On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:04:26 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


OK, for completeness, I've performed this operation on my system too.
I used a 10kbps MP3 so there would be a reasonable amount of top end
extension. The microphone is not a flat measuring type such as you are
using, but it is pretty good.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dspkr/


OK. That certainly looks convincing enough! Do you want to email me that mp3
for direct comparison?

I have also not been idle and I'm now looking like this:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/tannoys.JPG


A quick earball on the Tannoys tells me they just won't do - back to the
(comparative) lack of clarity/depth and the omnipresent thrum of a
'bassline' that just sounds like traffic or summat! (SS/digital only -
before you ask...!!)

More shortly but I'm on a 'tidy as you go', so it won't be quick!

Why do I just know this is going to end up 'measures ****e but sounds
(comparatively) superb!'...???

???


MP3 on its way (I used the left channel) . But of course this isn't a
measuring thing - I'm listening. The curves are really just by way of
illustration.

Oh and that was meant to say 160kbps, not 10kbps.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com