| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Macondo’s lowest channel. (151 posts, 8 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 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  145801  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  61031  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  A link to another thread....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     120  637951  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  2062218  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2839203  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  17309  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  45332  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  23264  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Danley DTS-20....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     57  666485  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  44086  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  42307  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  14358  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  47258  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  123092  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  465660  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  23364  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  819215  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  The Organic Bass vs. ULF Drivers...  Audio Discussions  Forum     43  116342  07-29-2018
02-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 51
Post ID: 15559
Reply to: 15558
…a number of logical flaws…
fiogf49gjkf0d

 oxric wrote:
I believe that although you may be wrong to make a difference between ULF and the rest of the frequency range….

I know when I wrote it I would raise some eyebrows of the few readers of my site who actually are thinking but not scans my site in search for the buy recommendations. Yes, I know that taking about ULF as a standalone expressive tool instead of integrated channel is not too popular and might be controversial. I think the only prove is the actual taste of the pudding and the only way to battle the controversy is the demonstration of the actual result. With exception of the fact that I have no actual results with ULF to demonstrate, even to myself, … I feel that there is “something” in what I am envisioning now.
 oxric wrote:
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 ….

Yes and no. When you think about ULF being not the part of the rest frequency range but a separate expressive article then why do you think in terms of bad implementation that we all are familiar when ULF sound as irrelevant entry? When I am taking about what I am taking about I’m taking about separation but relevancy, but in a way an indirect relevancy. Let me give you an associative example, even a bit banal. Your wife wares a black dress with a single red rose. The red color of rose is not the part of rest of the bandwidth but together they form a proper ensemble...

 oxric wrote:
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?

ULF is different because it is a peripheral channel.

 oxric wrote:
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.

Think about timing of events. An event happens in a Symphony Hall and in 1.5 second you have around -40dB at 20Hz. Since the reverberation time in our listening room is way shorter and if the main playback care the whole bandwidth very nicely then why ULF can’t take care about let say -15dB level?

 oxric wrote:
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.'

The idea about new language is a good one. I keep thinking about it myself for a while.

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
02-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 52
Post ID: 15560
Reply to: 15559
MAD HATTER
fiogf49gjkf0d
My insite into this madness,,,Is the construction of one note box,s ULF,,, It will end up being nothing more than a series of low end ORGAN PIPE style of wood construction,,,   Alice in Wonder land style Mad Hatter of BASS MODULES,,  I guess you know the HATTER is INSANE..
03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 53
Post ID: 15679
Reply to: 15557
Thinking about my lower bass
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Romy the Cat wrote:
The major minor thing remains to find different lower bass. I said “minor” thing as my lower bass is not bad, in fact I do insist that it is very proper lower bass as I did set it up lately properly…..Despite that I insist that my currant bass is the PROPER bass I still would like to have slightly different, I have a feeling HOW it shell sound but I do not know at this point how to express it to myself in the format that I would be able to understand or implement. The things with bass will be continuing but without emergency of any kind.

 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.  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.

I do think about my lower bass, trying to get what I want. My current bass is very “integrated” and very musical. It low, it is large, it is extended and it is in away grandeur and it has nothing close with faulty Hi-Fi impressiveness. It never take over sound and never indicate the “bass efforts”. It is what it is and listening music with this bass I have no motivations or need to improve anything in lover bass.

However, I do have interests to have my bass to act differently.  What I would like is not the change of bass itself but the change how my room is being filled with bass. I mean I would like to be able to sense that my bass channel is on while my playback is not playing. I mean I would like to bias up my room by some excessive ULF pressure from my lover bass channels. The properly ULF biased room eats bad sounds. The LP clicks, the tape hiss and any other externals noises become not to be noticeable and the room gets that feeling of “space of empty opera theater.” The ULF channel us a mechanism to extend the boundary of the pool into which one dives – the larger pool the less back reflections from the pool boundaries…

I kind of know how to get the ULF to do the “boundaries bias” but what I reach any more effective ULF biasing I do corrupting my auditable lower and midbass. So, I kind of looking and understanding what kind alternative lower bass I might have in order the lower room biasing bass to be a separate entry with my musical lower bass. I do not have a solution yet and I am keep thinking about it. Right now I am waking around my clients offices, knocking the walls and desks and listening how they response. I am looking for an inspiration, perhaps in a wrong places...

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
03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 194
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 54
Post ID: 15681
Reply to: 15679
Has Schrödinger's cat moved in unnoticed?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:

 My current bass is very “integrated” and very musical. It low, it is large, it is extended and it is in away grandeur and it has nothing close with faulty Hi-Fi impressiveness. It never take over sound and never indicate the “bass efforts”. It is what it is and listening music with this bass I have no motivations or need to improve anything in lover bass.

However, I do have interests to have my bass to act differently. 

The properly ULF biased room eats bad sounds. The LP clicks, the tape hiss and any other externals noises become not to be noticeable and the room gets that feeling of “space of empty opera theater.” The ULF channel us a mechanism to extend the boundary of the pool into which one dives – the larger pool the less back reflections from the pool boundaries…

I do not have a solution yet and I am keep thinking about it. Right now I am waking around my clients offices, knocking the walls and desks and listening how they response. I am looking for an inspiration, perhaps in a wrong places...

Rgs, Romy the Cat


Romy:

This is indeed a very far-fetched idea and I can fault this approach and the underlying rational in so many different ways that it seems to me pointless to even embark on the argument and enumerate the problems, both practical and on the basis of principle, that beset your search for a solution to a problem that does not exist. This endeavour reminds me of your multi-cell adventure that I seriously doubted at the time, as being anything other than a distraction brought about by frustration with another essential aspect of your playback, the poor electricity you were suffering from and the faulty PurePower unit.

You have on several occasions asserted in strong terms (in fact I believe it is one of the 'Macondo Axioms' ) that one should not attempt to change or improve a system that one has not faulted. It cannot on the face of it make sense to make exceptions when you feel there is something you would like your bass to do, which the present one does not do, whilst it is still described as not faulty. If you want to create an exception to your axiom, fair enough, but what is the ground for doing so? The exception itself must have some ground so the axiom does not loose all value.

What could be the rational for creating such an exception on the basis of a principle that will work only in a narrow range of situations? I can think of at least a few ways of formulating the ground for that exception, but it is evident that none that I can think of can contenance as an exception the notion of 'I need a different kind of bass.' It is far too wide and amounts merely to saying that you just feel like changing the presentaion of your system. You either get rid of the axiom or just admit that the sense of 'requiring something more from your bass' actually is tantamount to admitting there is actually a fault, but it is one which only infinitessimally compromises your playback.

Now assuming that you are nonetheless on safe grounds, and that there is a 'need' as opposed to a hankering for a different kind of bass, one ought to define it and maybe refer to live performances and point out whether this or that element or a combination of elements amount to that required change. There is nothing at all that you have mentioned that even gets close to identifying such an element. You try to describe some vague notion:

 Romy the Cat wrote:

The properly ULF biased room eats bad sounds. The LP clicks, the tape hiss and any other externals noises become not to be noticeable and the room gets that feeling of “space of empty opera theater.” The ULF channel us a mechanism to extend the boundary of the pool into which one dives – the larger pool the less back reflections from the pool boundaries…

 I am looking for an inspiration, perhaps in a wrong places...

Rgs, Romy the Cat


'The properly ULF biased room' idea is an oxymoron if I have ever come across one, begging the question what is its opposite, an 'improperly biased room'? If something is 'biased,' why not bias it whichever way we feel happiest, irrspective of the actual musical performance or recording. If you are talking of the build-up of tension before the beginning of a performance, that sensation of heightened reality, of being there, senses on the alert, awaiting the opening line, the sudden crash of cymbals or the soft touch of a gentle note of the grandpiano, that I think is impossible to recapture, because you cannot record our awareness of sense, time, place and occasion. Anything else, to my untrained mind, is hunting for a chimera.

I regard the LP clicks, tape hiss and other external noises as being an indissociable part of a recording. We cannot be at the performance but we can at least try to stay truthful to what's on the recording, even if we wish these artifacts of the recording engineer's job had been absent. It is one thing to wish for perfection because obviously that's what you seek (which may be a fault in itself inherent to your personality which has nothing to do with your playback) but it is altogether another thing to indulge in wishful thinking and cross the line from science, even science fiction, to the realms of a fantasy world that gets you more and more disconnected from reality and real concerns about real problems in our playback. And I am sure in time you will find real problems that need addressing with your present playback.

Regards
Rakesh





03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 55
Post ID: 15682
Reply to: 15681
Wrong.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Rakesh,

I think you take it all wrong and I think you need to perform some degaussing from my site. You created for yourself a cardboard cutout of ideas that I describe at my site but it is not what it is. Macondo Axioms are not set of rules but a direction of thinking fell free to invent your own set of Axioms that more match your experience. What I am thinking to try with bass in fact has no relation to any kind nether neither with Macondo nor with any axioms. I see no exception or any conflict.  Furthermore I do not feel that one should not attempt to change or improve a system that one has not faulted. What I am try to accomplish is not improve but new possibility. If you are sitting in 10.000 sq feet hall and orchestra play some pianissimo passages from let say last movement of Mahler 9 then closing your yeast you can clearly sense that you are a large hall. It is not only the reverberation time but about the fact the large space with absence of MF noise does fill itself with ULF noise.  I did experimented with it in past. 10 years ago I had a single ULF channel that injected into room, +10dN at 9Hzl. At the same time I experimented with LF delay channels and I know that all of it might be effective if used properly. What I would like is to get that effect of “expectation nervousness” that exists just before an even take place. I think it comes via ULF and I do not mind to experiment with it. If it not going to work then it will not going to work. I am very good to declare my fiascos as fiasco, cut loses and move forward. You are also not right about my multi-cell adventure. I am for years saying that I would like to have Fundamental channels to run lower then I have. I did implement it and it worked perfectly fine. The problem is that I do not like how multi-cell looks like being incorporated with Macondo. The multi-cell visibly feels as it something alien and adds too much technological feel to my room. I just did not like it on pure visual merit and it what made me to stop looking into it for now.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
03-02-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,570
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 56
Post ID: 15683
Reply to: 15681
Groove Echo
fiogf49gjkf0d
Rakesh, if Romy's ULF is "faultless" at this point, then he should play the lottary - once.  Perhaps part of the quandry stems from confusing "bass" with ULF.  Once you let go of that, it better falls into place.

