兩聲道
CD機 | MD機 | SACD機 | DAC | CAS | 合拼擴音機 | 前級擴音機 | 後級擴音機 | 接線 | 喇叭線 | 揚聲器 | 耳機 | 耳機擴音機 | LP產品 | 膽機產品 | 開卷式錄音機 | 音響配件 | DIY音響 | 電源 | 家庭影院
電視機 | 投影機 | 錄影機 | DVD影碟機 | Blu-ray影碟機 | 多媒體播放器 | 機頂盒 | 多聲道擴音機 | 多聲道揚聲器 | 多聲道影音組合 | Mini音響組合 | 重低音揚聲器 | 輔助設備 | 同好會
同好會 | Accuphase | B&W | Burmester | Denon | Jadis | KEF | KRELL | Luxman | Marantz | Nuforce | OPPO | Pioneer | TEAC | WEISS | News
News | Blog | 其他
其他 | 所有 |
| 影音天地主旨 ﹝請按主旨作出回應﹞ 上頁 下頁 首頁 尾頁 | 寄件者 | 傳送日期
|
| [#1643] Quad ESL speaker I had always wanted a pair for a "second" system, and I am encouraged that in HK one can find 幸褔! One day when I have a tidier place I'll try to find 幸褔 ! But I'll have to have a pair of 狂野放蕩 BIG horns at least for the main system to play my Bruckner and Mahler and Shostakovich! 狂野放蕩後找點幸褔的感覺, 貪心吧? |
doctorjohn 正式會員219.xxx.xxx.137 |
2006-10-21 10:37 | |
|
|
|||
| [#1644] Quad ESL speaker rcwy: "...fresh 幸褔的感覺 to me..." No, not everything can give 幸褔的感覺! Not that easily at least! Could it be that rcwy is 狂野放蕩 at heart??? |
doctorjohn 正式會員 219.xxx.xxx.137 |
2006-10-21 10:40 |
| [#1645] Quad ESL speaker Gentlemen, excuse me for interrupting but I thought 狂野放蕩 = 幸褔 |
kris 正式會員 203.xxx.xxx.47 |
2006-10-21 10:57 |
| [#1646] Quad ESL speaker Could it be that rcwy is 狂野放蕩 at heart??? ________________________________________________ Could very well be from the way he helps DJ stitching up the dalliance. But isn't the 狂野放蕩 already exhibited in the good sounding Tannoy? |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 10:59 |
| [#1647] Quad ESL speaker 狂野放蕩 = 幸褔 __________________ Depends on your gender. |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 11:01 |
| [#1648] Quad ESL speaker 狂野放蕩後找點幸褔的感覺 __________________________ Sounds like to me having a cigarette after the fight and not getting dressed and rush home! |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 11:06 |
| [#1649] Quad ESL speaker 狂野放蕩 = 幸褔!! Ah, Kris may be right. Now maybe even 幸褔 has to be qualified. OK, try again: 狂野放蕩也可是一種幸褔 溫心的感覺卻可能是更真點的一種幸褔 幸褔來得不易 但 "keep fresh" 更難 剛找到卻想要更 "fresh" 一點的... 在眾多助語詞中, 幸褔消失了. |
doctorjohn 正式會員 219.xxx.xxx.137 |
2006-10-21 11:17 |
| [#1650] Quad ESL speaker 在眾多助語詞中, 幸褔消失了 ______________________________ DJ, That's beyond words. A feeling that only music can describe. |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 11:21 |
| [#1651] Quad ESL speaker cp/patrick, I may or may not be able to attend your workshop session next Tuesday. But my spirit will be with you. |
feikeung 正式會員 211.xxx.xxx.132 |
2006-10-21 13:02 |
| [#1652] Quad ESL speaker I may or may not be able to attend your workshop session next Tuesday ---------------------------------- Feikeung......We'll call you for direction to yr shatin house Tuesday morning. How big is yr Maggie? CP will be driving his Utility Sport Vehicle. Will it be enough room for all that? Regds Patrick |
Pcs100 正式會員 219.xxx.xxx.151 |
2006-10-21 13:42 |
| [#1653] Quad ESL speaker Below is a speaker placement method advocated by Jim Smith who has quite some experience in Magneplan, ARC and Avantgarde. This is a faily long article but with some points of interests. I would like to invite comments from limage, our expert in this area, specially as their methods seem to share some remarkable resemblance despite differences in other areas. Here's how it goes: __________________________ "A simple three-step speaker installation technique for satisfying results This three-step technique will get you to a satisfying sound faster than any other system I've seen. The three steps must be followed in this order. 1. Bass 2. Image 3. Frequency response/tonal balance OK, what do we do at each step? First, you've got to get the bass generally pretty good. This means that if you have a full-range speaker, it should reproduce the deepest bass with the greatest smoothness. Why does the bass come first? Until you know how far away you'll be sitting (speaker position and listening position), how can you proceed to step 2, getting the best stereo image? And we've seen that we can make some adjustments in the overall frequency balance with subtle changes in position (separation and toe-in). But first we’ve got to at least establish the distance to the speakers from the listening seat before we can begin to decide how far apart we want our speakers. (1) The best bass - a throwback to early TVs. Here's how long I've been teaching this technique for getting the best bass. I started out using a TV analogy that asked the installer to compare this step to the tuning methods from TVs of the '60s and early '70s! Those TVs had a fine tuning knob and channel selector switch. Here's the analogy: Finding the best placement for the speaker in the room is a bit like fine tuning for best reception. But finding the best place to locate the listening seat is a bit like using the channel selector! In other words, the most important consideration (whenever possible) is to discover where in the room you should sit to take advantage of the least negative room interactions (obvious peaks and dips in the bass), and the most positive room interactions (the most extension and attack without annoying overhang). This is because your room will have obvious standing waves developing in the bass region (well call this region 25 Hz to 250 Hz). These standing waves are very measurable and they