|
Post by roadrunner on Dec 13, 2009 17:47:06 GMT -5
ntrain
You may not think any reviewer has any integrety in what they report, but I have found that the reviews that Audioholics do are pretty reliable. They call a spade a spade and do not hesitate to point out product deficiencies. When they reviewed the ERD-1, they had nothing to gain by comparing the ERD-1 to the Axiom QS8 surrounds other than the fact that the QS8's had been extremely well thought of by many different sources.
The Axioms are built more to your definition of how you would like to see the ERD-1 -- with dual woofers in addition to dual tweeters. Those Axioms had garnered many rave reviews, so it was a natural choice to see how the ERD-1 would hold up when compared to a "top choice" surround. To Audioholics' reviewer's surprise, the ERD-1 easily outperformed the Axiom QS8 on every single "matrix" the reviewer could think of. He further went on to say that the ERD-1 was in a class by itself -- better than any other surround he was aware of.
But of course, since you don't endorse the ERD-1, I suppose I had better throw them to the curb -- even though they perform flawlessly in my system. ;D
Most of us on this board are well aware that you have to read all reviews with all filters turned up to high. A lot of reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I do not agree with your assertion that they are useless. They have some value, but you often must read between the lines to find out what is of value.
Too many users are thrilled with the performance the ERD-1 in their systems for me to have unquestioning faith in your opinions. Many of us on this board have been active enthuists in this hobby for over 40 years, but you respond to us as if we were newbies. There is no need to be insulting with your statements of opinion. ;D
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Dec 13, 2009 18:09:54 GMT -5
ntrain You may not think any reviewer has any integrety in what they report, but I have found that the reviews that Audioholics do are pretty reliable. They call a spade a spade and do not hesitate to point out product deficiencies. When they reviewed the ERD-1, they had nothing to gain by comparing the ERD-1 to the Axiom QS8 surrounds other than the fact that the QS8's had been extremely well thought of by many different sources. The Axioms are built more to your definition of how you would like to see the ERD-1 -- with dual woofers in addition to dual tweeters. Those Axioms had garnered many rave reviews, so it was a natural choice to see how the ERD-1 would hold up when compared to a "top choice" surround. To Audioholics' reviewer's surprise, the ERD-1 easily outperformed the Axiom QS8 on every single "matrix" the reviewer could think of. He further went on to say that the ERD-1 was in a class by itself -- better than any other surround he was aware of. But of course, since you don't endorse the ERD-1, I suppose I had better throw them to the curb -- even though they perform flawlessly in my system. ;D Most of us on this board are well aware that you have to read all reviews with all filters turned up to high. A lot of reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I do not agree with your assertion that they are useless. They have some value, but you often must read between the lines to find out what is of value. Too many users are thrilled with the performance the ERD-1 in their systems for me to have unquestioning faith in your opinions. Many of us on this board have been active enthuists in this hobby for over 40 years, but you respond to us as if we were newbies. There is no need to be insulting with your statements of opinion. ;D THe reviews aren't completely useless assuming they end it with frequency plot graphs, spectra decay graphs, etc etc, the "opinionated" review itself though I really don't pay attn. to. I can garner a speakers characterics by the drivers, crossovers used, box volume(if applicable), "price" for what you get, etc, etc. But the set up and review portion itself, is worthless to me. I don't know how well they are set up, the rooms sound characteristics, the "test equipment" used in the system, the users "ears" themselves etc etc. I am very familiar with Audioholics(Audiogon etc) and have been part of that board for 10 plus years, I know what info is credible to me and what isn't. I have heard and seen so many discussions on brand "X" of speaker being poor or good etc. from countless users who wouldn't know how to pour themselves a bowl of cereal, let alone set up a system. I have seen some systems with hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into them that sounded poor at best, and simple inexpensive systems that were a joy to listen to from a budget minded individual who really know about how to get the most out of the least. Alot of the professional reviewers I have found, don't fall into the latter category.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Dec 14, 2009 10:39:51 GMT -5
On the note of ERD-1s lacking in the bass department. If the x-over is at 80Hz, the sub is "working properly" and the levels are set, I don't see why the proper tone of bass will not appear from them. Sure, if you are doing surround gaming where each speaker could have to produce the same as the LCR, it may be in issue (not tested it) but for movies I don't think they are lacking. Additionally, if you want a bit more bass from the rear, why not add a dedicated sub to them? A 6.2 could be used instead, but is near enough double the price and is there in the range for those that would like a point source with more driver area and want to pay it. I am thinking of getting a pair of ERM-6.2s in to experiment with and compare (but likely will end up using them for another room or as the back surrounds). I would be interested in someone doing a direct comparison - play a movie track with just the side surrounds using ERD-1s and then again with 6.2s, record the outputs and pop it in a graph for all us to see. That way we might be able to compare properly, rather than just by looking at the design/personal taste (not that those are not useful things too).
