capacitor phools

[WA9UDW]

Might this be phoolish? http://www.cnet.com/8301-13645_1-9866428-47.html

[WBear2GCR]

well yes.

Way overprices ugly carp.

Doubtless sounds big though...

I like the idea of a 4k pixel projector... I'll take one of them...

Note that Steve Guttenberg the former actor gets to get paid to write this stuff.
Wonder why I can't get a gig like that??

              _-_-

[wavebourn]

Might this be phoolish? http://www.cnet.com/8301-13645_1-9866428-47.html

It is foolish.

Alignment of speakers is brainless.

Here is my setup, to compare.

Woofers on the floor made of solid concrete; Alpine SWR1242 drivers are used. I take 40-200 Hz frequency range from them (36 Hz Fs, sealed boxes -- no mechanical resonances used for equalization). Volume inside is damped by memory foam glued to concrete.

Stereo speakers made as line arrays. As the result, no "sweet spot" because line arrays fire cylindrical wave, i.e. horizontal dispersion is wide, vertical directivity is narrow. Also, reflections from floor and ceiling are minimal. Each side uses 8 cannibalized Infinity Reference 4" speakers (with tweeters removed). For tweeters each side contains 16 Fostex speakers made for notebooks.
Center channel contains 2 Infinity Reference 6.5" speakers, also cannibalized (tweeters removed). For tweeters I used array of 64 speakers made for cellphones.
Since left side is close to the wall I put there a pillow made of memory foam and covered it by a flag with my family coat of arms.
2 rear speakers are again Infinity Reference 6.5", wall between them is covered as well by a memory foam.
For effect channels I use an ordinary Marantz 7200 amp, for stereo I use a tube amp I built with 4x6L6 per channel (I take 50W from each channel only). The amp has stabilized screen grid voltage (lowered for better linearity) and works in class A.

[wavebourn]

I forgot to mention my subwoofer: it is a concrete horn under the floor, with 2 12" Pioneer drivers.
I take from it  frequencies below 40 Hz. It is made horizontally, curved up and opens to the room through a big went hole.
A wall above contains a fake door, made of 2" plywood, coveded by linoleum, memory foam, and vinyl.
As the result, I got very good and clear sound image, using few properly designed and placed speakers.

[NE4AM]

Does anyone recall the story that came out a couple months ago - there a room full of audiophiles/phools was unable to distinguish between speakers connected with monstercable and coat hanger wire, in a double blind test.
I'll agree that different capacitors CAN make an audible difference in your audio equipment.  BUT there reaches a point where the differences are due to the power of suggestion - which is what the ELNA silky capacitor advert is all about.

[wavebourn]

Does anyone recall the story that came out a couple months ago - there a room full of audiophiles/phools was unable to distinguish between speakers connected with monstercable and coat hanger wire, in a double blind test.
I'll agree that different capacitors CAN make an audible difference in your audio equipment.  BUT there reaches a point where the differences are due to the power of suggestion - which is what the ELNA silky capacitor advert is all about.

Yes, power of suggestion is the key in audiophilery. Most remarkable is a "Break-In" suggestion: they program each other to start hearing differences at the certain moment. And it works! Like it works when somebody is programmed to start loosing weight at certain moment, etc...

[WBear2GCR]

Does anyone recall the story that came out a couple months ago - there a room full of audiophiles/phools was unable to distinguish between speakers connected with monstercable and coat hanger wire, in a double blind test.
I'll agree that different capacitors CAN make an audible difference in your audio equipment.  BUT there reaches a point where the differences are due to the power of suggestion - which is what the ELNA silky capacitor advert is all about.

Stupid rhetorical question: did you bother to follow the link on capacitors that I posted a little bit back in this thread?

Wavebourn: ur a smart fellow, and have done some good things - although painting 40's vintage bakelite radios is not high on my list - but it is a mistake to judge things of this sort unless your point of reference is sufficiently broad and includes both a technically astute reference and personal experience coupled with the ability to hear well. And, if by "alignment" you mean "time alignment" (tm Long Associates), then you are incorrect - it does matter.

