maxg
-
Posts
6347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by maxg
-
-
Many happy returns Gregg,
How many is that again? Gettin' on old man - time to put your feet up methinks....
Cheers
[^][D][G]
-
Just per chance, what if the B&Ws mentioned sounded immediately and distinctly better in all important ways (to the individual listener and the one who lives in the house) than the other speakers mentioned in the same acoustic environment? Is the answer to completely change the properties of the room to try to hopefully get the others to sound better (because they are Klipsch and this is a Klipsch forum), or to listen to some music because it's good for us to do that.
Erik
Fair question Erik - but possibly not relevent to this thread. The original questioner mentioned how he was not satisfied with the sound of his Klipsch and asked what he might be able to do to improve the situation. All answers thus far have been aimed in that direction. The additional imformation that the B&W's he heard sounded better were not, apparently, either in his listening space nor with his supporting equipment.
Noticably the guy has not returned to the thread since about page 2 - so I guess he has sold his Klipsch and bought the B&W's.
He is probably now posting on the B&W forum as to why his speakers don't sound as good in his home as they did in the shop...[^o)]
-
I missed it too - and it was apparently aimed at me.....Craig?
-
In my limited experience it is possible to minimize the effect of the room by going nearfield. Try placing the speakers about 4 feet apart and then sit a similar distance from the centre line between the 2 - you can play a little with the height of your chair. You can also play with the toe-in angles to see if there is any position that sounds better in that configuration.
I agree that going nearfield will certainly reduce the effects of the room, but you can't sit closer than the covergance point of the drivers....otherwise you end up with a very disconnected sound that I would describe as having no bass and unclear mids.
With the Refrence lineup, you need to be about 10 feet back in order to get full convergance from their floorstanders. Somewhere around 5 feet for their bookshelf speakers.
10 feet is more than I would have expected (means no near field listening option) but I am not that familiar with the reference line. The heresy's I used to have worked fine at around 4 feet in an equilateral triangle with the listener.
I recently did something not dissimilar with a pair of large Maggie's and they were fine at around 4 or 5 feet in a dreadful room.
-
"Does Einsteins theory of relative motion apply to all moving objects? Like say a moving jet aircraft traveling along a moving runway surface? What would happen to the jets taking-off atop the deck of an aircraft carrier if the ship was to suddenly have the ability to travel in the opposite direction, maintaining a speed equal to that of the jet aircraft? Would the jet lift-off anyway, or would it shoot off the bow and into the water? Hmmmm, food for thought, maybe?"
Er....no.
the ship is merely acting like the conveyor belt in the original problem. Ignoring the issues of the ship bouncing around on the water and upsetting the aircraft's balance as it takes off, it will still take off as normal with the wheels merely turning at the sum of the speeds of the aircraft and the ship.
Basically the engines of the plane are not acting against the ship itself (as the powered wheels for a car would) but against the air.
-
If you can keep you head whilst all around you are losing theirs' - then you haven't understood the problem.
-
Within the boundaries of my apartment living room, I am about 8 feet away from the speakers, and the speakers are about 5 feet apart. As for the source, I am currently using the Oppo HD970 universal player. I am strictly using the system for stereo, (which is why I am hoping to part with the Denon). I tend to enjoy acoustic music, but I also enjoy heavily layered rock albums. The clarity and detail is great, the midrange is a bit muddy at times, the bass unrefined, but the main problem is the screeching high frequencies that leave my ears fatigued. I would much rather a warm, refined, skilled sound coming from my 62's instead of the brash and forward sound they so easily accomodate. Are there any cables, speaker or interconnect, that could also limit the horn harshness? Thanks everyone so far for your help!
OK, my turn.
In my limited experience it is possible to minimize the effect of the room by going nearfield. Try placing the speakers about 4 feet apart and then sit a similar distance from the centre line between the 2 - you can play a little with the height of your chair. You can also play with the toe-in angles to see if there is any position that sounds better in that configuration.
I am not suggesting this is how you want to setup your stereo, of course, merely that this will serve to reduce the interferance from the room and then allow you to assess if you like the sound from the system.
Basically what you are looking for is whether or not you like the sound this way. If not then I would suggest investigating alternative amplification is a valid approach. If you do like the sound then, there are a number of possibilities which may be in addition to the room accoustics issue:
You may simply have bought the wrong speakers. Klipsch is not a laid back sound, neither is B&W particuarly - although they are quite different from each other.
You may have an amp or source issue, as mentioned above. This will generally not change the basic sound of the speaker but they might well ameliorate some of the excessive sibilance and lack of bass control you appear to be describing.I would ask what amplification was driving the B&W's at the store when you heard them? Was it comparible in cost to your own amp/reciever?
