Metatron

Wammer
  • Content Count

    1,578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Community Reputation

525 Excellent

About Metatron

  • Rank
    Aurally Satisfied

Personal Info

  • Location
    Bracknell

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    Old Rega P2
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    RB300 with AT33PTG
  • SUT / Phono Stage
    something crap
  • Digital Source 1
    Bespoke Roon Server
  • Digital Source 2
    dCS Net Bridge
  • DAC
    Chord Hugo
  • Pre-Amp
    Modwright LS36.5
  • Power Amp/s
    Pass Labs X250
  • My Speakers
    WB ACTs + Torus
  • Headphones
    none
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

2,357 profile views
  1. Metatron

    Assange extradition

    Some may have said we should protect him. I don't think we should in this instance. We have extradition agreements in place we need to honour. Plus, if we did take Assange's side there's the political implications on collaboration, but also it says we either value what Assange has done above our relationship with the US/Sweden, or that we don't believe whatever evidence has been disclosed via diplomatic channels.
  2. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    That is certainly true, but I'm not talking about normal diffusers (like QRD). I'd use a high mass porous half-round the height of a wall if I had the problem in question (which I don't) and have a MLV curtain in an air gap with damping material around it. If you can reflect into a different direction it's scattering. Combine with a modicum of damping and job done. You cannot buy equivalent panels to do the job though. You can find similar in some orchestral recording rooms:
  3. Metatron

    Assange extradition

    I think the fiasco is akin to when the Washington Post revealed truths that the US had lied about in the Vietnam war in its expose with the Pentagon Papers. In that instance, state secrets were handed to the press. https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/pentagon-papers In the Wikileaks case, state secrets were handed to an online press - WikiLeaks. It wasn't a crime for the Post as it served the public interest, though the US did bring a case against the Washington Post. In the Assange case, the question is whether he served the public interest and the truth. That is why the US are not looking to charge him related to disseminating state secrets but for assisting the breach of a computer system, which has no argument with the morality of leaking the documents. This is probably because the US are well aware of the precedent on the case of the Pentagon Papers where it became the US government vs Washington Post and the WP won. Nixon had tried to bring a case against Daniel Ellsberg and his accomplice (who leaked state secret documents) but that was ultimately dismissed. So the US needs something different which the hacking charge is. The wider question is, is it ever right or morally/ethically justifiable to release secrets because of government cover-up, corruption, lies, human rights violations or other crimes against humanity, or similar. The court precedent of the Pentagon Papers has established that it is. The so-called Collateral Murder video showing US airmen gunning down innocent people including some journalists are an example of US wrong-doing in the public interest. As somebody who has not seen all the leaked material I probably shouldn't comment further, but I have seen the Collateral Murder video. And the other question is about the territory he was in. As I understand it, he wasn't in the US and wasn't actively hacking the US himself. So in that respect, he wouldn't have committed any crime because it is still the decision and responsibility of the person who did the hack whether to go through with it. The accusation that Assange may have provided information on how to do such a hack is immaterial - we can all go to Amazon and buy a book on hacking that equally teaches us, but if somebody acts illegally on that we don't take the author to court. It's similar when Amazon get blamed for their IR platform and how in some cases it may end up with biased results... people need to understand that software is often a tool, like a hammer, and like a hammer it can be used constructively for good, or destructively for evil. Nobody says take Stanley Tools to court when somebody assaults a person with a hammer. The rape case has been dropped (again). The claimant is trying to get it re-opened.
  4. The Abbeys do require a sub unfortunately. Geddes designed them that way. They are of course a sealed design. However, depending on size of listening room they can surprise. Sealed units go deeper just roll-off earlier. The quality of the bass is excellent. Similarly, they are not far from my ideal speaker in size of sweet spot. These disperse sound over a +/-30-50 degree angle and are meant to be toed-in at 45 degrees in a corner (for bass support). Polar plot:
  5. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    Poor Dr Bose then.
  6. I think that the realism you describe IS the illusion. Incidentally, when I mentioned John Meyer earlier (given Tuga's quoted post is way earlier you may not have got to it yet), he was the owner of Glyph that did the sound for the Grateful Dead who also had a big focus on sound quality.
  7. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    All sound, irrespective of frequency, reflects just like light does. Bass will reflect off a wall as much as penetrate it due to pressure. If it reflects, you can scatter it.
  8. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    Clearly you have not studied Mandarin, where Ma can be said 4 different ways through the use of tones. In one tone it means 'mother' in another it means 'horse'. I suspect if I learnt Mandarin and used the wrong tone I would inadvertently call somebody's mother a horse.
  9. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    I knew what you meant. Keith just watches thread like a shark until he sees something he can interject on. I quite agree with what you said too. I disagree with some of Keith's views on treating nulls. I prefer less absorption and more use of diffusion, or possibly both if it's a bass null. Absorption on bass nulls only goes so far because to appropriately damp a deep bass frequency requires too much depth of damping material, so breaking up the offending frequency by scattering away from the direction it creates a null is a better approach in my opinion. Quite so. If somebody knows (or wants to know) the science behind something (and there will be many who know the science, including some mods, occasionally me) then you can expect to be challenged for evidence. Albeit, I think Shadders is being unduly harsh in the last post. I don't think there's an issue asking for evidence, but he's accused you of being brainwashed, which crosses the line. If we come from a point of education and have to resort to name-calling or disparaging remarks, we've only let ourselves down together with the people we're trying to help 'see'. Beware threads in the Pub Car Park area where anything goes. And as others have said, you write English very well. Sometimes I re-read my posts and find I used the wrong word, or left something in from editing that should not be there. It's quite common for me to read a post I previewed after I post it properly, only to think my post reads like Chinese is my first language (it isn't).
  10. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    I don't think Tin meant it as you read it. I think he was alluding to the fact you shouldn't boost nulls.
  11. Indeed. I have talked to Bruno at length, and I think he agrees with the majority of Toole's conclusion, but like many, not all of them. Each of the different designers/researchers have merit, but as yet, nobody with access to research facilities like NRC has tried to clarify the differing conclusions in the sound reproduction sphere. Generally, those differences go largely ignored. I'd personally be wary of just taking Harman Group's say so. What I'd like to see is genuinely independent academic study that resolves the disparities. Mensink is somebody who is thinking about room interaction in what is IMO the correct way. As he says in his Darko presentation, the cardioid narrows the dispersion. It is still even, and still effectively constant in tandem with the waveguide, but narrower than how Toole chose to implement in speakers like the Salon 2. Toole wanted the effect of early reflections, Mensink does not.
  12. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    And passive setups. Check the thread title. Your experience intrigues me. I never liked Tact's stuff when I heard it, but I haven't given up on all realms of DSP. I've had a DEQX unit at home, and that worked exceptionally well for musicality, but I lost detail and nuance in some areas of the sound so didn't persist with it. It did what it was meant to with a very musical result, but it wasn't an improvement across the board. Strangely, having my own DAC on a digital out from the DEQX unit had much the same result. I've got REW and have made various convolution filter corrections and tried these out via Roon. Some are good, some aren't. Some you can tell DSP is at play, others not. I've come to the view that one should chase a balanced system as close to one's ideal before using DSP. Heavy handed use doesn't work for me, especially if DSP is applying a boost to amplitude, whereas cutting 'peaks' to get something flat seems to work without associated loss of detail/nuance. Some older DSP or room corrections used to boost as much as cutting in order to maintain an output level at par with when DSP is switched off. This just doesn't work, makes amps work too hard and generally adds distortion. I've not completed my exploration of digital and DSP, but I have heard very enjoyable digital systems that employ DSP and generally sound better than the passive approach. I think you hinted earlier in the thread that your DSP forays were quite some time ago. A problem I often found is that some DSP products don't measure as well at the analog outputs as some passive items in the same price range. You'd get great processing but poor D/A conversion. However, I feel the tide in this respect is changing and we are going to be seeing a lot of new devices in the audio market with specifications that make traditional high-end products look bad. I was about to recently pull the trigger on such a product that would work in the current passive stereo setup, but is also configurable to work in a fully active setup acting as the processor for digital crossovers. Alas the exact model variant sold out and they aren't producing any more at this time. So my search continues.
  13. I think the problem with this statement is Toole used similar to popularise using many more speakers. But it is equally true for any number of speakers, albeit to a lesser extent. Like you, I don't believe in closed miking. And nobody would ever want to listen to an orchestral instrument with their ear where they are often miked. That kind of recording assumes the mixing engineer is some kind of miracle worker who can normalize all the levels and somehow make it sound like the best seat in the house. The only way to record the best seat in the house is to record from it. I'm not a fan of using reflections like Toole proposes. I'm more aligned with Geddes with respect to reflections. I do own a pair of Geddes Abbey speakers too. No point reading about a speaker design theory and not hearing it.
  14. @tuga John Meyer: http://www.aes.org/events/145/presenters/?ID=7573 Not knowing about John Meyer is nothing to be embarassed about. If anything perhaps I should be. John Meyer is not a pure research academic like one might consider Toole. Even Linkwitz's foray in audio was more a hobby, but he was a research scientist and electrical engineer in his day job and as a member of AES he published some works. Likewise, Geddes introduces himself as an audio enthusiast (http://www.gedlee.com/Principals/Earl.aspx) although ultimately got an audio-related doctorate and again published papers. I'm not sure if John Meyer has published papers. I'm more a fan of his accomplishments in audio, both singly and with his company. John Meyer has done pure research on occasion, but mostly he works with others in the pro-audio sphere and owns Meyer Sound Laboratories. Where one can learn from John Meyer is in reading the patents he has and recognizing that he was usually first to do what the patent is for. For example, stage monitors and subwoofer enclosures that benefit from the trapezoidal shape. Use of what we now call DSP to get speakers to work in perfect phase and flat response. Coming up with the first cardioid subwoofer systems. Introducing cardioid midranges. Usually, somebody writes an AES paper later on the generic version of the technology he or his company has come up with. His company even has almost instant control over RT60 times in an auditorium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H15vf4ew-2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idlcGEflHn0 But there's no denying that when you see a speaker like the D&D 8C and you research the underlying technology, especially if looking for commercial examples - you will inevitably find John Meyer's patents and technology somewhere. He is also responsible for the Bluehorn System. I guess what you can take away from this is a) I keep an eye on what's possible in pro audio b) I research technology within patents and trace some patents back to who seems like the original innovator of a particularly useful audio technology. You might find this patent interesting: https://patents.justia.com/patent/20190132676 Lastly, I did say I thought Meyer is 'king' in terms of audio reproduction, but this is more for the combining of what we think of as audio research applicable to the audiophile domain and how novel uses, cutting edge filters, cardioid technologies, sound steering and other features, together with an understanding of human aural processing have been merged to produce a holistic focus on sound quality. Where we could argue Toole made a few 'leaps' with a few of his conclusions, or that Linkwitz conflated a few things, I don't feel the same can be said of Meyer, or his company. I don't think Meyer has the academic notoriety, since Meyer focuses more on the live sound domain and isn't a prolific AES publisher.
  15. Metatron

    Active and passive speaker topologies with examples

    I think I now understand the context of the dCS stuff. Didn't get that reading the original. Perhaps that is an English term best not used here...