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Dec 14, 2009 11:03:50 GMT -5
There is a reason you should not have full range speakers in multi-channel listening:
Full-range speakers are nice. I love full-range speakers, but they have no place in a multi-channel sound system if we want to have any chance of realizing a flat, uniform reproduction. Again, this goes back to acoustics: it is very difficult to get a similar low end response from five speakers spread out through a room, or even just three across the front of it, even if all the speakers are identical, because their different physical positions in the room are going to result in different acoustical loading (i.e., the bass response will not be the same from speaker to speaker). By summing all the bass in the sound track and sending it to a subwoofer, or set of subwoofers (all getting the same signal), the system's reproduction of bass from each channel will be uniform. That is why I run my full range L/R as "small", and keep the bass controlled by my sub and its auto EQ. Ken Kreisel, from Miller & Kreisel (M&K), had a treatise on this a few year back...
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Dec 14, 2009 11:55:34 GMT -5
... and indeed it seems to work.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Dec 14, 2009 12:06:25 GMT -5
There is a reason you should not have full range speakers in multi-channel listening: Full-range speakers are nice. I love full-range speakers, but they have no place in a multi-channel sound system if we want to have any chance of realizing a flat, uniform reproduction. Again, this goes back to acoustics: it is very difficult to get a similar low end response from five speakers spread out through a room, or even just three across the front of it, even if all the speakers are identical, because their different physical positions in the room are going to result in different acoustical loading (i.e., the bass response will not be the same from speaker to speaker). By summing all the bass in the sound track and sending it to a subwoofer, or set of subwoofers (all getting the same signal), the system's reproduction of bass from each channel will be uniform. That is why I run my full range L/R as "small", and keep the bass controlled by my sub and its auto EQ. Ken Kreisel, from Miller & Kreisel (M&K), had a treatise on this a few year back... Um, full range has no place in HT? Different accoustical loading? Are the full range drivers kicking around in different rooms? LOL. I've never had an issue with "full range" speakers to work correctly together in HT setups with proper polarity/phase. All your channels should be run as "full range" as possible within their ability, whether that be 250hz,120hz,80hz, 60hz etc. If you use all identical sized speakers for all your channels, your sound WILL be uniform. But your not going to get a uniform sound from a set of floorstanders up front with them set to "small" to match up with a tiny pair of "X" shelf/wall mounts out back if the drivers arent identical and of differing configurations. Best you can do is try and equalize em out, but thats not the best way of going about it naturally. The best sound HT systems I've dealt with used identical speakers for every channel, be it small monitors of full range floorstanders.
