The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


Hi APR. I've never questioned Keith's perceptions, and of course he is
welcome to them. The issue under examination here was whether full
range drivers reproduce the top and bottom octaves fully - the
contention is that they on't, and Keith's postings bore out that
contention. Since they were posted Dave Plowman has pointed out that
the mic Keith was using has serious deficiencies in these areas
itself. That is where we are currently - waiting for the next chapter.


OK, let's pull this back to reality a bit - when I post trax recorded with
the lapel mic they are not really intended for *measurements*, they are only
an indication of what I hear and are posted to counter the common dismissing
of FR drivers as having no top or bottom in the *hope* that some of the
qualities shine through. (Let's face it, by the time they have been
downloaded and listened to by anyone here, they've been round the block a
few times!! ;-)

If there were no bass/treble as is often implied, I would not entertain FR
speakers for a moment longer than it took to haul them back down to the
garage. My track record with drivers in both the Jericho and (In)Fidelio
cabinets so far is as follows:

Much-vaunted Fostex FE206E - out, gone and somewhere in France now. No bass
whatsoever and never will have, which made me think that the far more
popular Fostex drivers have dragged stuff like Lowther down in a blanket
condemnation of all FR units...?? (That said, in the right cabinet, the
smaller Fostex are quite superb and excellent VFM!)

Much-vaunted (and not cheap) Visaton B200 - also out and back in the box.
Nice bass but they have no top end and need supertweets which (if you stick
with Visaton) are not trivial at over a wunnah apiece:

http://www.visaton.com/en/chassis_zu..._horn/410.html


Much reviled Lowther EX3s - *Kaboom*!! At last, the real thing!! Bags of
everything, can make 'em buzz if you push them too hard. Stupendous
clarity/speed with plenty of top *and* bottom end. Can sound ****e XXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX*, otherwise the best all-round sound I have ever heard to
date and one I will settle with for the forseeable.

Much reviled (and outdated?) Lowther PM6Cs - BNIB (unused), these drivers
are a little bit more 'horny' and hard -edged atm than the EX3s but are
still a very beguiling sound and very crisp indeed. A little stark on SS but
I have just been listening to them for the last hour or more thinking they
were the EX3s....!! (Easily switchable, I forgot they were in!)

As to 'measurements' - currently, the plan is for Nick G to swing by here on
Friday and we'll give 'em a poke with his measuring mic....

Tune in to this station later in the week, for the next exciting
instalment.....!! :-)


* Not saying - don't want any *preconceptions* do we..??? :-)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:51:08 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Otherwise, what does this look like:

http://www.bluearan.co.uk/menu/index.php?id=BEHMIC200


No, go for the UB802, not that - what you are looking at is an effects
box; maybe fun for a few minutes, but ultimately unsatisfying.


OK, noted - thanks!


and which of these (if any):

http://www.bluearan.co.uk/menu/index...ew=Microphones

???


Any of those (apart from the couple at the top) would probably do.


OK - thanks again!


Buy
two of course - you need to be able to record stereo.


Do I though - for recording piano??

What is mystifying me is that if I play that Tone Sweep (20Hz - 20kHz) I can
hear it from the very start and all the way up to a few seconds from the
end! When I was playing with a Tone Generator a while back I lost it at
about 14.5 kHz. Am I being bamboozled...??

Also, bearing in mind that someone at the very epicentre of speaker build
said not, can a cabinet *enhance* a drivers range - IOW, I seem to be
hearing 20 Hz on drivers that only claim 30 Hz at the deep end...??

Getting more and more confused now.....

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:55:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

two of course - you need to be able to record stereo.


Do I though - for recording piano??

Absolutely. A piano has size. More important, it's in a room. Like
any other instrument it sounds horrible in the middle of a field. Or
in a dead room.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
However, you seem to be keen on a valve mic so I'll leave any advice to
others. I was glad to see the end of them.


Nevertheless, I would still be interested in your recommendations.

I'm afraid I'm really not well up on what's around mic wise at the - shall
we say - semi pro end of the market.

If I were to have just one mic which would do most things other than hand
held I'd go for a Neumann U87 or AKG C414. Both have been around for yonks
and are readily available secondhand.

The valve mic idea is *me* - I don't have to worry too much about
*fidelity* as well you know, I seek only the most pleasant sound I can
get and if it makes the piano recording sound particularly good it
would be a bonus. But if you have a better idea (for less money,
presumably) I'd be interested to hear it...??

My main memory of valve mics is just how noisy they were. Perhaps things
have improved - although I doubt it.

--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
However, you seem to be keen on a valve mic so I'll leave any advice to
others. I was glad to see the end of them.


Nevertheless, I would still be interested in your recommendations.

I'm afraid I'm really not well up on what's around mic wise at the - shall
we say - semi pro end of the market.

If I were to have just one mic which would do most things other than hand
held I'd go for a Neumann U87 or AKG C414. Both have been around for yonks
and are readily available secondhand.


Streuth! I've just Googled them quickly and seen some distinctly *non
hobbyist* prices....!!

Thanks anyway - I've noted them down....!!



The valve mic idea is *me* - I don't have to worry too much about
*fidelity* as well you know, I seek only the most pleasant sound I can
get and if it makes the piano recording sound particularly good it
would be a bonus. But if you have a better idea (for less money,
presumably) I'd be interested to hear it...??

My main memory of valve mics is just how noisy they were. Perhaps things
have improved - although I doubt it.


Probably not, but at only 179 UKP that Russian jobbie is a temptation - no
rush, no need yet and no budget right now...!! :-)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Can't agree with much of that - none of my FR units are rated at less than 20K at the top end...

That's as maybe, but at HF, the sound will beam like ****.

The polar response plot will have a very narrow lobe at
zero degrees from the axis. To get decent treble, you're gonna
need to aim the axis at your ears with a red laser dot! Off axis, you're
not gonna get a decent response at many frequencies. At some positions,
at some frequencies, you'll get some kinda decent response, but at other
frequencies at the same position, you'll get a terrible response.

Tweeters are small partly to reduce this problem. Partly.

Still, if the sound suits you.... I'm a treble fiend myself, though.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
If I were to have just one mic which would do most things other than
hand held I'd go for a Neumann U87 or AKG C414. Both have been around
for yonks and are readily available secondhand.


Streuth! I've just Googled them quickly and seen some distinctly *non
hobbyist* prices....!!

You'll get a slightly kicked but perfect electronically 414 for about 250
quid, and it won't lose any money unlike a new Russian or Chinese cheapy.
U87 - nearer 400.

Thanks anyway - I've noted them down....!!

Small capsule fixed DP condensers tend to be cheaper. Something like a
Neumann KM 84 was used by the thousand in broadcasting and often end up on
Ebay. Then there's the AKG C451 - perhaps the most used mic ever in TV,
as it was available with so many capsules and extension tubes. Recently
re-introduced, IIRC. So it's not just in the Hi-Fi field that retro rules.

The 451 again often comes up on Ebay for around 100 quid. They still sound
pretty good if a little bright although you have to be careful not to
overload them. However, screw in pads are available. I still use them
quite a bit where a neat 'in shot' mic is needed. The larger U87, etc, can
be visually unattractive in some situations.

Like with all things, these mics need a good power supply to perform
properly. For occasional use, 45 volts worth of PP3s will be satisfactory.
But a tad expensive for if you forget to switch off when not used. I'd
expect about 100-150 hours running time from such a setup.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Keith G wrote:

It's Swim's - she's had it from Day 1 and won't part with it!

I'm not surprised. :-)


Utterly reliable, will show you 145 on the clock, goes lethal (front
end lifts/goes light) at 110.

Can't say I've heard that from anyone on the owner's club web site - I'll
ask around, though. It may be a rev1 thing - the first version had higher
suspension, which I think was changed around 1991.


If you ever have to take it into a
garage for problems around the door handle area (window controls,
central locking &c.) tell them there's a 'screw' in it somewhere -
it's the only Toyota model with one at that location and they'll bust
it trying to pull it out as all the others only 'click' in..!!

I'll bear that in mind, for my own reference as much as anything (I'm quite
happy with not paying someone to do door handle stuff for me :).


Enjoy! ;-)

Damn tootin'. :-)


And later on, the piper pay.....?? ;-)
Dosie doe, swing and sway....

Keep taking the tablets. ;-)


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife.
(Spike Milligan)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Can't agree with much of that - none of my FR units are rated at less
than 20K at the top end...

That's as maybe, but at HF, the sound will beam like ****.

