The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote

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.


OK.



In a traditional transmission line speaker the line is filled with
absorber


Whaaat??

Hexcuse me - I'll have none of that *stuffing* malarky, thank you....!!

The first horns I heard were a pair I borrowed from my mate P the T (he ha
dollied them up) and my mate SN was round. They were queer upward-firing
things with Richard Allen drivers in them and had been loving stuffed with
fibre. They didn't sound particularly good, so we upended them and SN
started ripping the fibre (armfuls of it) out of 'em saying 'they don't need
all this crap' - and booger oi if they didn't sound a lot better without
it!!


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.

Which presumably means the sound goes lower, but why mess with it if they
sound good *with* a resonance peak, or am I missing summat?

Last octave or no, there's certainly no shortage of bass on these speakers -
even as I type!!



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.



Scanned it, got a headache, bookmarked it for when I feel a bit more
brave.... :-)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:39:40 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote

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.


OK.



In a traditional transmission line speaker the line is filled with
absorber


Whaaat??

Hexcuse me - I'll have none of that *stuffing* malarky, thank you....!!

The first horns I heard were a pair I borrowed from my mate P the T (he ha
dollied them up) and my mate SN was round. They were queer upward-firing
things with Richard Allen drivers in them and had been loving stuffed with
fibre. They didn't sound particularly good, so we upended them and SN
started ripping the fibre (armfuls of it) out of 'em saying 'they don't need
all this crap' - and booger oi if they didn't sound a lot better without
it!!


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.

Which presumably means the sound goes lower, but why mess with it if they
sound good *with* a resonance peak, or am I missing summat?

Last octave or no, there's certainly no shortage of bass on these speakers -
even as I type!!


What you're hearing isn't the real deal. It is pseudo-bass - just the
harmonics of the true bass which your brain, by a bit of psychological
hocus pocus translates into an impression of actual bass. The big
resonant peak no doubt helps that along a bit. I'm not surprised your
mate's speakers sounded "better" with the stuffing out, although they
were in fact simply boomier. Get some stuffing in there to tame the
honk then add that decent sub and you will find out what bass is
really all about.



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.



Scanned it, got a headache, bookmarked it for when I feel a bit more
brave.... :-)


Skip the details for now - just move on down to the relative speed of
sound graphs.

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote

What you're hearing isn't the real deal. It is pseudo-bass - just the
harmonics of the true bass which your brain, by a bit of psychological
hocus pocus translates into an impression of actual bass. The big
resonant peak no doubt helps that along a bit. I'm not surprised your
mate's speakers sounded "better" with the stuffing out, although they
were in fact simply boomier. Get some stuffing in there to tame the
honk then add that decent sub and you will find out what bass is
really all about.


???

I give up..

I've got a *best yet* sound, others have all expressed delight/amazement and
no-one has said they didn't like it! (Yet....)

It's all 'hocus pocus' - including/particularly the perception of central
(and other) *images* and their placement. In this highly overcrowded
(temporary) setup:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther06.JPG

You will be flabberghasted to know that it's quite impossible to tell which
pair of speakers is on most of the time - I've been caught out no end of
times!!

My current quest (ending now) has been to get a sound that didn't boom in
the tiny 'listening room' that I have now, since the piano put on a lot of
weight and displaced half my kit! (Load of ********, actually - it's mostly
Swim watching endless crap on the telly that drove me out, truth be known!
;-) The clarity/detail, timbre and imaging are just reaffirming bonussis!

I had bass from my Ruarks that used to make the pictures go squint and got
so deafening it used to go *quiet*, if you see what I mean - I don't need it
or want it, I want to hear timbre and detail!! (Or *all* the words/notes, to
put it another way!)

Going back to ordinary speakers is like *time smear* now - or speaking with
your hand over your mouth!!

No worries, I'll retire further into my self-delusion and make the best of a
bad job!! ;-)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Keith G" wrote
I give up..


snip own blather


Going back to ordinary speakers is like *time smear* now - or speaking
with your hand over your mouth!!

No worries, I'll retire further into my self-delusion and make the best of
a bad job!! ;-)


Feck, I've just asked Swim (yes, I *know*....):

Is this the best sound we've had? - Yes!

Definitely? - Yes!

Better than everything up 'til now? - Yes!

Why? - It's the *real sound* it sounds like there are no speakers (&c.)
there! (Hand gestures also...)

What more can I fekkin' say or do...???

The shite wot is writ here...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Why? - It's the *real sound* it sounds like there are no speakers (&c.)
there! (Hand gestures also...)

One of the best speaker tests is well recorded male speech - not music.
And I'll guarantee *any* horn will fail this - and miserably. Best by far
is a Quad ELS...