As for the pops, clicks, tape hiss, etc., in the best cases they are present without interfering with the music.  Ideally, all extraneous noise can be minimized and/or "set aside" from the music, and there are actually rote ways to facilitate this, and Romy has either included his observations about ULF in this context or he has included the noise issues in the context of "ULF" features.

One more thing is the "groove echo" foreshadowing of change that may make us at least appear to be out of sync with our own manifestos.  And every so often, a change makes the need for it clear.

Best regards,
Paul
03-03-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 194
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 57
Post ID: 15684
Reply to: 15683
Wrong? Actually, our actual positions differ very little, surprisingly enough.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Romy:

Wrong? I am every now and then wrong, as most people are, and I am always grateful for any chance to gain a better understanding of anything that has my interest. But given how I now understand your position, I don't think there is a real disagreement in our views.

If the issue is merely to recreate a better sense of the live performance, then I completely agree, and most people would, that we should try to use all the means at our disposal to achieve just that, inasmuch as the quallity of the recording allows us to do so. No real disagreement there.

As for the use of the multi-cell, I understand why you did not go for it much better now. It is interesting to note that aesthetic considerations can sometimes preempt something that was nonetheless deemed beneficial in other respects. Life, even our pursuit of perfection in our audio systems, has to be a balancing of priorities after all..


 Paul S wrote:
Rakesh, if Romy's ULF is "faultless" at this point, then he should play the lottary - once.  Perhaps part of the quandry stems from confusing "bass" with ULF.  Once you let go of that, it better falls into place.

As for the pops, clicks, tape hiss, etc., in the best cases they are present without interfering with the music.  Ideally, all extraneous noise can be minimized and/or "set aside" from the music, and there are actually rote ways to facilitate this, and Romy has either included his observations about ULF in this context or he has included the noise issues in the context of "ULF" features.

One more thing is the "groove echo" foreshadowing of change that may make us at least appear to be out of sync with our own manifestos.  And every so often, a change makes the need for it clear.



Paul:

If it is a question of playing the 'lottery', then of course it is perfectly fine as long as one is clear that that is what one is trying to do. Nonetheless, I do not think that is what Romy meant, although his meaning was not too clear initially.

As for your comment on pops, clicks and tape hiss, that corresponds pretty much with my own view. I cannot see why you felt that I thought differently.

Within the limitations of my system, I look to recapture that sense of being there, as far as it can be done, from looking at the whole spectrum rather than focusing on the bass frequencies. This CANNOT be a bad thing. In fact, it is rather amusing that this discussion takes place just as I am learning about a very different presentation of the musical performance, using only a pair of recently acquired Beveridge speakers which have an interesting dispersion pattern, creating a cylindrical wave of 180 degrees. I am presently only using one channel though (they are very old speakers and I need to have the other one checked). In due course, if that is of interest, I will let you know what THAT peculiarity of the Beveridges does to the overall presentation when it comes to capturing the ambience of the venue, as captured on the recording. My experience though is that the ability to recreate the ambience of the venue is so dependent on the quality of the recording, that one can only hope to effectively achieve that sense of being there with only a small proportion of the recorded works available to us.

Regards
Rakesh
03-03-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 58
Post ID: 15687
Reply to: 15684
Listening help with ULF stimulator
fiogf49gjkf0d
 oxric wrote:
If the issue is merely to recreate a better sense of the live performance….
It might be not “recreate a better sense of the live performance” but rather to be able to administer in my own and deliberate way some “listening help”. I would like to have a feeling that listening event has started without music being played. You know that effect when conductor raises his hands before staring, the entire symphony hall in absolute silence and it feel almost like sound pressure went to negative numbers. I think it has a lot to do with “freedom” of LF. That sense of feeling that something inevitable will happen I think is encoded with ULF. You have that feeling a few minutes before a summer sunder storm hit the spot where you stay.

I use to call my old ULF channel “ULF stimulator” and I felt that Sound being dump in a room that is “ULF stimulated” do sound more affective. I uselessly use Sound of applauses. I hear a lot of life recordings and I hear a lot of applauses. The sound people who do recordings and cut off applauses from live recording are idiots in my view but this is a whole different subject. I can say LOT about the sound of a given audio installation by the way how a playback plays applauses. So, if you play applauses with ULF injection and with it they will be VERY much different sounds and very different feeling from the playback efforts.
I know exactly what I would like to do with my ULF, I do not know for now HOW to make my ULF in order it to do what I want with room biasing, to add the very bottom mass to my auditable bass and at the same time do not crap out all over my midbass…
 oxric wrote:
As for the use of the multi-cell, I understand why you did not go for it much better now. It is interesting to note that aesthetic considerations can sometimes preempt something that was nonetheless deemed beneficial in other respects. Life, even our pursuit of perfection in our audio systems, has to be a balancing of priorities after all..