The polar response plot will have a very narrow lobe at
zero degrees from the axis. To get decent treble, you're gonna
need to aim the axis at your ears with a red laser dot! Off axis, you're
not gonna get a decent response at many frequencies. At some positions,
at some frequencies, you'll get some kinda decent response, but at other
frequencies at the same position, you'll get a terrible response.

Tweeters are small partly to reduce this problem. Partly.

Still, if the sound suits you.... I'm a treble fiend myself, though.



Seems it suits more than just me, Martin - Lowther have been making the PM6
speakers for over 50 years now....

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

It's Swim's - she's had it from Day 1 and won't part with it!

I'm not surprised. :-)


Utterly reliable, will show you 145 on the clock, goes lethal (front
end lifts/goes light) at 110.

Can't say I've heard that from anyone on the owner's club web site - I'll
ask around, though. It may be a rev1 thing - the first version had higher
suspension, which I think was changed around 1991.


OK.

I'll bear that in mind, for my own reference as much as anything (I'm
quite
happy with not paying someone to do door handle stuff for me :).


Enjoy! ;-)

Damn tootin'. :-)


:-)



And later on, the piper pay.....?? ;-)
Dosie doe, swing and sway....

Keep taking the tablets. ;-)



Buffy Saint Marie - can't remember the name of the track offhand....

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
If I were to have just one mic which would do most things other than
hand held I'd go for a Neumann U87 or AKG C414. Both have been around
for yonks and are readily available secondhand.


Streuth! I've just Googled them quickly and seen some distinctly *non
hobbyist* prices....!!

You'll get a slightly kicked but perfect electronically 414 for about 250
quid, and it won't lose any money unlike a new Russian or Chinese cheapy.
U87 - nearer 400.

Thanks anyway - I've noted them down....!!

Small capsule fixed DP condensers tend to be cheaper. Something like a
Neumann KM 84 was used by the thousand in broadcasting and often end up on
Ebay. Then there's the AKG C451 - perhaps the most used mic ever in TV,
as it was available with so many capsules and extension tubes.


I've got an AKG cart knocking about somewhere....


Recently
re-introduced, IIRC. So it's not just in the Hi-Fi field that retro rules.


:-)



The 451 again often comes up on Ebay for around 100 quid. They still sound
pretty good if a little bright although you have to be careful not to
overload them. However, screw in pads are available. I still use them
quite a bit where a neat 'in shot' mic is needed. The larger U87, etc, can
be visually unattractive in some situations.

Like with all things, these mics need a good power supply to perform
properly. For occasional use, 45 volts worth of PP3s will be satisfactory.
But a tad expensive for if you forget to switch off when not used. I'd
expect about 100-150 hours running time from such a setup.


OK, Plowie - thanks for all that. I've archived it for 'come the time' - the
budget will come from Swim (she's the one who wants the recordings), so I'm
not Shure how much I'll have to play with...??

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
However, you seem to be keen on a valve mic so I'll leave any advice to
others. I was glad to see the end of them.

Nevertheless, I would still be interested in your recommendations.

I'm afraid I'm really not well up on what's around mic wise at the - shall
we say - semi pro end of the market.

If I were to have just one mic which would do most things other than hand
held I'd go for a Neumann U87 or AKG C414. Both have been around for yonks
and are readily available secondhand.

I had a U87 for a while.

It's stonkingly good !

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
If I were to have just one mic which would do most things other than
hand held I'd go for a Neumann U87 or AKG C414. Both have been around
for yonks and are readily available secondhand.

Streuth! I've just Googled them quickly and seen some distinctly *non
hobbyist* prices....!!

You'll get a slightly kicked but perfect electronically 414 for about 250
quid, and it won't lose any money unlike a new Russian or Chinese cheapy.
U87 - nearer 400.

U87 ?

I got £400 for mine back in 1976 !

More like £1600 now.

There are some acceptably good 'copies' to be had though for much less.

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Keith G wrote:

OK, Plowie - thanks for all that. I've archived it for 'come the time' - the
budget will come from Swim (she's the one who wants the recordings), so I'm
not Shure how much I'll have to play with...??

Shure mics are mainly rubbish imho.

Use a decent European one like Sennhesier or AKG.

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Still, if the sound suits you.... I'm a treble fiend myself, though.

