|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.221.199.35
In Reply to: RE: Just some thoughts here posted by airtime on May 01, 2017 at 08:37:18
Actually I agree with you. Less is more.
In my desire to list every detail of my system, perhaps it sounds more convoluted than it is.
I do not have a dizzying amount of crap in the audio chain.
The only superfluous bit was the passive-pre switch/volume control. But I removed that this weekend. So every source is now going directly to the preamp.
The signal path from my sources to my main speakers is and always has been pure.
Any processing is on the subs only and consists merely of a passive low-pass filter and (now) a few bands of EQ. Furthermore the subs are completely independent and can be disabled with the push of one switch, leaving a pure full-range two speaker system.
for example:
NAD CD player -> low-mid-level WireWorld wires -> preamp (with tone controls bi-passed) -> entry-level XLO wires -> power amp -> contractor-grade shotgunned 16ga speaker wire -> speakers
Can't get simpler than that.
I have no "exotic" interconnects (all were $40 or less).
My speaker cables are basic 16ga, just as you suggest, contracter-grade even. They just happen to be bi-wire and made by Monster.
There is no EQ or processing in the main signal path, even have tone controls set to defeat.
The Bronze 2s are running full range, just as Monitor Audio intended.
All EQ and filtering is on the subs only which are just filling in the lows.
I also don't understand your saying my system has no foundation:
NAD CD player (which you seem to like), Rotel preamp, B&K power amp, and Monitor Audio Bronze 2 seem like a good foundation for a system to me.
And what's wrong with dual 8" subs? They make all kinds of floor standers with 8" woofers. Same thing. My subs are going down to 28Hz and can rattle the windows in the next room. Anything bigger would likely be overkill in my small space, although I guess maybe you are arguing that TWO 8" subs is overkill. But would you be saying the same if I had a couple of Vandersteen 1C in there?
Or are you saying that a bigger sub plays lower and so would have less overlap with the mains, resulting in a smoother integration with them? I buy that. Makes total sense. But then again, that's the job of the crossover, and in my system the EQ (when used properly, lol) augments the low-pass filter to smooth the transition so that's not so much an issue. Besides, a 10" or 12" sub would be huge in my room.
I'm sorry if I'm coming off bitchy, but your critique kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
I've been building my system for years and I pretty much know what I'm doing when it comes to basic two-channel setup. Every component, every wire is matched with everything else.
It's just that I had these subs fall into my lap a while back so I thought I would give them a try. That pushed me into new territory. I had never used or even auditioned a sub before then. So I had some stuff to learn about subs, which I am still doing.
--
Mucking around the low-end since 1986.
Follow Ups:
I do apologize for being "blunt" and yes, nasty. It was a knee jerk, yes you can call me the jerk, reaction to the 8" subs and those Harrison filters.
The 8" drivers are better at producing higher ranges. And do so all too well when you don't want it. The 10" by virtue of being a bigger cone will naturally not pass higher frequencies as easily. Hence - better, easier and a more natural sonic filtering.
The extra frequency coming out of the 8" is mucking up your system. I've been there. And don't be afraid to use the plate amps. if done right they can work out just fine. I'm listening to mine right now.
OK, I'm with you on the larger 10" subs being intrinsically better. I see your point about the 8" passing higher frequencies: and mine do, unfortunately, I can hear it. The gentle slope of the Harrisons doesn't help in that regard either. Which is one reason I have them placed with the mains: doesn't mess up the imaging that way. But the parametric EQ can knock those offending frequencies down acceptably so it's not that big a deal in my setup. I will think about upgrading to 10"s in the future. But a turntable is probably my next upgrade.
I'm not a fan of plate amps. How do you replace/upgrade them? Are there standard plate sizes? Of course my only experience is with the ones on my subs, and they were pretty crappy. Cheap tiny little itty bitty transformer and only 4700uF cap. So I converted them to passive and got a decent amp to run them: it has a toroidal transformer, mirror imaged channel circuitry, 15,000 uF caps, and discrete class AB output. And it's a commercial unit, rugged and built like a tank. Nothing at all like what was built into the subs. Another benefit is that the long wire runs are speaker-level instead of line-level.
Personally, I just have a philosophical preference for separates: servicing and replacing things is more convenient, quality is generally higher, and you have the ability to mix and match to your liking.
--
Mucking around the low-end since 1986.
One of the nice things about physics is that it works reliably. :) With regard to woofers, or so-called "subwoofers", there is no substitute for diaphragm (cone) area, because it all comes down to excursion and output. To produce a given amount of output at a given frequency, the cone must move a certain distance. The smaller the cone, the farther it has to move in order to produce the desired output. That's why larger woofers beat smaller woofers every time for good low bass.There are very reliable formulae for calculating the required excursion based on the driver size, the frequency and the desired output. You can look at it from basically two perspectives: acoustic watts, or SPL. (SPL is a little more involved, since it is distance and room dependent.) I have them somewhere, but then I'd have to go upstairs and find them, and I'm too lazy to do that right now. :) It's easy enough to google it if you're interested, or maybe somebody like Tomservo or Bill Fitzmaurice or Presto has it handy and will post them.
:)
Edits: 05/03/17 05/03/17
Here is an online calculator which will do max SPL:
I'm curious as to what diameter to use for the subwoofer. I have Rythmik 12-inch subwoofers but the diameter of the aluminum diaphragm is only 9-inches. Likewise, the woofers in my main speakers are called 10-inch woofers but the aluminum diaphragms measure only 7.5-inches in diameter.
Thanks,
John Elison
It's SOP to give a driver size including the basket. The only exception I've seen is the British company ATC who often gives the actual driver size.
You need about 1.25" per side for basket and surround on to connect the cone to basket. That measurement obviously decreases as the basket gets smaller. But not by that much!
The 8" or 10" or 12" size is basically just nomenclature for the speaker company to fit a hole size.
So a 8" is really only a 5.5" cone.
But what always got me is the size of the standard 6.5" "woofer".
I think it's probably better to take a physical measurement. It's pretty easy to use a ruler and measure the diameter of the actual moving diaphragm. On the other hand, it might be even more appropriate to include a portion of the surround in that measurement in order to more accurately estimate the effective piston diameter.
General audio terms so a 12" is a 12" is a 12" I would think. By the way, a cone driver is typically measured to the outside of its basket.
Martin
This still does not take into account how much of the speaker is actually vibrating.
Actually, a 12-inch speaker is really a 9-inch speaker for the purposes of moving air because the diameter of the moving diaphragm is only 9-inches. Therefore, measuring to the outside of a speakers basket might be good for designating speaker size, but it is not the correct measurement to use for calculating SPL. That's all I'm saying.
Consequently, I would need to see the algorithm in the SPL calculator in order to understand how it works and which speaker size designation to use.
Best regards,
John Elison
What you're looking for is the Effective piston area.
AFAIK you are correct, this does not include the surround. Only the cone itself.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
ok after looking at the calculator I see why you're confused, it would seem you're meant to measure the actual cone diameter, but is that to include the surround?But without knowing it's Xmax it's useless anyway, and if you have that info more than likely you also have the manufacturers measured max SPL as well. Even with all the sites required info plugged in it's still only a very rough estimate without all of the cones parameters (surface area, contour, etc) taken into account.
Martin
Edits: 05/04/17 05/04/17 05/04/17
Cool calculators.
--
Mucking around the low-end since 1986.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: