| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Macondo’s lowest channel. (149 posts, 8 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 8 (149 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Macondo Alternation. Extending the LF line-array..  Macondo and not only Macondo positioning...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     8  109649  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46024  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  No wonder...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     72  407106  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  1514951  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2004324  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  12447  10-08-2010
  »  New  Bass impact on Turntable: how to estimate objectively..  I have done some work on this in the past....  Analog Playback Forum     4  29412  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  16188  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Sorry, no images any more....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     56  487777  04-23-2009
  »  New  Monophonic bass: myth and reality...  I do not think so but I am OK with it....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     5  24989  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  27470  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  9774  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  32844  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  85913  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  334978  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  15682  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  416009  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  Awesome...  Audio Discussions  Forum     41  8368  07-29-2018
11-17-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 41
Post ID: 14967
Reply to: 14457
Dynamic range of ULF, tsunami and something else.
fiogf49gjkf0d

It is not about Dynamic Range per say but about dymick differences that I feel and that I care with good ULF he effect of rising of acoustic and tonal pressure is instant, very soft but absolutely instantaneous. Live music has feel like literally infinite dynamic range of ULF and little infinite dynamic headroom.  I do not compare live and recording music but I am talking about perception during live and reproduced music.

Thinking about it I asked myself if dynamic amplitude is something that we truly deal with in ULF.  My feeling that it is not. I feel that dynamic amplitude have very little different in ULF, it is like feeling of tsunami if you are in a middle of the ocean.  If you paid attention then you know that explicit proper compression of ULF has practically no negative effect to Sound, so the dynamic amplitude is very much not the key that I would look for.

What I think I am after is a rate change of ULF, of the very leading edge of the wave to be as distinctive as possible.  So we are taking about transient of ULF, however, because it ULF I think there is a very interesting kink on the whole story, the kink that might be overlooked by everyone, and it certainly is being overlooked by me.

Let pretend that we look visually at the front of pressure ways. It would be obvious that the higher ratio between in-wave pressure and background pressure would do better “rate change”. So, what would smear the sharpness of pressure build up? Surprisingly (of not surprisingly for the readers of my site) this morning it hit me that the problem might be in the driver time alignment.  The morons would say “not again” but the Morons did not note that I did not say “drivers time alignment” but I said “driver time alignment”. Let me to explain.

I notice that my woofer array towers worked superbly in my old room but now as much in my new room. There are many reasons why but there is also one moment that I think is overlooked. In the old room my woofers were facing directly to me but in my new room they are way out of my view. What does it is affect? Well, the woofers are 10”, some people use 15, 18 or more inch woofers. The pressure produces by a woofer originated by the woofer surface and since the surface is large then origination surface has dimensions. We know that the time misalignment or the arrival difference between let say left and right side of MF drivers, are responsible for lateral attentions of drivers and for the restricted dispersion diagram.  With bass driver we do not care as we feel that the wavelength is too long. Well, for sure at bass the dispersion patter does not change so much. However, what I propose is changing with facing-off the woofers is the density of the bass leading front. 

With 18”woofer located at 45 degree to listening spot the leading border of the pressure wave will have 9” of smeared edge, where the pressure from the closer and further side of the woofers did not arrive yet. This all very simple to test with a regular woofer firing in face and off face. What is not so simple is to develop attention to the specifics that need to be listen. You might recognize a sort of not “softness” but rather elasticity of attack when woofer’s sides are not aligned to itself. This elasticity might not be unpleasant; in fact it is pleasant but it pleasant only in context of a single canal. This pleasure might not work in context of larger picture of your sound, the way how it does not work in my case.

Again, what I described above is not uncontroversial but I would like you to know that this view do exist in me and if I could then I would like to have the ULF woofers face directly to my listening chair.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-17-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 42
Post ID: 14968
Reply to: 14967
The Circle Unbroken
fiogf49gjkf0d
If you put ULF boxes where they "beam" best, would this not, none the less, re-create the weird (U)LF chart you have already shared, with +10 dB at the chair, TT, etc?  If so, perhaps you can have the wave cake and eat the full-pressure, too with the parametric DSP we have already discussed?  Maybe rent the stuff and find out?  Not to pre-endorse parametric DSP, but only as the simple expedient, to clear up some questions (and preserve some sanity) in one fell swoop...


Best regards,
Paul S
12-03-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 43
Post ID: 15048
Reply to: 14457
I wonder… is it PP2000?
fiogf49gjkf0d

I am I wondering if my dissatisfaction with my new ULF channel is not the problem of my but the problem of the new PP2000 lower bass.

http://www.RomyTheCat.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=15046

at the time I start fine tuning of the ULF channel I have already used the new generation of PP2000. It might be not related but it also might the source of the problems why I do not have the lower bass as clean as I use to have. I would need to run my lower bass from PP2000 buttery to see how it goes. It would be interesting if it turns out that it was not my small woofers but the new PP2000’s bad sound in lower bass what it runs from AC.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-12-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 44
Post ID: 15175
Reply to: 15048
The ULF and PurePower 2000
fiogf49gjkf0d
If I somehow was able to recalibrate Macondo to run with the specifics of my new PP2000 sound but in the lower bass my currant playback is completely dead. It is not that it is non-listenable –it is enjoyable but the whole lower end of the midbass channel and entire ULF sound like a puff of a cigar.  The change of volume has no impact, even driving the ULF 12db harder serve no purpose. It is just a very different bass and there is no purpose to deal with it until the PP2000 gives back the bass as it is use to be.  Very annoying….


