|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 19, 2014 0:02:04 GMT -5
I think the ears are omnidirectional - otherwise we'd have never heard that saber-tooth tiger sneaking up behind us back in the old days.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Feb 19, 2014 0:07:31 GMT -5
I think the ears are omnidirectional - otherwise we'd have never heard that saber-tooth tiger sneaking up behind us back in the old days. Research that I have read says we hear sound better from in front of us. If and when I find this ill post it. I think it was in some sound wave analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 19, 2014 0:19:31 GMT -5
I'd suspect that at some frequencies, we may hear better from in front... But if you read it, then it may be so. I really don't know. It would seem to me, though, that being able to localize sounds from every possible area would be a necessary survival skill. Of course, when we hear a sound of interest behind us, we always turn toward it. Is this to confirm with our eyes what we thought we heard or to better hear what we thought we heard? I don't know.
It would seem, though, that over the many generations when people were at hazard from predators, that those who didn't localize sounds from all directions would not survive. Maybe we've had enough generations away from that necessity that the "only hear well from the front" set have reestablished their presence in the population. I'm purely speculating, here, so don't assume any weight at all to my comments...
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Feb 19, 2014 0:21:22 GMT -5
Nick,
You know, I think I understand.
The Bose 901 was very nice on some things. Music that was open and sort of airy sounding - Awesome on America's 1st album and a number of others. Most anything else sucked!
I bet it would sound good in any of the ambient positions of a HT. L/C/R are not ambient, everything else is, IMO.
I'm beginning to doubt the "all the same" hypothesis. I think an ambient speaker that "blows" sound in a number of directions (line array?) may be better for HT, while all-the-same is best for music.
A good day my friend,
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Feb 19, 2014 0:43:50 GMT -5
The Cornwalls are long gone. They had two problems in my room: .... Dahlquist DQ-10 AR-11 JBL L40 JBL L100 Magnepan II Magnepan 1.6 Spendor LS3/5a KEF 104.2 Some British Transmission lines Some EV 15" home-mades Klipsch Cornwall 1 Klipsch Cornwall 3 Klipsch LaScala 1 Klipsch LaScala 2 Klipsch Heresy 1 Klipsch Heresy 2 DCM KX10 Paradigm Studio 20 Paradigm Eclipse BP DefTech BP20 DefTech SM65 Some Tannoy bookshelves Emotiva Airmotiv 4 Boston Acoustics towers Yamaha NS-45 ..... Half the speakers listed above are high efficiency horns. You write about the dynamics of the Heresy II like it is a new experience? I would think you would be very familiar with it from previous speakers you have owned. What do you think is really new? |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 19, 2014 0:51:43 GMT -5
The Cornwall 3s left a sour taste in my mouth. I'd deliberately forgotten about high efficiency in the search for the things that those Cornwalls DIDN'T do:
Flat frequency response
Imaging
Clean bass
Consistent sonic signature throughout the frequency range
I've also heard low efficiency speakers sound dynamic (I had a pair of Thiel 1.5s that could just amaze with the XPA-2).
Now, I want it ALL. I won't accept frequency anomalies; I won't accept poor imaging; I have a subwoofer for clean bass; I demand to NOT hear where one driver hands off to another.
The things that the Heresys do well, they do very well. But they still have audible deficiencies. These aren't my "retirement speakers." That midrange glare just doesn't cut it.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Feb 19, 2014 1:05:09 GMT -5
I think the ears are omnidirectional - otherwise we'd have never heard that saber-tooth tiger sneaking up behind us back in the old days. If and when I find this ill post it. I think it was in some sound wave analysis. Makes sense.. after all our ears have evolved to be forward-facing cups and we can't twitch them sideways like the pointy ears of a German Shepherd. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 19, 2014 7:59:03 GMT -5
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIEL SPEAKERS:
Ignoring other brands for a moment, let's assume I have a budget that puts me in the market for some used Thiels. I have several choices within the budget:
A newer speaker of a lesser model (let's say a used 1.7) or an older speaker that was once a flagship model (let's say a used 5.1). Which is the better value and why?
Has the "sound of Thiel" improved enough over the years that a lower but newer model in the product line would now outperform an older flagship model? In what ways? If looking back into Thiel products, how far back can I go without giving up significant audio quality? Is a 3.5 model (used with a subwoofer) otherwise the equivalent of a 1.6 model (used with the same sub)? How about a 3.0?
In other words, at what point should I consider an older pair of Thiel speakers "too bad" or "too old" to consider?
I also notice that beyond a certain age, the price of old Thiels just flattens out (usually between $350 and $1K per pair), regardless of model. Taking price into account, if I have a choice between a $900 pair of 1.6 speakers and a $900 pair of 3.5 speakers, which is the better option?
Thanks, Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 19, 2014 9:51:18 GMT -5
Research that I have read says we hear sound better from in front of us.If and when I find this ill post it. I think it was in some sound wave analysis. Makes sense.. after all our ears have evolved to be forward-facing cups and we can't twitch them sideways like the pointy ears of a German Shepherd. I find your conclusion to be... illogical!  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 19, 2014 10:22:51 GMT -5
No, our ears do face somewhat forward, which makes the data they receive "line up" better with what we see. We have "predator eyes"; the fields of view of our two eyes overlap so we get depth perception, while many lizards have eyes spread so wide they can see almost 360 degrees, but have no depth perception to speak of (you only get stereoscopic vision with depth perception in areas where both eyes overlap). Because of this, we are evolved to turn and face anything interesting as soon as we figure out where it is. Also, because of the shape of our ears, things do sound different from the front than from the rear - and we are accustomed to being able to tell which is which. (Your ear holes are on the sides; if the "reception" of our ears was symmetrical - front to back - there would be no way to know whether something you heard was behind you or in front of you with your eyes shut, right? Instead, we have learned to differentiate the direction of at least some sounds based on how the shape of our ears and heads "modifies" the sound as it wraps around on its way to our ears.) There is also a psychological effect involved. Simply put, we are accustomed to listening to things we're paying attention to from the front. (So, even though music from behind won't sound THAT much different from that coming from the front, because of the shapes of our ears and heads, it will be obvious that it is coming from the back - which, in turn, just psychologically seems odd.) Just imagine closing your eyes and hearing a perfect reproduction of an orchestra playing - behind you.... It just seems unnatural; much more natural to be facing them. (And, if things were jiggered so that it sounded exactly like an orchestra playing in front of you, but the sound was coming from behind, it would be even more odd.) I think the ears are omnidirectional - otherwise we'd have never heard that saber-tooth tiger sneaking up behind us back in the old days. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Feb 19, 2014 11:03:29 GMT -5
Makes sense.. after all our ears have evolved to be forward-facing cups and we can't twitch them sideways like the pointy ears of a German Shepherd. I find your conclusion to be... illogical! But I spoke of humanoids, not Vulcans.  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 19, 2014 11:19:35 GMT -5
I find your conclusion to be... illogical! But I spoke of humanoids, not Vulcans. How very xenophobic! Spock is half human! I shall await your formal apology on behalf of all mixed Vulcans. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Feb 19, 2014 11:40:30 GMT -5
But I spoke of humanoids, not Vulcans. How very xenophobic! Spock is half human! I shall await your formal apology on behalf of all mixed Vulcans. Only if he can show me his ears turning like a German Shepherd! Pointy ears don't offer any advantages. Of course I wouldn't say that to his face, lest he inflict a Vulcan nerve pinch on me.  |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Feb 19, 2014 13:56:59 GMT -5
I've always been impressed with the Genesis speakers. I had the Genesis IM 8300 speakers and with enough power, they could go loud and play dynamics really, really well. They were also superb at imaging. However, you have to watch out for spares - Genesis stopped making the midrange unit for the IM 8300, and I'm not sure about the availability of midrange units on early Genesis V speakers. I think the amp for the first generation Genesis V was also quite problematic. I think the current owners (Genesis Audio Technologies) are doing a lot better than when Genesis started out.
The old Thiels had a very "hot" upper midrange and I couldn't understand how people could listen to them. I have not heard the models which have the midrange unit with the coaxial tweeter.
As far as loudness is concerned - this may really be an issue with resolution. If there isn't enough detail coming through, and if the source doesn't have enough dynamics, we have a tendency to crank up the volume. The loud passages get louder - but then so do the quiet passages - and this ultimately leaves us unsatisfied. Bringing up the volume also seems to bring the image closer to us and we think we might hear more detail. But it's not really there and you're going to be dissatisfied. You seem to be going through a lot of speakers, thinking that the speakers are the problem.
This is…. um…. kind of why some of us still play vinyl. It may be less accurate (may be) and the added detail might be artifacts (may be) and all that. But there's something about vinyl that keeps it a benchmark, for me at least. The trouble is that it's so hard to find a good vinyl set up.
I say go back to the Magnepan 1.6, then experiment with different source gear, and reference quality CD's - from labels like Reference Recordings, Wilson Audio, Analogue Productions, etc. And if you can, see if you can experiment with vinyl, too.
And another big thing is to listen to live, un-amplified music - a large orchestra, center seats around Row G to Row I. No closer or further. These may be pretty expensive but many, many orchestras allow you to attend rehearsals, etc. You can also attend concerts by youth orchestras - they're really good! You and your friends can even hire a singer (like a soprano) who can come to your house and sing for you. It's really, really important to hear real, live instruments.
|
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Feb 19, 2014 15:31:57 GMT -5
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIEL SPEAKERS: Ignoring other brands for a moment, let's assume I have a budget that puts me in the market for some used Thiels. I have several choices within the budget: A newer speaker of a lesser model (let's say a used 1.7) or an older speaker that was once a flagship model (let's say a used 5.1). Which is the better value and why? Has the "sound of Thiel" improved enough over the years that a lower but newer model in the product line would now outperform an older flagship model? In what ways? If looking back into Thiel products, how far back can I go without giving up significant audio quality? Is a 3.5 model (used with a subwoofer) otherwise the equivalent of a 1.6 model (used with the same sub)? How about a 3.0? In other words, at what point should I consider an older pair of Thiel speakers " too bad" or " too old" to consider? I also notice that beyond a certain age, the price of old Thiels just flattens out (usually between $350 and $1K per pair), regardless of model. Taking price into account, if I have a choice between a $900 pair of 1.6 speakers and a $900 pair of 3.5 speakers, which is the better option? Thanks, Boomzilla I remember really liking the Thiel 1.5 speakers when I heard them. Even though they were metal dome speakers I really liked them. I would say any speaker of that generation or later would be a good bet. I really like the 2.x thiel speakers also. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 19, 2014 16:32:16 GMT -5
I've always been impressed with the Genesis speakers...Genesis stopped making the midrange unit for the IM 8300... Not on my list, then. Thanks. ...If there isn't enough detail coming through, and if the source doesn't have enough dynamics, we have a tendency to crank up the volume...This is…. um…. kind of why some of us still play vinyl... I agree - A "pretty good" vinyl playback system is bested only by the very best digital systems. Nevertheless, I'm committed to digital now. No more vinyl, thanks anyway. ...I say go back to the Magnepan 1.6, then experiment... Again, no thanks. I've discovered that bi or di polar speakers are NOT a good match in my room. If my room were larger or more symmetrical (right to left), then yes. But as the room is - definitely no. And another big thing is to listen to live, un-amplified music - a large orchestra... Agreed wholeheartedly. Fortunately, I've been exposed to live music firsthand for my whole life. I'm still a symphony-goer, my daughter and son in-law both play, and I'm around music & musicians frequently. Cheers - Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 19, 2014 20:16:03 GMT -5
In the Klipsch forums, I encountered a soul whom I initially thought to be mentally ill. He recommended stuffing a ping-pong ball down the throat of Klipsch midrange horns to eliminate glare. Obviously, a horn won't work with the throat obstructed, so I blew him off. The Heresy 2s that I'm currently listening to, though, have such a midrange glare that they can't be listened to on axis (on stands, with horns at ear level).
I revisited the Klipsch forums & noticed that the same gent had clarified his recommendations - the ping-pong ball does NOT go in the horn throat, but rather in the flare to act as a disperser and wave-guide. I've seen this before on some horns I had back in the late '60s - the horns (University?) had a wave guide mounted in the flare of the horn via a top-to-bottom metal pin that allowed the diffuser to be rotated depending on the location of the speaker vs. the listener. Figuring that I couldn't lose with less than $6 of parts, I decided to try it.
Being the jack-leg engineer that I am, I decided that I couldn't just stuff a ping pong ball in the horn - the vibration would likely loosen it. So instead, I used my old fave, adhesive velcro, to stick a ping pong ball in the flare of each horn with LOTS of room on all sides for sound to escape. A 1/8" patch of loop on the top & bottom of the ping-pong ball and a similar patch of felt on the mouth of the horn. This is inconspicuous, easily removed, and does not in any way degrade the value of the speaker.
The results? An order of magnitude difference in both midrange smoothness and imaging. The glare is totally gone, and the Heresys image like mini monitors. Live and learn!
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Feb 19, 2014 20:23:55 GMT -5
In the Klipsch forums, I encountered a soul whom I initially thought to be mentally ill. He recommended stuffing a ping-pong ball down the throat of Klipsch midrange horns to eliminate glare. Obviously, a horn won't work with the throat obstructed, so I blew him off. The Heresy 2s that I'm currently listening to, though, have such a midrange glare that they can't be listened to on axis (on stands, with horns at ear level). I revisited the Klipsch forums & noticed that the same gent had clarified his recommendations - the ping-pong ball does NOT go in the horn throat, but rather in the flare to act as a disperser and wave-guide. I've seen this before on some horns I had back in the late '60s - the horns (University?) had a wave guide mounted in the flare of the horn via a top-to-bottom metal pin that allowed the diffuser to be rotated depending on the location of the speaker vs. the listener. Figuring that I couldn't lose with less than $6 of parts, I decided to try it. Being the jack-leg engineer that I am, I decided that I couldn't just stuff a ping pong ball in the horn - the vibration would likely loosen it. So instead, I used my old fave, adhesive velcro, to stick a ping pong ball in the flare of each horn with LOTS of room on all sides for sound to escape. A 1/8" patch of loop on the top & bottom of the ping-pong ball and a similar patch of felt on the mouth of the horn. This is inconspicuous, easily removed, and does not in any way degrade the value of the speaker. The results? An order of magnitude difference in both midrange smoothness and imaging. The glare is totally gone, and the Heresys image like mini monitors. Live and learn! Boom, can you post a picture of this set up? Nick |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 19, 2014 20:38:05 GMT -5
Before:  The implements of destruction:  Installed:  Not much to look at, but you should HEAR the diff! |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 19, 2014 21:00:45 GMT -5
Do you hear a "ping pong effect"?  |
|
