| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Macondo’s lowest channel. (151 posts, 8 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 7 (151 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  150767  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  62894  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  A link to another thread....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     120  678781  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  2141292  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2968989  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  18064  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  47460  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24447  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Danley DTS-20....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     57  689140  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  46576  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  44795  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  15023  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  49270  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  128075  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  484731  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  24436  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  877805  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  The Organic Bass vs. ULF Drivers...  Audio Discussions  Forum     43  130011  07-29-2018
11-14-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,143
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 26
Post ID: 14939
Reply to: 14936
This morning I woke up horny
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Anyhow, I did the measurements today and what I saw shocked me. Of the ULF sections has nice 20Hz at MF level then they have +12dB at 60Hz level. That explains everything but it also absolutely clearly indicates that the selected location must not be used for ULF. That sucks as I have no other space in the room that can accommodate 80sq feet of sealed enclosure without ruining the room feel. Well, I need to find another solution; this is what I will be concentrated upon.
Not particularly most of the people do but becomes my mind was wrongly stimulated by the aim to find a new location for ULF channel ands it what I was intending to do this morning. I connected my text ULF devise- the Sunfire Cube subwoofer, the measurement instrument was sitting in the room since yesterday and I began to search the better location.
The biggest obstacle is 60Hz huge peak that I have if I inject 30Hz into the room. The peak is there and it mostly come from the rotunda addition to the room on the right, I do not know how to call it and I call it the equipment bay. It looks like the peak not there if the ULF is on the left side of the room but there is no space in there for large boxes.

I was trying to hide the ULF in different rooms, taking advantage that the house has open floor plan- it did not help – the 60Hz large peak cam each time when the ULD is coming from back. I was pouting the ULF in the basement and was firing it through the floor. It was not good. I lost 40dB-45dB at sub 30Hz and the overtones were all over the sub 150Hz.  Also, the damn house felt as it was about to collapse – those houses are not built to handle this LF stress…

Anyhow, I need to come up with something different. The infinite baffle on the left side of the room, opposite to the equipment bay would be interesting but I know little about infinite baffle. It would need to beef up the roof to do it and I am not doing it as experiment and without knowing the result.

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
11-14-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 27
Post ID: 14944
Reply to: 14939
Dsp
fiogf49gjkf0d
OK, then better DSP than wrecking the house.
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/whats-new/2010/8/16/subwoofer-room-correction-devices-audyssey-velodyne-dspeaker.html
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 28
Post ID: 14947
Reply to: 14944
Parametric filters
fiogf49gjkf0d
And don't underestimate the Antimode with its parametric filters. There was a discussion with audio professionals about this topic on diyaudio.com.
When the filter Q is matching the Q of the room mode one also has a correction in time domain.
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 29
Post ID: 14951
Reply to: 14947
SMS 1, Act II
fiogf49gjkf0d
In this case, below 50Hz, I think el`Ol is right to suggest that you consider using DSP as a permanent solution. The SMS 1 is in theory the silver bullet... You just need to find out if you can live with it long-term.
 
Best way to find out...
 
Place your ULF drivers all together in an area of your choosing, then spend some real time with the SMS 1 dialing out the problem. Use the defeat function on the remote (I think its preset N° 6 by default) to decide how much destructive effect you are able to detect as a result of its intervention.
 
For now, you are using a bunch of 10" drivers (old mid-bass arrays) to produce sound below that of the 15" drivers in your mid-bass horns... It can be done, but it ain't natural and will certainly be calling on the SMS 1 to do more than if working with real ULF channels using drivers larger than those in the mid-bass horns. This means that when you evaluate the destructive effects while using the 10" drivers, you are likely witnessing a sort of worst case scenario.
 
Keep at it,

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,143
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 14952
Reply to: 14951
I think I have found the problem with my ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d
 jessie.dazzle wrote:
In this case, below 50Hz, I think el`Ol is right to suggest that you consider using DSP as a permanent solution. The SMS 1 is in theory the silver bullet... You just need to find out if you can live with it long-term.
 
Best way to find out...
 
Place your ULF drivers all together in an area of your choosing, then spend some real time with the SMS 1 dialing out the problem. Use the defeat function on the remote (I think its preset N° 6 by default) to decide how much destructive effect you are able to detect as a result of its intervention.
 
For now, you are using a bunch of 10" drivers (old mid-bass arrays) to produce sound below that of the 15" drivers in your mid-bass horns... It can be done, but it ain't natural and will certainly be calling on the SMS 1 to do more than if working with real ULF channels using drivers larger than those in the mid-bass horns. This means that when you evaluate the destructive effects while using the 10" drivers, you are likely witnessing a sort of worst case scenario.

