RonyWeissman wrote:

I heard the Audio Note AN-Es, they were pushed back into the cornes in specially prepared room and they wer very interesting. Dynamics were world class, cellos were extremely hairy, piano left hand was tremendous, everything you said. Still, the electronics are not the strings (apologies to Duchamp) . You have to hear through the electronics , and these speakers highlighted the electronics for me.

Chirag wrote:

The only things I can come up with is the possibility of using musical friendly woods (not that i have a clue what the difference between oak and cedar could be) that resonate sensitively just enough to produce a musically motivating charm, but not enough to get in the way.  Some combination of MDF and wood is just simple enough to work.

I was under impression that you are in Chicago. Anyhow, I am coming to very interesting conclusions - I’m not kidding. The wrapping up how to instigate that sense of bubbleness are very stimulating and it might be accomplished by ridiculously simplistic means. I would like do not report the premature results at this point but what I have discovered so far suggests that using musical friendly woods is absolutely irrelevant.  The only thing that I apologetic is that I personally do not need any speakers and therefore I would not be going for rendering the concept in a full scale loudspeaker.  It shame… If I have in Boston a speaker manufacturer with senses, ability to discriminate results and a desire to make something REALLY interesting then it might be an exciting playground and quite possibly very beneficial for his commercial sound.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Have you considered replacing the cover on the tail of your Upper-Bass horn? ...With a large-diameter circular cover, made from a more resonant material (when I say large diameter, I mean quite a bit larger than the diameter of the rear chamber)?

Well, I was thinking about that “Resonating Oops” for a while. I made quite a number of experiments. I some cases I was able to get interesting results but the “Resonating Oops” is very illusive. I do know that many readers of my site have wrong perception of that this “Resonating Oops” is. I understand it and perhaps the name “Resonating Oops” is not really accurate term. Yes, the “Resonating Oops” effect sounds like alien resonances, and yes - it colors sound. However, the major question “how” it colors and what happens with sound BESIDES THE COLORING.

Here is where we approach to the most complicated question in loudspeakers – are we planning to be right and happy and by means of what kind implementation? Some vintage drivers (not all but very few of then) in appropriate application do produce a glorious, phenomenally glorious, insultingly glorious tone; in fact it is not tone but rather aberrations of tone. Still, those tonal aberrations are so appealing to sonic connoisseurs that they live and die to implement those aberrations in their listening rooms. However, the problems with all that  vintage crap that the acoustic systems that have those superbly valuables aberrations (or something that I labeled as “Resonating Oops”) do not have accuracy, fidelity, range, low distortions and in 100% of all cases those “colorful acoustic systems” also poison sound, inflicting into sound their attractive aberration unintelligently, evenhandedly and unfairly. Let take for instance the Tannoy Reds in common original enclosure or Vitavox S2 with metals suspension + AK drivers.  They have all glory of superb tonal aberrations across the entire range, with very sweat and very human tone. However, deeply admiring this tone, I got sick form THAT sound very fast because those “Resonating Oops” EVER-PRESENT EVERYWHERE WITH IDENTICAL FORCE. Each single instrument by a student of Berkley School of Music sounds like Stradivarius and each single player play in the same “sticky” way. All orchestra have the same tone and all singers sound like Callas in the end of the 50s. It is astonishingly pleasant for the freak-shows but it is also very ANNOYING FOR SERIOUS MUSIC LISTENING.

So, after many experiments of trying to imitate this “Resonating Oops” and constant failures I asked myself why juts do not combine the fidelity, dynamic and presentation of Macondo with strategically injected “Resonating Oops”? I begin experimenting with the “Injection Channel”, using Red 10”, equalizing, positioning, aligning and tuning it by measurements and by ears. Eventually I’ve found a very interesting configuration where the Injection Channel is driven by a separate full range Milq and here the Injection Channel does work very-very wonderful.

I drive the Injection Channel at 8dB-10dB below Macondo, flat from 10K down to ~125Hz. The Injection Channel is in phase (acoustically) with Macondo and precisely time aligned (very auditable). Injection Channel does not REALLY affect the Macondo response (it affects within 1/4dB are very FEW frequencies). However, what it does with sound was EXACTLY what I was looking for years. It preserves all presentational Macondo’s benefits but at the same time it has a very-very insignificant touch of something that I call “the sound of faded flowers”. It very-very faintly adds to Macondo’s tone my beloved perfume of spooled see weed mixed with aroma of fine English tea. It looks like a decoration for Verdi opera lit by light with very mildly reduced color temperate, making it to “sound” like a summer light at 3.30PM, instead of the summer light 1PM or 6PM… It is extremely pleasant effect but there is even something more….

I have a simple attenuator at the Injection Channel’s input and I might vary tha output of the Injection Channel from minus 6dB (more it sounds too much “yellow” and screws up imaging to much) to minis whatever unauditable It is a powerful tool as well as VERY useful.