Seems it suits more than just me, Martin - Lowther have been making the
PM6 speakers for over 50 years now....

Plenty of examples of devices still being marketed when well past their
sell by date, Keith.

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
You'll get a slightly kicked but perfect electronically 414 for about
250 quid, and it won't lose any money unlike a new Russian or Chinese
cheapy. U87 - nearer 400.

U87 ?

I got £400 for mine back in 1976 !

More like £1600 now.

That's slightly more than the new price for a U87 Ai including VAT.

There are some acceptably good 'copies' to be had though for much less.

If you say so - I've no personal knowledge of these. Reports say they are
a bit variable between samples - not surprising with something which
relies on precision engineering rather than just electronics.

--
*Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
OK, Plowie - thanks for all that. I've archived it for 'come the time'
- the budget will come from Swim (she's the one who wants the
recordings), so I'm not Shure how much I'll have to play with...??

Shure mics are mainly rubbish imho.

I'd have been scared to say that, much as I agree.;-)

But the main problem is people see, say, the SM58 on TV or at concerts
used as intended as a close vocal mic where lots of foldback is involved
and decide it's a good mic for anything. Including some who should know
better, unfortunately.

Use a decent European one like Sennhesier or AKG.

Not exclusively. Sanken, for example, make some decent mics.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Still, if the sound suits you.... I'm a treble fiend myself, though.

Seems it suits more than just me, Martin - Lowther have been making the
PM6 speakers for over 50 years now....

Plenty of examples of devices still being marketed when well past their
sell by date, Keith.

You beat me to it !

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
You'll get a slightly kicked but perfect electronically 414 for about
250 quid, and it won't lose any money unlike a new Russian or Chinese
cheapy. U87 - nearer 400.

U87 ?

I got £400 for mine back in 1976 !

More like £1600 now.

That's slightly more than the new price for a U87 Ai including VAT.

I've seen them go for that I'm sure. Of course some ppl want an 'original'
which the Ai isn't.


There are some acceptably good 'copies' to be had though for much less.

If you say so - I've no personal knowledge of these. Reports say they are
a bit variable between samples - not surprising with something which
relies on precision engineering rather than just electronics.

A good source of advice on this would be Scott Dorsey in rec.audio.pro

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
OK, Plowie - thanks for all that. I've archived it for 'come the time'
- the budget will come from Swim (she's the one who wants the
recordings), so I'm not Shure how much I'll have to play with...??

Shure mics are mainly rubbish imho.

I'd have been scared to say that, much as I agree.;-)

But the main problem is people see, say, the SM58 on TV or at concerts
used as intended as a close vocal mic where lots of foldback is involved
and decide it's a good mic for anything. Including some who should know
better, unfortunately.

I couldn't agree more. Did you know that some bands actually fit a different
capsule to avoid the crappy sound ?


Use a decent European one like Sennhesier or AKG.

Not exclusively. Sanken, for example, make some decent mics.

I've never had the pleasure I'm afraid. Some ATs are nice too.

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
More like £1600 now.

That's slightly more than the new price for a U87 Ai including VAT.

I've seen them go for that I'm sure. Of course some ppl want an
'original' which the Ai isn't.

Yes. Although I oft wonder if those who like the sound of 'old' mics ever
look at the condition of them? The diaphragms get covered in crud with use
- especially if a close vocal mic - and the material also deteriorates
with age.

Perhaps I got a bargain with my pair - but they did come from a 'distress'
sale and were hard used. Of course I could replace the cases and
windshields, but a little patina never did any harm. ;-)


There are some acceptably good 'copies' to be had though for much
less.

If you say so - I've no personal knowledge of these. Reports say they
are a bit variable between samples - not surprising with something
which relies on precision engineering rather than just electronics.

A good source of advice on this would be Scott Dorsey in rec.audio.pro

Absolutely. Top man.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Not exclusively. Sanken, for example, make some decent mics.

I've never had the pleasure I'm afraid.

I use a CSS-5 for stereo FX and COS11 as one of a selection of personal
mics.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:55:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:51:08 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Otherwise, what does this look like:

http://www.bluearan.co.uk/menu/index.php?id=BEHMIC200


No, go for the UB802, not that - what you are looking at is an effects
box; maybe fun for a few minutes, but ultimately unsatisfying.


OK, noted - thanks!


and which of these (if any):

http://www.bluearan.co.uk/menu/index...ew=Microphones

???


Any of those (apart from the couple at the top) would probably do.


OK - thanks again!


Buy
two of course - you need to be able to record stereo.


Do I though - for recording piano??

What is mystifying me is that if I play that Tone Sweep (20Hz - 20kHz) I can
hear it from the very start and all the way up to a few seconds from the
end! When I was playing with a Tone Generator a while back I lost it at
about 14.5 kHz. Am I being bamboozled...??

Also, bearing in mind that someone at the very epicentre of speaker build
said not, can a cabinet *enhance* a drivers range - IOW, I seem to be
hearing 20 Hz on drivers that only claim 30 Hz at the deep end...??

Getting more and more confused now.....




Back on the air - my ISP has had busted Usenet for a couple of days.
Anyway - of course you need stereo for piano; it is much easier to get
a decent recording that way. Two mics and the mixer should do it. I'm
sure you can find an old mix stand somewhere and I reckon you might
just be capable of making a bar to mount the two mic clips on.

As for the tones and what you hear. 14.5kHz would be about right for
chaps our age - and it does make the top octave a bit academic. It is
only reached a couple of seconds from the end of the sweep because the
sweep is log - equal time per octave. Now, for the low end stuff, what
you are hearing from the 20Hz is certainly second or third harmonics;
they can sound surprisingly like the real thing. The drivers may claim
30Hz (Fs= 36Hz), but in those cabinets they will be falling very
steeply below about 60Hz.

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Don Pearce wrote:

Back on the air - my ISP has had busted Usenet for a couple of days.

How did they do that *this time*. Talk about them being a careless bunch or what !

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Don Pearce wrote:

As for the tones and what you hear. 14.5kHz would be about right for
chaps our age - and it does make the top octave a bit academic. It is
only reached a couple of seconds from the end of the sweep because the
sweep is log - equal time per octave. Now, for the low end stuff, what
you are hearing from the 20Hz is certainly second or third harmonics;
they can sound surprisingly like the real thing. The drivers may claim
30Hz (Fs= 36Hz), but in those cabinets they will be falling very
steeply below about 60Hz.

Test tones below 30Hz at even modest levels can make you feel rather sick
in less than the time it takes to tune a reflex port.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:39:17 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

Back on the air - my ISP has had busted Usenet for a couple of days.

How did they do that *this time*. Talk about them being a careless bunch or what !

Graham

They had a busted hard drive in their RAID and it took them that long
to diagnose it. The mind boggles.

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:49:48 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

As for the tones and what you hear. 14.5kHz would be about right for
chaps our age - and it does make the top octave a bit academic. It is
only reached a couple of seconds from the end of the sweep because the
sweep is log - equal time per octave. Now, for the low end stuff, what
you are hearing from the 20Hz is certainly second or third harmonics;
they can sound surprisingly like the real thing. The drivers may claim
30Hz (Fs= 36Hz), but in those cabinets they will be falling very
steeply below about 60Hz.

Test tones below 30Hz at even modest levels can make you feel rather sick
in less than the time it takes to tune a reflex port.

Well, if it was a truly tuned port (or rather a line) it would be at
36Hz to match the speaker's resonance, but the dimensions say it is
somewhat above that (it needs about fifteen feet for half wave at
36Hz), so I don't really understand how it is meant to work. Add to
that the fact that the line is tapered, so it is providing some gain
to the back wave, rather than the loss which would make much more
sense, and it is all a bit mysterious.

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Still, if the sound suits you.... I'm a treble fiend myself, though.

Seems it suits more than just me, Martin - Lowther have been making the
PM6 speakers for over 50 years now....

Plenty of examples of devices still being marketed when well past their
sell by date, Keith.


Such as?

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:55:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Do I though - for recording piano??

What is mystifying me is that if I play that Tone Sweep (20Hz - 20kHz) I
can
hear it from the very start and all the way up to a few seconds from the
end! When I was playing with a Tone Generator a while back I lost it at
about 14.5 kHz. Am I being bamboozled...??

Also, bearing in mind that someone at the very epicentre of speaker build
said not, can a cabinet *enhance* a drivers range - IOW, I seem to be
hearing 20 Hz on drivers that only claim 30 Hz at the deep end...??

Getting more and more confused now.....




Back on the air - my ISP has had busted Usenet for a couple of days.


And I have had router problems today!!


Anyway - of course you need stereo for piano; it is much easier to get
a decent recording that way. Two mics and the mixer should do it. I'm
sure you can find an old mix stand somewhere and I reckon you might
just be capable of making a bar to mount the two mic clips on.


OK, noted - thanks for that!


As for the tones and what you hear. 14.5kHz would be about right for
chaps our age - and it does make the top octave a bit academic. It is
only reached a couple of seconds from the end of the sweep because the
sweep is log - equal time per octave.


OK.


Now, for the low end stuff, what
you are hearing from the 20Hz is certainly second or third harmonics;
they can sound surprisingly like the real thing. The drivers may claim
30Hz (Fs= 36Hz), but in those cabinets they will be falling very
steeply below about 60Hz.


Well, the plan is to measure them, but I have had a number of people here
whose reaction has been 'that's lower than mine go'. My point is that,
whatever measurements might show, there is no apparent loss of 'top and
bottom' in normal listening, as far as I can tell. Slight reservation with
the 'bottom' - I've had (and still got) speakers which appear to offer more
'pressure' at the bottom end. Ie will flap yer trousers better!!

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:

As for the tones and what you hear. 14.5kHz would be about right for
chaps our age - and it does make the top octave a bit academic. It is
only reached a couple of seconds from the end of the sweep because the
sweep is log - equal time per octave. Now, for the low end stuff, what
you are hearing from the 20Hz is certainly second or third harmonics;
they can sound surprisingly like the real thing. The drivers may claim
30Hz (Fs= 36Hz), but in those cabinets they will be falling very
steeply below about 60Hz.

Test tones below 30Hz at even modest levels can make you feel rather sick
in less than the time it takes to tune a reflex port.


Yes, the start of the Tone Sweep actually is quite 'nauseating'...!!

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:49:48 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

As for the tones and what you hear. 14.5kHz would be about right for
chaps our age - and it does make the top octave a bit academic. It is
only reached a couple of seconds from the end of the sweep because the
sweep is log - equal time per octave. Now, for the low end stuff, what
you are hearing from the 20Hz is certainly second or third harmonics;
they can sound surprisingly like the real thing. The drivers may claim
30Hz (Fs= 36Hz), but in those cabinets they will be falling very
steeply below about 60Hz.

Test tones below 30Hz at even modest levels can make you feel rather sick
in less than the time it takes to tune a reflex port.

Well, if it was a truly tuned port (or rather a line) it would be at
36Hz to match the speaker's resonance, but the dimensions say it is
somewhat above that (it needs about fifteen feet for half wave at
36Hz), so I don't really understand how it is meant to work. Add to
that the fact that the line is tapered, so it is providing some gain
to the back wave, rather than the loss which would make much more
sense, and it is all a bit mysterious.


It is indeed - I am almost (but not quite) on the threshold of beginning to
start to get the earliest hint of a sign of an inkling about all this....

;-)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:39:17 +0100, Eeyorewrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Back on the air - my ISP has had busted Usenet for a couple of days.

How did they do that *this time*. Talk about them being a careless bunch or what !

Graham

They had a busted hard drive in their RAID and it took them that long
to diagnose it. The mind boggles.

Astonishing !

Graham

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:53:59 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:49:48 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

As for the tones and what you hear. 14.5kHz would be about right for
chaps our age - and it does make the top octave a bit academic. It is
only reached a couple of seconds from the end of the sweep because the
sweep is log - equal time per octave. Now, for the low end stuff, what
you are hearing from the 20Hz is certainly second or third harmonics;
they can sound surprisingly like the real thing. The drivers may claim
30Hz (Fs= 36Hz), but in those cabinets they will be falling very
steeply below about 60Hz.

Test tones below 30Hz at even modest levels can make you feel rather sick
in less than the time it takes to tune a reflex port.

Well, if it was a truly tuned port (or rather a line) it would be at
36Hz to match the speaker's resonance, but the dimensions say it is
somewhat above that (it needs about fifteen feet for half wave at
36Hz), so I don't really understand how it is meant to work. Add to
that the fact that the line is tapered, so it is providing some gain
to the back wave, rather than the loss which would make much more
sense, and it is all a bit mysterious.


It is indeed - I am almost (but not quite) on the threshold of beginning to
start to get the earliest hint of a sign of an inkling about all this....

;-)


I know that feeling all too well.

How long do you reckon the horn bit of those speakers would be if you
straightened it out?

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote
How long do you reckon the horn [...] would be if you
straightened it out?

Ferfuxake, I don't wanna know the length of Keith's "horn".


M :-/
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:18:17 +0100, "Fleetie"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote
How long do you reckon the horn [...] would be if you
straightened it out?

Ferfuxake, I don't wanna know the length of Keith's "horn".


M :-/

Just you keep your eyes closed while he goes behind the screen...

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote

Well, if it was a truly tuned port (or rather a line) it would be at
36Hz to match the speaker's resonance, but the dimensions say it is
somewhat above that (it needs about fifteen feet for half wave at
36Hz), so I don't really understand how it is meant to work. Add to
that the fact that the line is tapered, so it is providing some gain
to the back wave, rather than the loss which would make much more
sense, and it is all a bit mysterious.


It is indeed - I am almost (but not quite) on the threshold of beginning
to
start to get the earliest hint of a sign of an inkling about all this....

;-)


I know that feeling all too well.

How long do you reckon the horn bit of those speakers would be if you
straightened it out?


Gawd knows, probably not that long - the Jerichos are 3'10" high:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/fost...fe206pic08.JPG

http://www.plasmatweeter.de/images/jericho/horn.gif


And the (In)Fidelios are 3'4" high:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/infi...nfidelio02.jpg

http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.co.uk...gs/fiddwg.html


Your guess would be as good as mine! :-)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:18:17 +0100, "Fleetie"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote
How long do you reckon the horn [...] would be if you
straightened it out?

Ferfuxake, I don't wanna know the length of Keith's "horn".


M :-/

Just you keep your eyes closed while he goes behind the screen...



It's not that scary, I'm sorry to say.....

:-(

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Just you keep your eyes closed while he goes behind the screen...

And he puts on his dark glasses, and he shows you where to hit.
The cameras pan
The stand-in stunt man
DRESS REHEARSAL RAG
IT'S JUST A DRESS REHEARSAL RAG
YOU KNOW THIS DRESS REHEARSAL RAG


Sorry, I hate it when it does that.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:44:24 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote

Well, if it was a truly tuned port (or rather a line) it would be at
36Hz to match the speaker's resonance, but the dimensions say it is
somewhat above that (it needs about fifteen feet for half wave at
36Hz), so I don't really understand how it is meant to work. Add to
that the fact that the line is tapered, so it is providing some gain
to the back wave, rather than the loss which would make much more
sense, and it is all a bit mysterious.


It is indeed - I am almost (but not quite) on the threshold of beginning
to
start to get the earliest hint of a sign of an inkling about all this....

;-)


I know that feeling all too well.

How long do you reckon the horn bit of those speakers would be if you
straightened it out?


Gawd knows, probably not that long - the Jerichos are 3'10" high:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/fost...fe206pic08.JPG

http://www.plasmatweeter.de/images/jericho/horn.gif


And the (In)Fidelios are 3'4" high:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/infi...nfidelio02.jpg

http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.co.uk...gs/fiddwg.html


Your guess would be as good as mine! :-)


Eyeballing the pic of the Jericho, I reckon that's about seven feet of
line. That would put the tuning point at around 86Hz. You can expect
the output to drop pretty rapidly below that. The Fidelios will be
correspondingly higher.

The sums go like this: speed of sound (345m/sec) divided by the line
length in metres (2) divided by 2 again for half wave, which is what
you need for the back wave to reinforce the front radiation.

In a traditional transmission line speaker the line is filled with
absorber which does two things - it tames the resonance peak (which is
probably what sounds like good bass in these) and slows the sound
wave, making the line effectively longer.

There is a really useful paper on transmission lines speakers here
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projec.../response.html
yours is sufficiently close to a transmission line that this stuff
will apply just fine. The effect of filling on the speed of sound is
the part of main interest.

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:44:24 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote

snip

There is a really useful paper on transmission lines speakers here
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projec.../response.html
yours is sufficiently close to a transmission line that this stuff
will apply just fine. The effect of filling on the speed of sound is
the part of main interest.


Excellent site - thanks.

Rob