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:26:38 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote

What you're hearing isn't the real deal. It is pseudo-bass - just the
harmonics of the true bass which your brain, by a bit of psychological
hocus pocus translates into an impression of actual bass. The big
resonant peak no doubt helps that along a bit. I'm not surprised your
mate's speakers sounded "better" with the stuffing out, although they
were in fact simply boomier. Get some stuffing in there to tame the
honk then add that decent sub and you will find out what bass is
really all about.


???

I give up..

I've got a *best yet* sound, others have all expressed delight/amazement and
no-one has said they didn't like it! (Yet....)

It's all 'hocus pocus' - including/particularly the perception of central
(and other) *images* and their placement. In this highly overcrowded
(temporary) setup:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther06.JPG

You will be flabberghasted to know that it's quite impossible to tell which
pair of speakers is on most of the time - I've been caught out no end of
times!!

My current quest (ending now) has been to get a sound that didn't boom in
the tiny 'listening room' that I have now, since the piano put on a lot of
weight and displaced half my kit! (Load of ********, actually - it's mostly
Swim watching endless crap on the telly that drove me out, truth be known!
;-) The clarity/detail, timbre and imaging are just reaffirming bonussis!

I had bass from my Ruarks that used to make the pictures go squint and got
so deafening it used to go *quiet*, if you see what I mean - I don't need it
or want it, I want to hear timbre and detail!! (Or *all* the words/notes, to
put it another way!)

Going back to ordinary speakers is like *time smear* now - or speaking with
your hand over your mouth!!

No worries, I'll retire further into my self-delusion and make the best of a
bad job!! ;-)




Strange innit? But that is, I'm afraid, the way it is. Or rather that
is what you like - no arguing with it. But it has not a lot to do with
fidelity (if you will excuse the "f" word).

d

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

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:37:49 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Keith G" wrote
I give up..


snip own blather


Going back to ordinary speakers is like *time smear* now - or speaking
with your hand over your mouth!!

No worries, I'll retire further into my self-delusion and make the best of
a bad job!! ;-)


Feck, I've just asked Swim (yes, I *know*....):

Is this the best sound we've had? - Yes!

Definitely? - Yes!

Better than everything up 'til now? - Yes!

Why? - It's the *real sound* it sounds like there are no speakers (&c.)
there! (Hand gestures also...)

What more can I fekkin' say or do...???


Not a lot, I'm afraid. I can't lead you to the paths of righteousness
if you don't like the colour of the grass along there.

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:
Why? - It's the *real sound* it sounds like there are no speakers (&c.)
there! (Hand gestures also...)

One of the best speaker tests is well recorded male speech - not music.
And I'll guarantee *any* horn will fail this - and miserably. Best by far
is a Quad ELS...


Yep, the worst bit by far - I blanked out 'with announcer's voices' in a
post the other day.

Carsick FM (DAB) is the worst - very good music (and I mean very good for
digital radio) and then an announcement which sounds nasal and honky by
comparison and, I think, transmits the size of the space the announcer's
sitting in all too well. Differs with whoever it is and I believe R3 doesn't
sound so bad. Totally different with TV dialogue - I never notice anything
out of the ordinary at all.

Nothing's perfect and the good outweighs the bad by miles, in my book!!

Or, put it another way, I wouldn't want the music ****ted up (down) to
'normal standards' for the sake of the odd announcement!!

YMMV.....

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:37:49 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


What more can I fekkin' say or do...???


Not a lot, I'm afraid. I can't lead you to the paths of righteousness
if you don't like the colour of the grass along there.


Well, perhaps I would just add that the sound has to suit *me* ('ere so
quietly) before I solicit the opinion of anyone else, but I'm not arrogant
enough to presume what I like is necessarily any good...!! ??

Righteousness? Now, there's summat to ponder!!

;-)

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:26:38 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:



No worries, I'll retire further into my self-delusion and make the best of
a
bad job!! ;-)




Strange innit? But that is, I'm afraid, the way it is. Or rather that
is what you like - no arguing with it. But it has not a lot to do with
fidelity (if you will excuse the "f" word).


Trust me, I've heard a number of 'fidelity systems' belonging to proud
owners that I wouldn't give houseroom!!

Said it 28 million times - I wouldn't know 'fidelity' if it hit me with a
stick - I know what sounds *alive* and realistic/natural and that's what I
have pursued. It is impossible to try and describe sound quality without
sounding like a ****/magazine reviewer (interchangeable) but I'm talking
about sounds that *hang in the air*, voices where you could clasp the
singer's head, depth and space where the walls have entirely
disappeared....???

Now say anybody could claim that and I will ask how come I ain't never heard
it on anyone else's kit?

(FWIW, I suspect stuff I had a year or two back would have more than
qualified as true 'hifi' gear!!)

Whatever...