are quite audible as resonances or 'suck-outs.' They exist due to your room's particular geometry. Moving a speaker forward and back in the room can make a noticeable difference in the bass. But moving the seat forward and back the same distance in an average room will result in much more dramatic differences in bass performance. Although these resonant room frequencies can be considered axially, tangentially, and obliquely, our primary concern here is with axial. These consist of destructive (to varying degrees) waves and constructive (to varying degrees) waves. A destructive standing wave is produced when two or more wavelengths meet at a point in a room, and due to the time arrival of these waves some will arrive slightly (or even directly) out of phase with others. The varying time arrival is based primarily on room geometry (for example length of the room vs. height). This results in a cancellation of frequencies at that particular point in the room. Destructive standing waves produce dips in frequency response. Conversely, constructive standing waves can produce peaks in response. The following system assumes you've placed the speakers in a generally acceptable position in the room: A simple way to prove this theory is to put on a CD recording with a repetitive bass line (preferably the upright acoustic bass maybe Ray Brown). You'll need to move your listening seat out of the way, perhaps to the side of the room. A note on the recording - select a piece that plays bass notes up and down the scale. While it's playing on repeat (that's why I chose CD as the source), walk back and forth slowly through the larger proposed listening area. You'll notice dramatic differences in bass quality and quantity in a space of +/- 2~3 feet. Listen closer and you'll find the smaller 'window' of acceptability for that particular bass line. Once you've found the best spot to locate the seat (again, only for that particular series of bass notes), you'll notice that moving the speaker forward and back an equivalent difference makes much less of a difference. This is all to say that your room resonances are going to be pretty much the same for most likely speaker placements, so find out where in the listening end of the room these resonances are least objectionable, and that's where you'll sit. A quick note on finding the overall best bass listening position in a room the quickest way to do it is with a real-time analyzer, preferably 1/3 octave. You'll need to use pink noise as your source, set on the slowest filter, using flat or C-weighting. You'll need to run its SPL level at least 20dB over the room noise floor, so as to avoid any unrecognized interference with your measurements. You're only looking at the region from around 25 Hz up to about 250 Hz. You'll notice immediately that fairly small movements forward and back in the room are very obvious on the display as the various peaks and dips become quite easy to see. Don't have a RTA sitting around? Try to borrow or rent one for a few hours. By the way, I do NOT recommend using a Radio Shack SPL meter and test tones for this procedure. Actually, if the tones were 1/3 octave pink noise bands, it could perhaps work, but unfortunately the Radio Shack meter simply isn't very accurate in its frequency response. And the RS mic suffers from proximity effect, unlike an omni (which is the preferred pick up pattern for a microphone in this application). You could use the test disc and your ears, though! Can't find a RTA, or you’re uncomfortable technically with the idea of looking at how your room behaves in the bass resonance region? Then find several recordings of music representative of the stuff you like to hear, and adjust for the best bass by listening while moving back and forth in the general listening position. What you're listening for is the majority of the bass reproduced with the notes neither emphasized nor diminished. You're also listening for the deepest bass. But sometimes the price for getting the deepest bass in an average room is an uneven bass response in the region where most bass notes occur. This is where you’ll have to pick the best compromise to your ears. At this point, you'll find that a difference of six inches or less forward or back will usually present you with a choice of the bass compromise you prefer. Once you've discovered this listening position that is least affected by room resonances, mark this spot (or at least measure how far it is to the wall behind you and write it down). Now you can play with fine-tuning where the speakers go to make the bass better. Once you have that position to the point that is best to your ears, you'll need to recheck the listening position a bit to make sure that a slight distance forward or back isn't necessary now. (2) Imaging and the X-files Finally you've established pretty closely where you'll be, and approximately how far away the speakers will be. Once you know 'X,' you can start to work on 'Y.' X is the distance from your ear to the plane of the tweeter (should be equidistant from the listening seat to each speaker). Let’s say X is 10 feet. A general guideline is to start Y at about 80% of X. Y is the distance from the center of the left tweeter to the center of the right. We use the tweeter because it’s the primary source for directional cues (imaging). A