I disagree that using a bunch of 10" drivers is some kind of compromised in way.  The six 10” drivers give me a surface of 2.3 18” drivers. Do you have anything against of a pair of 18” drivers the have no problem that a topical 18” do? Well, it is not so simple. An array of light 10” drivers do have own advantages and they also have own disadvantages against a large drivers.  I use foe now what I have enclosures for and my problem not is not with the fact that I use wrong topology of ULF channel.

Last night I have a lot of fun doing a lot of listening. I peaty much spent entire evening just spinning the Cds. I practically did not touch the Macondo – it was as very good and the Macondo configuration is locked.   I was juts playing music and sometime did some this with ULF, trying to see how it works. Macondo in the new room has some differences in performance, so it was interesting to see how it all goes. BTW, the room treatment is done in new kinky way and I absolutely love it sonically and esthetically.

Observing everything I concluded that I found the problem I had with my ULF channels. It is not about the topology or the woofers location but rather about my head - the wrong expectation that I have about the ULF. I need to re-think my ULF. The midbass horn is keep breaking-in and it sound better and better each week. The decay it has is like nothing else that I was accustomed; add to it the uniqueness of my sealing radiation. To supplement this 42Hz horn with properly performing ULF channels require some senses that I did not develop yet. I am getting to this realization but I am not there yet. The 42Hz horn is very self-sufficient and ULF is not necessary. Very few would believe that it is just 42Hz as it feels hugely low and hugely large. Also, it is properly calibrated and it does not flood the room with bass – it stop where it need to be stopped. Playing Jazz and Blues (I have some it) there is absolutely no need for ULF. Playing Classical I do feel a need for ULF and not, what the midbass is all done and operate as it is the new expectation for ULF arise.

To setting the ULF propel is a subject of self-moderation as I would like do not affect the midbass in any ways. I think it will be higher than 2 orders and I think it will be a transition slope. The DSP crossovering do help a lot but I do not plan to use any parametric EQ. the 30Hz with 4th order and on the slope, has no music under the bottom to EQ. It just adds a bit weight for that very bottom of the “ohhhh”, it is not auditable with 90% of music but it give some sort of “softness altogether”. This balance between softness and the weight is something that I need to learn to balance.
Meanwhile if I use the SMS then I need a second one and I do not know a save way to mix the channels. I would also need to learn how to open the SMS – at this point I was not able to do it.

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
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
scooter
Posts 161
Joined on 07-17-2008

Post #: 31
Post ID: 14953
Reply to: 14952
SMS distortion issue?
fiogf49gjkf0d
The following comment on the SMS distortion is at least worth considering:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/bfd-electronic-equalization-devices/6346-behringer-fbq2496-velodyne-sms-1-distortion.html


One thing is sure: either the user's measurements or the SMS has a serious issue.
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,143
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 14954
Reply to: 14953
At 30Hz of high order there are not truly tone” of “sound”
fiogf49gjkf0d
 scooter wrote:
One thing is sure: either the user's measurements or the SMS has a serious issue.

Yes, I read it and this is why I would like to open the SMS up and to see myself what it does. I still have no idea who to open it. I do not think that the DSP part in there is problematic. The output stages in those devises are usually superbly bad. There are many ways to fix it if it was open.  Sure I would love to be able to run it with no proxy DSp devise but I do not know how to get 4 order without it. I have 2 order in my power amp, so I need another 2 order on speaker level. This would male 65mH coil in series and 500uF cap to ground. The 65mH coil, even with iron core it will be a good Ohm or two – too much to have a good dumpling for ULF. I need to think about it. Again, the 30Hz of high order there are not truly tone” of “sound” but own life in there… I need to disconnect Macondo and to listed this 30Hz “own life in” from different filtration topologies to see what I am getting from it.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
scooter
Posts 161
Joined on 07-17-2008

Post #: 33
Post ID: 14955
Reply to: 14954
DCX output stage mods
fiogf49gjkf0d
I don't know about the SMS but a few people have tried to clean up the Behringer DCX. I pulled all digital correction out of my system before investigating further but found some interesting mods to the output stage during investigation last year. Of course these mods can't address some of the fundamental issues of DSP but I thought they were worth documenting for anyone with a very specific need for DSP:


*French DIY parts or their assembly of output stage, clock module, power supply... (more pictures and docs in french): http://www.selectronic.fr/dcx2496_US.asp


*French summary of some DCX problems (some solutions sold above) http://www.dcx2496.fr/en/index_en.php


*Netherlands parts (click DIY on left menu) http://www.pilghamaudio.com/index.php?page=dcx-active-upg


* Just 300 pages discussing these mods (I think the "oettle mod" is sold in the french site but don't remember) http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/15943-behringer-dcx2496-digital-x-over-109.html http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/15943-behringer-dcx2496-digital-x-over-139.html


* Yahoo http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DCX2496/
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,143
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 14956
Reply to: 14955
Very small minority of the folks…
fiogf49gjkf0d
 scooter wrote:
I don't know about the SMS but a few people have tried to clean up the Behringer DCX. I pulled all digital correction out of my system before investigating further but found some interesting mods to the output stage during investigation last year. Of course these mods can't address some of the fundamental issues of DSP but I thought they were worth documenting for anyone with a very specific need for DSP:

*French DIY parts or their assembly of output stage, clock module, power supply... (more pictures and docs in french): http://www.selectronic.fr/dcx2496_US.asp

*French summary of some DCX problems (some solutions sold above) http://www.dcx2496.fr/en/index_en.php

*Netherlands parts (click DIY on left menu) http://www.pilghamaudio.com/index.php?page=dcx-active-upg

* Just 300 pages discussing these mods (I think the "oettle mod" is sold in the french site but don't remember) http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/15943-behringer-dcx2496-digital-x-over-109.html http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/15943-behringer-dcx2496-digital-x-over-139.html

* Yahoo http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DCX2496/
Scooter, I wonder how many people among those who propose those modifications do understand what they deal with when we are taking about a more or less properly reproduced sub 30Hz signal. It sounds like arrogant comment, not that I am not arrogant but still I do not think that the LF performance of devises was ever properly assessed. How many people use the sub 30Hz capable sections? How many people properly use them? I assure you that it would be very small minority of the folks…


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
scooter
Posts 161
Joined on 07-17-2008

Post #: 35
Post ID: 14957
Reply to: 14956
Exactly zero I suspect. . .
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:

Scooter, I wonder how many people among those who propose those modifications do understand what they deal with when we are taking about a more or less properly reproduced sub 30Hz signal. It sounds like arrogant comment, not that I am not arrogant but still I do not think that the LF performance of devises was ever properly assessed. How many people use the sub 30Hz capable sections? How many people properly use them? I assure you that it would be very small minority of the folks…


I don't think the comment is arrogant at all and would assume that exactly zero people doing these modifications have reasonable notions of ULF. Moving up the fq ladder, I also would be concerned that most of these people seem to be running the DCX at full-range.

That said, the stock DCX has so many problems out of the gate that a DCX w/ an improved output stage likely performs better and the french have what appear to be an OK and easy to plug in solution for a few of the major issues. Of course, the problem is that the modified DCX can be no better than far from optimal.

You seem to be stuck with DSP for ULF, so this is one of the options you are stuck with unless you decide to jump into the DIY movement.
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,650
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 36
Post ID: 14958
Reply to: 14956
DSP vs. Music vs. HT
fiogf49gjkf0d
True enough, Romy, most marketing and "advances" in ULF are aimed squarely at the HT "Market" these days, and this is the source of some of the buzz we are referred to.  However, there is also the "Pro" sound "Market", such as it is.  This includes sound reinforcement and the recording industry, and some of these folks actually pay some conscious attention to musical values.

I didn't look it up to post a link back to it, but DSP for ULF was discussed here fairly recently in the context of your present new house musical ULF needs, and Bud P actually gave very specific advice and referrals about DSP output (mods) at that time.  I mention it again since interest on the subject appears to be starting up again without the benefit of that very interesting thread.

Best regards,
Paul S
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 37
Post ID: 14959
Reply to: 14953
10" array; how low? & SMS-1 distortion
fiogf49gjkf0d
Regarding combined driver diaphragm area for ULF:  

Romy wrote:
 
"...I disagree that using a bunch of 10" drivers is some kind of compromised in way. The six 10” drivers give me a surface of 2.3 18” drivers..." 
 
I recognize the relative and important advantages to be had when using smaller drivers in multiples instead of a single pair of larger drivers. However, moving down in frequency, there is a point where it no longer makes sense... It depends how low you are asking them to go.

You are not asking of your arrays anything so extreme, but for purposes of illustration, look at the extreme: 97 tweeters might also give you the surface area of 2 x 18" drivers, but would you expect to get LF from them?

Below a certain frequency the advantages become a handicap. At that point (if you were using its EQ capabilities), the SMS -1 would start to step in... Whether you reach that point with your 10" arrays depends on how low you are asking them to go, and whether that entails a compromise or not depends on how destructive the SMS-1 might be. I don't know where that point is, but I'd guess at around 30Hz a pair of 18" drivers starts to make more sense.
 