If I have a dedicated listening room then I would go for it with no questions. However, since my Macondo are parts of my normal leaving environment I would like them if not to be pretty but at least do not disturb me visually. When I first attached the new assembled multi-sells in place of my current Fundamental Channels (I did it with a lot of scotch tape) I did not like the look and feel of Macondo. The whole columns-style of drivers assembling was breaking up and that horizontal array of multi-sells felt like an overly industrial entry from a different design.  

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
03-05-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 59
Post ID: 15703
Reply to: 14967
The ULF debate: time-alignment
fiogf49gjkf0d
I have today a local audio guy stop by at my place for some listening. He never was in my new place and was curios what have done with my new room and my new installation; he was in my old room. When I asked him to criticize what he heard he mention that he would like to have the very lower bass slightly heavier. There were a number of opinions exchange but in the end I disagree with him. I feel the amount of bass I have is fine and in my point of view it is in very precise and very deliberate amount.  My bass in a way unique among many playback basses out there. It is absolutely no audio impact. It has proper and necessary music impact but it does not go for audio “audio overkill”. You need to hear it to understand how it done. There is no more auditable bass necessary and in my view the demand for more bass is coming from fatly expectation that audio shall produce some kind of added bass that does not exist in real world. What might be usable in my room is the non auditable, let say 12Hz bass, but the bass that does not interacts with my current bass.

I did some demonstration to my visitor of the different bass type that I am able to get in my room. I think he saw my point and the negative impact my current ULF cheval has to my sound. They he said something that made me to think. He asked how I deal with ULF time-alignment. I deal with is in some ways but near not as serious as I deal with MF. So, I am wondering: are my problems with ULF are in fact the problem of time-alignment? In my old room I had no problem with bass, the same ULF, well they were not ULF but just bass channels, but they were time-aligned. So, I wonder….. 
 
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
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 60
Post ID: 15705
Reply to: 15703
Trying to address the dilemma with lowest bass.
fiogf49gjkf0d

I have with bass not a problem but dilemma. I do not have problematic bass but I have a dilemma how to supplement my current bass with ULF without affecting my current bass. Adding ULF defuses my current bass, renders the bass phasing to be more generic and I will not tolerate it.

So, let analyze the situation and to build some rational behind it. I own 3 major ingredients– I have a great all together bass, I know what I would like to get as a result and I know how to discriminate successes and failures. What I do not know is the reason why my current ULF does not do what I want what I run it at full throttle. So, let analyze the possible reasons for underperformance.

1)      Instrumental problem: wrong ULF transducers wrong amplifiers.

2)      Implementation problem: wrong crossover frequency and slope.

3)      Timing problem, including the horizontal alignment.

Do I have instrumental problem? Possible. I would like to have larger drivers with resonant frequency of 11-12Hz. I do not have such drivers. The 10 drivers that I do have are 20Hz driver and it is very low. My problem is that I do not have just 12 of them but I have 24 of them. If I engage all of them then I will have an equivalent of ten 18” drivers – a LOT of displacement volume at true 20Hz and with very linear excursion. The amplification? I still think about it. Frankly the Instrumental subject might underperform but it is in my estimation is NOT the main reason. The character of the ULF sound and the way how ULF crap over my general bass advise me that I need to look somewhere else.

Implementation problem. As long as I spent time with placing with my ULF crossover it might be not enough time. I still might have wrong everything and the reasons why I was not a able to make the things to work in the way I want to is because the Timing Alignment.

This brings me to the last subject: the arrival aligned and the axis alignment. We so much believe that alignment s not relevant to bass that we do not even think about it. What we are taking about axis alignment we feel that for that low frequency the wavelength is so long that time difference in arrival from right side and left side of woofer is irrelevant. It might be all true but might be THAT is responsible for smearing of my bass by my ULF? I know that in my old place I had absolutely no problem with ULF but in my old place ULD and bass was reproduced by the same channel. What however was also in my place – my bass towers were in time- aligned position and the woofer were looking directly at me – there was no right/left side of driver misalignment.

So, looking for those 3 candidates I think I need to filter out the Timing problem first and if it is a factor then it will crap over other reasons. So, no matter how much my aesthetic inclinations protest me to do it I need to bring my ULF section right outside of Macondo, time-alight them and to see what happens. I think it has to be the burst step…

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
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
David Yost
Posts 1
Joined on 07-24-2004

Post #: 61
Post ID: 15706
Reply to: 15705
Rotary woofer for ULF?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hello, Romy
I don't know if one or more of these could fit into your ULF scheme (or house plan), but it seems to have great potential.  I also seem to recall that ULF injection was an old school technique mostly abandoned by the mid 60's as serious music listening gave way to more casual and less demanding popular/party/casual listening.
http://www.rotarywoofer.com/
Best wishes,David
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 62
Post ID: 15707
Reply to: 15706
I do not need a Rotary woofer, I need to be less Moron.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes, David, I have seen the Rotary woofer and have thought about it. I never heard it, have seen it 2-3 times in systems in Vegas but they never played it what I was in room.  With know how it sound and what is able to do it is very difficult to me any judgment and they do not allow the in-home trails. BTW, I spent today almost half of day conducting the experiments with my ULF and I think I did found the problem that was implanted into my enter ULF project so far. As I have time I will write a report. I am with 99% confident that the problem with ULF is resolved as I have not only my ULF performing as I would it to but also the alternation of the partially erroneous objectives that I have develop for the last 2 months while my ULF did not perform up to demands. Ironically, the problem was purely by my own making…. 

