Too damn old for this silliness...
 

On 2006-10-02, 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?

Do you really want to do this? I am not sure I would want to do something
which might result in me learning how to to dislike something I like.

It's like those music reviewers who dismiss a recording for things
like inconsistently observing the repeats (e.g. the Penguin review of
Gould's 1981 Goldberg variations). For me this misses the point: who
cares about the "missing" repeats in an otherwise amazing performance.

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

Exactly.

--
John Phillips

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

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!'...???

I think your idea of 'sounds superb' is very suspect. In particular I suspect
serious HF hearing loss.

Graham

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:56:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



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

They are where you start. If the result you want is flat, a good way
to achieve that is to make every individual part flat, then do
something about whatever is left. A bad way is to make everything
lumpy and hope the lumps somehow cancel each other out - that way lies
madness.

So a flat source, amp and speakers are all a good idea. If you have a
wonky room, you then have plenty of options for ways to correct it,
ranging from furnishing, changing walls to putting in an equalizer.

d




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

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:56:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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

They are where you start. If the result you want is flat, a good way
to achieve that is to make every individual part flat, then do
something about whatever is left. A bad way is to make everything
lumpy and hope the lumps somehow cancel each other out - that way lies
madness.

So a flat source, amp and speakers are all a good idea. If you have a
wonky room, you then have plenty of options for ways to correct it,
ranging from furnishing, changing walls to putting in an equalizer.

Indientally, I heard some fabulous monitors last Friday in a certain London studio.

ATCs. Muah !
http://www.atc.gb.net/professional/scm300aslpro.html

Graham

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:18:15 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:56:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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

They are where you start. If the result you want is flat, a good way
to achieve that is to make every individual part flat, then do
something about whatever is left. A bad way is to make everything
lumpy and hope the lumps somehow cancel each other out - that way lies
madness.

So a flat source, amp and speakers are all a good idea. If you have a
wonky room, you then have plenty of options for ways to correct it,
ranging from furnishing, changing walls to putting in an equalizer.

Indientally, I heard some fabulous monitors last Friday in a certain London studio.

ATCs. Muah !
http://www.atc.gb.net/professional/scm300aslpro.html

Graham

Very nice in their place - bleedin' great things, though, aren't they?

d

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

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.


The room treatment was waiting until I had made some 'harsh environment'
choices with the speakers - it's a 'chicken/egg situation' to some extent
and ya gotta start somewhere!! (I do envisage summat a bit Ali Baba going up
on the walls in the very near future...!!)

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


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.



And on their way back to you, as I speak/type....!!

Awaiting the pix with some trepidation, now....!!

;-)

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2006-10-02, 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?

Do you really want to do this? I am not sure I would want to do something
which might result in me learning how to to dislike something I like.



Yes, of course - these exchanges with Don are always useful and I usually
managed to learn summat new along the way. No graphs or plots would make my
mind up for me, but I'm not 'in denial' or (contrary to popular opinion)
bigotted in any way - the thing to watch out for in this world is
*conditioning* and conditioning oneself is an easy mistake to make! A fresh
look (listen), armed with more pertinent information than one had before, is
always a good idea, in my book...

My problem isn't the same as someone making a selection with a view to
purchase - I already have/own the stuff that I need to decide on and like it
*all* in divers ways!! (It's all *family* to me!! ;-)



It's like those music reviewers who dismiss a recording for things
like inconsistently observing the repeats (e.g. the Penguin review of
Gould's 1981 Goldberg variations). For me this misses the point: who
cares about the "missing" repeats in an otherwise amazing performance.


Hmm, depends....



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

Exactly.


Well, that's what I'll be telling myself!! ;-)

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

Keith G wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.


The room treatment was waiting until I had made some 'harsh environment'
choices with the speakers - it's a 'chicken/egg situation' to some extent
and ya gotta start somewhere!! (I do envisage summat a bit Ali Baba going up
on the walls in the very near future...!!)




Finally got my Newgroups back! Tiscali finally admitted they had a
server problem and fixed it:- Only took them a month....

Anyway, Keith, room treatment:- As I may have mentioned before my feed
was so rudely interrupted, I treated my listening room with great
success (hard to find though, Great Success, padding would have been
easier) Used Acoustic Grade rockwool, and covered it with a linen
curtain for domestic harmony. I'll be pleased to help/advise if you want
to go that route.

In your room, I think it would be pretty beneficial.

S.

Too damn old for this silliness...
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:18:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:56:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
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

They are where you start. If the result you want is flat, a good way
to achieve that is to make every individual part flat, then do
something about whatever is left. A bad way is to make everything
lumpy and hope the lumps somehow cancel each other out - that way lies
madness.

So a flat source, amp and speakers are all a good idea. If you have a
wonky room, you then have plenty of options for ways to correct it,
ranging from furnishing, changing walls to putting in an equalizer.

Indientally, I heard some fabulous monitors last Friday in a certain London studio.

ATCs. Muah !
http://www.atc.gb.net/professional/scm300aslpro.html

Graham

Very nice in their place - bleedin' great things, though, aren't they?

For sure but brilliantly installed, all 5 of them ( with extra LF units too )

Graham