 
SMS-1 Distortion & Bottom end roll-off:

Yes, this little issue caused all the AV boyz to panic and the value of the SMS-1 to plummet; they can now be had for under $400. 
 
From what I remember, the distortion problem was the result of the device not being able to digest the higher output voltages typical of high-end home theater oriented "receivers"; a condition caused by the software the SMS-1 ran at the time.
 
In late 2007, the distortion issue was addressed by firmware update 2.1.3... There has since been one more update.
 
Do a search today on "SMS-1 Distortion" "THD" and you'll find mostly postings that date from the pre firmware 2.1.3 period.
 
Also resolved was the issue regarding the quicker-than-desired roll off at the bottom end (the "sub-sonic filter").
 
Here are the release notes from Velodyne dating from November 2007, when they first acknowledged the problems: 
 
Subwoofer Management System (SMS-1) Release 2.1.3

Release Notes

This document discusses the latest release of Velodyne’s Subwoofer Management System (SMS) firmware – release 2.1.3. This firmware addresses two issues related to the low frequency management of the SMS. First, it allows the subsonic filter to be set low enough that the only remaining rolloff in the low frequency is restricted only by the hardware, and secondly, corrects some distortion that previous versions of the firmware introduced to the audio spectrum.

Figure 1: SMS-1 Frequency Response

Please refer to Figure one. This graph shows actual output from the SMS-1 with the subsonic filter set to 5 Hz. The various curves shown reflect the subsonic filter as set to 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 dB/octave -- the steeper the slope, the higher the subsonic slope setting. As you can see, the actual point at which the curves converge is 5 Hz, and at 5 Hz, the audio frequency is down about 5 dB. The typical 3 dB down point is about 8 Hz. This point is a limitation in the hardware and the low frequency response of the SMS cannot be extended any further without changing components in the hardware. In release 2.1.3 the subsonic filter can be set as low as 1 Hz., but any setting below 5 Hz. has negligible effect on the frequency response.
 
SMS-1 Revised low end response 01.JPG

Note that the low-pass crossover in this example is set to the default of 80 Hz and 24 dB/octave.

Some users of the SMS measured the low frequency performance and discovered that the SMS was adding some distortion to the lowest frequencies. Most users did not notice this added distortion due to the low frequencies affected. The distortion was inadvertently introduced as the frequency processing software, which was based on Digital Drive subwoofers, was rewritten for the SMS. The 2.1.3 firmware corrects this problem.

There was some confusion that this distortion was also present in the DD series. This is not and was never true – the distortion was introduced in the SMS only, and has now been remedied.

If you have any questions on this information, please contact Velodyne customer service at techhelp@velodyne.com."

Make sure you've got the latest firmware update; requires a USB to RS232 cable or adaptor + USB cable.
http://www.diytrade.com/china/4/products/2031651/USB-RS232.html

jd*

Technical issue with the Goodsoundclub site: 
Posting with bold or colored text will only "stick" after third edit.


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,143
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 38
Post ID: 14961
Reply to: 14959
Interesting: 10” vs. 15”
fiogf49gjkf0d
 jessie.dazzle wrote:
Below a certain frequency the advantages become a handicap. At that point (if you were using its EQ capabilities), the SMS -1 would start to step in... Whether you reach that point with your 10" arrays depends on how low you are asking them to go, and whether that entails a compromise or not depends on how destructive the SMS-1 might be. I don't know where that point is, but I'd guess at around 30Hz a pair of 18" drivers starts to make more sense.

Possible. I am not pleased that 10” driver are spared in space and ULF do not radiated from single point. In case I use an array it is a great advantage but in my case I do not use array and a large radiation souse is not good in my view.  I do have the 18" and 24” drivers  but for now I do not use them.
 jessie.dazzle wrote:
Do a search today on "SMS-1 Distortion" "THD" and you'll find mostly postings that date from the pre firmware 2.1.3 period.

I have 2.1.4. 
 jessie.dazzle wrote:
Technical issue with the Goodsoundclub site: 
Posting with bold or colored text will only "stick" after third edit. 

I have fixed it. I had it to strip all MS Word formatting during the initial posts. Editing does not strip MS Word formatting. You fill that it happen “after third edit” because I cash the posts/threads content for 20min to speed up the site loading.
 