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
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 63
Post ID: 15710
Reply to: 15707
***
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
BTW, I spent today almost half of day conducting the experiments with my ULF and I think I did found the problem that was implanted into my enter ULF project so far. As I have time I will write a report. I am with 99% confident that the problem with ULF is resolved as I have not only my ULF performing as I would it to but also the alternation of the partially erroneous objectives that I have develop for the last 2 months while my ULF did not perform up to demands. Ironically, the problem was purely by my own making…. 

I spent today pretty much a whole day working with my playback searching for a way to implement my ULF injection. Later on I will describe in details what and how I did what I did but now I do not want to talk. All the I would say that I did it and the result is beyond spectacular it made this installation is perform at the level life altering experience. I do not exaggerate. What Macondo does now is beyond audio and music it work now at some kind of subconscious physiological level   and it is physical.  I can write a whole book describing the audio experiences I have today for the last 2 hours, it is truly life and believes altering.

I find a way to inject into my room+ 30dB (!!!) from where I was before at 25Hz, and inject it in away the it affect absolutely nothing in my bass.  The stunning thing about the room and the way how I did it is the room perfectly dissipates it sounding and measuring perfectly flat. The sonic impact is beyond any references that I can give you – it is truly paralyzing. It feel like you are driving a car at high speed,  the car lost control on ice and you are  flying knowing that there is nothing the you can do anymore, waiting to happen whatever will happen. It has that will squashing effect that I was pitching and dreaming for so many years – it is truly very different experience. Sound wise it did not change but it added some kind physical connectivity of each particular of body to sonic events and each vibrato become my own physical sensation. It is enslaving and it is subordinating but it my version of audio, it is what I do.  I never worshiped audio with it. Now I have it and I have a full contol over 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
03-07-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
IslandPink
Posts 18
Joined on 02-08-2005

Post #: 64
Post ID: 15714
Reply to: 15710
Congrats
fiogf49gjkf0d
Romy
This is very interesting , congratulations .
It seems like you have discovered something that gives greater emotional connection to the music.
Is it affecting various types of music ?

MJ
03-08-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 65
Post ID: 15724
Reply to: 15714
Getting some maturity with ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d
I am continuing evolving with my ULF application. The IslandPink’s question if my ULF affecting various types of music sound kind of funny. Would my answer to be predicable?

I a bit release the pressure from ULF. The way I use ULF allow to chalks the ULF level at very wide margin without affecting the rest of Macondo Sound. The way how I used ULF at the very first day makes testicles to fly on the room was is perfectly fine for some music (did I mention my Bruckner?) but I find to suitable in a long run. I did find the new from my point of view new absolutely perfect setting and ULF is set to be indispensable part of my Macondo experience.

Actually to be “absolutely perfect” I would need to kill another 1 dB if ULF output. However, in ULF 1dB difference is what .25dB at MF, so even as is my ULF is perfectly acceptable. The attenuator at ULF power amp has 3dB click but I need 1dB. I need 250K, constant impedence, stepped attenuator (remote controlled?) with .5db steps… I need to find somebody who can do it for me as I do not want to do it myself and to burn my fingers…

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
03-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 66
Post ID: 15732
Reply to: 15724
About ULF attenuation.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Actually I got interest in the idea of having remote control attenuator on my ULF amplifier, I juts need to find a company who will be able to do it for me.

For whatever reasons audio people feel bass channels have to have an attenuator. This is always was a summit of idiocy in my book as bass channel MUST NOT have attenuator and MUST NOT be adjustable. There is absolutely no need to regulate bass in playback as bass level need to be set once at proper level and never be touched. The bass-shy and bass-exuberant recording shall not lead to modification of bass in playback.

The ULF channel is very different animal, it is not bass. Bass is auditable and modifying bass one modifies everything in Sound of playback. ULF is not auditable in a normal scene. Listening just ULF channel without main speakers you would have no idea not only what is paling but in most cases you would not even recognize that playback is placing. ULF produces hardly usable pressure that is hardly auditable, in fact the list it’s auditable the better ULF. The full benefit of ULF is observed only when ULF plays with the rest of the system, softening the whole sound and creating a few other more exoteric contributions.

In my view the key in successful ULF is the ability unpunishably changes the ULF volume. If you have ULF channel, you change ULF volume and your Sound change then you do not have ULF but you have bass channel. ULF attention shall be very much detached from sound of playback. A well trained listener can hear 1/2dB change in bass. The similar magnitude of SONIC CHANGES in ULF channel would in my estimation represent 6-8dB change.

Furthermore, the change of ULF volume is perfectly permeated as it does not affect sound. From some perspective ULF act as delay channels, setting up the size of the presentation and softness of decays. This parameter might be perfectly modifiable with specific music as it does not modify the sound itself but rather the way in which Sound perceived.