Everyone: As far as that stupid published "test" using coat hangers?
Well that's about as smart as a test of ham recievers in an environment that is high in noise, like an industrial park. What would such a test tell you about the recievers? Maybe how the noise blankers work? Or how about a test of receivers with really bad antennas connected, or on a day when the bands were dead? Yep, sure enough, can't tell much difference between them? Duh.

Ok, let's go back and revist the race car analogy.
You gonna spend a few grand on a tire for your car?
No?
Betcha will if ur runing in Indy or IROC.
Guess tires don't matter on a car?
How about they matter MORE the higher the performance level required??
At lower levels of performance, the differences are meaningless, or much much less significant or of little interest.
Same thing in audio.

Sure there is BS in audio, just like in other areas - but that does not mean that there are NO DIFFERENCES or that caps, resistors or wires are all the same.

Figure it out already.

             _-_-

[KA1ZGC]

Ok, let's go back and revist the race car analogy.
You gonna spend a few grand on a tire for your car?
No?
Betcha will if ur runing in Indy or IROC.
Guess tires don't matter on a car?
How about they matter MORE the higher the performance level required??
At lower levels of performance, the differences are meaningless, or much much less significant or of little interest.
Same thing in audio.

The idea of an analogy is that it be analogous to the instant topic.

What is the audio equivalent "run[n]ing in Indy or IROC"? You're talking about things that don't apply to the home consumer (who make up the entirety of the audiophool market).

What units are used to measure higher or lower "levels of performance" in either the auto or audio industry? If there are none, how does one make such a determination?

Sure there is BS in audio, just like in other areas - but that does not mean that there are NO DIFFERENCES or that caps, resistors or wires are all the same.

...nor does it mean that every perceived difference in audio perfomance is never BS.

Figure it out already.

Stop being abusive, Bear. That's why nobody listens to you when you get all wrapped around the axles whenever someone suggests something which has nothing to do with you or your work may be more audiophoolery than good audio practice.

Stop reacting to anybody and everybody's doubts about some given claim of audio goodness by some third party as a personal attack against you, already.

--Thom
Killer Audio One Zero Gravity Copper

[k4kyv]

Does anyone recall the story that came out a couple months ago - there a room full of audiophiles/phools was unable to distinguish between speakers connected with monstercable and coat hanger wire, in a double blind test.

As far as that stupid published "test" using coat hangers?
Well that's about as smart as a test of ham recievers in an environment that is high in noise, like an industrial park. What would such a test tell you about the recievers? Maybe how the noise blankers work? Or how about a test of receivers with really bad antennas connected, or on a day when the bands were dead? Yep, sure enough, can't tell much difference between them? Duh.

Ok, let's go back and revist the race car analogy.
You gonna spend a few grand on a tire for your car?
No?
Betcha will if ur runing in Indy or IROC.
Guess tires don't matter on a car?
How about they matter MORE the higher the performance level required??
At lower levels of performance, the differences are meaningless, or much much less significant or of little interest.
Same thing in audio.

What are you talking about?  How can the required performance level of a set of speakers (or any other audio apparatus for that matter) be any higher than when a group of people, claiming to be experts in the field, are doing serious listening tests for the subtle qualities they would expect from a system before spending loads of money for it and taking it home?

That is like saying that the competitors doing test runs for the Indy 500 would be using old Chevys and Fords with stock tires because the expected performance levels at test runs are at "lower levels" than those at the real race.

How would listening to speakers in order to compare speaker-cable performance in a well-engineered test situation, be like testing a communications receiver with a poor antenna in a noisy industrial park?  Wouldn't it be more comparable to listening for the weakest signals under the most difficult band conditions through the best receiving antenna at the lowest possible noise location?

If a double-blind listening test with a room full of experts (many of these self-proclaimed of course), didn't call for a high enough performance level to distinguish the subtle qualities that you speak of, then give us an example of what kind of evaluation would.

Chances are, the acoustics in that room where the tests were conducted, the performance quality of the speakers used for the tests, and quality of the audio sources driving the speakers, equalled or exceeded anything the audiophools and audiophiles might have had in their homes.

[WBear2GCR]

What are you talking about?  How can the required performance level of a set of speakers (or any other audio apparatus for that matter) be any higher than when a group of people, claiming to be experts in the field, are doing serious listening tests for the subtle qualities they would expect from a system before spending loads of money for it and taking it home?