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-07-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 45
Post ID: 15546
Reply to: 14457
ULF Channel and LP playback.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Last and this weeks I played mostly LP records. I have only one arm and one needle setup after my move to new room – I did not decide that what final configuration I will have for my analog. Today, while I am in Brahms wave I played the entire box of Georg Solti with Chicago Symphony. This is a celebrated set from 1979 recorded in some kind of Chicago temple with spectacularly properly balanced sound. In context of this thread I will not be taking about Solti interpretation but the Sound made me to think today.

I forced myself today to shut down my ULF section and run the whole Brahms just from midbass channel. OK, my analog setup can do bass – I mean real bass not the puffy crap that frequently analog setups do. One of my definition of “real bass” is that it hold itself across all dynamic levels and when the midbass it getting very loud  (and here is where Chicago show off spectacularly) then it does not sink the rest of the music. With bass crashing very heavy it look like Macondo, room and everything within holds everything very nicely, no character-even or any kind - just wonderful. The Midbass Horns do real wonder in my view. With this massive output from them they got to indicate own position above and behind but they do not. I truly do not want to touch anything with Midbass Channel – this setting the I got is absolutely locked and frozen.

The ULF is another matter. I feel that with analog it does not as good as with LP and I feel more and more need to turn ULF off. Sure my ULF will be revise in future but I still I wonder why with LP I find my ULF less tolerable.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 46
Post ID: 15551
Reply to: 14457
Are original Aura Sound 1808 sound ULF solution for sealed enclosure?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:

Aura made their 1808 driver in 80s and most of the 90s and it was wonderful. It had huge high-temperature neodymium magnet, unique magnet geometry with underhung 4" edgewound aluminum voice coil.  It was the only 18-inchers underhand voice coil ever produced. The finny part that despite of the underhand configuration it had 98dB sensitivity with 2” total excursion – what a motor! The driver had paper cone, cloth suspension and had phenomenal articulation at lowest frequencies. The 1808 was suggested for 20 Hz - 200Hz but it did not sound good even at 80Hz. The Aura 1808 had free air resonance at 24Hz and required enormous sealed enclosure of 14-16 cu feet.  Wilson Audio used the Aura 1808 in their unfortunately-ported XS subwoofers and soaked from their relatively small enclosure an extra 19dB of port noise at 20Hz.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


Hi Romy:

I am presently considering an opportunity to buy some very old Aura Sound 1808 drivers, but not the Leviathan you enthused about in the quote above. My understanding is that the fairly low Qts would make the original (non Leviathan) less suitable for use in a sealed enclosure. However it also sounds as if it might work in such an enclosure if it was big enough, i.e. 14-16 cu feet. I have never liked ported enclosures but would that not be the only way the 1808 should be used?

For what it's worth, this consideration is part of a larger question, which is what would be the ideal ULF solution for pretty much the same Macondo set-up that you have, being used in a fairly large room of 25x21 feet with a ceiling height of 8ft? I have been thinking of the line array that you are using but I am wondering whether a pair of 1808 or even a line array made out of 6 such drivers, 3 on each side stacked vertically might not prove a more versatile solution ( somewhat extreme admittedly, but with a view to the future when I will have a bigger room with higher ceilings).

I am also very tempted by the McCauleys 6174 or Maelstrom 21" but they are somewhat more expensive in Europe....

Obviously there is no question that I will be able to listen to any of these solutions so any thoughts or even considerations that I ought to keep in mind, are welcome. With regard to drving them, whilst I know that the ULF section of the Melquiades can drive the Scanspeak 10" line array, I am of course not sure whether that would be satisfactory with the Aura Sound 1808...

Kind regards
Rakesh
02-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 47
Post ID: 15553
Reply to: 15551
I do not have an opinion yet.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Rakesh, I moved your post to this thread as I feel it is more relevant here, I hope you do not mind. You ask yours the very same question that I ask myself. I do not have definitive answers to them:

 oxric wrote:
I am presently considering an opportunity to buy some very old Aura Sound 1808 drivers, but not the Leviathan you enthused about in the quote above. My understanding is that the fairly low Qts would make the original (non Leviathan) less suitable for use in a sealed enclosure. However it also sounds as if it might work in such an enclosure if it was big enough, i.e. 14-16 cu feet. I have never liked ported enclosures but would that not be the only way the 1808 should be used?

If I use 1808 then I would never use it in ported enclosure, in fact I would not use ported enclosures for any driver in ULF channel.

 oxric wrote:
I am also very tempted by the McCauleys 6174 or Maelstrom 21" but they are somewhat more expensive in Europe....

This is very legitimate concern. I have 4x1808 drivers and they might be my candidates to come up with my ULF channel but for the last 10-15 years as Aura stopped to be made there are a lot of new drivers made. How good they are comparing to Aura? I have no answer and I did not see a lot of taking about it out there. The complexity of this question is that there are a lot of variables involved:

1) Proper implementation of a given driver
2) Different people have different room condition
3) Different amps damps the bass cones differently
4) Different people have different reference points what constitute the “proper” bass.

