Heavy gauge speaker wire versus ACD technology
Comments
-
Interesting considering the 20 is well regarded.Not bad for a budget DIY design.Related to that point, people also praised the ZMV5, preferring it to the Paradigm Studio 20 for vocals and upper octave content.
While one can expect a 5" to have limitations I was mildly disappointed with the MCM 3870 in that it bottomed rather easily if pushed moderatly hard on bass rich material.I was hoping and found it to be the case that substituting the ZA14 helped and doesn't run out of xmax quite as quickly.The problem with the ZMV5 is that the significant lack of bass extension always gets in the way of a clear comparison.
Thanks,I was curious if there were any glaringly unatural effects apparent with some source material.I would say in many instances cancelling interaural crosstalk is the more natural way to listen and much closer to how we hear things in real life vs. precise imaging from a point source. -
In regards to loudspeakers accurate measurements can have a much stronger correlation to how they sound vs measurements of amps and preamps etc.Even the best sounding speakers can have variances in their responses of several db whereas most modern amplifiers will exhibit ruler flat response.I think most on this forum believe that significant audible differences can exist between amplifers even if they perform equally well on the test bench.So there is nothing in the measuements can pin point why they should sound different.With speakers assuming accurate measurements there is usually strong indicators in it's response that can point to the reason for some of it's sonic character.
Perfect, then you can read this excerpt from post #173. . . here's a different example: imagine two speakers have the same flat on-axis SPL and directivity, but one uses low HD/IMD drivers, and the other uses some lousy drivers. Its possible to build such a creature. These speakers will not sound the same as their low-distortion counterparts even though they generate the same SPL curve.
Good question that one . . . .
So what is it that accounts for the difference if SPL graphs are inconclusive ??
How does he measure what constitutes "some lousy drivers?"VTL ST50 w/mods / RCA6L6GC / TlfnknECC801S
Conrad Johnson PV-5 w/mods
TT Conrad Johnson Sonographe SG3 Oak / Sumiko LMT / Grado Woodbody Platinum / Sumiko PIB2 / The Clamp
Musical Fidelity A1 CDPro/ Bada DD-22 Tube CDP / Conrad Johnson SD-22 CDP
Tuners w/mods Kenwood KT5020 / Fisher KM60
MF x-DAC V8, HAInfo NG27
Herbies Ti-9 / Vibrapods / MIT Shotgun AC1 IEC's / MIT Shotgun 2 IC's / MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Cables
PS Audio Cryo / PowerPort Premium Outlets / Exact Power EP15A Conditioner
Walnut SDA 2B TL /Oak SDA SRS II TL (Sonicaps/Mills/Cardas/Custom SDA ICs / Dynamat Extreme / Larry's Rings/ FSB-2 Spikes
NAD SS rigs w/mods
GIK panels -
Let's address these issues one-by-one. State clearly, in a sentence or two, where you think the contradiction was in the case linked to above, something like: "in this post you said X, then in this one you said not-X".if he can't make an excuse to counter he just simply passes by
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1532845&postcount=80 -
The nonlinear distortion graphs.inspiredsports wrote: »So what is it that accounts for the difference if SPL graphs are inconclusive ?? -
This thread should be re-titled, How Not To Approach Audio.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Thats a hypithetical case.In reality it would IMO be very difficult to find two different speakers that had near identical on and off axis responses.inspiredsports wrote: »Perfect, then you can read this excerpt from post #173
So what is it that accounts for the difference if SPL graphs are inconclusive ?? -
As in the measuement part of the approach?This thread should be re-titled, How Not To Approach Audio. -
Sure and while my post count is to small to expect me to present anything of substance I do enjoy discussing all things audio as long as the tone is kept civil.
You are too humble to forget 3000+ post counts with may be 1/2 of more of useful posts under the lost user ID?
You got to be kidding about the substance part. :cool:
Trying out Different Audio Cables is a Religious Affair. You don't discuss it with anyone. :redface::biggrin: -
And, if you read the last column of the review (did you get that far?), it points out that the SDA actually lacks the "sharply defined imaging" of "some conventional speakers". Now, why do you suppose that is? What is the subjective term for a wide sound stage with mediocre imaging?
The review said some things that were true for that reviewer, but we must understand the technical realities in 1987 with regard to amplification and associated electronics. The SDA designs were actually ahead of their time, particularly with regard to the amplification available at that time.