note on separation this is to your taste. I personally like Y to be about 83% of X for most speakers. For planar speakers, Y may be smaller, maybe as small as 70-75% of X. Some companies want you to use an equilateral triangle (X and Y are equal in distance), or greater. I suggest playing a mono source like female vocals and keep pulling the speakers apart until the voice becomes a fairly precise point between the speakers. Pulling them apart any further results in a too small voice or one that now begins to come from each speaker. Bring them back to the point where it worked, switch from mono to stereo and check out the image. This technique assumes you've established a grid on the floor so that movements are the same for both channels. The other test is simply to notice when the female voice starts to sound unacceptably thin. Then voice the separation by tonal balance, as well as image precision. Once again, it's a compromise. You have to decide what means the most to you. (3) Frequency response/tonal balance Remember how we said that changing the separation could yield a cooler or warmer sound? And how toe-in can also dramatically affect balance (particularly high frequency balance)? Well, now you're at that point (this assumes that your speakers are either nonadjustable, i.e. tweeter level control, bass level control, etc., or that you've selected the nominal 'flat' position as a starting point). Here's an example and listen, it's just an example you might feel quite differently. I find that if I set up most direct radiating speakers on an equilateral triangle, the sound (for my taste) is usually too lean. I can hear all the tiny sounds in the soundstage, but it's become a precise, almost mechanical sound. It's not 'relaxed' for want of a better word. It makes great Audiophile stuff, but the sound just doesn't have the body and warmth that I hear with live music. And yet, I know highly respected reviewers and manufacturers who prefer to listen with Y being greater than X. That’s why it’s your taste remember, it's not about some notion of 'accuracy,' it's about the music and you. Step 3 is the final fine-tuning that will make the difference for you. One final note some Audiophiles adjust toe-in to make the speaker seem to 'disappear.' This is usually not on axis, but aimed to crossfire somewhere behind your head, or even aimed straight ahead. This is your call as well. I recommend going for the musical balance before going for an audiophile sound effect, but sometimes you can get both, so go for it if you like. This should get you pretty close to a satisfactory set-up. There are even smaller increments of adjustments that can pay significant dividends, but that's a topic for another time (I call it 'Playing the room')." |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 19:42 |
| [#1654] Quad ESL speaker "Below is a speaker placement method advocated by Jim Smith who has quite some experience in Magneplan, ARC and Avantgarde. " while i'm not limage, i just throw in my 2 cents. i'm surprised this 'jim smith' is from Avantgarde. he seems to be living in some kind of time warp regarding room acoustics. i don't think any one who has experience in room acoustics will tell you to use 1/3 octave to test room response at low frequency. this must be some kind of a joke. 1/3 octave will smooth out the signal so much that is does not give any meaningful information. |
drwkng 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.76 |
2006-10-21 20:22 |
| [#1655] Quad ESL speaker drwkng, Sharp eye. But is it not that the intention is only for the roughest indication of the room response to the 25-250Hz bandwidth as a whole rather than a meaningful equalization? If that being the only intention, even 2/3 octave suffice. Any further comments? |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 22:24 |
| [#1656] Quad ESL speaker cp, as i said before, i regard speaker placement as a small part of the room acoustics problem. within a confined space, audio reproduction has 2 main problems, namely room mode and comb filter. as mentioned in the article, room mode is mainly a sub 300 hz problem. i wouldn't deal with the problem just by shifting the listener position. yes it will help but the room mode problem is still there. and you probably end up with a small sweet spot. i would rather use someting like bass traps to even out the bass response of the room. if one wants to see how good the room response at low frequency, use at least 1 hz resolution if not lower. but bear in mind that one is not going to get a flat response. +/-3-5 db will be super for low end. once one gets an even bass response, one would go to tackle the comb filter problem. this i would think can be tackled by acoustic absorber and diffuser. aim at a good reverberation time for a broad frequency spectrum. make sure the first reflection is taken care of. this will give realistic soundstage width wise. i don't agree with using the first reflection on the side walls to create an artifical width. this will compromise resolution. the depth of soundstage is a lot more complicated. but if you sorted out the above you are almost there. |
drwkng 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.76 |
2006-10-21 22:51 |
| [#1657] Quad ESL speaker drwkng, I agree with you totally in this respect. This Jim Smith has developed this method out of very primitive means, and as you said, the use of an RTA and 1/3 octave is a joke. That is only for visual. There are some obvious flaws in the method e.g. there is no mentioning of 1st reflection in tackling the distance from speakers and separation of speakers. The 83% is something out of the blue. However, it does respond to my previous argument with rcwy about finding that sweet spot (or focal point). Both of them use similar method but Smith is for the listening position whilst Richard is for the speaker position. Smith's backing reason is the highest "constructive resonance point" for listening position, though controversial, is somewhat acceptable to me; whilst Richard's theory of reverse wave propagation to me is absolute nonsense. However, that "focal point" for speaker positioning, while leaving room mode aside, did prove to be effective. Whether these 2 are related, is still in my mind unresolved. |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 23:15 |
| [#1658] Quad ESL speaker cp, one qualifier about my approach is that it is for traditional front radiator type speaker only. for dipole, i'm still quite puzzled. especially for those full range dipole, i've no idea how to get an reasonable soundstage. for me soundstage is a mid to high frequency problem. for dipole, i can't see how one can talk about depth. the sound is diffused by nature of the speaker. and there is a significant portion of the sound is coming from the back of the speaker through reflections. this will create an artificial sense of depth which is not really related to the signal. for me depth is to do with relative signal strength. one person perceives depth relying on relative signal strength. so the dynamic range is a good indication of the possible perceived depth. for a system to have good depth, it must have good dynamic range. however for a dipole, the sound reproduced doesn't render the original relative signal strength accurately. hence i don't understand how can one reproduce realistic depth with a dipole. of course it does not mean dipole is not nice sounding. it gives you the illusion of presence because of the diffused sound. accuracy... hmmmm i dont' know. |
drwkng 正式會員 203.xxx.xxx.232 |
2006-10-21 23:15 |
| [#1659] Quad ESL speaker cp, "However, it does respond to my previous argument with rcwy about finding that sweet spot (or focal point). Both of them use similar method but Smith is for the listening position whilst Richard is for the speaker position. Smith's backing reason is the highest "constructive resonance point" for listening position, though controversial, is somewhat acceptable to me; whilst Richard's theory of reverse wave propagation to me is absolute nonsense. However, that "focal point" for speaker positioning, while leaving room mode aside, did prove to be effective. Whether these 2 are related, is still in my mind unresolved." i'm a scientist. i don't want to get myself too tangled with voodoo science. with voodoo science, we just about give up on understanding the nature of things and the ability to predict. that's not my idea of fun.:-) |
drwkng 正式會員 203.xxx.xxx.232 |
2006-10-21 23:19 |
| [#1660] Quad ESL speaker And what I like this JIm Smith method is that at least he gets the sequence right. |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 23:21 |
| [#1661] Quad ESL speaker with voodoo science, we just about give up on understanding the nature of things and the ability to predict. that's not my idea of fun _______________________________________________________________________________ drwkng, There's a fact presented there, a certain result out of a certain methodology. Most people give up understanding the underlying reason. But if you could find out the theory behind, that becomes something predictable for a certain result or for a differently exepected result. Isn't that fun? |
cpsjj 正式會員 218.xxx.xxx.85 |
2006-10-21 23:31 |
| [#1662] Quad ESL speaker cp, 'But if you could find out the theory behind, that becomes something predictable for a certain result or for a differently exepected result. Isn't that fun?" i'm afraid the theory is fairly established. as i said before the law of acoustics hasn't changed much lately. only our experiences changed. you know one way of getting away from most of the room acoustic problem is to listen near field. when one gets closer to the speaker, the direct field dominates, the room problem is not so prominent. one can come up with all sorts of theory based on this experience but they are fundamentally an expression of a particular condition. the problem with voodoo science is that not that they are not true but they are usually an expression of a special condition. trying to generalise that is where the problem lies. all these 82%, 1/3 placement method etc, are only the experience of some people with certain setups. i'm sure their experience is valid for situations they have experienced. but they are not the basis for any theory per se. it is more than often the ignorance of the basic theory that led people to come up with all sorts of theories or methods. instead of trying to understand the experience based on fundamental theory, one has to come up with some 'new found theory' to generalise the experience. |
drwkng 正式會員 203.xxx.xxx.232 |
2006-10-21 23:46 |