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Dec 14, 2009 12:18:19 GMT -5
Its not that you can't run full, it's extremely difficult to smooth out the bass response. That's why M&k recommends sub/sat and Emo does too.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Dec 14, 2009 12:27:46 GMT -5
Iits not that you can't run full, it's extremely difficult to smooth out the bass response. That's why M&k recommends sub/sat and Emo does too. If your "pre/pro" has a good independent individual channel user adjustable EQ, there will be no issues smoothing out repsonse. If your using some cheap receiver with limited tuning abilities, then you may(but very rarely) run into some response issues, nothing that still cant be corrected with basic level setup, speaker positioning and room treatments.
|
|
|
Post by checkereddemon on Dec 14, 2009 12:29:19 GMT -5
Actually, full-range speakers are preferred for a 5.1 system. Most "full-range" speakers actually start to roll-off the bass somewhere around 40-50 Hz. Knowing this, you simplysetup the subwoofer to come in at around 40-50 Hz and you're good to go. I know that my system improved noticeably when I went from little bitty (is that a technical term? <g>) surrounds to full-range surrounds...
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Dec 14, 2009 12:36:20 GMT -5
Actually, full-range speakers are preferred for a 5.1 system. Most "full-range" speakers actually start to roll-off the bass somewhere around 40-50 Hz. Knowing this, you simplysetup the subwoofer to come in at around 40-50 Hz and you're good to go. I know that my system improved noticeably when I went from little bitty (is that a technical term? <g>) surrounds to full-range surrounds... Yep, I normally run my subs low pass around 35-50hz with a steep low pass filter, and run my mains as low as they will go(In my bedroom HT thats about 80hz unfortunetly, my main system, the main channels run down to 50-60hz). Its the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Dec 14, 2009 12:46:54 GMT -5
My friend from Aperion Audio puts it this way: * Speakers used to be big so that they could efficiently reproduce bass. But now that subwoofers have freed your main speakers from this demanding chore, they can be nice and small – allowing you limitless placement flexibility around the room or even in the ceiling! * What determines the overall sound quality of your audio system? You might be surprised that the quality of the speakers themselves rival the importance of where you put them. Speaker placement is that important. But the optimal locations for the bass are often at odds with the demands of good stereo, clean, full midrange, and the ease of living with your speakers when they’re not working. Now the subwoofer can be put in formerly forbidden places, like a corner, where it can make better bass nicely tucked out of the way. Meanwhile, the now-small main speakers are much easier to place where they belong. * Here’s an astounding piece of audio trivia: a speaker can theoretically deliver 64 times more bass energy in one room placement than in another! This used to mean that a speaker needed to be in a specified place to keep its bass in balance with the rest of the sound. Now you can get good tonal balance – regardless of room placement – simply by turning the knob on the back of the subwoofer.The other benefit of a sub/sat system, known by experts such as Ken Kreisel is dynamics. By asking one amp and speaker to cover the upper audible range (the main speaker) and a completely different one the bottom, both do a better job than either could if it was trying to do the whole shebang. Many of us in the forum have small speakers, if not in the mains, certainly in the surrounds...and they can sound awesome! (Not to mention WAF...) Look in a magazine like Home Theater Architecture and look at the multi-thousand dollar systems they showcase each month. Almost all have small surrounds...because they are easily integrated with a sub. Unless you have tight control of a full range speaker placement from your seat, you will have to deal with 5X the bass issue from that spot. The subwoofer helps make this process easier to deal with. Bottom line: No one need apologize for having ERDs!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2009 14:10:45 GMT -5
There is a reason you should not have full range speakers in multi-channel listening: Full-range speakers are nice. I love full-range speakers, but they have no place in a multi-channel sound system if we want to have any chance of realizing a flat, uniform reproduction. Again, this goes back to acoustics: it is very difficult to get a similar low end response from five speakers spread out through a room, or even just three across the front of it, even if all the speakers are identical, because their different physical positions in the room are going to result in different acoustical loading (i.e., the bass response will not be the same from speaker to speaker). By summing all the bass in the sound track and sending it to a subwoofer, or set of subwoofers (all getting the same signal), the system's reproduction of bass from each channel will be uniform. That is why I run my full range L/R as "small", and keep the bass controlled by my sub and its auto EQ. Ken Kreisel, from Miller & Kreisel (M&K), had a treatise on this a few year back... This post is right on and very well stated. The posters who don't agree with this are ignoring the very complicated difficulty of eliminating room acoustical issues. Five or seven full range speakers will have standing waves that are not only standing they will be running amuck! ;D The ERD-1's are an excellent design incorporating the best of dipole and bipole in one small but robust speaker with very high power handling ability. The individual drivers handle with ease all signals they are sent.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Dec 14, 2009 14:53:38 GMT -5
There is a reason you should not have full range speakers in multi-channel listening: Full-range speakers are nice. I love full-range speakers, but they have no place in a multi-channel sound system if we want to have any chance of realizing a flat, uniform reproduction. Again, this goes back to acoustics: it is very difficult to get a similar low end response from five speakers spread out through a room, or even just three across the front of it, even if all the speakers are identical, because their different physical positions in the room are going to result in different acoustical loading (i.e., the bass response will not be the same from speaker to speaker). By summing all the bass in the sound track and sending it to a subwoofer, or set of subwoofers (all getting the same signal), the system's reproduction of bass from each channel will be uniform. That is why I run my full range L/R as "small", and keep the bass controlled by my sub and its auto EQ. Ken Kreisel, from Miller & Kreisel (M&K), had a treatise on this a few year back... This post is right on and very well stated. The posters who don't agree with this are ignoring the very complicated difficulty of eliminating room acoustical issues. Five or seven full range speakers will have standing waves that are not only standing they will be running amuck! ;D The ERD-1's are an excellent design incorporating the best of dipole and bipole in one small but robust speaker with very high power handling ability. The individual drivers handle with ease all signals they are sent. Getting rid of potential "standing waves" is not an issue at all and very easy. Many times its never even a problem to begin with. I have set up HT systems running dedicated sub/sats for each channel along with a few dedicated subs off the LFE channel. All it required was an RTA of some type and a variable phase control for each of the subs(And any decent sub will have a variable phase control on it). My main HT room is set up specifically that was as well too. I have no cancellation/reinforcment issues at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2009 15:03:56 GMT -5
Sorry maybe I misread, but I thought we were talking in a post above about having a HT system with all full range speakers operating down to as far as 40Hz.
Try eliminating standing waves (or sitting or kneeling waves) in the 40-80 range for all 5 or 7 speakers without moving them.
|
|
|
Post by checkereddemon on Dec 14, 2009 16:50:25 GMT -5
ChuckieNut postulated: "This post is right on and very well stated. The posters who don't agree with this are ignoring the very complicated difficulty of eliminating room acoustical issues. Five or seven full range speakers will have standing waves that are not only standing they will be running amuck! "
Chuckie, whether or not the speakers are full-range has nothing to do with standing waves. The size and shape of the room in concert with the dispersion characteristics and placement of the speakers determines whether or not you will have standing waves generated in the room.
And this problem is one of the reasons that room-correction systems are becoming so popular (and also because it's been "chip-ified"). They were developed to help mitigate this problem - as well as improper phasing, early reflection points, and other speaker-room interaction issues.
"The ERD-1's are an excellent design incorporating the best of dipole and bipole in one small but robust speaker with very high power handling ability. The individual drivers handle with ease all signals they are sent. "
Be careful making statements like that, son. I bet those speakers would toss their guts all over the room if you fed them a 110 db, 10 Hz signal...
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Dec 14, 2009 18:30:02 GMT -5
I`m just speaking about full rage speakers all around for a 7.2 system , I have tried and tried to do the sub sat system from JBL , Klipsch , infinity to Polk and it just doesn`t compare to a full range speakers all around (see sig) it just sounds better in every respect for movies and music I also have never had any problems with bass with this configuration ether though I do cross them at 60hz for music and 40hz for movies otherwise it can get boomy , but with proper calibration and placement it`s not a problem , if a person has the room to put full range speakers all around then I say do it you will not believe how much better the movie experience is I was floored on how much better every thing was I finally feel like I`m really there in the movie it`s quite uncanny but in saying that a sub sat system have there place and many are quit good and maybe even come close to a 7.2 full rang configuration , for me a sub/sat system does not even compete with my ( 7.2 full range speakers all around system) say that fast 10 times , but that`s just me , my ears and room
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Dec 14, 2009 19:03:19 GMT -5
...but on the obverse side, movie theaters are sub/ sat systems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2009 19:08:57 GMT -5
Sorry guys, maybe we are getting into semantics here. However, I always (maybe incorrectly) have referred to the nasty peaks in the bass range that affect both the upper area of subs and the lower area of full range speakers as standing waves. These peaks or humps usually are most audibly bothering in the 30-100 Hz range. Although bookshelf speakers have peaks above 100Hz or so I never recall anyone referring to the source as a standing wave. That is why I mention standing waves mainly when referring to floorstanding speakers much more so than bookshelf speakers..
It is very common to get these frequency response peaks. The main ways to eliminate them is to move the speakers or use some type if EQ. So sorry if my use of this term is not exactly correct but I recall standing waves as being identified as the culprit. Maybe I should call them room modes or some other term.
...............OK, just did some Googling and found a few quotes that might help verifiy my use of the term standing wave as far as it applies to bass frequency response. ;D
from Stereophile:
".....In small rooms, bass response below 200Hz is dominated by standing waves, or stationary sound-pressure waves established between opposing room boundaries—ie, between the floor and ceiling, and between walls. The frequencies at which standing waves occur (known as room modes) are determined by the dimensions of the room. At these frequencies, at certain locations in the room, sound-pressure peaks and dips of 20dB or more may occur. Standing waves are also slow to decay after the music signal has stopped. The end result may be an uneven response, bass boom, and a loss of clarity......"
from Podlot.com:
".....It is much less of a problem for higher frequencies since higher frequency sound waves are much shorter. At 6000Hz, for example, the wavelength measures roughly two and one eighth inches. So standing wave interference is typically a problem only for bass or lower frequency notes......"
from EthanWiner.com:
".....When bass frequencies bounce around in a room they generate standing waves. Standing waves are pressure nodes created when a sound wave reflected from a wall collides with the direct sound emanating from the loudspeaker. At some frequencies the reflections reinforce the direct sound, creating an increase in level at that location in the room. And at other frequencies the reflections tend to cancel the direct sound, lowering the volume or in some cases eliminating it altogether. (Standing waves can be reduced with non-parallel walls and an angled ceiling, but such construction is too costly for most home studios.) The variation in bass response caused by standing waves is perhaps the single biggest obstacle to mixdown satisfaction for home-studio owners. You create what you think is a terrific sounding mix in your studio, only to get complaints that it sounds either boomy or thin everywhere else.
Standing waves can also occur at midrange frequencies, but they are less intrusive there because most musical material does not contain sustained single notes as much as in the bass region. Further, midrange wavelengths are short enough that moving your head even a few inches will bring back a canceled tone. However, it is possible for a sustained note on a flute, French horn, or clarinet to create a standing wave. For this reason, sine waves are never used when measuring the frequency response of monitor speakers in a mixing room. Instead, pink noise is played through the loudspeakers because no single frequency is present in pink noise long enough for a standing wave to develop......"
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Dec 14, 2009 19:12:29 GMT -5
Sheesh! What is it with you and facts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2009 19:22:32 GMT -5
"The ERD-1's are an excellent design incorporating the best of dipole and bipole in one small but robust speaker with very high power handling ability. The individual drivers handle with ease all signals they are sent. " Be careful making statements like that, son. I bet those speakers would toss their guts all over the room if you fed them a 110 db, 10 Hz signal... ".....Be careful making statements like that, son. ....." Sorry son, but no one in their right mind would send the ERD-1's a 10Hz signal at any volume! That is why we use the crossover/high filter in the pre-pro or receiver to limit the signal sent to them at 80-100Hz or so and above. The sub handles all the surround frequencies below that. What I meant to say (which probably everyone else understood) was that even though small in size the ERD-1's have a very high power handling ability within their designed frequency response. Get it? ;D
|
|