SDA's are capable of sharply defined imaging, but they require high quality, high current, low noise amplification to do so. An amp with a fairly high damping factor is also a nice thing to have. I, and other SDA owners, have been constantly amazed at the imaging and sound stage improvements that have resulted from improvements in amplification quality. If you ask around the forum, there are quite a few of us using SDA's with electronics that one might think far "outclasses" the SDA's. Many of us have failed to find something more satisfying than our modified SDA's, even in speakers costing $15,000 to $30,000.
Unfortunately, Stereo Review's policy back then was not to identify the source components and amplification, or even the room specifics, that were used in their reviews. Such information would have been valuable in assessing what kind of performance resulted from particular associated electronics. I assume they did not want to be seen as endorsing those components. Nowadays, a professional reviewer who does not list their associated equipment would not be taken seriously.
The 1987 Stereo Review SDA 1C article also goes on to state (last column):
"The speaker does not project the stereo stage forward of the grille (except along the side walls) but tends to have a more "laid back" quality. The sound has depth, extending beyond the wall behind the speakers, as well as width, but the very techniques that create the SDA effect (multiple drivers and cross-coupling between channels) probably keep it from achieving the pinpoint positioning of certain sounds that can be experienced with some speakers using a minimum of drivers, especially when they are angled toward the single optimum listening position."
I think the author overstated his experience with the speakers by speaking in absolute terms. Rather than saying "the speaker does not project the stereo stage forward of the grille", it would have been more appropriate to say "the speaker did not project the stereo stage forward of the grille with my audio system in my room".
Even in stock form, but with appropriate amplification and room setup, SDA's are perfectly capable of generating a sound stage that extends beyond the front plane of the speakers. With modifications, and appropriate amplification, the sound stage grows bigger, heavier, deeper and clearer.And I think the thread accomplished something very concrete and useful; namely, it demonstrated (not claimed, demonstrated) that a soda can atop your speaker changes what you will hear more than upgrading speaker wire (provided the wire meets the well-known length-gauge requirements).
Comments such as these...I came up with the idea of the ACD. The details of the construction are perhaps too technical for this forum, so they are skipped for brevity.
...from someone relatively unknown to the forum membership can certainly be seen as insulting and inflammatory. The truth is, you are not the only one around here with extensive scientific training or even a technical Ph.D. You'd probably be quite surprised at the depth of technical talent possessed by our membership. Just because we do not wear our diplomas around our necks it doesn't mean we've never walked across a university graduation stage.
I'm not trying to throw rocks at you, but your "soda can" review comes of as condescending and mocking. Perhaps your intentions were honest, perhaps not, but do you really think that most of us are not aware that adding mass to a speaker cabinet will change the speaker's sound? Moreover, many, perhaps most, of us know that changes in cabinet mass, component damping, etc. can be more audible than a "mere" cable change.
The question we could ask, and probably should ask, is the small change brought by the cable change more musically pleasing than the bigger change brought by the soda can on top of the speaker? What about the change that can be achieved by simply moving your seating position forward or backward a just a few inches? Can't that also produce more of an audible change than changing cables...or perhaps even source components?
What about aesthetics? Even if you won a Noble prize for proving that the ACD provides better sonics than a high quality speaker cable, how many of us would have such a thing sitting on our speaker tops? Some of us refuse to install acoustic room treatment panels because we, or our significant others, don't like the way it looks.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Strictly tongue in cheek James,having recently seen a comment referencing post count.You are too humble to forget 3000+ post counts with may be 1/2 of more of useful posts under the lost user ID?
You got to be kidding about the substance part. :cool: -
I think they were combative because they don't undertsand or distrust scientific data and science in general.
Name just one time where you have made any real contribution to technical understanding on this forum.I want the test repeated with a gallon of Ripple emply.
Don't you also want to be the one who gets to "empty" the jug. Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Name just one time where you have made any real contribution to technical understanding on this forum.
