DrWho

wow, don't knock the ipod unless you've heard it. you'd be surprised how amazing it sounds...even plugged into really expensive revealing HT and 2 Channel setups. and just wanted to add this, "if our computers can stream huge stashes of organized playlists throughout our house without our hiding a single wire, then the time for a radical rethink of hi-fi is now" it's not saying that the ipod and pc, as it is now, is the ultimate in quality. what this article is trying to point out is that the future of audio isn't gonna be with all this big ugly clumsy annoying equipment. the technology is already there to convert big 800lb. amps down to a dual rack space weighing like 50lbs...and the smaller ones even sound better! eventually, i think all our cellphones, telephones, computers, PDA's, portable music devices, and everything else electronic are going to start integrating with each other. we've already got laptops with wireless interent, you can use your home pc as a phone and dial numbers through the internet. "the time for a radical rethink of hi-fi is now" imagine the possibilities of taking ipod and pc technology into the realm of the home theatre/dedicated 2 channel listening...im totally down with getting rid of CDs, they're so fragile and bulky and annoying

walk around the room (places other than the listening position) and try to listen for places where you hear build up of those frequencies...then throw in the appropriate sound treatment btw, what is a "bounce" and a "dip"? they seem like rather large frequency bands to be doing that...(i especially don't see how the 6.3k-10k would be related to the room). btw, do you got any performance specs of the difference it made moon? i know you recorded really well the beforehand specs in the architechtural forum, and i was curious as to how it changed things. terms like "tighter and cleaner" are really subjective not saying you're wack or just trying to hear things, but just that some can relate to the numbers better. (and depending on the numbers, i might just be inclined to give a friend a visit and start treating his crappy dedicated room )

cubase, cooledit, protools (ewww), and soundforge are all extremely good (top of the line?) that come to mind. they would all be multitracking/do everything programs. but there are however plenty of other cheaper alternatives...like all your wave editing programs. wave editing programs allow you to do everything that the huge programs do, except that it takes crap loads of extra work and is rather difficult...almost not worth what you save. if your buddy is doing layering of his guitar tracks and all that, i would still recommend going with cubase or cooledit. so arena, how you liking the new cooledit pro? i demoed it a while back and have used 2000 in the past...I'm considering buying it on top of cubase, so that i got 2 different programs to help prevent my mixes sounding like they're from just one program btw, another important thing to look for is the plugin capabilities. i forget which programs use it, but the VST plugins tend to be popular (and u can find sites all over the place to download them and all that...i've never tried it though). the plugins are what let you add all them cool effects and compression and other random (fun) toys. If you're ever looking to expand, investing in an analog to digital converter would be your next move...check out the motu 828mkII, it's a slightly older model, which means it's cheaper, but has amazing sound quality...one really cool thing is that it connects to your pc via firewire, so you can unplug it and take it wherever you want (or even plug it into a laptop for portable multitrack recording) http://www.motu.com/english/motuaudio/828/body.html motu has other great products so if you're looking for more (or less), that'd be the first place to go. another good reference: Build It Digital Audio Workstation, Part II this gives you a really good layout of an exagerated home setup and most anything you might need (you prob won't need everything, but everyone has slightly different needs)...the only thing this article is bad about is the outdated poor quality AD/DA converters.

i personally love products from steinberg: Cubase SL - http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/music_production/cubase_sl_pc/index.php?sid=0 (if you wanna do surround stuff, check out SX 2.0...it's what i have and it's amazing) Wave Lab - http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/audio_editing/index.php?sid=0 i personally prefer cubase over protools and you don't gotta go through all of protool's crappy hardware. however, more simpler programs like Peak LE or even creative wave studio might be of interest. (you using a mac or pc? cuz peak is only mac based) i've never used this program, but it looks interesting (especially if you're looking for simple one click wonders): http://www.bias-inc.com/products/soundsoap what exactly will you be planning to do with this program? like, what music/files will you be cutting and splicing and fading? there's also been a lot of talk about sound forge: http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/products/showproduct.asp?PID=668 cool edit pro is another one that comes to mind...sorry if im spitting out a lot of info. i just finished 6 months worth of research, and i can tell ya most anything about digital audio

wat are the limits on depth and width? i personally would go as big as possible, cuz you can always make it smaller later. as for your ceilings, i wouldn't worry too much.