Other than that - keep us posted.
-
Paul,
You have way too much time on your hands
Geeeezus, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. [
] []..... You write freaking essays when you post and now this, GEEEEZOUS!Doesnt take that long - I type at 75 wpm.
Mavis Beacon typing tutor - what a tool that was. In 2 days I learned to touch type and never looked back. I wonder if it stil exists? I used it back in the day of DOS and Wordperfect.
-
Paul,
You have way too much time on your hands....
Nice answer - bit detailed - but you didn't cover the impact of the food being served on the plane - nor the length of the pilot's nose.
-
Oh. My. God.
I took a brief (well, 9 month) hiatus (got a Sony a100 DSLR, have been hanging out at dpreview.com), come back here, and find:
1. This thread is still alive?
2. There are still some people who don't get this?
3. Oldtimer is channeling Julian Hirsch?
It *DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE SURFACE UNDER THE WHEELS IS DOING*. Whether the conveyor belt is moving forward, stationary, or backward, at whatever velocity, has no bearing (yuk yuk) on what the plane does. Suppose the plane was magnetically levitated above the belt, not touching it. Obviously, if the belt begins moving backwards while the plane taxies forward, the plane doesn't care. It'll move forward, gain airspeed, and take off. now, let it sit on its wheels. the only difference is the wheels rotate, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the plane's forward motion. Whether the belt is moving beneath the plane at a slow speed, the same speed but opposite in direction to the plane, or traveling backwards at Warp 9 the plane still moves forwards and takes off when the airspeed is sufficient. (Assuming the wheel bearings have negligable friction.)
Geez. I gonna go take some pictures of my speakers.
Welcome back Ray,
We were starting to wonder where you were and thought the best way to get you back was to dis-inter your favorite thread.
Worked too.....
-
"PLANE SPEED = WHEEL SPEED WHEEL SPEED = (RUNWAY SPEED) therefore PLANE SPEED = (RUNWAY SPEED)"
Wrong before you start.
Plane starts moving (thrust)- the runway moves in the opposite direction and at the same speed. The wheels are turning at the sum of the plane's speed and the runway speed. The moving platform actually cannot match the speed of the wheels unless the plane is stationary - it is impossible as the wheels are the sum above.
-
Just as a heads up I mentioned this thread to Miles himself and it is possible he will pop-in to give an opinion or 2. From his reply I would regard it as doubtful - but possible - and it would be kinda cool to have the man himself on here.
BTW - who did the gravity paper? F=Gm1m2/r^2 is not the formula for gravity afterall - it is the resultant formula of the action of EM and gravity and has, therefore, no time component.
Quite blew my brain that one - and I still haven't got it quite. Apparently what we thought was gravity is really a huge part of the unifying theory.
My head hurts!!
-
pauln: you bring up good points but i dont think anyone understands my answer.
this is a null point. its two infinities working in opposing directions. we can assume sine waves but thats not what the original problem indicated. heres the point.
the plane WILL attempt to move forward. but as soon as it does, this means the conveyor belt has NOT done its job to offset the wheel speed. therefore the plane cant move forward without the runway failing its purpose. therefore, the runway will continually increase speed.
i go back to the plane WILL move forward by nature, but as soon as it does the wheel speed would increase to infinity (destruction). now, if the runway takes time to measure, calculate and respond, then theres some time for the plane to move.. but here, we assume that the runway always negates wheel speed. in which case, the plane would fall on its fuselage right where it attempts to move.
The argument that the plane will take off regardless of wheelspeed is usually correct, but for that to happen; the runway obviously did not match wheel speed.. so this premise ruins the original concept of the runway perfectly negating wheelspeed.
if the runway were not perfectly tuned to negate wheelspeed then the plane would take off easily. but thats not what the original problem stated.
The orginal question does not mention wheel speed at all. It talks about the conveyor matching the plane's speed. Wheel speed was introduced by Dr.Who as a possible measure of plane speed - but that ain't how it works - ever. The plane's speed and the wheel's speed are not the same thing. This is why the plane will, indeed, take off.
-
I never heard of anyone measuring the speed of a plane by its wheel speed. Airspeed would be the only obvious candidate and that would be measured relative to the ground, as always.
When you are in an aircraft and the pilot comes onto the intercom with the words "we are cruising at a height of 30,000 feet and a speed of 550 knots" what do you think he means?
Farts don't come into it.
-
Some are caught up in a semantic ambiguity that might prevent takeoff only in the manner the problem is defined. The other side ignores the semantics and approaches the situation from a normal perspective to show how the plane can in fact take off.
