|
|
Post by matt on Jun 9, 2012 18:52:46 GMT -5
You stormed into this thread like hell on wheels demanding to see this white paper (you have deleted that post) ... Wow. That was quite some edit. Now rlw's comment "Harsh, dude <g> Now, where the heck is dat white paper?" no longer makes any sense without knowing what was there. It is clear that the original language was regrettable. That said, the momentum of harshness that it started is still going and an apology would be more effective in slowing it than a covert edit. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,353
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 9, 2012 18:56:47 GMT -5
MBL 101e Radialstrahler X-Treme How do they compare to Bose? They suck since they are much too big and don't watch my furniture. That's the only reason why I don't own them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tip on Jun 9, 2012 19:29:08 GMT -5
Way back a few posts, Mark wrote: "In the meanwhile - FYI, what I meant re. point #2 was this...take a given driver, give it an input signal. It will produce a given output, and we can measure how well the output matches the input. This is the traditional frequency response measurement, and we quote whether or not the output frequency matched the input within +/- "x" dB. Now, take that driver, have it play a single frequency with an input volume of "x", then "0.5x", then "2x", then "x" again...all milliseconds apart...measure its frequency response for each input volume. I would be willing to bet, based solely on hysteresis of materials that comprise the driver + the physics that drive response time of the driver, that the initial comparison for frequency response at input volume "x" would be different than the final comparison, and that the data for the 0.5x and 2x would also be different. Said another way, the dynamic response (having varying input levels) would differ (perhaps dramatically) from the static. And, if we add in the complexity of a single driver producing, dynamically, a range of frequencies - things get...well, more complicated." You're talking about impulse response and transient response, and decay time due to material inertia. I thought Mark was talking about "deviation from linearity" at different SPL levels due to driver compression until I noticed that he mentions that the level differences would be milliseconds apart. A good site to check on the deviation from linearity of various speakers is SoundStage's speaker-measurement history of the NRC: www.soundstageav.com/speakermeasurements.html |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,498
|
Post by LCSeminole on Jun 9, 2012 19:32:07 GMT -5
David, I actually got to hear two different speaker models by MBL a few months back and I believe these were one of the models. To this day, they had to be the most accurate and transparent, not to mention the best sounding, that I've ever heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tip on Jun 9, 2012 19:39:41 GMT -5
Most likely would not (understand details of a white paper). I am personally curious to read it, and while I don't have a EE degree - my engineering history + study of sound metrics vs. human hearing perception should help me "get it". Mark I think you're correct -- a EE degree wouldn't help you "get it" at all. But an understanding of acoustics, psycho acoustics, mathematics, and digital signal processing would be helpful. So I think you've "got it" to "get it."  |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,353
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 9, 2012 19:45:55 GMT -5
David, I actually got to hear two different speaker models by MBL a few months back and I believe these were one of the models. To this day, they had to be the most accurate and transparent, not to mention the best sounding, that I've ever heard. I agree. They remain the only home system I have ever heard that could reproduce the sound of Taiko drums and make them sound live and in the room. If I had an extra $million laying around I'd own a set (with the monster MBL amps to drive them.) |
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Jun 9, 2012 20:00:22 GMT -5
You stormed into this thread like hell on wheels demanding to see this white paper (you have deleted that post) ... Wow. That was quite some edit. Now rlw's comment "Harsh, dude <g> Now, where the heck is dat white paper?" no longer makes any sense without knowing what was there. It is clear that the original language was regrettable. That said, the momentum of harshness that it started is still going and an apology would be more effective in slowing it than a covert edit. There was no covert edit. Please read post #35. I discovered the error and I corrected it and I reported that I corrected it. There was no attempt to hide anything. I also apologized to the only persons who should been offended, Dan & Lonnie. Give it a rest guys. This horse died a long time ago  |
|
|
|
Post by Tip on Jun 9, 2012 20:05:54 GMT -5
Dave...to your question ("Mark, are you talking about active adjustment for changing conditions while it is playing? The Bang & Olufsen Beolab 5 does that.") I'll look into the B&O to see if that's what I meant or not (regarding my point #2). I don't believe the Beolab 5 actually does that. It has a built-in mic that extends out of the base while performing the calibration phase that adjusts the EQ of the lower frequencies. But the mic is retracted during the playing of music and doesn't do any active adjustment. Although the output level is constant, most room correction systems don't use a steady state test signal, at least in the frequency domain (yeah, I know that's not what you were saying ). Some, like TacT, output pulses that cover a wide frequency range (TacT uses three pulses for three different frequency ranges with appropriate time-windowing for each.) Others perform a frequency sweep, for example from 10 Hz to 22 kHz. The frequency, impulse, step, and phase responses can be calculated from either of these methods though FFT analysis. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,353
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 9, 2012 20:10:33 GMT -5
The Beolab 5 has a real-time active correction system, but it is active only in the bass region. So I stand corrected, it is not a real-time full-range EQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 9, 2012 20:18:32 GMT -5
There was no covert edit. Please read post #35. I discovered the error and I corrected it and I reported that I corrected it. There was no attempt to hide anything. I also apologized to the only persons who should been offended, Dan & Lonnie. Give it a rest guys. This horse died a long time ago I apologize. I guess I skipped over that post since I lost interest after the TP (the other white paper) posts; the other attempt at reducing the conversation's shrillness. I wish that this distracting tone died long ago, but it seems to have qualities of the undead. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by klinemj on Jun 9, 2012 21:55:06 GMT -5
Dave and Tip...thanks for the links!
In Dave's post, he mentioned, "likely lower dbSPL of successive pulses"...this is what I was referring to as changes dynamically...not a change from the input frequency to the output frequency. If the dB level of successive pulses changes...so, let's say at 12,540 hz, a first pulse is "+0.5 dB" from target and the second pulse is "-0.5 dB" from target...an EQ setting based on the first pulse that dropped the dB level at 12,540 hz by 0.5 dB to get to flat, would result in being -1 dB from target on pulse #2.
Now, I realize that the adjustments are not down to a specific frequency...it's over a band...I was just picking number to illustrate a point.
It sure would be fun to hear what a system that could correct for things like that would be...computing power would have to be immense, and even then - the music would likely have to be played at a delay to allow the system to detect what the speaker was about to play, calculate an adjustment, make the adjustment, then allow the corrected tone to be played.
I know I'm getting a bit silly with this...but in my job I get to postulate "what could be", then work to figure out how to make it happen via technology breakthroughs (just not in the electronics field...).
Anyway - thanks to Dave and tip for the links...I will give each a more thorough read. Right now, I just got home from a little party and after 3 beers am not thinking as clearly as I need to digest your links fully!
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Tip on Jun 9, 2012 22:37:07 GMT -5
I found the link to the NAD M2 a good read. It makes a lot of sense to keep the signal digital until just before the speaker posts. Yes, I also thought it was illuminating -- thanks for the post! The NAD M2 is similar to the TacT Millennium and S2150, which were the first digital amps, but is more advanced. Did you know that the TacT line originally was going to be sold as NAD products? But Peter Lyngdorf, who was the majority owner of NAD, was so enthusiastic about the TacT products that he sold his interest in NAD and started TacT Audio with Dr. Radomir "Boz" Bozovic, the designer of the TacT room correction system. (The original TacT RCS actually had the NAD logo on the start-up screen.) However, Peter and Boz had a falling out some years ago, which resulted in Boz taking ownership of TacT Audio and Peter starting Lyngdorf Audio in direct competition with TacT. (You may have noticed that TacT and Lyngdorf products share the same enclosures!) Peter also took the TacT speaker line with him to Lyngdorf Audio, so my TacT MH1s and W410s are now Lyngdorf speakers. BTW, in addition to Lyngdorf Audio, Peter also owns SteinwayLyngdorf, and DALI. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2012 23:29:42 GMT -5
Wow, Tip! TacT, Proceed, B&W, Linn...You certainly know good equipment! I'd love to hear your system some day, I bet it rocks!!
Best Wishes,
-RW-
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Jun 10, 2012 0:41:58 GMT -5
I found the link to the NAD M2 a good read. It makes a lot of sense to keep the signal digital until just before the speaker posts. Yes, I also thought it was illuminating -- thanks for the post! The NAD M2 is similar to the TacT Millennium and S2150, which were the first digital amps, but is more advanced. Did you know that the TacT line originally was going to be sold as NAD products? But Peter Lyngdorf, who was the majority owner of NAD, was so enthusiastic about the TacT products that he sold his interest in NAD and started TacT Audio with Dr. Radomir "Boz" Bozovic, the designer of the TacT room correction system. (The original TacT RCS actually had the NAD logo on the start-up screen.) However, Peter and Boz had a falling out some years ago, which resulted in Boz taking ownership of TacT Audio and Peter starting Lyngdorf Audio in direct competition with TacT. (You may have noticed that TacT and Lyngdorf products share the same enclosures!) Peter also took the TacT speaker line with him to Lyngdorf Audio, so my TacT MH1s and W410s are now Lyngdorf speakers. BTW, in addition to Lyngdorf Audio, Peter also owns SteinwayLyngdorf, and DALI. Thanks for the info. I had no idea about the relationship between these companies and NAD. Dave. |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Jun 10, 2012 6:39:07 GMT -5
I found the link to the NAD M2 a good read. It makes a lot of sense to keep the signal digital until just before the speaker posts. There were parts of the document that tested my ability to understand but on the whole I now know how they came about designing the M2, the basics on how it functions and the advantages with this design over a typical analog amp. The only thing I don't know is why they were so hell bent on making a Class D work and the advantage of Class D in it's own right. I'm guessing efficiency but I can google this for more. Now I never expected a white paper to sell a product but this document did just that. I'm interested. If only I could find something to fault my Emo amps on. Trouble is my Emo amps are the best part of my system so will not get replaced. So I will not be buying an M2, but I will look up their price out of interest only. Dave. Dave, I thought you and the guys might like to see that NAD white paper. The M2 is quite a revolutionary amp with much new technology. It sounds terrific and as you know I'm a big NAD fan. It's a shame it's like $6000.00 Ouch!! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Jun 10, 2012 7:03:27 GMT -5
Here you go Jamrock, a white paper from NAD so you can practice.. :-) I expect you to read and explain it to all of us because I have no idea what it says, it's too technical for us and has nothing to do whether or not it sounds good or not. We're waiting.... I demand it!! :-) freepdfhosting.com/daf84b0e52.pdfMy original link to the NAD M2 post. FYI :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Jun 10, 2012 7:05:05 GMT -5
I found the link to the NAD M2 a good read. It makes a lot of sense to keep the signal digital until just before the speaker posts. Yes, I also thought it was illuminating -- thanks for the post! The NAD M2 is similar to the TacT Millennium and S2150, which were the first digital amps, but is more advanced. Did you know that the TacT line originally was going to be sold as NAD products? But Peter Lyngdorf, who was the majority owner of NAD, was so enthusiastic about the TacT products that he sold his interest in NAD and started TacT Audio with Dr. Radomir "Boz" Bozovic, the designer of the TacT room correction system. (The original TacT RCS actually had the NAD logo on the start-up screen.) However, Peter and Boz had a falling out some years ago, which resulted in Boz taking ownership of TacT Audio and Peter starting Lyngdorf Audio in direct competition with TacT. (You may have noticed that TacT and Lyngdorf products share the same enclosures!) Peter also took the TacT speaker line with him to Lyngdorf Audio, so my TacT MH1s and W410s are now Lyngdorf speakers. BTW, in addition to Lyngdorf Audio, Peter also owns SteinwayLyngdorf, and DALI. Wow. I thought I was one of the very few that made the NAD/Tact connection.... Bravo. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by klinemj on Jun 10, 2012 7:58:57 GMT -5
Yet one more thing for me to read, now! I am going to have a busy day reading! I also have liked NAD over the years. I auditioned many (amps, preamps, etc.) but never bought...I always found something else I liked as well or better for a lower price (like, the my old Rotel amp/preamp I still have powering my central system...which, by the way - is what gets its input from my Sonos ZP-90).
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by SticknStones on Jun 10, 2012 8:19:26 GMT -5
Here you go Jamrock, a white paper from NAD so you can practice.. :-) I expect you to read and explain it to all of us because I have no idea what it says, it's too technical for us and has nothing to do whether or not it sounds good or not. We're waiting.... I demand it!! :-) freepdfhosting.com/daf84b0e52.pdfMy original link to the NAD M2 post. FYI :-) That is a nice position paper and as you would expect the product is on the market and not on the bench which is the logical time to produce such a document. I would expect that any position paper on the XMC would also be post-production. In terms of technical specificity on this paper if you like it techie you got it! ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2012 9:34:34 GMT -5
Back in the day, I owned an NAD 2150 pwoer amp and an NAD 3150 integrated amp. They were both bridged and used to power ADS 710 speakers. Lord, that was an awesome rig!! The NAD amplifiers sounded absolutely terrific: very clean, dynamic, with balls so big they needed a wheelbarrow <g>. Now I wish I had never sold them.
After reading that amp's white paper, I sure would like to get me some NAD power. I guess I would have to get one in-house and compare it against my Butler. And, Lord knows, I do *love* my Butler - it is an exceptionally good-sounding amp and it's PAID FOR!
Their pre-processor's specs (M-15) sound suspiciously like the UMC-1's. But I imagine that an NAD M-25 power amp coupled with Emo's upcoming XMC-1 would be a killer combination, except for aesthetics. The NAD gear is made to visually match other NAD gear.
But I think I could get past that pretty easily...<g>
-RW-
|
|