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
03-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 67
Post ID: 15733
Reply to: 15710
How is it implemented?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Maybe it is because I have very low audio-IQ, but I don’t understand the implementation of your ULF channels - how is it possible to inject +30dB at 25Hz without changing the sound? What is the crossover frequency of that channel? Could you post a photo in order to see how it is aligned with the rest of your acoustic system?


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
03-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 68
Post ID: 15736
Reply to: 15733
My implementation of ULF channel.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Yes, I promised to tell about, so here is comes.

The past Sunday I woke up at 6AM and first intention to answer to myself what is wrong with my ULF. I had wonderful sound with absolutely wonderful and the most important very proper bass.  However all my attempts to supplement my bass with ULF took sound in very wrong direction? As soon I added go 1/5 dB of ULF over my bass output the wait and the size of presentation was imidetaly growing but the leading edge of the midbass and bass notes got very severally defused and become non expressive. I did find a good balance between some added weight from the bottom and destruction of my midbass but it was near close what I would like to be, so I mostly prefect to hear my playback without ULF – it was very-very musical and nice presentation.

I was wondering why my woofer towers stopped working, they were working spectacularly in my old room.  I turn the playback on, crank my ULF for extras 3 dB and was listening what is doing on. I was paying attention to the deformity of midbass across midbass range. What I noticed is that lower midbass is got screwed differently then mid midbass and then upperbass again got screwed. It has to be timing related I figured.

I moved my ULF towers exactly under the driver of my midbass horns. The change was very interesting. The destruction of midbass still was there but it was very evenly dispersed across the whole midbass range. I kind of began to feel very idiotic about myself. Over the years I am very vocal and persistent advocate of prejudicial time aliment and not I was harvesting the crapy results because my ULF was not time aligned. There was however even more then time alignment. Over the year I made fun and humiliate the people who built “subwoofers in the corners” and now, putting my ULF woofer towers in basically another room I was essentially doing the very same. Yes, in that another room (look at the picture at the begging of the thread) the large woofer tower’s presence was absolutely not abusive but it is did not work for Sound.

So, what I did next was taking my woofer towers and the location where I use to have them for 11 years in my old room – on the outside side of Macondo in exact time-aligned position with the rest MF Macondo drivers. I turned the playback on and… had no ULF out at all. The drivers where moving but there was no sound – I need more gain I figured. In my old location I attenuated the ULF power amp for 8 clicks which is 24 dB. Not I max out my power amp and I only begin to have something. I opened up the ULF B2 amp and dropped feedback for 6 dB – not I have mode gain. The room’s bottom juts fallen off and it took in itself all it bass without exhibiting any sight of overload or any other negative experiences.

I would like to say that I did something smart – I did not. As soon I time-aligned the woofer towers and point then directly to the listening position then the Sound got instantly and automatically all sonic attributes that I was looking from ULF. I was extremely happy with result and very angry to myself for being such a fucking idiot and was trying to get some sound from a ULF configuration that I spend years to hate. I was so displeased with myself that I took the 4-wire 3Ga cable (fat and expensive) that my carpenter installed for me in the wall and pulled it out of the wall assuring the I have no more dedicated line from my equipment bay to my old location of the ULF towers.

Sure, I have some excuses.  I ordered my woofer towers as a custom project from John Danlavy back in 2000. At that time John was contemplating the woofer towers as a commercial project, in fact become a commercial project by my tower were made with a lot of negotiations and debates.  Since then I did not have any other bass in my room and this is the only bass I am accustomed for the last 11 years. I loved that bass from day # 1, in fact I so loved it that I got my second ML2.0 to drive my woofer towers. So, when I I put my woofer towers in the very same position as I has it in my old room I got instantly my old Marlborough Bass the I so loved and was so proud. 

Interestingly that bass that I have from those woofer towers is much more advanced then what I had in my old room. In my all room my woofer towers were bass module as they handle mid and lowest bass. In my new room my woofer towers are thru ULF as midbass horns care all auditable sound.  I very much the result and it only proves that all along my ranting about arrival-alignment, the latitude-alignment, the location of bass outside of MF and the rest of BS were very much accurate. Now, if I learn do what I pitch then I would same me so much aggravation, not only in audio BTW….

Here is the new location for my ULF of left chennal:

ULF_NewLocation.JPG

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 69
Post ID: 15743
Reply to: 15736
Further thoughts about ULF channel.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Me being exuberant about the new ULF capacity does not necessarily mean that ULF contribution is right and proper, let me to explain.

There is a musical event that has it sonic representation. This sonic representation better or worst was captured by recording and it is somehow presented as sound of playback. ULF channel, in my view, is about creation of conditions when sound of playback heard in more attractive and more communicable way. I still insist that sound of playback without ULF is more proper representation of original sound. ULF channel is more about compensation of problem with recording media, it is very effective, very impactful and unquestionably beneficial, but it not part of “original reality”, rather it is part of “assisted reality”. Again, it is all about the question if you wools like to be right or happy…

So, dealing with ULF channel is about of dealing with own since of self-moderation. For an audio person to play with a capable ULF is the same as for recovering alcoholic to run a liquor store. I do not feel that I was out of control what I got my ULF channel to work properly but I need to admit that not I am running my ULF at minus 9dB in compare what where I was at the very first day.

There is another very important aspect that I never seen anybody ever covered. As I said the adjustability of ULF is not the same as adjustability of bass and the adjustability of ULF with respect of music being played is not a bad thing. However, there is a twist in it. When I adjust my ULF level I very likely moderate the problem that given recording has at ultra low frequencies. Truly the sub 20Hz is a big mystery in recording possess.

Microphones, cables, electronics and many other things do work at 20Hz but HOW they work. No one even take critical what is going on in there. The LP format has RIAA curves that were specified down to 29Hz only. Digital has to be ULF flat but there is so much more then flatness. I would not be surprise if we learn that at 20Hz playback has absolutely insane amount of distortions that would not be tolerable at higher frequencies. What you get a CD then can you tell me what quality of sound it has at 20Hz. We usually think about 20Hz as sufficient amount of bass, the bass quantity but it has absolutely nothing to do with amount or quantity but with quality of the 20Hz sound. Who has option to evaluate and to moderate it? I do not think the people do have that option at large and I think that 20hz that we have on our media are RANDOM QUALITY 20HZ. Therefore I feel that an adjustment of 20Hz ULF is a reasonable tool to have. There are problems with ULF adjustment as the quantity AND quality of ULF are in direct relation with amount of HF that system can out but it is a whole another subject.

I think playing ULF is in way similar with my recent search for proper cable that would connect my preamps with my ULF power amp. I do have a number of very good cables but none of them work acceptable in my view of the channel produce ULF and nothing else. The “best for bass” cables just produce larger output in ULF but larger output is soothing that is absolutely irrelevant to me. I need specific sonic characteristic of ULF cable but the cables that I tried juts did not have it. Ironically I run as ULF cables a cheap regular plastic cable that usually people trash away, the cable has the least bass but the more proper ULF in my view, at least among the cables that I had and I am still looking for better ULF cable. This is what I call “random result” – try o call to a manufacture and ask how his cables sound at 20Hz if you do not care about amplitude. They just do not know and most of them would not even understand what you are asking. I think the very same situation exists at CD/LP or whatever other format: the people who produce and record music might not know the true capacity of ULF information that their recordings have.

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 112
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 70
Post ID: 15744
Reply to: 15743
ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d
What I heard in your room on Saturday was superb reproduction of what was recorded from 40 Hz. up. This is ideal probably for a recording of a chamber group in a small hall without anybody present. One could hear the hall surroundings which replaced your room acoustic, but not the ULF that fills the hall and gives one the feeling of true concert hall space. 
When i walk into a large hall filled with people, AC noise, background noise from the street, etc. is a pressurization effect of primarily low frequency information which can be recorded onto both analog and digital media. For instance on my DAT recordings of second generation  RCA tape of a recording from London, when the tape starts the room pressurizes with the tape hiss, but as soon as the mikes get turned on one can feel the room pressure from the surroundings, and then one can actually hear several different subways running under the hall and tell that there are more than one and even which direction they are coming from. In several done in Symphony Hall, one can hear the road traffic on the right side from Mass. Ave., an d can distinguish the rumble of truck vs. auto engine noise. Thus the deep bass is recorded onto the original tapes and records and can be transcribed even onto 16/48 DAT's. Whether the system can reproduce it properly is the problem.
 Thus recording media can pick up that low frequency information, and without that ULF information the room never pressurizes and one feels that one is in an anechoic chamber.
 
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 71
Post ID: 15745
Reply to: 15744
I would agree but…
fiogf49gjkf0d

…but there are a few considerations that I would like to stress.

1)    The ULF pressurization must not impact auditable sound in any negative way. If it does then all bets are off and ULF better do not be used.

2)    The ULF pressurization shall be max out to the point where ULF does not become own self-centric expressive force.

3)    ULF pressurization must be in absolute time-alignment and considering the geometry of the ULF transducers the ULF need to be in axis with listener.

4)    Considering that we use for ULF source the information that is recorded not always properly the ULF moderation during playback is advisable.

5)    I do not feel a need to administer ULF differently for chamber group and for a large orchestra in concert hall space

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 72
Post ID: 15746
Reply to: 15745
The problem that that I see with my ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d
As good as my ULF turned out to be but purely conceptually it is not an ultimate proper playback solution. I have midbass horns runs down to 42Hz and ULF kicks in at 25Hz with 3rg order. In reality does to the geometry of my room and the fact the distance between midbass horns and the opposite wall is a half lower cut of wavelength I think my midbass horns sound lower then what they are. The 42Hz/25Hz is fine configuration but not the best for ULF perspective. The best would be to have midbass horns going doe to 30Hz and to have ULF to kick in at 17-18Hz. If I had this setting then the ULD would be much more non-auditable and this would be much better in my view. Sure it is not what I will be going for the folks who contemplating it might consider it. A good idea is to have midbass, bass and ULF as 3 independently tunable, amplifiable entities. Then all stupid fantasies that people are telling about room tuning are evaporating as you have narrow tunable slices of radiating spectra that might be custom tined foe what the given room need.

BTW, I do not think that industry even produced any driver or speakers that are useable at 17Hz. To have a sealed box with 17Hz would need to have a driver with free air resonance at 10-11Hz. If you need 100dB sensitivity from such a driver, high power handling, low distortion and ability to react to low currents then we are talking about a driver that is verbally impossible to make with conventional methods.

That all is not truly applicable to me as I am set with what I got. The only thing that I might be contemplating in future is to have a powerful 200 SET amp to drive my lower bass, perhaps even DC-able OTL. To find this monster tube amps would be another subject...

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
RF at Ona
Posts 12
Joined on 05-29-2007

Post #: 73
Post ID: 15747
Reply to: 15736
Loudspeaker Proximity Coupling in Midbass & ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d

I would like to suggest an alternative factor or explanation to your recent ULF/midbass findings.

When you were chronicling the design and implementation of your midbass horns I was curious as to the effect of the very close placement of the two horns.

When two loudspeaker drivers are placed close together they become acoustically coupled and so more efficient than when spaced well apart. On in-phase signals, two closely placed drivers would play louder in the bandwidth where they are acoustically coupled but have significant destructive interference for out-of-phase signals. I think this might well apply to the mid-bass horns.

In addition to these effects, on in-phase signals the pair of midbass horns might also function something like a two-sector horn where the combined mouth area determines the low frequency cut-off. The low frequency cutoff would be lower for the two horns running in-phase signals than for a single horn.

I am not sure if you ever tested for any of these effects although I remember your pleasure at how the useful range of the midbass horns was lower than a simple formulaic analysis would indicate. To test for these effects you can’t test one channel at a time. You would have to run a frequency response test for both horns running simultaneously and compare the response to in-phase vs. out-of-phase signals.

Now the same issues and analysis applies to your woofer towers and with the new placement of the towers some of these effects may have become exposed.

If these effects are significant than your new wider spaced ULF towers might actually be functioning more effectively in their upper range than the midbass horns in their lower range on stereo recordings with phase differences between the channels in this frequency range.

Because of the low-pass roll-off on the ULF you may have found that a significantly elevated gain for the ULF is improving the music reproduction where the mid-bass horns have unwanted cancellation effects. But this elevated gain does not hurt the reproduction of the ambient/environmental sounds intended to be reproduced by the ULF towers because these sounds are much less sensitive to output level than the musical signal.

How significant these effects are in practice are less clear. Stereo phono records usually become quite monaural in the low frequency range to facilitate both cutting the master and playback tracking. CDs and other modern digital sources may have enough out-of-phase bass for the coupling/cancellation effects to be noticeable.

If you have found or suspected that your LPs and monaural source material have a somewhat richer or fuller sound in the bass than your digital sources this may be a clue.

Regards,
Robert

03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
N-set
Gdansk, Poland
Posts 609
Joined on 01-07-2006

Post #: 74
Post ID: 15748
Reply to: 15706
Great rotary idea!
fiogf49gjkf0d
Thanks for sharing it David.
Makes those mastodont architectural horns with a double or triple ALE/GOTO
drivers look like a tuning of a Ford fiesta to resemble a Ferrari Big Smile
Cheers, N-set



Cheers,
Jarek
STACORE
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 75
Post ID: 15749
Reply to: 15747
Brilliant analyses!
fiogf49gjkf0d
Great analyses, David, thanks.

I can’t concur as now with anything. Macondo in the room with midbass horn was a complex installation and with ULF it became even more complex. Some of the things I setup by ear and do not use measurements, I just know how the things have to sound. Of course I do measure the things but I do not always pay attention to it in a normal sense. Over the years I leans Macondo well and I have learned how my measuring techniques correlates with Sound, so it very handy to measure, to make decisions and to listed by the same person. I am saying it as there are quite a number of strange measuring monuments in my setup but all together it somehow works very well.  I do not talk about it as I do not think anybody would have interest but some of those logical anomalies do make to think about the reasons, to define my own rules and setting up shortcuts.

I do not do in-phase vs. out-of-phase experiment as I know what need to be in in-phase and what has to be out-of-phase in Macondo. What however fascinated me was the correlation of response of one channel with the same channel complimented by other channel. This is a very interesting way to see what is doing on and a very powerful tool for speaker room integration.  My very minor towing in and out speaker it was possible to fine tune some upper mid range attenuation and I was truly good with it. Why I am saying in past tense? Because my “new” ULF channels completely override this. The ULF linearised response of both channel in very funny manner making combined Macondo channels to sound practically identically to each individual channel, The individual channels of cause are “tactically linear”.

When you were saying about stereo recordings with phase differences between the channels in specific frequency range then you hit a very direct target of what I was thinking another day. Having the whole 14 channels in time-alignment it is very funny to see how people who record with multi-microphones are fucking the things up. Some time they use highlight mics with time delays and set the delays in wrong way. When it happens is sounds so brutally stupid….

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
Page 3 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  145801  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  61031  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  A link to another thread....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     120  637951  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  2062218  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2839203  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  17309  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  45332  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  23264  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Danley DTS-20....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     57  666485  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  44086  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  42307  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  14358  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  47258  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  123092  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  465660  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  23364  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  819215  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  The Organic Bass vs. ULF Drivers...  Audio Discussions  Forum     43  116342  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