Amen; as true a statement as I've ever seen posted here.VTL ST50 w/mods / RCA6L6GC / TlfnknECC801S
Conrad Johnson PV-5 w/mods
TT Conrad Johnson Sonographe SG3 Oak / Sumiko LMT / Grado Woodbody Platinum / Sumiko PIB2 / The Clamp
Musical Fidelity A1 CDPro/ Bada DD-22 Tube CDP / Conrad Johnson SD-22 CDP
Tuners w/mods Kenwood KT5020 / Fisher KM60
MF x-DAC V8, HAInfo NG27
Herbies Ti-9 / Vibrapods / MIT Shotgun AC1 IEC's / MIT Shotgun 2 IC's / MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Cables
PS Audio Cryo / PowerPort Premium Outlets / Exact Power EP15A Conditioner
Walnut SDA 2B TL /Oak SDA SRS II TL (Sonicaps/Mills/Cardas/Custom SDA ICs / Dynamat Extreme / Larry's Rings/ FSB-2 Spikes
NAD SS rigs w/mods
GIK panels -
That's rich. You make it sound as though I burst into a meeting of the English Ladies Countryside Association and started a fistfight. Why don't you go back through the hundreds of posts, add up the shameful insult tally, and tell me honestly who's way ahead. How many times did I have to listen to nonsense like "flush this ****", from your esteemed 20,000-post-colonel, after doing nothing more than posting a series of serious measurements of the SDA2B.DarqueKnight wrote: »...from someone relatively unknown to the forum membership can certainly be seen as insulting and inflammatory
As this stage, I would expect you -- as very evidently one of the more thoughtful members of Club Polk -- to give an honest appraisal of what really happened here. -
Actually, its the diffraction induced by the soda can that colors the sound. And love me or hate me, I bet many of you are going to take that message home with you.DarqueKnight wrote: »I'm not trying to throw rocks at you, but your "soda can" review comes of as condescending and mocking. Perhaps your intentions were honest, perhaps not, but do you really think that most of us are not aware that adding mass to a speaker cabinet will change the speaker's sound? Moreover, many, perhaps most, of us know that changes in cabinet mass, component damping, etc. can be more audible than a "mere" cable change.
The soda can was not intended as an improvement -- only as an illustration that a soda can on your speaker does more than a $10,000 cable to change the sound field that reaches your ear.DarqueKnight wrote: »What about aesthetics? Even if you won a Noble prize for proving that the ACD provides better sonics than a high quality speaker cable, how many of us would have such a thing sitting on our speaker tops? Some of us refuse to install acoustic room treatment panels because we, or our significant others, don't like the way it looks. -
The soda can was not intended as an improvement -- only as an illustration that a soda can on your speaker does more than a $10,000 cable to change the sound field that reaches your ear.
You tested this with a $10,000 cable? -
As this stage, I would expect you -- as very evidently one of the more thoughtful members of Club Polk -- to give an honest appraisal of what really happened here.
I did. However, you seem to be so focused on "winning" and proving your point(s) to all the "ignorant audiophiles" here that my appraisal was not well taken. It's no big deal really. Some things take time and maturity to appreciate.The soda can was not intended as an improvement -- only as an illustration that a soda can on your speaker does more than a $10,000 cable to change the sound field that reaches your ear.
Oh, OK. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, you win. Congrats.
With that, I will leave you to your contest of wits. Good luck with whatever you hope to achieve here. Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
As this stage, I would expect you -- as very evidently one of the more thoughtful members of Club Polk -- to give an honest appraisal of what really happened here.
I did. However, you seem to be so focused on "winning" and proving your point(s) to all the "ignorant audiophiles" here that my appraisal was not well taken. It's no big deal really. Some things take time and maturity to appreciate.The soda can was not intended as an improvement -- only as an illustration that a soda can on your speaker does more than a $10,000 cable to change the sound field that reaches your ear.
Oh, OK. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, you win. Congrats. Some people probably have found that simply taking their speaker grilles off provides a bigger positive change than a $10,000 cable.
With that, I will leave you to your contest of wits. Good luck with whatever you hope to achieve here. Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
The soda can was not intended as an improvement -- only as an illustration that a soda can on your speaker does more than a $10,000 cable to change the sound field that reaches your ear.
I did not realize you were using $10,000 cables in your measurements.
However, and I think this is the major sticky point here, you are assuming that SPL measurements alone are sufficient, and many, if not most, disagree with that. Maybe I have missed it, but I do not remember ever seeing a speaker manufacturer use SPL measurements to quantify the quality of their speakers.
I am looking right now at an ad for YG Acoustics speakers, and they use two graphs: frequency response, and phase response of the mid-woofer and tweeter for cross over comparisons. Nowhere is SPL mentioned. While I'm sure it is a valid measurement, it is not the only measurement.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
While the term SPL is being used(by some) it is actually the frequency response that is being refered to and the subject of the discussion.