So, in my view unless you know a person, set with him/her in the same room and compare the notes and exchange reference point about bass while listening a give reference Sound, then there is no reasons to exchange view about bass. I think the only way to learn what is “better” it to try different drivers in the different configuration and enclosures, this is how we develop the acquired taste and this is how I discovered drivers for my Macondo. I did not develop acquired taste in bass drivers. Back in 2002 I use a single 1808 driver in a large, probably 24 cu feet box. I liked the result but my objective was not 20Hz-40Hz but 9Hz. Looking back I am not sure that I would like the same result now but it was different room, different playback and the different me… I today would not trust to me 10 years back…

 oxric wrote:
For what it's worth, this consideration is part of a larger question, which is what would be the ideal ULF solution for pretty much the same Macondo set-up that you have, being used in a fairly large room of 25x21 feet with a ceiling height of 8ft? I have been thinking of the line array that you are using but I am wondering whether a pair of 1808 or even a line array made out of 6 such drivers, 3 on each side stacked vertically might not prove a more versatile solution ( somewhat extreme admittedly, but with a view to the future when I will have a bigger room with higher ceilings).

Yes, this is all that I would like to know as well. Do not put too much into line array subject. You do not have a room to form proper line-array with those drivers and at that frequency. A pair of 1808 or similar drivers would be between then a single drivers but I do not think that it will be due to forming as proper cylindrical wave…

 oxric wrote:
Obviously there is no question that I will be able to listen to any of these solutions so any thoughts or even considerations that I ought to keep in mind, are welcome. With regard to drving them, whilst I know that the ULF section of the Melquiades can drive the Scanspeak 10" line array, I am of course not sure whether that would be satisfactory with the Aura Sound 1808...

I use my two Scanspeak 10" towers, 8 drivers as a ready to go temporary solution. I drive them with Yamaha B2 amp, it is pure DC amp. I would not say that I like the result. It does help to my midbass horns to get reference to sonic ground but in a way it compromises the midbass lower end. My plans are find the final solution with PurePower and get my all properly working regenerators back. Then in context of a proper for bass electricity (VERY important) to tune my current 10" towers and to get best they can do. It is possible that my current towers juts do not setup up properly – I never did the final fine tuning. If in the end of my “fine bass tuning” I will not be satisfied with results then I will go for experimenting with large drivers. I have space, interests to the subject and the stupidity to do so, but it will be the final touch…

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 48
Post ID: 15556
Reply to: 15553
Imponderabilis Neurosis
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hi Romy:

No need to reach for your medical glossary. The medical condition that I call 'Imponderabilis Neurosis,' is only the preserve of highly disturbed individuals such as myself (Hamlet seems to have exhibited symptons which are highly indicative of the disease as well) but one that the medical profession chooses to ignore as it is relatively harmless and affects only a minuscule proportion of the population.

'Imponderabilis neurosis,' is therefore a term I coined which means a disturbance of one's mental state brought about by a fear or too close analysis of imponderables. In the course of a conversation, I can quite well make what appears to be an irrefutable case for one or another solution but then in the next minute revisit the argument and smash the reasoning to bits as if it had all the coherence and solidity of sawdust.

The imponderables, as you make clear, are many and the mere thought of imagining myself spending 6 months to a year trying the different solutions paralyses me with fear. You see, I am not a believer in learning by mistakes, as my view is life is too short and I would rather minimise mistakes and enjoy successes. Nonetheless, in this case I can indeed see that there is very little hope I can reach an optimal solution by underhand means.

A very long note to say thanks for your thoughts as they at least confirm that these solutions are the ones worth considering. By the way, I would urge you to look at Infinite Baffle solutions, see link below, as an addition to the mix of potential and promising avenues for exploration.

http://home.comcast.net/~infinitelybaffled/page2IB-IBmanifold.html

I have a wine cellar that adjoins the room where I could install an infinite baffled subwoofer (i.e. the 'manifold') system but I really intend to use it to store wine (given that the town itself where the house is located produces three rather highly prized 'Grands Crus', not an unreasonable desire I would think as opposed to the gratification of my selfish audiophile pursuits). On the other hand it looks to me that you have the ideal locations, either in the roof space/attic in the wall facing you from your listening position, or using the crawl space and connected to your large working room/cellar in the basement for adopting such an approach. The advantages of IB solutions over even a sealed enclosure design seem to be many...

For now, I will anxiously draw my sword and ask myself whether I should slice the neck of the king at prayer...(for law enforment agents out there reading Romy's site and I am sure there must be many, do not be alarmed, this is a metaphor, a reference to the reasons we find for procrastination and not doing the things we so badly want to do). Then maybe I will buy the damned AS 1808s drivers. Or not.

Kind regards
Rakesh
02-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 49
Post ID: 15557
Reply to: 15556
Bass non-pathologic hallucination…
fiogf49gjkf0d

Rakesh,

Yes, life is too short but the definition of belter ULF channel is not something that one might learn during "a project next coming weekend". The most important in audio is a state of realization and obtaining this state is a matter of time I am afraid. Let pretend that tomorrow I will build/buy some kind of speaker that would do the perfect ULF channel for me. The main question would be: the perfection of that ULF channel is something that the driver and enclosure demonstrate or it is something that I am able to recognize?

There is a huge amount of people in audio who do anything doable but who failed to develop of understanding and interpretation of results. You can see tone of them at DIYaudio.com forum and at many other locations – they move hand and do actions but their projects do not advance them from listening and human perspective. This is why I never like the entire DIY community.

