Also, the fire alarm went off today. Everyone grumbled "Are you $%^%^& kidding?", as things were just settling in very nicely, and then several thousand people calmly walked down the flights of stairs. After 45-60 minutes, there was an "all clear" announcement. A silver lining of the interruption was a chance to share opinions with others.
Many big names missing from Axpona in Chicago. Worth attending the show?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
That is very unfortunate. Scaena is as good as it gets in this hobby, period. I think the issue is that those huge woofers require a large, dedicated room (not to be shown to the wife). What sized room does Scaena recommend?
Frantz,
Stating that a generally accepted fact is a myth and linking it with your general feeling about audiophiles is derogation. Sorry. We are addressing the exceptions in the successful cases we refer - happy to know this time we consider that extra money well spent. Go to ebay or a general DIY speaker shop catalog and look for the typical 18" woofer that is being sold there. Most are around usd 100. They will probably sound slow.
Considering that the same engineering problems exist in a small and in a large woofer shows you are not considering that speakers having small woofers usually have many woofers. In general, no one will try moving the same amount of air with a small woofer than with a large one. Of course, bass is an engineering problem and engineering problems have many solutions, some are more cost effective than others.
My other experiences from the past - the first model of the KEF 105 and the original B&W 801. Both the 105/II and the 802 (similar models using each two smaller 8" woofers had faster bass. Another slow bass - the Snell type A. A fast bass with many woofers - the Revel Salon2.
Ok, I reformulate- if cost is a concern, most probably a large woofer means "slow" bass.
A generally accepted fact? My general feelings about audiophiles ? What are you talking about? The notion that a 18 inch woofer is slow is NOT a fact .. As a matter of fact that it is so widely held make of it a myth, a belief not based on truth. Period. As for some bought on ebay 18 inch sounding slow is a textbook case of argumentation fallacy
I see that at the end logic prevailed thus you wrote
Of course your parting shot is not a good argument either ... but we can leave it at that... It is all good
Back to Axpona...
See if you can make it to RMAF, I 'll be there this year.
Frantz,
Congratulations, you manage to distort my ideas, even presenting cases that were only shown as an example of bad use as an argumentation fallacy. I try to refer to facts and examples, you prefer to use your pen ...
Interested readers can find why thinks are not as simple as many will think in this interesting explanatory Soundstage text:
There are reasons to use lighter, lower-mass woofer cones. They just happen to be different reasons than the ones you’ve read in print. Smaller woofers don’t make faster bass, but they do reproduce higher frequencies than larger woofers can reproduce, and this is all important when it comes to speaker design. You want the midrange driver and the woofer to integrate with sublime symmetry, with perfection and with nary a single problematic interaction throughout their overlap zone. This is why you want smaller, lighter, "faster" woofer cones -- not because they lead to faster bass. That overlap zone is so amazingly critical to your perception of bass speed that there is little or no tolerance for error. The null tolerance for integration error extends to phase, amplitude, frequency, and time. Introduce even slight variations between any part of the woofer and midrange (or panel) overlap zone and you get audible effects in the bass or midbass. This is where all of your perception of bass speed comes from.
In fact, bass speed is virtually 100% a function of how ideally the midrange and woofer are integrated
See it all at :
http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm
I have read another debate on these matters, showing preference for several small woofers in an article about the Revel Salon2, but could not find it.
microstrip
You posted::
What is the generally accepted fact that I stated as being a myth? The idea of a slow woofer? It is a myth and no amount of dithering and of backtracking will change that ...
And of course you make the case that bass speeds is a function of integration not of woofer size thus .. dispelling the myth .. Thank you then
Will not reply in this thread .. We can take it elsewhere
Back to the Axpona show
Last edited:
I've been worried about that since I was told that the room they would be displaying in, The Othello, is the largest room there. Too bad the DX monos at 100wpc were bought and thus could not be used.
Caesar-Sorry I missed you as I was at the show. And yeah, the fire alarm was a bummer. It was interesting as to how most people didn't take it seriously because there were no flames flickering about their ass, but I personally don't take any chances when fire alarms go off. My motto is to get out first and ask questions later.
After working on speakers for a good +20 years, I can say with a certain amount of confidence that 'bass speed' or 'woofer speed' is deeply tied to crossover phase considerations.
That the bass wave may be slow, but it's fine placement of timing with respect to midbass/mid/low treble become EVERYTHING.