At the first day what I set everything up and calibrated the WHRB broadcasted the Du Pre orgy. It was such a fun to play with Injection Channel and setting the desirable effect depends of the recordings and the orchestras … I was great… Today I played a lot of Buckner – Celibidache, Hausegger… It was not a good idea to play the Buckner 7th on May 9 but what can I do – I love the music. Besides, I hardly feel that any composer more benefited from the Injection Channel then Buckner with his “accordion sound”. The Injection Channel demonstrated itself superbly effectible and it is here to stay.

Because my need of another full range Milq for the Injection Channel I made some alternation of my plans for 5 channels single-stage Melquiades. I decided to convert my current 3 channels Super Milq into 6 channels super Melq (+3 single-stages). I do have a clear idea how it might be done and it will be relatively simple to accomplish (Sp, I will not build the amps into the Macondo frame). I will post the information about the Super Melquiades modification is the appropriate thread.

Yes, the "Injection Channel" consists of a pair of Tannoy Reds, used as direct radiators, in sealed enclosures. I would not say that they overly specifically optimized. I did many optimizations equalizing them, filtering them but I never was able to get the proper Injection effect. Eventually I tried something very simple – to let it run as is but to attenuate them at 2- 2.5 times. This gave a very positive effect and then the main problem is left - the positing. Since the "Injection Channel" runs full range with the Reds tweeter outputs plenty at 10K there is no space to put it. With near 30Hz resonance frequency the box should be relatively large so the only way where I can put it in Macondo would be right or left from the tweeter. However, with this position imaging go severally distorted eave with Reds run at minus 9dB.

Last Sunday I put the box with read above the Macondo frame and it was positively different. The box with Reds now at the very same vertical line with all other Macondo drivers and the Red’s bass and Red’s MF shape a very tall (equal the height of the room) line array. To my big surprise, THE PROPERLY DIALED BY LOUDNESS the Injection Channel  has very-very little affect on imaging and practically do not shift presentation vertically. So, I low-passed the Reds at 8 K and it looks slightly better (not perfect), allowing to add 1dB to the Reds output.

I did not finish with the experiments yet but the general result is extremely positive and it accomplished by surprisingly little means… My ultimate objective would be to run the Injection Channel enjoying it’s all benefits but at the same time having absolutely no negative consequences to the rest of sonic presentation. I do not think it would be difficult….

Paul S wrote:

Do you find equal benefits from the same oops levels (and/or placement) with all types of music at all listening levels?

I did not detect any fluctuation my “oops” desire with listening levels. The Injection Channel is driven from the same preamps and it’s level is identical for all volumes. I did detect that my desire of the “oops” higher with larger symphonic music and lower with vocal and chamber. Probably within 1.-1.5dB of the Injection Channel’s volume…

Paul S wrote:

Not to lump you in with them in any way, but you may have heard for yourself that the Cogent system either includes or allows a lot of resonance, which I thought better suited large scale works than smaller and/or lighter fare, and this was +/- the case with my own limited, unsuccessful experiments, as well.

I did not see among what Cogent do anything resembling to intentional dealing with resonances

Paul S wrote:

Do you find it desireable to manipulate the "oops" in any way on a case-by-case basis?

Yes, I do. Deferent recordings react differently to the output of the Injection Channel and generally I wary it from minus 8dB to minus 12dB

Interning that the strings and are the primary beneficiaries of the “Injection channel” effect. It would be hard to explain to people who never were not in my room what the effect is but I would try. (Yoshi you have to visit me again and what I tried to prove you with Janos Starker I can do again with Macondo)

OK, readers let tell stories. Pretend you used a well performing playback, loaded the JBL/Large-Altec MF drivers. Everything is great but you feel that when strings go soft and when the recording is too up closed then stings are loosing transients and bow sonically almost slip across the strings without creation of those zillion bubble within sound. Yes, with audacious play and a bold instrument recorded up-close (Anne Sophie Mutter’s for instance) a JBLed/Alteced playback could crate some kind of imitation of the “string” but as soon a volume goes down, or some ambiance in the recording delude the “strings immediacy” then it requires a lot of imagination to feel that what is being played have any remote reflection of stings Sound.