Ultimately, the answer to the question is that it is truly a stupid question.
There is no ambiguity in the question:
"a plane is standing on a movable runway( something like a conveyor).as the plane moves the conveyor moves but in the opposite direction.the conveyor has a system that tracks the speed of the plane and matches it exactly in the opposite direction.
the question is
will the plane take off or not?"
It does not say, at any point that the plane does not move - only that the speed of the plane is matched by the conveyor belt. All this means is that the wheels will travel at twice the speed of the plane. As long as the bearings can take the additional strain of that higher speed the plane takes off as normal.
I thought it was a very clever question and it fooled me for a good while.
-
Oh my god - did I really write that? What was I thinking?
OK - what I meant to say was the whole light outside the universe until it is perceived thing is mine and that in fact, therefore, gravity's distortion is purely applied to the matter of the universe and not light - therefore light appears to bend because everything relative to it bends.
In other words - gravity bends space/time but not light. That was it - I think.
As for the hillbilly physics - whatever helps you to visualize it. Problem is - everytime I think about light I come to the conclusion that it violates too many of the rules of physics to exist.
-
Islander,
Just to be clear the whole gravity as a distortion of space/time is my idea - although Miles might share it for all I know.
Universal expansion should be broken down into parts. It is clear that in the immediate aftermath of the big-bang (or equivalent theory) there is a period of expansion of the universe beyond that of mere drifting apart of galaxies. This is the period that mass is actually formed, atoms expanding out from their nucleii etc. Under that form of expansion a kilometer as such would grow. Whether this is still happening is arguable.
Further the harvard light experiments highlight (sorry) another problem. Light, apparently does not accelerate or decelerate. On exiting the medium it therefore should instantaneously be at normal light speed. I suppose that you argue that travelling through the condensate cloud used the same energy at 38 mph as light travelling through a vacuum uses at 300,000 klm/s. If the energy is constant and light has no mass there is no energy exchange when changing the speed so the speed change is instant - no forces involved.
-
Paul,
I got a response:
Max, there is no c'. By postulate and experience
both, c is always c. It is a constant. Therefore the
other variables must change to make c stay the same.
Your other comments are valid, concerning time and
distance. I have no problem with your reversal.
THese papers are not easy and cannot be made easy.
You have to read them several times I think. It helps
to read them all, since your answers may be in other
papers. Read all the ones concerning Relativity, at
least. Be sure to read the ones where I fight with
other people, because there some of these sticking
points are really aired out. gal.html is one of
these, I think, at the end, where I argue with the
editors of APL about the galilean transformation.
Also the link at the end of long.html, where I argue
with some famous mathematicians.
Miles"
Very nice of him - I have written and thanked him and also mentioned this discussion - so who knows - he may pop in himself and comment.
With regards to your last response I do know about the light / mass explanations but they always seemed something of a fudge to me. The concept of the graviton - which must have reasons for existing as a logical deduction has also appeared to me to be far more problematic than merely viewing gravity as a distortion in space/time. The logical extension of that is that a Black hole is actually a tear in space/time (so much for the universe being a closed system - it appears to leak like a sieve).
If gravity is merely a distortion of space time then one would expect its effects to be - to all intents and purposes - instantaneous and not related to time - in other words gravity behaves like mass - or not a force as such - more of a physical property.
It was this that lead me to surmise that light, in transit, is therefore outside of the universe (ageless, massless etc.). The universe deforms - the path of light does not - we are in the universe - therefore light appears to bend to us under certain circumstances.
All probably barking mad - but it is just a thought process - and that is the main fun with this stuff....
-
Saw the title to this thread and thought - wow - I didn't know Porsche ever made Turntables.
How sad am I?
-
Islander,
"I have to ask about your y and z vectors for time. In my experience, time only moves forward, although I can visualize it going backwards. So far, though, I'm unable to visualize time going sideways or up and down. It seems like a novel concept."
That isn't exactly where I was going. Mathis argues that distance and time are really related items - he defines time by movement - change in distance.
As distance, or location, is expressed as a combination of x, y and z therefore time can similarly be expressed like this. Just as for distance a single - or even 2 of the 3 co-ordinates are not enough to always know where a given moving object is - you need all 3 - this applies similarly to time.
Imagine a vector (speed with direction - constalnt speed for ease). If I know the start point a combination of x,y and z will tell me both where the object travelling along that vector is and when - according to my time frame.
Paul,
You are way beyond me in all of this. Thanks for the clarification on C and C' - you are correct of course, but, this does raise a number of anomalies, not the least of which is the effect on the theory of relativity as spotted by Mathis.