Simple Don, there are several factors here. What do we know about this "test"?
Who are these "experts"?
What is their "credential" for claim of expertise"
Do they have an agenda/prejudice?
Were the test conditions published and scientifically controlled?
Are the conclusions drawn/published warranted?

It is fairly trivial to create a test for this sort of thing that looks reasonable on the surface but actually contains a number of what are called "confounding factors."

Good example in point is a "test CD" sent to me some years back by an advocate of "ABX" that contained test material that absolutely was incapable of revealing the sorts of differences that allegedly was being tested for - ergo a perfect result was had. The problem with the result was that there was no basis for making a differentiation, so none was had - flawed test, confounding factor.

That is like saying that the competitors doing test runs for the Indy 500 would be using old Chevys and Fords with stock tires because the expected performance levels at test runs are at "lower levels" than those at the real race.

Ummm... not sure what you mean here Don?
The aim at Indy is to achieve the highest performance, not a moderate or median level of performance.
If you want to test the limits, you need gear (cars, planes, rockets, audio, whatever) that is capable of reaching those limits - that's all I am saying.

How would listening to speakers in order to compare speaker-cable performance in a well-engineered test situation, be like testing a communications receiver with a poor antenna in a noisy industrial park?  Wouldn't it be more comparable to listening for the weakest signals under the most difficult band conditions through the best receiving antenna at the lowest possible noise location?

Perhaps - depends on what you are testing?
I was attempting to give an example of a confounding factor that would render comparisons essentially meaningless. Obviously one that is exagerrated in degree in order to make clear the issue.

If a double-blind listening test with a room full of experts (many of these self-proclaimed of course), didn't call for a high enough performance level to distinguish the subtle qualities that you speak of, then give us an example of what kind of evaluation would.

Double blind or not is another issue.
It does call for "high enough performance level"!
The question then is how does one objectively verify that level?
If you can tell me how these "tests" that make claims of "no difference" have verified the performance level of their equipment, I'll take their tests more seriously, ok? 

FYI, afaik, they just don't verify anything much in objective terms - which is one of my biggest complaints about the alleged "science" of these tests. In my book it is necessary to at minimum provide enough objective information about the test conditions so that another "researcher" could duplicate the test. Have yet to see one published anywhere that would make that even vaguely possible.

Chances are, the acoustics in that room where the tests were conducted, the performance quality of the speakers used for the tests, and quality of the audio sources driving the speakers, equalled or exceeded anything the audiophools and audiophiles might have had in their homes.

Dunno what it exceeded or did not exceed.
That's the point.
I know audio enthusiasts who have systems that exceed the typical "high-end system" (pick where you want to find that or hear it) and those that do not. Chances are chances, and that doesn't make for an objectively valid test.

The BEST that anyone could say about the coat hanger test, or ANY of the other tests of this sort is that for THAT PARTICULAR TEST "X" was concluded. Nothing more.

             _-_-bear

[WBear2GCR]

The idea of an analogy is that it be analogous to the instant topic.

What is the audio equivalent "run[n]ing in Indy or IROC"? You're talking about things that don't apply to the home consumer (who make up the entirety of the audiophool market).

Say what Thom??
People out there spend in inordinate amount of Buck$ to "buy the best" in audio, akin to those whose hobby it is to sponsor a IROC or INDY race car, or some sailboat, etc...

The quest for the best has nothing to do with the median of the home audio market.

What units are used to measure higher or lower "levels of performance" in either the auto or audio industry? If there are none, how does one make such a determination?

Indeed. How one makes a determination is the key issue.
One might just start by measuring those things that are measurable and known?
Oddly, we never see that with these tests, now do we?
Well, a rhetorical question...

Sure there is BS in audio, just like in other areas - but that does not mean that there are NO DIFFERENCES or that caps, resistors or wires are all the same.

...nor does it mean that every perceived difference in audio perfomance is never BS.

Nor did I say that it is.
There is BS in audio.
On both sides of this "audibility" issue.

Figure it out already.

Stop being abusive, Bear. That's why nobody listens to you when you get all wrapped around the axles whenever someone suggests something which has nothing to do with you or your work may be more audiophoolery than good audio practice.

