• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

68 Excellent

About tuga

  • Rank

Personal Info

  • Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
  • Real Name

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 1
  • Digital Source 2
  • DAC
    Audiophonics iSabre3
  • Integrated Amp
    Custom dual-mono SS
  • My Speakers
    Stirling LS3/6
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade
  1. I'm not surprised by your findings. The Comet EXs are quite bright, with a tweeter that's working more than 5dB too hot... Welcome to the natural-sounding world of higher-fidelity.
  2. Ok Serge, you got me there. The difference is that you can pick up a width/depth effect with a couple of mics, but eight requires extreme processing that messes up sound related aspects of sound reproduction which I personally rate much higher than the spatial reproduction. Music is sound. And the catch is that one doesn't really perceive height when listening to live music because in a normal recital, concert or gig the height difference between sound sources is minimal; besides I think I read somewhere that because our ears are located horizontally to the sides of our hear that gives us a lot more horizontal resolution. There are exceptions of course: I've listened to a church choir where the organ was positioned upstairs but fortunately it has often designed to sing into the church's acoustics in a way that a blind person would have trouble identifying the source of the sound.
  3. It's still an effect, nothing to do with music. A gimmick.
  4. Audio Innovations 2a3 dilemma

    Sorry for the slight off-topic but were Audio Innovations amplifiers designed by Peter Q or by someone other engineer?
  5. Test sounds for UP, OVER, LATERAL and BEHIND (I've only tried with headphones): http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php
  6. I'm not saying that it isn't possible to get images outside of the speakers, only that these require some sort of phase manipulation. See here: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Visualization-Blumlein-E.htm
  7. I don't think that it is possible to reproduce height in stereo with a pair of speakers, only azimuth and depth. It seems logical that you would need a lower and upper channel for that. With proper 2-channel stereo you can't get the impression of sound coming from outside of the space between the speakers either. Here's an interesting slide presentation by the late Jean-Michel Le Cléac’h that addresses the subject of spatial reproduction but it's in French: http://www.melaudia.net/zdoc/distorsion_de_phase.pdf
  8. System Response Measurements

    According to Sphile your tweeters are the D2905-95xx. The specs sheet measurements show a steep roll-off above 10kHz at 30º so your theory about the sloping baffle may be correct: http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/d2905-950000.pdf
  9. System Response Measurements

    Stereophile doesn't do anechoic measurements, and that measurement is the combination of several measurements over a wide listening window, not the on-axis response. The on-axis response looks more like this:
  10. Super tweeters: are they relevant?

    Sphile's measurement technique also produces a significant bump of around 6dB at around 90Hz: PSB Imagine T2, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with complex sum of nearfield responses plotted below 300Hz. Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/psb-imagine-t2-tower-loudspeaker-measurements This is the listening window response of the same speaker measured in an anechoich chamber (NRC): Listening window, 20Hz - 20kHz (measured @ 2m, plotted @ 1m) Response curve is an average of five measurements: on-axis, 15 degrees left and right off-axis, 15 degrees up and down off-axis http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=754%3Anrc-measurements-psb-imagine-t2-loudspeakers
  11. Super tweeters: are they relevant?

    Those Stereophile measurements are not on-axis but represent a listening window "averaged across a 30 degrees horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis and corrected for both the microphone's departure from flatness and the response error introduced by the system's anti-aliasing filter. The curve is actually a composite, consisting of the seven spatially averaged responses taken with a 30kHz bandwidth from 1kHz to 30kHz, a separate on-axis measurement taken with a 5kHz bandwidth from 312.5Hz to 1kHz (this makes the graph look more presentable, but the true frequency resolution is unchanged), and the complex sum of the speaker's nearfield port and woofer responses below 312.5Hz (the complex sum adds the two amplitude responses taking the phase responses into account)." Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/measuring-loudspeakers-part-three-page-3 For on-axis response one must look at the individual drivers' plot or the waterfall, and keep in mind that speakers are not measured anechoically.
  12. Super tweeters: are they relevant?

    If the speakers have tweeters the high frequency response is quite likely to be flat all the way to the top of the audible range. If you add a super-tweeter and you can hear changes then the super-tweeter has not been adequately integrated because the combined response has too much energy in the upper octave. This adds a perceived increase in "air" but sounds artificial with acoustic instruments and vocals. I once added Visaton super-tweeters to a pair of two-way horn speakers because the mid-range compression driver rolled-off at around 12k, but I measured the response in order to achieve proper integration.
  13. This will help: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm
  14. are crossovers essential ?

    But "hard" materials ring at higher frequencies and for longer (think of glass or bronze bellsor a metallophone). My dislike for hard cones and domes comes from listening experience, which on breakup produce strong resonances at the top of their operating range which sound very nasty in most cases. I first felt this when the MA Studio line came up but it was only years later that I understood the cause: the 6.5" metal cone of the Studio series produces a nasty ear-piercing resonance peak in the lower treble whilst the tweeter went mad at aroun 25kHz... : Monitor Audio Studio 10 woofer, cumulative spectral-decay plot at 45" (0.15ms risetime). Monitor Audio Studio 10, cumulative spectral-decay plot at 45" (0.15ms risetime). Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/monitor-audio-studio-10-loudspeaker-measurements Monitor Audio Studio 15, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 44" (black), corrected for microphone response, with individual responses of the tweeter (red), woofer (blue), and port (green), measured in the nearfield below 300Hz. Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/monitor-audio-studio-15-loudspeaker-measurements Things have improved a bit since then - many tweeter designs have had the resonance pushed further up (see here) and many "hard" cones are now made of composite materials or coated in an effort to dampen the resonances - but I still prefer to keep speakers with hard mids out of my shortlist. It's not BnW vs. Magico but BnW and Magico; it is an example of other "hard" cone materials that produce strong resonances (the resonances in the 600 series are poorly dealt with). The resonance of BnW's kevlar mid happens at a frequency range where the ear is most sensitive. I had a pair of 802S3s for a few months and they were the worst kind of ear-bleeders I've listened to. Violins would make my teeth ache. That's a cabinet resonance it probably adds some "warmth" and "bloom" to the bass but may also make it a bit less "snappy".