What I am trying to say is that the ultimate ULF channel is not only a combinations expensive driver in some kind of enclosure. The most valuable in an ultimate ULF channel is not a driver but the vested amount of system owner thoughts about what kind bass she/she is willing to get. This understanding comes literally with years. You can buy drivers; recruit a carpenter, build or by enclosures but it would serve only a solution but not satisfaction. The satisfaction is fulfillment of objectives and in my estimate a person need first to develop well formed  objectives, very clearly visualize the result and ONLY then, after the concept is conceived and clearly indentified, ONLY THEN the person might render the objectives.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=432

With all frankness I thought that I have a very clear idea how I would like my sound from ULF to be. I have been thinking about it for years, looking what other do and visualizing how different I would like it to be in my own playback. However, the last few months, since I finished my midbass project, my views slightly changed. Nowadays I would like to have less ULF to midbass integration and I would like my ULF NOT to be a continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound.  It is not as bad as it sound in writing and it need to be demonstrated, not explained at a web site. Unfortunately I can’t demonstrate it even to myself and I have the notion as a pure fiction of my mind, sort of a hallucination, a dream that I would like one day to render as a reality.  I do not have an itch about it, I perfectly might go along without it, using ULF as they are but if I do something about my ULF then I would like to navigate explicitly to what I want.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 50
Post ID: 15558
Reply to: 15557
A new paradigm for ULF?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Romy the Cat wrote:

The most important in audio is a state of realization and obtaining this state is a matter of time I am afraid. Let pretend that tomorrow I will build/buy some kind of speaker that would do the perfect ULF channel for me...

What I am trying to say is that the ultimate ULF channel is not only a combinations expensive driver in some kind of enclosure....The satisfaction is fulfillment of objectives and in my estimate a person need first to develop well formed  objectives, very clearly visualize the result and ONLY then, after the concept is conceived and clearly indentified, ONLY THEN the person might render the objectives.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=432



Romy:

I actually agree with your approach and my slightly frivolous comments of not wanting to spend too much time researching/optimising the ULF channel should be read in the context of a partial house move to a new country whilst learning, testing, evaluating, and using own evolving understanding of sound, a field in which I profess neither innate flair nor expertise.

 Romy the Cat wrote:

...Nowadays I would like to have less ULF to midbass integration and I would like my ULF NOT to be a continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound.  It is not as bad as it sound in writing and it need to be demonstrated, not explained at a web site. Unfortunately I can’t demonstrate it even to myself and I have the notion as a pure fiction of my mind, sort of a hallucination, a dream that I would like one day to render as a reality.



Romy:

I believe that although you may be wrong to make a difference between ULF and the rest of the frequency range, this is where your better understanding of the abilities and unexploited potential of your playback enables you to take a more efficient and intuitive route to the solution which best suits your understanding of your own personal sonic needs. I admire that ability. I am the first to admit I don't think I have it, that intuitive sense of the destination before knowing even how to get there. 

 Romy the Cat wrote:

However, the last few months, since I finished my midbass project, my views slightly changed. Nowadays I would like to have less ULF to midbass integration and I would like my ULF NOT to be a continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound. 



I see a number of logical flaws with this view and I was hoping someone else, who may have a similar feeling to yours, would try to expand on it before I and/or others start discussing or criticising what is not a fully fledged argument.

The first view must be right. Without integration, and a homogeneous sound to start with, the result is complete chaos. In fact one can only look at your system to see the high order of integration and search for pattern and homogeneity between the channels ( only to mention a few, use of three Vitavox drivers, use of same topology amplication for different channels, high efficiency across all channels, a search for neutrality the dominant theme with little touches to 'colour' sound according to your undertanding of sound - re the injection channel). So the statement that your views have changed in that respect constitutes the equivalent of revisiting and reworking the American Constitution when no-one was looking. It is potentially revolutionary but chances are that you are simply mistaken and slightly off balance because your system has not stabilised enough the way you planned for it to be before your house move, not in the least because of your less than pleasant run-ins with PurePower.

A second objection is that why single out the ULF channel? For instance, why not make the midrange a separate 'stand-alone awareness of sound' or all the channels to varying degrees? You have never previously and I do not think you are now making a change in your need to integrate these channels. So it looks to me that for your view to even start making sense that there must be something about ULF that makes it different to other channels, including in fact the mid-bass and upper-bass. What could that be?

In other words, the final objection would therefore boil down to is there something about our perception of ULF which renders our understanding of it and approach to it a different matter altogether to the rest of the spectrum? Is there any merit in treating this lowest octave so differently when it accounts for such a small part of the musical works that we generally expose ourselves to and enjoy. I of course undertand that there is a difference in the way we perceive ULF when it comes to the way human hearing operates. I however cannot see a biological or anatomic rational that would require us to treat the integration of ULF any differently.

Maybe what you are suggesting has to do with very primitive evolutionary mechanisms which condition our approach to ULF. We know of course that in nature, you do not come across ULF unless something rather monumental and potentially catastrophic has happened. I am thinking of such things as earthquakes, thunder, explosions, massive collisions and crashes. But when it comes to performed or recorded music, are these primeval elements still a factor? Again I doubt it but I may be wrong.

Could it be something about our exposure to ULF in commercial or domestic installations is so inherently flawed that we need a new language to capture the potential of the lowest frequency range? I am not convinced. I hope that as your ULF channel evolves you will tell us more about this rather novel and indeed revolutionary idea that the aim maybe is not to integrate the ULF as a 'continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound.'