Abusive Tom?
Not.
It's the same thing as calling them "gawd damn Slopbucketeers"...
Are ALL people who use SSB running "slopbucket" Tom?
Is that the impression you want to give?
Well it is IF you say such things.
The term "audiphool" is a negative term that paints a wide brush.
It implies that anyone who doesn't believe - in this case- that coat hanger wire sounds the same as audio cable XYZ is then an audiophool worthy of derision??
 
(... seems like I recall you had a website with that name, or one like it?? Soooo... maybe you have a dog in this fight??)

The coat hanger test was BS, and those who pick up on it and bandy it about as some sort of definitive proof of a particular prejudice are in error. Personally, I don't think it is a useful thing to permit this sort of mis-understanding to remain unquestioned nor for it to stand.

I challenge it and other statements like it in the forums that I participate in... not just here.

Stop reacting to anybody and everybody's doubts about some given claim of audio goodness by some third party as a personal attack against you, already.

Thom, you can express doubts without using negative terms, eh?
And, I'm not taking anything personally at all, not sure why you get that idea.
Just taking a position as vigorously as those who are asserting one that I think is quite preposterous (and factually incorrect as well).

--Thom
Killer Audio One Zero Gravity Copper

[KA1ZGC]

The term "audiphool" is a negative term that paints a wide brush.
It implies that anyone who doesn't believe - in this case- that coat hanger wire sounds the same as audio cable XYZ is then an audiophool worthy of derision??

You yourself have said many times that these things are in the ear of the beholder. Your implication is that anyone who doesn't perceive a difference between the two is clearly anti-audiophile. I don't see how your implication is any better than the one your perceive being made by others.

(... seems like I recall you had a website with that name, or one like it?? Soooo... maybe you have a dog in this fight??)

That's awfully funny coming from a guy who builds expensive audio amplifiers for a living!!

Pot, kettle, black.

Nice talking to you.

--Thom
Killer Appetizer One Zesty Green Cannabis

[WBear2GCR]

Thom,

try some decafe?

you're confused...

           _-_-bear

[Opcom]

avoiding the noise as I don't want to be part of the dispute, can someone explain to me why I need rear speakers like in these nice studio setups?

I have two ears. I have two large speakers at the front of the room and their 15" woofers are hooked up as the subwoofers. It sounds the same to me as the same stereo material played on a friends system that had 2 front, 2 rear, and a subwoofer.

I play a laserdisc video of star wars. The explosions and lasers sound the same. In the opening scene, I do not percieve the sound of the imperial cruiser passing overhead from the rear to the front as it pursues the millenium falcon. (putting aside of course that these things make no noise in space - so no wise acre remarks!)

So, why are two rear speakers used? Do I need special program material to notice? Does it make a difference really?

In the movie theater, I am not sure I can tell the speakers in behind from those in front. I can detect the ones on the sides if I am sitting in the right place.

(to digress , It may or may not be a moot topic as to whether I need amps that match the phase closely over the audio range - because a speaker might not, especially when used with a crossover. So if the woofer and tweeter are positioned in the same plane, but the woofer's signal lags because of inductance and the teeter leads because of capacitance, what effect does that have?)

Sorry for digressing and jumping topic, but aside from using the best electronic parts to make up the system, what should I do about rear speakers in general and is it worth the fuss?

[WBear2GCR]

The  home theater "standard" of 5.1 refers to a left and right front speaker, plus a center speaker, a subwoofer channel (the 'point one'), and two rear channel speakers. Unless you run the DVD player in 5.1 mode, you won't get the multiple channels of decoded information, you'll only get stereo. Most simple DVD players do not have 5 channels of output on the rear, so you'd need a "5.1 decoder" to get that information.

Some movies may have completely different sonic information on the rear channels in 5.1 while some may merely use them for "ambience" that depends on the movie and who decided what in the mix.

Does that explain it?

          _-_-bear

[wavebourn]

Wavebourn: ur a smart fellow, and have done some good things - although painting 40's vintage bakelite radios is not high on my list - but it is a mistake to judge things of this sort unless your point of reference is sufficiently broad and includes both a technically astute reference and personal experience coupled with the ability to hear well. And, if by "alignment" you mean "time alignment" (tm Long Associates), then you are incorrect - it does matter.

Corrections:
1) I'm not a smart fellow, but I don't hesitate to learn and experiment.
2) Painting and repainting are different things, though irrelevant to the topic.
3) I mean physical alignment result of that can't be corrected by any electrical means.
4) Are you a reader or a writer? I never said that time alignment does not matter.

Now, why do you think people don't take your opinions seriously, though ur smart fella? 

[wavebourn]

avoiding the noise as I don't want to be part of the dispute, can someone explain to me why I need rear speakers like in these nice studio setups?

Initially there was a belief that the original recorded reverberation reproduced by rear speakers will overlap reflections from walls of listening room, but unfortunately the effect was like the result of using a cedar tree deodorant smells like a poop under a cedar tree.
But the industry went ahead before people realized that smell so movie makers quickly adopted new technology for environmental effects.

Later, in order to clear the marked for new production more and more channels were introduced. Like yesterday dealers pushed on my wife to sell a new Rainbow vacuum cleaner because a label is of a wrong color (i.e. obsolete model), while continued talking that their vacuum cleaners last more than 50 years and don't loose value. 

[WBear2GCR]

Corrections:
1) I'm not a smart fellow, but I don't hesitate to learn and experiment.
2) Painting and repainting are different things, though irrelevant to the topic.
3) I mean physical alignment result of that can't be corrected by any electrical means.
4) Are you a reader or a writer? I never said that time alignment does not matter.

It seems to me that since you are not a native English speaker (I am making an assumption here...) that some of your intended meaning is not quite clear, and that I may have misunderstood what you meant.

For example I'm not sure what you mean by "3)" above.

Now, why do you think people don't take your opinions seriously, though ur smart fella? 

which people?
And, who said I am smart?? let me get my hands on him!!

Thom? I count Thom as a friend, and don't take his stomping about particularly seriously...

Btw, I have one of those Stewart-Warner inductively tuned table radios - I may be incorrect, but I think they were all made in natural brown bakelite. Fwiw, that is one tremendously good AM radio... I've had it since my Dad brought it home some time in the 50s... not sure, but he may have picked it out of the trash and repaired it, which I know he did to get TVs back then... 


         _-_-Wiggly Brontosaurus Two Great Crocidile Regressions

[wavebourn]

For example I'm not sure what you mean by "3)" above.

I mean that sound traveling from different drivers come to your bEar shifted by phase since distances are different.

Btw, I have one of those Stewart-Warner inductively tuned table radios - I may be incorrect, but I think they were all made in natural brown bakelite. Fwiw, that is one tremendously good AM radio... I've had it since my Dad brought it home some time in the 50s... not sure, but he may have picked it out of the trash and repaired it, which I know he did to get TVs back then... 

Mine was painted, and the paint was scuffed in many places. Also, I've found on ePay and on other sites similar tuners, all of them were painted.

Is my English understandable now?

[WBear2GCR]

I mean that sound traveling from different drivers come to your bEar shifted by phase since distances are different.

Ah, I see.

Well that would depend much on the type of speaker one is considering?

Single source fullrange speakers would not have that particular issue, including ESLs, some planars, etc... And for speakers that are wide-range, covering most of the audio spectrum (like some horns) that would be a secondary issue since the phase difference would likely be out of the regions where the ear is especially sensitive to this.

Multiple full range drivers in an array have other issues, such as comb filter effects WRT freq vs driver dimension...

D'Appolito wrote some papers in which he utilized the phase differences to control the polar response. Those are interesting.

Also, some in the field seem to feel that most phase differences are inaudible, especially the phase shifts that occur gradually across the entire audio spectrum (typical of most speakers...)

Others might prefer to look at the wavefront as being combined beyond a certain distance, and then only the frequency response varying with respect to angle?

I dunno, I try to avoid the problem by using fullrange or wide-range speakers myself.

In multiple driver systems, my experience is that the closer the drivers are to having a combined impulse response that is "aligned in time", either on axis, or on the axis to the preferred listening position, the better the system sounds in terms of spatial presentation. That's been my experience.

Btw, I have one of those Stewart-Warner inductively tuned table radios - I may be incorrect, but I think they were all made in natural brown bakelite. Fwiw, that is one tremendously good AM radio... I've had it since my Dad brought it home some time in the 50s... not sure, but he may have picked it out of the trash and repaired it, which I know he did to get TVs back then... 

Mine was painted, and the paint was scuffed in many places. Also, I've found on ePay and on other sites similar tuners, all of them were painted.

Hmmm... wonder who is painting them?
Do they look like factory painted pieces?
Maybe it is a West Coast thing? I'm on the East Coast, btw...
Should be pretty easy to determine this via a close inspection of the paint, paint type and technique, I would imagine.
I've seen a whole lot of bakelite table radios, and can not recall seeing a unit painted at the factory myself. Later on the manufacturers went away from Bakelite, and went with thermoplastic that had pigment, usually in white or brown, an occasional black as I recall. But these were smaller radios, made in the 60s and used subminiature tubes, not octals and loctals, as I recall.
I suspect there are others on here who know far more about the 50s vintage table radio than I do. I'm just recalling it from my childhood and from what I've seen at various places since then...

Is my English understandable now?

Would you prefer that I not say if I don't understand something?
Anyhow, think we've got it all cleared up now! 

Regards,

          _-_-bear

[wavebourn]

I mean that sound traveling from different drivers come to your bEar shifted by phase since distances are different.

Ah, I see.

Well that would depend much on the type of speaker one is considering?

No. Speed of sound does not depend on type of speakers.

You may draw lines between centers of 2 speakers to listener's ear. If their length is different no doubt a comb filter effect will start from some frequency. The bigger is the difference, the lower frequency it will start from. that's why I use 0.5" tweeters and 4" midrangers, and place them as close to each other as possible, and strictly vertically.
But if one speaker is on the level of your ear, another one is 40" higher, no doubt you'll hear deep bumps and dips, and their frequencies will depend on whether you sit, or stand.

[WBear2GCR]

I mean that sound traveling from different drivers come to your bEar shifted by phase since distances are different.

Ah, I see.

Well that would depend much on the type of speaker one is considering?

No. Speed of sound does not depend on type of speakers.

Phase shift does not depend on the speed of sound in air.

You may draw lines between centers of 2 speakers to listener's ear. If their length is different no doubt a comb filter effect will start from some frequency. The bigger is the difference, the lower frequency it will start from. that's why I use 0.5" tweeters and 4" midrangers, and place them as close to each other as possible, and strictly vertically.
But if one speaker is on the level of your ear, another one is 40" higher, no doubt you'll hear deep bumps and dips, and their frequencies will depend on whether you sit, or stand.

I think that your example is not quite correct.

If the two drivers do not reproduce the same frequencies then there is no "comb filter" effect. (yes, most speakers overlap the drivers...) One is most likely to see a comb filter effect with multiple identical drivers in an array. The Gradient speaker is one method intended to eliminate the comb filter effect in a vertical array of identical drivers, iirc.

With closely spaced drivers like the tweeter and mid you discuss, there are phase and acoustic distance issues between the drivers that will effect their frequency response and polar response both.

I suggested that by using a single driver, like a fullrange ESL of sufficient height and thin enough width that one eliminates the sort of issues that are being discussed here - just one example.

But this is the forum for AMfone, so perhaps this discussion belongs on diyaudio, or another similar site? 

                          _-_-bear

[wavebourn]

No comments... 

[Opcom]

The  home theater "standard" of 5.1 refers to a left and right front speaker, plus a center speaker, a subwoofer channel (the 'point one'), and two rear channel speakers. Unless you run the DVD player in 5.1 mode, you won't get the multiple channels of decoded information, you'll only get stereo. Most simple DVD players do not have 5 channels of output on the rear, so you'd need a "5.1 decoder" to get that information.

Some movies may have completely different sonic information on the rear channels in 5.1 while some may merely use them for "ambience" that depends on the movie and who decided what in the mix.

Does that explain it?

          _-_-bear

Yes. I do not use a 5.1 player, so there is no need for extra speakers till (or if) I get one. Stereo will do the same with the stuff I am using until then.

[N3DRB The Derb]

as the thread starter, I'm requesting it be locked and allowed to fade away. Everyone's had their say, and no minds have been changed.

Please lock it up and allow it to die a dignified death.