This new work showing how the ear can be 5-10-12-even 15x better than FFT analysis in the phase department..this bit of work illustrates this point quite abundantly. let's say it is largely a 35hz wave, if sine analysed. But that it has other components.
It matters not that it is principally made of a 35hz component. It's correctness in phase, in positioning in time..must be at the 2khz-4khz-10khz and beyond in perfection of phase location, or location in time, in relation to the rest of the musical components.
Standard analysis might put this phase 'view' as being 0.01% of the 35hz wave's native relationship in time, but the complexity of music says that analysis... is immaterial and can be dismissed. The phase is the phase and the ear gives a damn, as this is all it is looking for. It wants phase and level on transients, and the rest it does not give a flying fornication about. Those things it cares about, it is a very accomplished device, as it commits to 100% of it's interpretation (decoding) in those areas.
Can the ear hear a drum note that is principally a, oh.. 35hz note... and place it perfectly, with respect to time relation to other components of the signal, in the microseconds area of jitter/timing aspect? Can it tell if it is 'off' or not? If it is correct, or not? In the microsecond area? Really?
The answer is yes, it can.
That the bass wave may be slow, but it's fine placement of timing with respect to midbass/mid/low treble become EVERYTHING.
This new work showing how the ear can be 5-10-12-even 15x better than FFT analysis in the phase department..this bit of work illustrates this point quite abundantly. let's say it is largely a 35hz wave, if sine analysed. But that it has other components.
It matters not that it is principally made of a 35hz component. It's correctness in phase, in positioning in time..must be at the 2khz-4khz-10khz and beyond in perfection of phase location, or location in time, in relation to the rest of the musical components.
Standard analysis might put this phase 'view' as being 0.01% of the 35hz wave's native relationship in time, but the complexity of music says that analysis... is immaterial and can be dismissed. The phase is the phase and the ear gives a damn, as this is all it is looking for. It wants phase and level on transients, and the rest it does not give a flying fornication about. Those things it cares about, it is a very accomplished device, as it commits to 100% of it's interpretation (decoding) in those areas.
Can the ear hear a drum note that is principally a, oh.. 35hz note... and place it perfectly, with respect to time relation to other components of the signal, in the microseconds area of jitter/timing aspect? Can it tell if it is 'off' or not? If it is correct, or not? In the microsecond area? Really?
The answer is yes, it can.
Last edited:
We can see some pictures of Axpona 2013 Show Report by Joe Alexander of HTS
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...w-report-joe-alexander-hts.html#ixzz2NAcSjwlj
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...w-report-joe-alexander-hts.html#ixzz2NAcSjwlj
Scaena doesn't have a specific recommendation on room size. I have put them in a 12x16 room and had them sounding good, but as with any speaker, that's can have you sitting pretty close to the back wall which is not ideal. It helps that they work well too sitting close. Harry Pearson's room is small and they sound spectacular there IMO.
I've also installed them with a single Paradigm Sub 1 instead of the dual Scaena woofers where space or aestethics came into play.
I use to live in a shack as a poor college student, but it had no home theater.
Thanks for the link
That was close...now that I am married to 101E MkIIs for over a year, divorce at current state of our union would have been costly...
Heard both rooms with Venture speakers. I'm not familiar with the models but I thought the smaller speaker sounded better than the larger units. Clearly a setup issue as bass was severely lacking among other problems. Neither room was all that memorable. The finish of the Venture speakers is absolutely stunning though. Sorry, can't give you more. I wasn't taking notes or pictures.
That was close...now that I am married to 101E MkIIs for over a year, divorce at current state of our union would have been costly...
In all fairness this was not the best I've heard the 101's sound. It was a very challenging room that the MBL team had work with. They draped it in curtains and installed very cool looking glass/ plastic diffusers around the room. (Anyone know what they are?)
But just like a world champion who finds a way to win, they pulled it off. With the tape source material, it was a transcendental experience. It was unlike anything most audiophiles have ever experienced.
You have nothing to worry about.
To my ears, the big Venture room had very "beautified" sound. If this is their sonic signature, I totally get why their owners and fans are so passionate about the gear. However, it lacked the dynamic swings of a real show, like say the Von Scweikert room across the hall. Again, I'm not sure if it was the large room or the associated gear that caused it to sound more beautiful than real.
Similar threads