As a completely separate aside, in calculus, when we talk about integration we very often think either of summing or finding an original function. When we differentiate we have however lost some information that the resulting differentiated function by itself is not capable of capturing without some additional help. Maybe we do the same thing when we try to develop our playback. By definition, it is inherently limited and compromised but we can seek additional help that enables us to get that little bit closer to the performance...

All the best
Rakesh


02-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 51
Post ID: 15559
Reply to: 15558
…a number of logical flaws…
fiogf49gjkf0d

 oxric wrote:
I believe that although you may be wrong to make a difference between ULF and the rest of the frequency range….

I know when I wrote it I would raise some eyebrows of the few readers of my site who actually are thinking but not scans my site in search for the buy recommendations. Yes, I know that taking about ULF as a standalone expressive tool instead of integrated channel is not too popular and might be controversial. I think the only prove is the actual taste of the pudding and the only way to battle the controversy is the demonstration of the actual result. With exception of the fact that I have no actual results with ULF to demonstrate, even to myself, … I feel that there is “something” in what I am envisioning now.
 oxric wrote:
I see a number of logical flaws with this view and I was hoping someone else, who may have a similar feeling to yours, would try to expand on it before I and/or others start discussing or criticising what is not a fully fledged argument. The first view must be right. Without integration, and a homogeneous sound to start with, the result is complete chaos. In fact one can only look at your system to see the high order of integration ….

Yes and no. When you think about ULF being not the part of the rest frequency range but a separate expressive article then why do you think in terms of bad implementation that we all are familiar when ULF sound as irrelevant entry? When I am taking about what I am taking about I’m taking about separation but relevancy, but in a way an indirect relevancy. Let me give you an associative example, even a bit banal. Your wife wares a black dress with a single red rose. The red color of rose is not the part of rest of the bandwidth but together they form a proper ensemble...

 oxric wrote:
A second objection is that why single out the ULF channel? For instance, why not make the midrange a separate 'stand-alone awareness of sound' or all the channels to varying degrees? You have never previously and I do not think you are now making a change in your need to integrate these channels. So it looks to me that for your view to even start making sense that there must be something about ULF that makes it different to other channels, including in fact the mid-bass and upper-bass. What could that be?

ULF is different because it is a peripheral channel.

 oxric wrote:
I of course undertand that there is a difference in the way we perceive ULF when it comes to the way human hearing operates. I however cannot see a biological or anatomic rational that would require us to treat the integration of ULF any differently.

Think about timing of events. An event happens in a Symphony Hall and in 1.5 second you have around -40dB at 20Hz. Since the reverberation time in our listening room is way shorter and if the main playback care the whole bandwidth very nicely then why ULF can’t take care about let say -15dB level?

 oxric wrote:
Could it be something about our exposure to ULF in commercial or domestic installations is so inherently flawed that we need a new language to capture the potential of the lowest frequency range? I am not convinced. I hope that as your ULF channel evolves you will tell us more about this rather novel and indeed revolutionary idea that the aim maybe is not to integrate the ULF as a 'continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound.'

The idea about new language is a good one. I keep thinking about it myself for a while.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
02-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 52
Post ID: 15560
Reply to: 15559
MAD HATTER
fiogf49gjkf0d
My insite into this madness,,,Is the construction of one note box,s ULF,,, It will end up being nothing more than a series of low end ORGAN PIPE style of wood construction,,,   Alice in Wonder land style Mad Hatter of BASS MODULES,,  I guess you know the HATTER is INSANE..
03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 53
Post ID: 15679
Reply to: 15557
Thinking about my lower bass
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Romy the Cat wrote:
The major minor thing remains to find different lower bass. I said “minor” thing as my lower bass is not bad, in fact I do insist that it is very proper lower bass as I did set it up lately properly…..Despite that I insist that my currant bass is the PROPER bass I still would like to have slightly different, I have a feeling HOW it shell sound but I do not know at this point how to express it to myself in the format that I would be able to understand or implement. The things with bass will be continuing but without emergency of any kind.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
However, the last few months, since I finished my midbass project, my views slightly changed. Nowadays I would like to have less ULF to midbass integration and I would like my ULF NOT to be a continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound.  It is not as bad as it sound in writing and it need to be demonstrated, not explained at a web site. Unfortunately I can’t demonstrate it even to myself and I have the notion as a pure fiction of my mind, sort of a hallucination, a dream that I would like one day to render as a reality.  I do not have an itch about it, I perfectly might go along without it, using ULF as they are but if I do something about my ULF then I would like to navigate explicitly to what I want.

I do think about my lower bass, trying to get what I want. My current bass is very “integrated” and very musical. It low, it is large, it is extended and it is in away grandeur and it has nothing close with faulty Hi-Fi impressiveness. It never take over sound and never indicate the “bass efforts”. It is what it is and listening music with this bass I have no motivations or need to improve anything in lover bass.

However, I do have interests to have my bass to act differently.  What I would like is not the change of bass itself but the change how my room is being filled with bass. I mean I would like to be able to sense that my bass channel is on while my playback is not playing. I mean I would like to bias up my room by some excessive ULF pressure from my lover bass channels. The properly ULF biased room eats bad sounds. The LP clicks, the tape hiss and any other externals noises become not to be noticeable and the room gets that feeling of “space of empty opera theater.” The ULF channel us a mechanism to extend the boundary of the pool into which one dives – the larger pool the less back reflections from the pool boundaries…

I kind of know how to get the ULF to do the “boundaries bias” but what I reach any more effective ULF biasing I do corrupting my auditable lower and midbass. So, I kind of looking and understanding what kind alternative lower bass I might have in order the lower room biasing bass to be a separate entry with my musical lower bass. I do not have a solution yet and I am keep thinking about it. Right now I am waking around my clients offices, knocking the walls and desks and listening how they response. I am looking for an inspiration, perhaps in a wrong places...

