipbarrett

  1. And I hear choirs of Angels singing Amen! If a system is functioning within it's design limits there is no "better" or "worse" sound, just different sound. Equalizers are almost exclusively used in professional environments to correct room anomalies that due to time and engineering constraints can not be solved acoustically. In other words "the show is tonight!" Engineers understand they are treating the problem, not the solution, the tuning is done because they have to, not because they want to. Loudspeaker manufacturers are constantly evolving their products to lessen the interaction between them and the room specifically to allow the engineers to apply less eq to a system precisely because adding eq is in itself undesirable. In a domestic environment solving the problems will be generally cheaper and certainly much more satisfying than fixing the symptoms. If it's determined that eq is needed, the solution of last resort is the venerable 32 band graphic. It's highly unlikely that the fixed frequency and bandwidth filters will correspond to the problem areas and producing a large slope requires the combing of lots of smaller ones. Most engineers have long abandoned them for parametric eq units which allow full control over all the parameters rather than a stab at the closest available. For myself, I haven't specified a graphic eq for one of my systems in over a decade.
  2. I've read and re-read your posts and no where do you elaborate why you want to add an eq to your system? Don't sell the Peach until you've 'splained Lucy.
  3. "Properly" being the key word here. It's almost impossible to designing an analog circuit that can perform effective eq without adding in other artifacts. In our SIM tests the IRP Transversal (sadly long gone) in cuts-only mode came the closest but nothing looked that great & were certainly not something I'd want on my home system. Another product that held up well and was the choice for studio monitors for years was Texas' own White Instruments. They're still in business too - http://www.whiteinstruments.com/index.htm Rane publish a very nice white paper on the subject of equalizers - http://www.rane.com/note122.html Back to the OP. If you have to use eq (of which I'm skeptical) the Behringer DEQ2496 is a much better, low cost solution. I actually own a pair and have used them for buss processing on some fairly large scale broadcast stuff. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/DEQ2496.aspx
  4. The Behringer 32 band graphic is a poorly implemented version of a piece of professional gear that even when done well (Klark or BSS) introduced huge phase distortion, filter ringing, noise and other artifacts into the signal chain. There was no better solution at the time of their development, however, you will seldom see them used in any professional environment today for the reasons outlined above. You will have certainly wasted your money on the Peach if you insert the Behringer into your system.
  5. If you're a rock fan put on Led Zeppelin IV. Settle back and wait for the breakdown (no I'm not giving any clues). hear that little click in the right speaker? That's Bonham twirling his sticks under the overhead microphone. Happens twice. That's the magic of Klipsch.
  6. Bruze Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound is one of my favorites. His book "Audio Reality" will equip you with the tools to seriously evaluate equipment & claims. As a designer he's one of the few to really push the boundaries of tube audio design unlike 90% of his competition who are merely content to repackage the 1936 Radiotron Designers Handbook in very attractive cases.
  7. ...and so I don't totally sound like a crusty old curmudgeon, The Gramophone which is the UK's classical music specialty magazine does have a small section with good equipment reviews. Of course, they don't rely on equipment manufacturers to make their nut every month.
  8. What those guys said! HiFi magazines exist to sell advertising which is there to sell product. The problem with home audio is that if you've invested well initially (and let's face it, the used market is a godsend) you're really set for almost a lifetime of enjoyment, great for you but horrible business for the companies that place the ads. Therefore the magazines must constantly sow seeds of dissatisfaction and need into you so you'll support the manufacturers who buy the ads that keep the magazines in business. If they can't get you with the hardware then it's cables, wooden blocks and other paraphernalia, most of which ignores even the simplest laws of physics and science. If that sounds cynical well that's exactly what it is. If you buy music to listen to your system then the magazines are absolutely for you. However, if you bought a system to listen to your music you have no need of them.
  9. Good eye but it's bypassed. The dynamics were nice but the stereo image suffered. I leave it hooked up for the flashing lights!
  10. Since my job involves lots of big speaker boxes I'm pretty familiar with the whiles and ways of subwoofers. Personally I prefer horn loads but they're getting harder & harder to find these days.
