Uberbuss

[Thaddeus Smith]

the problem with being consistently snarky is that people don't know when I'm being sincerely inquisitive. it would appear I am my own worst enemy.

[Mallette]

it would appear I am my own worst enemy.

 

Aren't we all?

 

Dave

[Don Richard]

How do you know the Denon won't meet the distortion requirement when you haven't specified a particular distortion? Your claim that it won't drive the speaker correctly is just obfuscation. You don't know what it will do until you define a spec and measure it. If more than two channel are needed you can buy more Denon amps. All you are doing now is creating obfuscation based on whimsical claims and unspecified requirements.

 

You do know we are in the 2 channel forum, right? Denon doesn't make 2 channel home receivers. I don't know of anyone's $200 HT that I would want to use in a 2 channel system. Any obfuscation is due to you, as are the "whimsical claims and unspecified requirements". You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about and you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Don Richard

[Ski Bum]

I see no reason yet why that simple requirement won't be meet by Denon or Pioneer receivers and good quality bookshelf speakers.

 

I've read Don's posts, and he doesn't mention as his objectives "limited dynamic range" or "insensitive speakers more prone to IM distortion and thermal compression" anywhere.  Are you not making assumptions about just what his objectives are by this line of argument?  A rational approach to audio does not equal "one size fits all."

Edited January 2, 2015 by Ski Bum

[Ski Bum]

I edited my last post, the gist being that a rational approach that Don is advocating does not imply a "one size fits all" approach you make it out to be.  

 

Sure, a good, linear rig can be put together with quality bookshelf speakers and a cheap receiver.  It's a solid suggestion, for certain needs, but that's all.  It doesn't discredit a rational approach when the objectives are less limited.  

 

He mentions no restrictions or characteristics of the speaker. So, a low distortion output will fit the bill.

 

 

Klipsch folks are usually pursuing a more comprehensive set of objectives than someone looking for a budget setup.  I think PWK even prioritized a couple criteria such as high sensitivity/low distortion and controlled power response above linearity in his own list of design objectives.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Ski Bum

[Don Richard]

 

I edited my last post, the gist being that a rational approach that Don is advocating does not imply a "one size fits all" approach you make it out to be.  

 

Sure, a good, linear rig can be put together with quality bookshelf speakers and a cheap receiver.  It's a solid suggestion, for certain needs, but that's all.  It doesn't discredit a rational approach when the objectives are less limited.  

 

 

 

He mentions no restrictions or characteristics of the speaker. So, a low distortion output will fit the bill.

 

 

Klipsch folks are usually pursuing a more comprehensive set of objectives than someone looking for a budget setup.  I think PWK even prioritized a couple criteria such as high sensitivity/low distortion and controlled power response above linearity in his own list of design objectives.

 

It would seem that your post should be directed to Don, not me.

 

Again, I am simply taking his criterion, and demonstrating that it can be met very easily with inexpensive common place gear. I hope it's clear that my purpose in the subsequent posts was to show that his criterion was no where near thorough enough to define a good sounding system.

 

 

You do not even understand my "criterion". You just want to assume things, claim that is the method I was talking about, parse sentences and play your silly word games. The accuracy test that you apparently do not understand is rigorous and difficult to pass, and I'll bet that the $500 bookshelf speakers you mentioned in post #145 won't come close to passing the accuracy test I described. And of course the $200 Denon receiver that you recommended does not even exist LOL.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Don Richard

[joshnich]

Don

So when you say "accuracy". What exactly are you referring to? It seems to me that with very very few recordings what goes into a microphone is reflected in any sort of accurate way on the end “record”. With few exceptions, it has been a long time since recordings reflected an actual singular performance. In other words there really isn't anything to accurately recreate. Except of course, in the case of Daves recordings !

Josh

[Don Richard]

Don

So when you say "accuracy". What exactly are you referring to? It seems to me that with very very few recordings what goes into a microphone is reflected in any sort of accurate way on the end “record”. With few exceptions, it has been a long time since recordings reflected an actual singular performance. In other words there really isn't anything to accurately recreate. Except of course, in the case of Daves recordings !

Josh

 

There are measurement systems that have the capability to compare 2 signals by superimposing one on top of the other in real time. Basically, we take a measurement mic located in front of the loudspeaker and put into one channel of the analyzer while putting the electrical input to the amplification equipment into the other channel. The two signals are scaled to the same amplitude then aligned so they overlap for comparison. We have no way of knowing the quality of the recording itself - we have no control over any of that. We are trying to determine how closely the input matches the output. The reproduction equipment is adjusted so the match is as close as possible. If a sufficiently close match cannot be obtained, different equipment may be necessary.

 

Distortion occurs whenever the output doesn't match the input. Many analyzers have the ability to subtract one of the signals from the other so what you are looking at is a picture of all forms of distortion - including linear, non linear, phase distortion, transient distortion and frequency modulation distortion. This sort of test doesn't miss any of them.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Don Richard

[Don Richard]

 

 

Don

So when you say "accuracy". What exactly are you referring to? It seems to me that with very very few recordings what goes into a microphone is reflected in any sort of accurate way on the end “record”. With few exceptions, it has been a long time since recordings reflected an actual singular performance. In other words there really isn't anything to accurately recreate. Except of course, in the case of Daves recordings !

Josh

There are measurement systems that have the capability to compare 2 signals by superimposing one on top of the other in real time. Basically, we take a measurement mic located in front of the loudspeaker and put into one channel of the analyzer while putting the electrical input to the amplification equipment into the other channel. The two signals are scaled to the same amplitude then aligned so they overlap for comparison. We have no way of knowing the quality of the recording itself - we have no control over any of that. We are trying to determine how closely the input matches the output. The reproduction equipment is adjusted so the match is as close as possible. If a sufficiently close match cannot be obtained, different equipment may be necessary.

Distortion occurs whenever the output doesn't match the input. Many analyzers have the ability to subtract one of the signals from the other so what you are looking at is a picture of all forms of distortion - including linear, non linear, phase distortion, transient distortion and frequency modulation distortion. This sort of test doesn't miss any of them.

How is a final measure scored? If you are going to measure multiple forms of distortion, across a wide frequency range, and possibly a range of SPLs, how is it all combined such that one DUT can be compared to another?

 

 

The analyzer software does the calculations. What can be measured depends on whether test signals or music, speech , etc are being measured. Also, different brands of analyzers have different capabilities.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Don Richard

[Analog 2000]

Thank you Derrick,

I'm new around here but I feel that this should be a community above all else. This is a personal journey and as you said "we all get to pick our passions and poisons" We should feel free to share them as well, if not here, where else?

[Don Richard]

The idea of comparing by measurements loudspeaker output to the input signal sounds great, and sounds reasonable. But is it?

Distortion measurements have been with us in audio forever. We're accustomed to reading about distortion in every kind of gear from amplifiers to digital devices. So why not in speakers too? For starters, we have to wrestle with the idea that our input is electrical energy and our output is acoustic energy. Compare that to amplifier distortion measures, which are electrical to electrical measures. So, measuring speaker distortion is an act of "apples to oranges" right at the start. Energy conversion, or transduction, is not the same as amplification.

The amplifier being measured can be placed anywhere in the room and the results are the same. Electrical input yields electrical output. Where shall we put the speaker though? Where shall we put the measuring microphone? The most sensible answer might be to put each in the placement we use for listening. But is that how the measure will be made? Every difference in placement of mic or speaker will give a new and unique distortion measurement. And of course every room is unique too.

But, thats only the beginning of the problematic task. We're always talking about stereo gear, so we need two channels at the same time. When measuring distortion in amplifiers, the two channels have very modest interaction, or interference with each other's measurement.

But with speakers the interaction between channels during a measurement are dramatic. Two speakers plus two microphones in various proximity will create an endless set of data. The output of the two speakers will be interacting profoundly with each other. Move them inches and the result changes.

Most speaker measurements are made with the mic near the speaker because the farther you get from the speaker, the fewer frequencies can be measured free of reflections. If the measurements are expected to correlate with our hearing, then the measurement needs to be made with the mics at the listening position.

What becomes obvious now, is that the bigger the room gets, and the farther away our listening position becomes, the less difference there will be in the comparison of two speakers. And wasn't that the whole point of measuring?

The measurement problem here is more complicated than those few problems. One has to ask how meaningful is any measurement intended to compare two different speakers? If speaker A has a bass deficiency, but speaker B has more IM distortion in the mid band, what will the measuring system claim is the better speaker? Suppose 10 listeners try A and B on their own house, who will choose A and who B? Why?

Such measurements are very useful to develop a speaker. Essential, I would say. But as a method to compare A to B and say which is proper, or correct, without intense subjective analysis is highly dubious.

 

So you are advising people not to run Audyssey on their systems? You seem unaware of the capabilities of modern measuring equipment. Measuring loudspeakers in a room will assist in the placement of acoustic treatments, loudspeaker positioning, and will point to corrections that may be applied. Reflections can be windowed out of the measurement so that the loudspeaker output is all that is seen, if that's what you want to look at.

 

Of course, interpretation of the data is required, and that will require education on how to take the measurements and understand what they mean. The manufacturers of measuring equipment offer courses and seminars from beginning to advanced to help get the most out of the measurements. There are also internet forums that are dedicated to helping people using this equipment.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Don Richard

[A1UC]

Just bought a new power cable , it took the uberbuss to a whole new level  not bad for another $699.99  A few times I seen a light reflection of a halo above the Uberbuss .  WOW !!!!!

[tromprof]

[mike stehr]

 A few times I seen a light reflection of a halo above the Uberbuss .  WOW !!!!!

It's Flooby Dust!

[Don Richard]

I said, measurements were no way to indicate WHICH of many speakers to choose. Again, I must reiterate your claim for selecting speakers: "The home audio equipment is made as accurate as possible - the output of the loudspeaker as measured by a microphone is as close as possible to the electrical signal that goes into the amplification equipment."

 

I added the part you cut out of the quote in bold. If you are going to quote something I wrote, quote the whole sentence so that context can be maintained. It should be clear that this is not a process for selecting a loudspeaker, but for optimizing a loudspeaker.

 

 

 

I certainly has nothing to do with using Audessy in room measurements.

 

Boy, you really are confused. Audyssey is an automated version of TDS measurement systems. If you were up on modern techniques, you would know that.

 

 

 

I can't figure out why you are refusing to defend your initial claim?

 

Because I made no such claim. Your poor reading comprehension skills led you to an erroneous conclusion as to what I wrote. Or you are just being a troll. Probably the latter.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Don Richard

[NOSValves]

techno blockhead meets master debater.....this is interesting.

[muel]

I just can't agree with the name... "Uberbuss" 

Sounds like it is either a new mass transit system in Düsseldorf or maybe a souped up Volkswagon van.

[paul79]

I like the name... I didn't get it either, until I got one

 

It's Uber Good! Uber Power!

[A1UC]

Junk trash snake oil

Ubertrash

Edited January 5, 2015 by A1UC

[paul79]

WOW