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 54
Post ID: 15681
Reply to: 15679
Has Schrödinger's cat moved in unnoticed?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:

 My current bass is very “integrated” and very musical. It low, it is large, it is extended and it is in away grandeur and it has nothing close with faulty Hi-Fi impressiveness. It never take over sound and never indicate the “bass efforts”. It is what it is and listening music with this bass I have no motivations or need to improve anything in lover bass.

However, I do have interests to have my bass to act differently. 

The properly ULF biased room eats bad sounds. The LP clicks, the tape hiss and any other externals noises become not to be noticeable and the room gets that feeling of “space of empty opera theater.” The ULF channel us a mechanism to extend the boundary of the pool into which one dives – the larger pool the less back reflections from the pool boundaries…

I do not have a solution yet and I am keep thinking about it. Right now I am waking around my clients offices, knocking the walls and desks and listening how they response. I am looking for an inspiration, perhaps in a wrong places...

Rgs, Romy the Cat


Romy:

This is indeed a very far-fetched idea and I can fault this approach and the underlying rational in so many different ways that it seems to me pointless to even embark on the argument and enumerate the problems, both practical and on the basis of principle, that beset your search for a solution to a problem that does not exist. This endeavour reminds me of your multi-cell adventure that I seriously doubted at the time, as being anything other than a distraction brought about by frustration with another essential aspect of your playback, the poor electricity you were suffering from and the faulty PurePower unit.

You have on several occasions asserted in strong terms (in fact I believe it is one of the 'Macondo Axioms' ) that one should not attempt to change or improve a system that one has not faulted. It cannot on the face of it make sense to make exceptions when you feel there is something you would like your bass to do, which the present one does not do, whilst it is still described as not faulty. If you want to create an exception to your axiom, fair enough, but what is the ground for doing so? The exception itself must have some ground so the axiom does not loose all value.

What could be the rational for creating such an exception on the basis of a principle that will work only in a narrow range of situations? I can think of at least a few ways of formulating the ground for that exception, but it is evident that none that I can think of can contenance as an exception the notion of 'I need a different kind of bass.' It is far too wide and amounts merely to saying that you just feel like changing the presentaion of your system. You either get rid of the axiom or just admit that the sense of 'requiring something more from your bass' actually is tantamount to admitting there is actually a fault, but it is one which only infinitessimally compromises your playback.

Now assuming that you are nonetheless on safe grounds, and that there is a 'need' as opposed to a hankering for a different kind of bass, one ought to define it and maybe refer to live performances and point out whether this or that element or a combination of elements amount to that required change. There is nothing at all that you have mentioned that even gets close to identifying such an element. You try to describe some vague notion:

 Romy the Cat wrote:

The properly ULF biased room eats bad sounds. The LP clicks, the tape hiss and any other externals noises become not to be noticeable and the room gets that feeling of “space of empty opera theater.” The ULF channel us a mechanism to extend the boundary of the pool into which one dives – the larger pool the less back reflections from the pool boundaries…

 I am looking for an inspiration, perhaps in a wrong places...

Rgs, Romy the Cat


'The properly ULF biased room' idea is an oxymoron if I have ever come across one, begging the question what is its opposite, an 'improperly biased room'? If something is 'biased,' why not bias it whichever way we feel happiest, irrspective of the actual musical performance or recording. If you are talking of the build-up of tension before the beginning of a performance, that sensation of heightened reality, of being there, senses on the alert, awaiting the opening line, the sudden crash of cymbals or the soft touch of a gentle note of the grandpiano, that I think is impossible to recapture, because you cannot record our awareness of sense, time, place and occasion. Anything else, to my untrained mind, is hunting for a chimera.

I regard the LP clicks, tape hiss and other external noises as being an indissociable part of a recording. We cannot be at the performance but we can at least try to stay truthful to what's on the recording, even if we wish these artifacts of the recording engineer's job had been absent. It is one thing to wish for perfection because obviously that's what you seek (which may be a fault in itself inherent to your personality which has nothing to do with your playback) but it is altogether another thing to indulge in wishful thinking and cross the line from science, even science fiction, to the realms of a fantasy world that gets you more and more disconnected from reality and real concerns about real problems in our playback. And I am sure in time you will find real problems that need addressing with your present playback.

Regards
Rakesh





03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 55
Post ID: 15682
Reply to: 15681
Wrong.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Rakesh,