The speed of light in a vacuum (contiguous space) is constant. The problem is that space itself doesn't actually seem to be that contiguous. We know, for example, that light appears to bend in heavy gravity. Distant stars appear in the wrong location because a high mass, or high gravity body is in the path. We say that therefore gravity has bent the light. I think this is wholy wrong. I am now going to try to explain why - god help us all!!!
My little theory is that light is actually totally unaffected by gravity - but the universe (or space/time) is affected. Therefore gravity introduces a kink in space-time that is illustrated by the apparent bending of light which is impossible.
Gravity affects mass. Light has no mass. Therefore gravity cannot affect light.
Conversely gravity affects space/time. If I am in a high gravity field and walking in what appears to me to be a straight line it might not appear to be straight to an observer outside of the graivtational pull. It would appear to be a curve. This is not exactly the same affect, however, as for light.
Here's the nub. Light speed = zero time. To the photon, therefore, arrival at any destination is instantaneous and therefore any distance is the same as any other. As Mathis argues that time and distance are merely different ways of expressing the same thing it follows that for the photon distance is also zero.
Light, in transit, is therefore outside of space/time. It is only when it is observed that it re-enters space/time. It is therefore immune to any attribute of space/time including gravity, electromagnetic, etc. etc.
If space/time is being bent by gravity and light is not then to an observer struck within space time it is the light that appears to bend.
Now we have a number of problems. We see distant objects as they were millions of years ago when light began its journey. The light photons have not aged - but we have. Further, the universe is radically different at time of observation from the one it left. If we are to believe the big bang theory or some variant of it then space time is expanding. Nearer stars may have come and gone in the time it took for the light to arrive - resulting in enormous potential for non-contiguous space between us, the observers and the distant event. With no fixed point with which to measure the expansions and other anomalies we have no idea even if expansion is a even effect. It could be that the universe expands, for example, in sudden jumps- just as plate tectonics result in a sudden earthquake. If the universe expands thus does the kilometer that we use to measure the speed of light.
I have no idea what that means - other than that C' might actually be applicable after all and might not equal C - if we had an absolute scale to measure against, simply because light in transit is outside of the universe until observed.
-
Read the first few papers and I have written to him (god knows if he will respond). Like the site but I think I have a hole in his thinking - probably not but something doesn't seem quite right.
Just so you can laugh - here is the letter I sent to him:
"
Hello Miles,
I am taking you at your word that if you get this email you will respond. First off apologies in advance I am neither a scientist, nor mathematician and am frankly not familiar with many of the works you reference.
I am trying to read and understand what you have written. I am not helped by the fact that my mind tends to go off in strange directions. For example when you define time as, in effect distance I immediately think of the converse that therefore distance is actually time.
This means that x, y and z are merely coordinates for time in as much as they are for distance. Probably nothing new here using your vector of travel through x,y and z the passage of time allows me to pinpoint your position.
OK so far and I followed the whole argument in the preface up to:
So the basic assumption of a velocity equation is that the object and the clock are related. They are in the same co-ordinate system. Or, to put it another way, space is continuous from the object to the clock. If it were not, there could be no velocity equation.
If time is actually a measurement of distance, then wherever space is continuous, time is also continuous.
Now here I have a basic problem. Space is continuous from the object to the clock. From my above reversal of your definition (defining distance as time rather than the other way around) I would have to say that The relationship between space and time is the same between object and clock. In other words if one varies the other varies too so that the relationship remains the same.
So the last line now reads wherever space is continous, time is also continuous and wherever it is not time is not to the same degree. Therefore there is no assumption of the continuity or otherwise of time merely of the relationship between time and space.
Like I said strange directions.continuing on:
The constancy of the speed of light. But if the speed of light is the same in every co-ordinate system, then that, by itself, assures that the local time of every co-ordinate system is equal to that of every other. If light goes 300,000 km/s in every system, then the ratio of kilometers to seconds in every system must be equal. Either that, or the statement "light has a constant speed" has no meaning.
Yes the ratio of Kilometers to seconds locally is constant but neither are necessarily the same as in a different location. In other words the speed of light is constant for any given local reference but not when observed from afar with a different frame of reference. Local time is not, therefore equal to that of every other local time but the relationship between space and time is.
At this point I am not sure if we are actually agreeing or not now desperately trying to keep my head above these unfamiliar waters.
Moving on to Relativity as a concept:
x=ct
Agreed.
x=ct
What I mean is that x and t are how the spacecrafts lengths and times look to us.
Ah erm no. If x and t are our observations then surely we have to use c. The speed is not c it is our observation of c which is c
If we were local to the other field then we would see x=ct just as we do here, surely and they would see x=ct for us which might be the same as x=ct but I am not sure at the moment.
Relativity is seems applies to both time and space. As time gets bigger to the outside observer space necessarily gets smaller otherwise the local speed of light varies.
Or did I miss something critical?
To be honest I rather gave up at that point.
Any help you can give someone more reminiscent of Winnie the Pooh than a scientist would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Max Goodman
BTW Love the site makes me think even if the thoughts are way off course.
-
That last one was probably not the right speaker to choose Marty - go listen to them if you get a chance and report back. These speakers - when originally launched - threatened to turn the audio world on its head - just check out the reviews. As far as I can recall there were production problems and it stopped them taking off like they were expected to.
I do agree the design would be difficult to house - but this really is a case of design following function - according to the designer anyway. He is just not a big fan of boxed speakers.
In reality there is no real reason that a speaker has to be a box - we have just gotten used to them that way. Avantgardes appear to sell well enough at their price point to show that some people can accept outrageous looking speakers in their living rooms / listening rooms - preumaby on the basis of sound.
BTW - I too like that toaster - but not everything has to look retro to look good.
Max, I'm not arguing about sonics here only aesthetics's. And yes it doesn't have to be retro to look cool. Many times modern industrial designers get it right, but it seems to me that in the speaker world they far too often go astray.
Sorry Marty - it was not a critic of your original post. I was just trying to differentiate between designs that are based around the supposed sonic advantages and designs where there is simply no rhyme or reason in creating something that ugly. For example I think the B&W's in a previous response in this thread are in the former category whilst the bizzare hexagonal silver plastic things you see in large electronic retailers are in the latter.
Talking of these stores I was in one recently and some of the mini-stereo designs are quite unbelievable. This does not usually extend to the speakers themselves - which are often the boring boxes we have become accustomed too - but the whole amp/CD/ MP3 etc. apparatus which now encompass seemingly complete disco light shows in bewildering arrays of colour.
The motto now seems to be that you cannot be too garish - the more flashing lights the better. How anyone would live with that in a living room - let alone a bedroom I have no idea.
At the other end of the spectrum Mark's iCats are, to me, a fabulous example of modern design - probably the coolest looking amps I have seen in a long while. I think I would be happy to have those in the living room - even if they weren't connected to anything - funds and ball-playing daughter permitting.
Another example of winning design is the iPhone - again IMHO and all that. Time will tell how well it ages of course - but it looks way cool at the moment - certainly way better than my iJam - even if the functionality is more limited.
Overall then - I do not think that this age lacks good design - but it is no more common than it ever was. As we have more products on offer than ever before this paucity is simply more obvious.
-
That last one was probably not the right speaker to choose Marty - go listen to them if you get a chance and report back. These speakers - when originally launched - threatened to turn the audio world on its head - just check out the reviews. As far as I can recall there were production problems and it stopped them taking off like they were expected to.
I do agree the design would be difficult to house - but this really is a case of design following function - according to the designer anyway. He is just not a big fan of boxed speakers.
In reality there is no real reason that a speaker has to be a box - we have just gotten used to them that way. Avantgardes appear to sell well enough at their price point to show that some people can accept outrageous looking speakers in their living rooms / listening rooms - preumaby on the basis of sound.
BTW - I too like that toaster - but not everything has to look retro to look good.
-
Do we count the TV?
Not if its plasma.
I guess we dont include our spares stocks either. Right now I have only 2 in the preamp but I have (had) loads of spares for previous amps.
I actually just gave someone 4 el34's and 4 6550's that I had. Not really sure what I have left anymore - will have to check out the cupboard I keep these things in.
] [
]..... You write freaking essays when you post and now this, GEEEEZOUS!
I almost want to cut off my ears...
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
Wow Erik - 2 responses to my brief and rather tongue in cheek reply!!?
B&W's may be a better speaker for him - I have no idea. You will notice however that in his second post on page one he thanks people for their suggestions (as to how to make his existing speakers sound better) and invites others. Nobody seems to have picked up on an invitation to discuss the sound of B&W Vs Klipsch - I think largely because he is not asking that.
Nobody on here can tall a guy - remotely at that - what he does and does not like to listen to - therefore, hopefully, no-one is trying to. At the same time the guy has clearly invested something in his existing Klipsch setup and is looking for ways to improve the result for something in the $600 (or not more than that figure) area.
This is why I stated that his preference for B&W is not actually relevent to the discussion at hand- he simply isnt asking that (not unreasonably - this being a Klipsch forum and all). He appears (to me at least) to be asking for help with his Klipsch speakers.