  11. Foam weather strip. I re-read through all the threads and honestly if I had to do it again...I wouldn't! Subtle is a word I used often with good reason. Nice touches on the low end of acoustic instruments such as bass and kick drum but not anything the D&B crowd would care about. While we're talking Scalas, what is the difference between the originals & the IIs?
  12. Original build thread is here - http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/104516.aspx?PageIndex=1 and my build & measurement thread is here - http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/116730/1177197.aspx#1177197
  13. Thanks Mike, and you're right. I traded the La Scalas for the KHorns mostly because I was unhappy with the low end. I even tried the passive bass radiators underneath but they didn't really help much. As you say, I'm not looking for the "check out my copy of Top Gun" boom boom and am quite satisfied with K's low end. But I would very much miss it if it were gone. These popped up somewhat locally - http://killeen.craigslist.org/ele/3426173638.html
  14. Recommendations? Bearing in mind that I like most here (I imagine) hate what passes for a "sub" in most people's HT systems.
  15. I can get away with size but placement is a problem. What was your opinion on the low end of the Belles compared to to the Ks? I have thought about Jubilee bottoms but not sure what I would mate them with for the high end. I'm not interested in this becoming too much of a DIY project!
  16. An upcoming move may necessitate a serious evaluation of my speaker system. Although I'm a Klipschorn die-hard the new house has literally zero placement opportunities (it happened to PWK too). I am familiar with the false wall approach but the WAF in a period home would be lower than a...well it would be very low. So I'm interested in opinions on the Belles. I have owned La Scalas before trading up to the KHorns so I am familiar with their sound. Are the Belles closer to the K's or more La Scala like? Alternatively I am interested in the Volti Vittorias (the wife gets the house, she's feeling my sacrifice on the Ks but the time window may be short) and would be interested in any experiences regarding them too. They certainly are a gorgeous piece of furniture.
  17. Same reason, the natural roll off is complimented by the subs. In live sound I tend to cross my subwoofers (generally front loaded 2 x 18s) over at around 60 - 70Hz with an 18dB slope BUT my main cabinets are also high passed at around 120Hz/12dB per octave. Bear in mind these subs have a seperate mix of certain instruments feeding them directly (kik drum, bass guitar, keyboards etc.). This allows me to mix a clean powerfull bass without over-exerting the main system yet the blend between the 2 is pretty seamless. BTW, all this tuning is done by ear & some favorite songs.
  18. Amen Brother! Nothing frustrates me more than folks spending $1,000s on cables, convertors & the like then sticking them in rooms that sound like...er...well not very good. One hundreth of what you laid out on that stuff spent on some simple DIY acoustic treatment will yield far superior results. Plus, these days there is so much help out there on the web.
  19. Good conclusion. Professionally, we almost never allow 2 speaker enclosures to operate in the same frequency band for all the reasons your 1st plot illustrated (that & drivers being cranked into failure becasue the mixer cannot hear the true low due to cancellations). What you have now is a true subwoofer set up (emphasis on sub) where the natural roll off of the K's is complimented by the RSWs.
  20. Yes but what the mic is hearing at that point in the room is not going to help with your overall response throughout the room and is not enough of a representation to derive conclusions from. You are making a measurement that is completely dependent on exact frequency & exact location. It does not give a real indication of how the speaker is performing in the room, only how the room is interacting with the speaker at that exact point & time. The best the Audessy (or any other processor) can do is quesstimate how that reading will translate throughout the listening environment and adjust accordingly. If you happen (for example) to place the measurement mic in a location that, due to room nodes, is 6dB louder at say 60Hz, the Audessy will happily pull that frequency down by 6dB even though 60Hz may be fine at other points in the room. PJK neatly addressed the bass response problem by placing his speakers in the corners. As the simulation below shows, this is a very easy way to achieve smooth bass response throughout an environment. Compare this with the room LF response of speakers placed along a wall - My HO, through years of doing this for entertainment & a living is that the K's low end work's brilliantly just the way the man designed it. If "boom's" your thing, great, add a sub but don't confuse it with an enhanced or accurate low end.
  • Create New...