I think you take it all wrong and I think you need to perform some degaussing from my site. You created for yourself a cardboard cutout of ideas that I describe at my site but it is not what it is. Macondo Axioms are not set of rules but a direction of thinking fell free to invent your own set of Axioms that more match your experience. What I am thinking to try with bass in fact has no relation to any kind nether neither with Macondo nor with any axioms. I see no exception or any conflict.  Furthermore I do not feel that one should not attempt to change or improve a system that one has not faulted. What I am try to accomplish is not improve but new possibility. If you are sitting in 10.000 sq feet hall and orchestra play some pianissimo passages from let say last movement of Mahler 9 then closing your yeast you can clearly sense that you are a large hall. It is not only the reverberation time but about the fact the large space with absence of MF noise does fill itself with ULF noise.  I did experimented with it in past. 10 years ago I had a single ULF channel that injected into room, +10dN at 9Hzl. At the same time I experimented with LF delay channels and I know that all of it might be effective if used properly. What I would like is to get that effect of “expectation nervousness” that exists just before an even take place. I think it comes via ULF and I do not mind to experiment with it. If it not going to work then it will not going to work. I am very good to declare my fiascos as fiasco, cut loses and move forward. You are also not right about my multi-cell adventure. I am for years saying that I would like to have Fundamental channels to run lower then I have. I did implement it and it worked perfectly fine. The problem is that I do not like how multi-cell looks like being incorporated with Macondo. The multi-cell visibly feels as it something alien and adds too much technological feel to my room. I just did not like it on pure visual merit and it what made me to stop looking into it for now.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 56
Post ID: 15683
Reply to: 15681
Groove Echo
fiogf49gjkf0d
Rakesh, if Romy's ULF is "faultless" at this point, then he should play the lottary - once.  Perhaps part of the quandry stems from confusing "bass" with ULF.  Once you let go of that, it better falls into place.

As for the pops, clicks, tape hiss, etc., in the best cases they are present without interfering with the music.  Ideally, all extraneous noise can be minimized and/or "set aside" from the music, and there are actually rote ways to facilitate this, and Romy has either included his observations about ULF in this context or he has included the noise issues in the context of "ULF" features.

One more thing is the "groove echo" foreshadowing of change that may make us at least appear to be out of sync with our own manifestos.  And every so often, a change makes the need for it clear.

Best regards,
Paul
03-03-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 57
Post ID: 15684
Reply to: 15683
Wrong? Actually, our actual positions differ very little, surprisingly enough.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Romy:

Wrong? I am every now and then wrong, as most people are, and I am always grateful for any chance to gain a better understanding of anything that has my interest. But given how I now understand your position, I don't think there is a real disagreement in our views.

If the issue is merely to recreate a better sense of the live performance, then I completely agree, and most people would, that we should try to use all the means at our disposal to achieve just that, inasmuch as the quallity of the recording allows us to do so. No real disagreement there.

As for the use of the multi-cell, I understand why you did not go for it much better now. It is interesting to note that aesthetic considerations can sometimes preempt something that was nonetheless deemed beneficial in other respects. Life, even our pursuit of perfection in our audio systems, has to be a balancing of priorities after all..


 Paul S wrote:
Rakesh, if Romy's ULF is "faultless" at this point, then he should play the lottary - once.  Perhaps part of the quandry stems from confusing "bass" with ULF.  Once you let go of that, it better falls into place.

As for the pops, clicks, tape hiss, etc., in the best cases they are present without interfering with the music.  Ideally, all extraneous noise can be minimized and/or "set aside" from the music, and there are actually rote ways to facilitate this, and Romy has either included his observations about ULF in this context or he has included the noise issues in the context of "ULF" features.

One more thing is the "groove echo" foreshadowing of change that may make us at least appear to be out of sync with our own manifestos.  And every so often, a change makes the need for it clear.



Paul:

If it is a question of playing the 'lottery', then of course it is perfectly fine as long as one is clear that that is what one is trying to do. Nonetheless, I do not think that is what Romy meant, although his meaning was not too clear initially.

As for your comment on pops, clicks and tape hiss, that corresponds pretty much with my own view. I cannot see why you felt that I thought differently.

Within the limitations of my system, I look to recapture that sense of being there, as far as it can be done, from looking at the whole spectrum rather than focusing on the bass frequencies. This CANNOT be a bad thing. In fact, it is rather amusing that this discussion takes place just as I am learning about a very different presentation of the musical performance, using only a pair of recently acquired Beveridge speakers which have an interesting dispersion pattern, creating a cylindrical wave of 180 degrees. I am presently only using one channel though (they are very old speakers and I need to have the other one checked). In due course, if that is of interest, I will let you know what THAT peculiarity of the Beveridges does to the overall presentation when it comes to capturing the ambience of the venue, as captured on the recording. My experience though is that the ability to recreate the ambience of the venue is so dependent on the quality of the recording, that one can only hope to effectively achieve that sense of being there with only a small proportion of the recorded works available to us.

Regards
Rakesh
03-03-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 58
Post ID: 15687
Reply to: 15684
Listening help with ULF stimulator
fiogf49gjkf0d
 oxric wrote:
If the issue is merely to recreate a better sense of the live performance….
It might be not “recreate a better sense of the live performance” but rather to be able to administer in my own and deliberate way some “listening help”. I would like to have a feeling that listening event has started without music being played. You know that effect when conductor raises his hands before staring, the entire symphony hall in absolute silence and it feel almost like sound pressure went to negative numbers. I think it has a lot to do with “freedom” of LF. That sense of feeling that something inevitable will happen I think is encoded with ULF. You have that feeling a few minutes before a summer sunder storm hit the spot where you stay.

I use to call my old ULF channel “ULF stimulator” and I felt that Sound being dump in a room that is “ULF stimulated” do sound more affective. I uselessly use Sound of applauses. I hear a lot of life recordings and I hear a lot of applauses. The sound people who do recordings and cut off applauses from live recording are idiots in my view but this is a whole different subject. I can say LOT about the sound of a given audio installation by the way how a playback plays applauses. So, if you play applauses with ULF injection and with it they will be VERY much different sounds and very different feeling from the playback efforts.
I know exactly what I would like to do with my ULF, I do not know for now HOW to make my ULF in order it to do what I want with room biasing, to add the very bottom mass to my auditable bass and at the same time do not crap out all over my midbass…
 oxric wrote:
As for the use of the multi-cell, I understand why you did not go for it much better now. It is interesting to note that aesthetic considerations can sometimes preempt something that was nonetheless deemed beneficial in other respects. Life, even our pursuit of perfection in our audio systems, has to be a balancing of priorities after all..