are you asking how you can connect a monitor and still have that lcd screen in the case? or you looking for the lcd screen in the case and a TV? or you just wondering how you connect the lcd thing? i know lots of cool tricks with video and pcs, but i gotta understand what you're asking first

well since we're talkin about wood flooring... we ripped out all our flooring (down to the base board) and put hardwood in our whole house (cept the poddy rooms). we put the floor in ourself (spent a year or so taking our time), but i'll share what we learned anyway. a friend of ours was a professional hardwood floor installer...he said you can determine the quality of a wood floor by how far apart the seams are. when laying a row, you don't want any board to end within 8 inches of any other board within 3 rows of it. that's practically impossible (unless you cut them to size), so we settled for 6 inches within 2 rows. you'd be surprised how much more elegant the floor will look versus a floor where the boards are just slapped in any way. (let me know if that didn't make sense...it's hard to describe, but is really simple). for adaptation to the climate, you'll want to nail the boards (instead of glue), and nail them in the winter (when it's less humid)...also, leaving a small gap where the floor meets the wall. the reason being, the boards will expand and contract as the humidity changes. we get about half an inch of fluctuation between winter and summer! lasly, the value of your house using full thickness (3/4" or thicker) increases well over 100% the cost of the floor...flooring like pergo (which is 3/8" thick) doesn't have as high a return. so if you go with the thicker stuff, you're making a good investment...also, the thicker the floor, the easier it is to repair (just sand it down). as far as the finish...the more glossy, the harder it will be to keep clean. in the store, the satin often looks kinda dark, but in the house...it's plenty shiny. unless you have really good reason to go with a gloss, i'd highly recommend going with a satin (maybe even a flat depending on the room). and lastly, make sure you pick a wood color that is compatible with other furniture things and all that. we liked the white oak color for the floor more, but it quickly became frustrating because anything else oak is red oak...so we're rarely able to match colors. if we could go back, we would have gone with the red instead of white. anyways, all that has nothing to do with audio, but i remember how hectic that experience was and maybe i might actually have shared something useful

i personally find speakers higher up sound better too...if you can, i'd experiment with putting your mains up that high as well. it creates a totally different sound. (...bigger?) having the center on the bottom, makes voices sound like they're coming from their feet instead of their head (and the center channel does crap loads of vocals).

eeek, sowwy...i didn't mean to come across all negative like that. i keep forgetting the inflection of one's voice doesn't get conveyed in text. (aka, i was joking a bit). i know it's a bit off topic, but im curious as to other sites to go running around on. this forum is already a treasure chest of knowledge, but it's interesting to find alternative perspectives...and maybe even bring em back. anyways, i don't even have tone controls on my stuff at home, so i feel left out

wow...y'all are too up tight about "pure" audio. because of the way the human ear percieves loudness, it is perfectly natural and often even sounds better when the highs and the lows are exagerated. even so much as a 20db increase around 30hz and 10db increase around 16k adds so much life to music. if you've ever mixed in a studio, with everything perfectly flat response, you'll experience some of the most lifeless music to be found...but it's natural for the soundguy to compensate, and what effectively happens is boosted highs and lows. it's done on purpose, we call it referencing and this process is more accurate the wider and flatter the freq response is inside the studio. for example, a studio that doesn't reproduce the lows, often puts out material that has way too much low end on better gear. and the opposite happens when the studio has too much bass...it sounds lacking in other places. so why talk about the studio? well, since every studio is different, audio manufactures try to compensate for the dilema by introducing tone controls, to allow for flexibility. every tone control is different, but only one rule applies: make it sound good. if you refuse to use tone controls, then you must adapt your listening environment to that of each studio you're listening from. (unless you're bloody rich, this is a way bogus approach)...even then, you are subject to the ear of the mixer, which is most certainly different from your own ear. as a sidenote...it's "incorrect" to use tone controls to compensate for the room. tone controls are for compensating with the source material (as william has discussed). you still gotta treat the room, otherwise it'll sound out of place. anyways, enough babbling from me...i know i didn't paint the concepts very well, but maybe that'll come with age. to help justify myself: i know i'm young (19), but i've been mixing for over 10 years now (it'll be 11 years this winter). i currently run and maintain a really nice recording studio, and have been mixing live performances all over the place. all that to say, i see more of the production side as it relates to home audio and im hoping i might be able to suggest another way to look at it. all my mentors (other soundguys way better than me) are always yellin at me when i comment on how much they're turning knobs. they tell me to close me eyes and use my ears, let them make the decision. btw, im also aware that the need to over EQ might be another problem....like reversed phase and all that. i don't think moon has those problems anyways, i was supposed to stop mumbling a while ago, but i get carried away sometimes. from the words of the cool guy running the 7/11 down the street, "thank you, come again!"

those knobs are there to be tweaked and twisted to your heart's content...the risk of damaging equipment is very low. What you need to do is listen at moderate levels, set the tones to how you want, and then crank the system to see how it responds...just listen for any kinds of distortion and either turn back the tone controls, or just listen at volumes below the point that distortion begins. Most all speakers can withstand plenty of distortion before damage occurs (it's just not a pleasant experience).

well how's things coming along? or has the decorator person lady taken over already?

placement will be more important with a bookshelf speaker, but if done right will most likely sound better. Since you're getting such a nice deal, I would totally go for it.

as far as the freq. response...notice that the 35 is rated at 97db effeciency and the 25 is 96db. the increase in sensitivity usually decreases the frequency range, but the bigger drivers help keep it down just as low. the difference between 79Hz and 81Hz is extremely small, and in the application of surround sound material, your speakers won't need that low of output. there's more to it than just that, but it helps explain the difference in response. as far as watts go, 100 will take you to around 115db which you will prob never achieve. all that to say, i would be comfortable using the 25's in your system, but i don't think you'll be dissapointed if you wait to affard the 35's. It's always better to wait a bit and make a better purchase, because then you can live with it longer (thus saving money in the long run).

"You really think all those Marshall heads & cabinets have power & speakers? LOL. Ive been there. I know. They dont. Just props my friend!" woah there! i thought we were supposed to keep that a secret!!!

lol, beat me to it as well

what is the audio source for your TV? You using an antennae? (however, that's spelled) If you are, you can hook that signal straight into your reciever or into a VCR, and then back out to the TV. This would be much simpler than re-wiring the TV! I use a coax splitter to split the signal from the antena to the VCR, so that i can watch it on my other TV which gives me a better picture as well as better sound cuz it goes through the big speakers

well, what's wrong with it?

yikes, didn't know they were rear ported! forget that idea then The reason for moving the rear speakers around was largely to make their coverage better for the rear row. As far as the shelf, that's artto's world

Nightwish: http://www.nightwish.com/english/index.html If you're into rock opera and combining real singing and real instruments with heavy rock, then this is one amazing band. "Over The Hills And Far Away" is my fave song so far.

i think soffit mounting is the correct term...it means cutting a hole in the drywall and sticking your RC7's in as far as they'll go (you'll prob need to build a little shelf sticking out or something)...dunno if you'll have to go vertical with this either (dunno how your joists and wall loading and all that crap works out). there's more to soffit mounting than just that, but it's the basic concept. the reason it's "OK" to have rears and surrounds is because they contain different signals (i think) AND are aimed at a different direction (a 90 degree angle gets rid of most all comb filtering if i remember right). However, if 7.1 doesn't have more material than 5.1, you better believe that two surround speakers would prob be better (or maybe a 6.1 setup)...while you're at it, why don't you just get rid of your mains too? you won't need them either arto is gonna hate me, but i think the "cool" factor of 2 side surrounds and 2 rear surrounds would have a larger effect than the increase of any amount of clarity you might obtain...it takes extended lengths of listening to begin noticing those kind of things and it's always more fun to impress the guests however, if you really want the best quality, get rid of as much as possible...or if you want both, only connect what you need and leave the rest for looks...

sounds like you're describing the effects what it likes to get rid of comb-filtering different types of speakers wouldn't change the phenomenom. as far as your rear surrounds, they don't seem placed very effeciently for the back row of seats (which you don't seem to care about). nonetheless, their placement would be much better if it was somehow lower and further back (thus, why soffit mounting might be a good option).

according to the articles, there is no magical solution except for moving stuff around. as far as the "diffusor" you mention, i am doubtful. comb-filtering deals with very sharp peaks and lulls in the frequency response. any kind of acoustical treatment would be too broad. Also, I think it would make it sound like it was coming out of pipe. however, it is interesting to think about pseudo isolation between each surround. i don't think it would work or sound good, but it's fun to think about. btw, for your rear surrounds...have you ever considered using in-wall speakers or even soffit mounting your current speakers in the wall? from all the pics, it seems like that would do wonders for providing more present rear effects (especially in the last row). another thing to keep in mind..."comb filtering" is also the phenomenom behind stereo imaging. because of the nature of surround content, this might end up being an improvement, or a relatively small defect. take into account the better imaging, and it might prove to be the best method. all that to say, why don't you just try unplugging the front pair of surrounds and compare the differences...maybe even experiment a bit with the placement (like toeing in the rear pair a bit). according to theory, this experiment should increase the clarity...if it doesn't, then plug em back in and don't worry about it. and lastly, i might suggest playing around with tilting the front speakers up, and moving em side to side a bit (finding that sweet spot)...maybe move the subs around a bit while you're at it. Ok, i know this post has almost nothin to do with treating the room, but I'm a nut about speaker placement...mostly cuz it's a free fully reversible mod that has incredible impact on the overall sound. now back to the room...what are you floors made out of? In all the acoustically treated environments i've been in, i've found that the rooms with a "live" floor sounded the best...it's hard to describe, but it's like the whole room is dead, cept the floor (which is usually hardwood or something similar). I was thinking about how you want more of that midrange impact and a hardwood floor would be an early start (dunno how that'd fit into your grand scheme of things though...). maybe patches of hardwood might be a more feasible approach...let arto comment on that first though, cuz i wasn't the one designing these studios, just noticing a common trend. at home, we installed woodfloors and the sound is so much bigger than when we had carpet.

the comb filter effect is when the frequency response becomes extremely jagged, and becomes a larger factor as freqency increases. http://www.prosoundweb.com/install/spotlight/bartlett/phase/phase.shtml that article talks about the comb filter effect as it relates to microphones. the same concepts can be applied to loudspeaker placement. (if nothing else, it shows a nice graph and explains "comb filter") http://www.prosoundweb.com/install/sac/v28/2/interact.php this is another article that talks about room and system interactions and is helpful in understanding what all is going on. http://www.prosoundweb.com/install/cpm/lobes/lobes.php this article addresses loudspeaker placement directly and also defines and explains comb filtering. (it even shows you how to deal with it). the last line on the first page says, "The only real solution is to relocate the existing loudspeakers or redesign the array." It also talks about arraying the loudspeakers and all that good stuff. anyways, if you don't wanna read all of these, then at least read the last article. I think it's the most helpful in your situation. If possible, I would suggest moving your paired surrounds so they are 3 times away from each other as they are from the audience. The other alternative would be to move them close together so that they act like a line array (but if you did that, one speaker would be a better compromise...). so ya, imma go back into the shadows and resume watching

wow, i like the cieling idea...doesn't apply in my situation, but is still a cool idea!