Well, you are suffering for a while, unloading the anode of your SETs and bitching that you lost harmonics when you did it and then, reading my site you decided to invest a little in my audio blabbering – you buy the Vitavox S2 driver instead of JBL/Altec or …. instead of anything else compression… Now you are in a totally different ball game as the properly used S2 has that “edge” that you so need but at the same time while doing the “edge” the driver has a perfect harmonic integrity and hold the “tone”. However, since you are an audio psycho and you need constantly increase the dose of audio heroine you soon begin to ask yourself: how can I get even more that nerves scratching “edge”.  You want more “sonic ecstasy” but you are not wiling to sacrifice anything among you already got. You want to take the “edge” even further but you do not what any sharpness or roughness.  You want “it” to be very smooth, very airy but at the same time you what under the hood of that airiness beating a hart of “airy anxiety”. You want “space” itself to be an expressive tool and you want not just recognize violas as something “between second violin and cello section” but rather you want to do what you do at concert - to LOOK at a given player and while you do it to be able in your listening concentration to feel sound of the given player within of the entire section. You learn from the 78s. You listen the 78s and learning in how it should be. (I do not know how you but I might listen THIS SOUND (and THAT play!!!!) from 78s for a whole day in a loop … Courtesy to Andy Rose)

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Audio_Files/Debussy_Jeux_Santa_Cecilia_Sabata.mp3

So, you would like to push slightly more, why not? It has nothing to do with music; it is pure audio, the “abstract audio” as I like to call it…

So, how can we get more of THAT “edge”? How can we get the “edge” without loosing “tone” and with breaking connectivness between to notes and converting Sound into a stream of the isolated Booleans? Sure the better drivers would be the answer. Please name them to me, I always am looking…

Well, here is where the injection channel might be as answer. You have a playback that care the basics of the presentation - tone, dynamics, articulation, phonetics and lexicon of musicality and then have a little poison brash with witch you retouch Sound in a way your musical and audio intelligence suggests you to. You do not EQ sound or misbalance it in anyway you juts strategically inject purely ACOUSTICALLY toxic and venomous touch from your Injection Channel into a proper sound of your listening room. I like this direction and so far I am encouraged with the result. Do not take me wrong: it is not problem-free and it requires demonstrating to yourself some taste and some self-discipline – well perhaps it is true with any drug, not only with Sound….

However, I can testify that a general experience with my Injection Channel - properly arranged, correctly dialed-in and with correctly chose type (crucially important) of venom, is more interesting then without Injection Channel. Isn’t it what the advanced audio and evolved music reproduction techniques should be all about?

Paul S wrote:

You have mentioned that you want a much larger enclosure for your oops unit.  I was then wondering if you aim to merely broaden and/or lower resonant response or if you planned to in some way tailor resonance as it relates to Fs.  Then I thought about the "nearly sealed" enclosure that can be tuned by stuffing or otherwise variably blocking its +/- port, which is what Tommy Horning does with his $$$$$$ units.  Because you have described the injection as "toxic", like that little dash of arsenic that keeps one sharp,  perhaps a vari-port is an option in this unusual and isolated "toxic" case?

Paul S wrote:

Well, it looks like you've somehow managed to just drop this "oops" box of yours in there and very neatly offset some main speaker small peaks and valleys, which is VERY interesting, if not the point...

Not really, the response of Macondo itself and the Injected Macondo are virtually identical. Be advised that that way how I listen my playback the injection channel even 3dB less then at the graph above.

Paul S wrote:

But my guess is that you would have to go way over to the dark side to get anything significant from the Red below 100Hz, ie, the "B" word (boost), IF more "oops" LF is desirable.

I do not know, and I do not think you know. However, I know how 1o” Reds sound in 1.5 cub feet and in 6 cub feet (I have both), so I know what I will get.

Paul S wrote:

My own experiments with BR port variations indicate that a LOT depends on the box itself, no surprise there.  If less-than-rock-stable, the skin itself tends to resonate, as everyone knows, but the surprise for me came when my "crappy box" resonances went up and down in pitch, complexity and volume just with port tuning.  I started with the typical rookie bid to get all LF I could, and just at or below the point of lost reason the cabinet sounds just took off, and they got very "interesting", even though this was not what I was after at the time.  I was using a 15" concentric, I don't remember which one right now, but I started off trying to A/B it with my VOTTs and wound up running everything at once, much to my wife's consternation.  Room modes were HUGE in my case, in fact that's mostly why I gave up. Oddly enough, however, the "injection" changed and/or smoothed out some primary LF modes, and it was "up the scale" that I ran into more serious problems.  I only had so much latitude with room treatment at the time.

Pail, it all might be OK for a normal operation but it is absolutely not applicable for Injection Chanel. You think that the Injection Chanel should have some kind of balanced sound but it is mistake. The Injection Chanel is a lemon - it added some taste and flavor to the whole salad but it is not meant to be eaten itself.

Paul S wrote:

Anyway, since this thread is already "toxic" I will stop beating around the bush and just toss it out there:  Equalizer... I add as I run for cover:  Narrow Band Equalizer...

Perhaps, but I do not see need to use it at this point. Also, not with the dual concentric the Injection Chanel is in phase across the whole range. How it will be after EQ… go figure. Anyhow, I do not know what which purpose I would use EQ…