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-15-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,650
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 39
Post ID: 14962
Reply to: 14961
Multiples of the Same Rising Response Curve?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Jessie makes an interesting point with the idea of trying to get ULF from 97 X 2" drivers.  Very few small drivers are "optimized" to produce ULF in the first place, and so far the small-ish, BIG X-MAX drivers that are intended for "bass" have not been musically convincing.

Reflecting, if the big, expensive "audiophile" speakers falter at musical LF it is not always the quantity but rather the quality thereof that ultimately disappoints and offends.  Who knows if 10" drivers might somehow "work"  for ULF under certain unheard of circumstances?  Meanwhile, various and sundry 10" drivers have had decades to prove themselves as the Class A Recommended audiophile system default "woofer".  And sure enough, some of the expensive audiophile speakers actually wind up to "measure flat" (at least how/where they are tested...).  But, obviously, they must be doing something wrong, and who can put up with the audiophile "fast and tight" bass systems, in the first place?

It has to mean something when it is necessary to waste so much driver output to get "LF" from smaller drivers.  I'd like to know what are the smaller drivers putting out that needs to get wasted, in the first place?  In the case of the "widerange" 10" drivers in question, I wonder if it is the "best", optimal part of their output that gets scrubbed?

Best regards,
Paul S
11-16-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,143
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 40
Post ID: 14963
Reply to: 14961
The crisis of perception.
fiogf49gjkf0d
I pretty much know what I need to do – I need to go for shaper filter built in my power amp. The second order I have no is too impactful to midbass, so I need to do for 2th order or perhaps for 4th and try to integrate it.  Whatever it will be I think the passive line-level, no-capacitance filters in the power amp will be better than anything else with active stages.

Still, the I think the biggest problem is not the topology or implementation but the ambiguity of perception. Even myself, with my self-accused super-evolved listening intelligence, feel that I am kind of at last and do not know how to evaluate the quality of my ULF.
At sub 30Hz and high order filter there is no sound but rather the irrelevant tails of harmonics tails. To listen just them is not useful and they need to be heard only in context of rest of music. I have no problem to do it and I know what music to play and what to listen for. However, I am not sure if I have a clear picture what would be my “Imaginary Truth” in the ULF sound.

A few days ago an audio friend of my was experimenting with his new tweeter and told me how wonderfully his new tweeter reproduces metallic qualities of triangles and cymbals. I suggested that it was absolutely wrong criterion of judgment as metallic qualities of cymbals have no degrees of quality that our mind can acknowledge.  It sound metallic but there are no shades of being metallic, not mention that in metallisism of cymbals is greatly depending by the recording techniques. In other worlds there is no cultural or musical reference upon the depth of being metallic.
The very same feeling, only on the opposite side of spectra I have about my ULF. Adding a bit presence of weight under 30Hz do a positive impact to sound but I am not sure that I can clearly feel a difference between good ULF and bad ULF, at least in my implementation. Sure if it were some kind of “openly bad ULF”, like posted sound or too much amplitude, then I get it. However, if the ULF does not do any particular bad things then the difference in bad ULF and good ULF is much more tolerable and to discriminate the thing is much more difficult.

It might be the case that all ULF that I getting in my room are bad ULF. Very possible and I more and more incline to feel this way. I never heard from playback, any playback, the ULF done in a way I want and like so I do not know what topology can deliver it. I have my vision how I would like ULF to be but I did not experience it in audio, so in a way I shoot blindly to a black Cat in a dark room. With all my clear vision how I would like my ULF to sound I have absolutely no association between this “perfect” imaginary sound  of mine and the sound I am getting from my current ULF. So, I might get some “improvement” but it will not be the sound that I want.

Perhaps, Jessie is right about large woofers. Perhaps my small drivers arrays not used as arrays do smear the leading edge of the pressure front and give to me that “overly soft” ULF, overly saturated with second harmonics. I don’t know. To put my large woofers into the game and evaluate the ULF from them would require a construction of a large sealed box but I do not feel now to do it – I just have a few weeks none-dusty live and I like it. If someone from New England have a large sealed ULF section with resonance in 20s Hz and willing to demonstrate it to me then feel free to invite me. I would bring my power amp ….

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
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,143
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 2,650
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 10,143
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 10,143
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 10,143
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 194
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 10,143
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 194
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 10,143
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 194
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


Page 2 of 7 (151 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  150767  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  62894  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  A link to another thread....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     120  678781  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  2141292  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2968989  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  18064  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  47460  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24447  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Danley DTS-20....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     57  689140  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  46576  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  44795  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  15023  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  49270  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  128075  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  484731  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  24436  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  877805  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  The Organic Bass vs. ULF Drivers...  Audio Discussions  Forum     43  130011  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