If I have a dedicated listening room then I would go for it with no questions. However, since my Macondo are parts of my normal leaving environment I would like them if not to be pretty but at least do not disturb me visually. When I first attached the new assembled multi-sells in place of my current Fundamental Channels (I did it with a lot of scotch tape) I did not like the look and feel of Macondo. The whole columns-style of drivers assembling was breaking up and that horizontal array of multi-sells felt like an overly industrial entry from a different design.  

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
03-05-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 59
Post ID: 15703
Reply to: 14967
The ULF debate: time-alignment
fiogf49gjkf0d
I have today a local audio guy stop by at my place for some listening. He never was in my new place and was curios what have done with my new room and my new installation; he was in my old room. When I asked him to criticize what he heard he mention that he would like to have the very lower bass slightly heavier. There were a number of opinions exchange but in the end I disagree with him. I feel the amount of bass I have is fine and in my point of view it is in very precise and very deliberate amount.  My bass in a way unique among many playback basses out there. It is absolutely no audio impact. It has proper and necessary music impact but it does not go for audio “audio overkill”. You need to hear it to understand how it done. There is no more auditable bass necessary and in my view the demand for more bass is coming from fatly expectation that audio shall produce some kind of added bass that does not exist in real world. What might be usable in my room is the non auditable, let say 12Hz bass, but the bass that does not interacts with my current bass.

I did some demonstration to my visitor of the different bass type that I am able to get in my room. I think he saw my point and the negative impact my current ULF cheval has to my sound. They he said something that made me to think. He asked how I deal with ULF time-alignment. I deal with is in some ways but near not as serious as I deal with MF. So, I am wondering: are my problems with ULF are in fact the problem of time-alignment? In my old room I had no problem with bass, the same ULF, well they were not ULF but just bass channels, but they were time-aligned. So, I wonder….. 
 
The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 60
Post ID: 15705
Reply to: 15703
Trying to address the dilemma with lowest bass.
fiogf49gjkf0d

I have with bass not a problem but dilemma. I do not have problematic bass but I have a dilemma how to supplement my current bass with ULF without affecting my current bass. Adding ULF defuses my current bass, renders the bass phasing to be more generic and I will not tolerate it.

So, let analyze the situation and to build some rational behind it. I own 3 major ingredients– I have a great all together bass, I know what I would like to get as a result and I know how to discriminate successes and failures. What I do not know is the reason why my current ULF does not do what I want what I run it at full throttle. So, let analyze the possible reasons for underperformance.

1)      Instrumental problem: wrong ULF transducers wrong amplifiers.

2)      Implementation problem: wrong crossover frequency and slope.

3)      Timing problem, including the horizontal alignment.

Do I have instrumental problem? Possible. I would like to have larger drivers with resonant frequency of 11-12Hz. I do not have such drivers. The 10 drivers that I do have are 20Hz driver and it is very low. My problem is that I do not have just 12 of them but I have 24 of them. If I engage all of them then I will have an equivalent of ten 18” drivers – a LOT of displacement volume at true 20Hz and with very linear excursion. The amplification? I still think about it. Frankly the Instrumental subject might underperform but it is in my estimation is NOT the main reason. The character of the ULF sound and the way how ULF crap over my general bass advise me that I need to look somewhere else.

Implementation problem. As long as I spent time with placing with my ULF crossover it might be not enough time. I still might have wrong everything and the reasons why I was not a able to make the things to work in the way I want to is because the Timing Alignment.

This brings me to the last subject: the arrival aligned and the axis alignment. We so much believe that alignment s not relevant to bass that we do not even think about it. What we are taking about axis alignment we feel that for that low frequency the wavelength is so long that time difference in arrival from right side and left side of woofer is irrelevant. It might be all true but might be THAT is responsible for smearing of my bass by my ULF? I know that in my old place I had absolutely no problem with ULF but in my old place ULD and bass was reproduced by the same channel. What however was also in my place – my bass towers were in time- aligned position and the woofer were looking directly at me – there was no right/left side of driver misalignment.

So, looking for those 3 candidates I think I need to filter out the Timing problem first and if it is a factor then it will crap over other reasons. So, no matter how much my aesthetic inclinations protest me to do it I need to bring my ULF section right outside of Macondo, time-alight them and to see what happens. I think it has to be the burst step…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 3 of 8 (149 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Macondo Alternation. Extending the LF line-array..  Macondo and not only Macondo positioning...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     8  109649  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46024  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  No wonder...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     72  407106  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  1514951  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2004324  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  12447  10-08-2010
  »  New  Bass impact on Turntable: how to estimate objectively..  I have done some work on this in the past....  Analog Playback Forum     4  29412  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  16188  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Sorry, no images any more....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     56  487777  04-23-2009
  »  New  Monophonic bass: myth and reality...  I do not think so but I am OK with it....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     5  24989  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  27470  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  9774  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  32844  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  85913  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  334978  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  15682  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  416009  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  Awesome...  Audio Discussions  Forum     41  8368  07-29-2018
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts