Too damn old for this silliness...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


Keith, I've put up another bit of stuff for you. There are three
frequency plots, one each for the reference, PM6 and EXE. They show
very clearly the response of each of these speakers, particularly the
horrifying top end of the EXEs; the PM6es are quite a bit better, but
still not at all nice - very toppy.

Are you absolutely sure about your choice?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/kspkr/



OK, thanks for that - thode plots are plaine enough.

First off, I can't use too much bass (like from my Ruarks) without setting
up a terrible boom in what is really a tiny room, so the lean 'horn bass'
suits me very well, provided I get enough of it. Next, I have not noticed
any significant absence of treble or 'spiky mush' myself, other than a
little recession here and there of some familar tracts that I'm used to
hearing more 'foreward' - most seem to find the treble is very pleasant...??

As to choice - after the exchange last night I went into a fury of
amp-hauling and wire-pulling for a 'sudden death' (mine, if I have to shift
this stuff about much longer) choice between the speakers and, when I got to
300Bs on the Fidelios, the choice was made - right back to where I started!!
This was confirmed when I switched Classic FM on earlier this morning (SS
throughout) and heard the now familiar 'hoarseness' straight off....!!

My initial problem is having a 4-way split with 2 pairs of drivers in 2
different cabinets (swappable in 10 minutes, if necessary) and having had a
thumbs up on just about any combination thereof!! One pair's simply gotta
go! When I get things sorted out, I'll post a couple of trax to demonstrate
what I've got and (probably) a better bit of music from both speakers in
turn, in the one cabinet. I might (probably) even throw in the same track on
the Tannoys, for comparison.

I think I've got a classic case of measurements vs. real life here, where I
like the sound from a certain combination of this kit and it don't look too
good on paper and certainly don't seem to want to record too well!! I've
never once had a 'feck me that's ****e' from a number of visitors/critics
here, several of whom would delight in slipping in a little jab like that -
eau cointreau, they've all gone away muttering about building summat similar
themselves....!!??

On with the motley....

(It can only get worse....!! :-)

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

If Keith wants to capture the sound he hears, the mic should be
positioned in his
listening position.

But if he wants to demonstrate the sound of the speakers rather than the
room
he should do one channel at a time in an anechoic chamber, or at least at
the
bottom of the garden on a still night.



Yes, I discovered ages ago that the greater the distance mic to speaker, the
worse the 'cavern effect'....

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
If Keith wants to capture the sound he hears, the mic should be
positioned in his listening position.

It's not that simple, unfortunately. The brain is a very complex computer
which filters out unwanted information, etc. As has been said you can help
matters by closing off one ear to give a better approximation of a
microphone. But for best results you want to do your measuring in a
suitable place - which would be an anechoic room with no reflections or
unwanted noises.

--
*If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

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

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
If Keith wants to capture the sound he hears, the mic should be
positioned in his listening position.

It's not that simple, unfortunately. The brain is a very complex computer
which filters out unwanted information, etc. As has been said you can help
matters by closing off one ear to give a better approximation of a
microphone. But for best results you want to do your measuring in a
suitable place - which would be an anechoic room with no reflections or
unwanted noises.

Which would once again defeat the purpose !

Graham

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 10:17:09 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


Keith, I've put up another bit of stuff for you. There are three
frequency plots, one each for the reference, PM6 and EXE. They show
very clearly the response of each of these speakers, particularly the
horrifying top end of the EXEs; the PM6es are quite a bit better, but
still not at all nice - very toppy.

Are you absolutely sure about your choice?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/kspkr/



OK, thanks for that - thode plots are plaine enough.

First off, I can't use too much bass (like from my Ruarks) without setting
up a terrible boom in what is really a tiny room, so the lean 'horn bass'
suits me very well, provided I get enough of it. Next, I have not noticed
any significant absence of treble or 'spiky mush' myself, other than a
little recession here and there of some familar tracts that I'm used to
hearing more 'foreward' - most seem to find the treble is very pleasant...??

As to choice - after the exchange last night I went into a fury of
amp-hauling and wire-pulling for a 'sudden death' (mine, if I have to shift
this stuff about much longer) choice between the speakers and, when I got to
300Bs on the Fidelios, the choice was made - right back to where I started!!
This was confirmed when I switched Classic FM on earlier this morning (SS
throughout) and heard the now familiar 'hoarseness' straight off....!!

My initial problem is having a 4-way split with 2 pairs of drivers in 2
different cabinets (swappable in 10 minutes, if necessary) and having had a
thumbs up on just about any combination thereof!! One pair's simply gotta
go! When I get things sorted out, I'll post a couple of trax to demonstrate
what I've got and (probably) a better bit of music from both speakers in
turn, in the one cabinet. I might (probably) even throw in the same track on
the Tannoys, for comparison.

I think I've got a classic case of measurements vs. real life here, where I
like the sound from a certain combination of this kit and it don't look too
good on paper and certainly don't seem to want to record too well!! I've
never once had a 'feck me that's ****e' from a number of visitors/critics
here, several of whom would delight in slipping in a little jab like that -
eau cointreau, they've all gone away muttering about building summat similar
themselves....!!??

On with the motley....

(It can only get worse....!! :-)



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/

d

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

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:37:07 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
If Keith wants to capture the sound he hears, the mic should be
positioned in his listening position.

It's not that simple, unfortunately. The brain is a very complex computer
which filters out unwanted information, etc. As has been said you can help
matters by closing off one ear to give a better approximation of a
microphone. But for best results you want to do your measuring in a
suitable place - which would be an anechoic room with no reflections or
unwanted noises.

Which would once again defeat the purpose !

Graham

Depends what your purpose is. Whatever way you look at it, Keith's Exe
speaker gives results in his room that I would find intolerable. But
if you are trying to sort out what your speakers are doing, it is as
well to separate them as far as possible from the effects of the room
- that would be a problem for another day.

d

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

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

"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!'...???

???

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

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

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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...!!)

Well, shoving a speaker in the corner of a small room is likely to give
just the effect you mention.

Ever considered a decent pair of cans - or moving? ;-)

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:37:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
If Keith wants to capture the sound he hears, the mic should be
positioned in his listening position.

It's not that simple, unfortunately. The brain is a very complex computer
which filters out unwanted information, etc. As has been said you can help
matters by closing off one ear to give a better approximation of a
microphone. But for best results you want to do your measuring in a
suitable place - which would be an anechoic room with no reflections or
unwanted noises.

Which would once again defeat the purpose !

Graham

Depends what your purpose is. Whatever way you look at it, Keith's Exe
speaker gives results in his room that I would find intolerable. But
if you are trying to sort out what your speakers are doing, it is as
well to separate them as far as possible from the effects of the room
- that would be a problem for another day.

So in fact we end up returning to 'classic measurements' as being the only
realistic option.

Graham