I am looking right now at an ad for YG Acoustics speakers, and they use two graphs: frequency response, and phase response of the mid-woofer and tweeter for cross over comparisons. Nowhere is SPL mentioned. While I'm sure it is a valid measurement, it is not the only measurement. -
That's rich. You make it sound as though I burst into a meeting of the English Ladies Countryside Association and started a fistfight. Why don't you go back through the hundreds of posts, add up the shameful insult tally, and tell me honestly who's way ahead. How many times did I have to listen to nonsense like "flush this ****", from your esteemed 20,000-post-colonel, after doing nothing more than posting a series of serious measurements of the SDA2B.
You mean that testing that was, at best, done in a quasi-anechoic environment? That same thread where I made two comments, neither of which said anything about "flushing this ****"?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Your memory is as bad as your science.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
While the term SPL is being used(by some) it is actually the frequency response that is being refered to and the subject of the discussion.
True, but he is using SPL levels over a freq range, while the YG ad is comparing their freq response against a competitor in the 25K plus speaker range. YG is flat while the competitor shows variance, with no mention of SPL levels over the range.
The first two sentences in the ad says, "An established objective of loudspeaker design is to convey music with proper tonality. This is achieved through s flat frequency response - the flatter it is, the less a loudspeaker alters the timbre of musical instruments and voices."
If the graphs at the start of the thread represent frequency response then the test was flawed at the start due to poor speakers with wildly varying response measurements.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
I'd really love to make a desktop monitor (tuned to function properly in the near-field) with the ZA14 and a small neo tweeter (maybe http://meniscusaudio.com/sb-sb29rdnc-p-1049.html).I was mildly disappointed with the MCM 3870 in that it bottomed rather easily if pushed moderatly hard on bass rich material.I was hoping and found it to be the case that substituting the ZA14 helped and doesn't run out of xmax quite as quickly. -
Yes. In fact, I wrote quite a long post in this threadWhile the term SPL is being used(by some) it is actually the frequency response that is being refered to and the subject of the discussion.
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1533768&postcount=93
to clarify the "SPL isn't everything" concern. Numerous related points are addressed as well. -
Since they were'nt originally intended for desk top use mine have the full baffle step com. I think they would benifit from a few db reduction.I'd really love to make a desktop monitor (tuned to function properly in the near-field) with the ZA14 and a small neo tweeter (maybe http://meniscusaudio.com/sb-sb29rdnc-p-1049.html).
That SB is a nice tweet .I was very tempted to use it in my budget active 3 way but budget restraints meant I had to settle for it's under priviledged sibling.http://www.sbacoustics.com/index.php/products/tweeters/sb25stcn-c000-4/ .Surprisingly good for a $20 tweet. -
You mean that testing that was, at best, done in a quasi-anechoic environment? That same thread where I made two comments, neither of which said anything about "flushing this ****"?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Your memory is as bad as your science.
You're right. The number of insults exceeds my memory capacity. You waited a bit to start using that expression. You started out by saying thisI use my ears, they never let me down.
and then thisThat alone proves that whatever you're doing, you're doing wrong.
Off to the list.
after I noted that "the addition of the grill attenuates the high end about as much as switching from the SL2000T to the RDO-194" (which is a fact; see http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1418386&postcount=6). So we see that you put me on your ignore list for the heinous act of data analysis!
The disturbing Freudian stuff came later:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1534064&postcount=136The toilet needs flushing.
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1421576&postcount=21Can we flush this **** yet? -
That's a good find. If I can believe the SB datasheet it looks great -- looks like it would require zero to minimal shaping. Are you able to compare it with the DQ25? Because near-field summation in crucial is a desktop design, I want to squeeze the drivers as close together as possible and cross over below 2kHz. Baffle step is a good point too -- because I typically listen every night at low levels (< 70dB) while my family sleeps, I wonder if +6dB is not unreasonable given Fletcher-Munson.Since they were'nt originally intended for desk top use mine have the full baffle step com. I think they would benifit from a few db reduction.
That SB is a nice tweet .I was very tempted to use it in my budget active 3 way but budget restraints meant I had to settle for it's under priviledged sibling.http://www.sbacoustics.com/index.php/products/tweeters/sb25stcn-c000-4/ .Surprisingly good for a $20 tweet. -
Well so far I just dropped it into small box and crossed over to 4" Peerless mid at 2k LR4 and adjusted levels,the results are encouraging.The mid tweet sit atop a bass module that covers the <300hz range.
-
We don't seem to agree, but you're cool about it and I respect that.DarqueKnight wrote: »Good luck with whatever you hope to achieve here. -
LR4 acoustic?Well so far I just dropped it into small box and crossed over to 4" Peerless mid at 2k LR4 and adjusted levels,the results are encouraging. -
Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk
