Printable View
Yeah, the title says it all. I do respect JBL as a serious, reputable speaker manufacturing company, but biasing non-polarized foil capacitors by applying some DC voltage strictly resembles marketing BS for audiophools :rolleyes:. How should it work? Did JBL perform DBT's to substantiate :hmm:? And what happens if the (negative) signal peak voltage exceeds the (positive) bias voltage :blink:?
Best regards!
Try it in a simple 2 way design like an L20t3 or 4406 and decide for yourself.
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...sed-Capacitors
Rob:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha
Soon as someone mentions double blind tests (and often times "bean counters") related to listening to music I quickly get disinterested in a dialog on the matter. Don't mean to make any judgments on your concern on whether charge coupling is effective. There is room for reasonable skepticism for certain, given the history of marketing in audio equipment. But do we really expect companies to double-blind test their products (or the many components therein) before placing them into the market?
More to the point, yes charge-coupling is a real thing. It is not marketing BS. It can make a difference in sound. Guaranteed improvement for everyone? Nope.
Even Kenrich Sound stopped making coupled.
I know! Some here will start screaming!
Coupled is a scam!!
Kenrick will make you charge couple networks if you are willing to pay for it. Given they use the upper range of Jantzen's and Mundorfs the cost to make them would be insane, even by Kenrick's standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
The designer of the networks seems to think they are an improvement. Given your questionable posts in the past, your obvious biases and overall lack of knowledge your opinion is worthless.
I am not even going to bother asking if you have heard a pair of biased networks. If you have I guarantee you went in with the preconceived notion that its all bullshit.
To all other members/guests perusing the forum please disregard Challenger604's post.
As Rob said. I've done it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post395093
I know there is a psycho bias, anyway, the improvement was clear to me and to a friend semi-pro musician (has a job but makes many records in many projects, live show...) who asked to buy them right away. What have I done...
He now has them in is tiny lounge and his friends (local artists and producers) said they are really surprised for such old and small monitors.
Later got some LSR305, the CCed 4406 and amp were way better that those hissing LSR305...
This is my statement and people do what they want of it. I've charge-coupled my 4313B also, again maybe in my head, and also in the head of a 4430 owner with the same amp as mine, they just sound better now.
Mind that I've done it on quality but industrial MKP capacitors, maybe top quality audio caps don't benefit the same of the DC bias and maybe, again, some DC bias on cheap cap = raw high quality caps in a way...
...experience is a candle that only illuminates the wearer...
On a tech side it works, everything is an RLC circuit, even a wire. (yes some fried amps with speakers cables: too much plastic layers like multi-conductors and you end up with some capacitance).
No debate on the fact it does something but I'm OK on the fact it's measurable or not on something else that lab equipments. Magnetostriction and electrostriction stories I guess... but I don't care, I've seen for myself and I enjoy my music even more now =)
By googling "electrolytic capacitor distorsion" I found this page: http://www.renardson-audio.com/capdist.html
I didn't have the patience for reading all of it, but fund this sentence interesting: "Adding a dc bias increases the 2nd harmonic, as expected for any device with a primarily cubic non-linearity."
People who like single ended tube amps would like biased electrolytic capacitors since they add harmonic distorsion.
Mårten
I wasn't talking about electrolytics, but of modern plastic film capacitors. Anyway, electrolytics are probably the only capacitors that would benefit from biasing at all. I can imagine that two electrolytis back-to-back in series do benefit from a DC voltage that is applied with the correct polarity into the common joint, but this voltage needs to be higher than any expected signal peak voltage. Hence a construction like this one may outperform non polar electrolytics (which internally aren't nothing else than two ordinary electrolytics back-to-back, but without DC bias, of course).
Best regards!
Hello Kay
Well here is what GT thinks on that point.Quote:
I wasn't talking about electrolytics, but of modern plastic film capacitors.
So I would try it before just blowing it off based on any pretense of superior capacitor quality. Some of the JBL CC networks use film caps in the midrange and highs. You might like what it does or not. Either way you would know for sure from a personal perspective.Quote:
I have never heard a capacitor type that didn't improve (or change) including the nearly perfect teflon variety.
Rob:)
"...but this voltage needs to be higher than any expected signal peak voltage."
I challenge this repeated assumption. I suggest the bias voltage only needs to be sufficient to mitigate low level distortions, where they are likely to be audible... something like a class A/B amp
which does not require to be biased completely into 100% class A operation in order for there to be benefit. One may certainly debate at what point further bias voltage increase brings diminishing returns for a particular speaker system. I expect there are opinions throughout the possible range of values.
Have fun. Don't hurt yourself.
Hello GrumpyQuote:
I challenge this repeated assumption. I suggest the bias voltage only needs to be sufficient to mitigate low level distortions, where they are likely to be audible... something like a class A/B amp which does not require to be biased completely into 100% class A operation in order for there to be benefit.
I tend to agree. If you look at it as AC vs DC the AC is high passed through the caps while the DC is blocked. Capacitors will discharge the DC through a ground at a rate of C X R = T. I don't see the capacitors ever discharging completely.
Rob:)
I thought "biasing" was the 'Adding in parallel a 0.01uF film capacitor to another capacitor in a crossover network'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha
So, isn't "charge coupling" different to "biasing"?
I just see the two words being interchanged and get all confused..:blink:
DogBox
Charge coupling = biasingQuote:
Originally Posted by DogBox
Adding a smaller capacitor is a completely different thing. It is done in power supplies to filter high frequency jitter.
Adding a cap in parallel will "bypass" with a higher quality, small value, capacitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogBox
Using two caps in series to provide a charge point is coupling the capacitors. Inserting the voltage at the charge point is biasing.
I had a pair made for 250 TI. I thought afterwards i wasted my money. Forward a few years later. I had a few friends over for a listening party and play w/my speakers in my new to me house. One of the things i did while moving listening etc was replace the battery in one of the speakers. 1 of the my friends both looked up startled and made wide eyed contact because what we heard was a marked improvement in sound quality , added warmth and smoothness. I am not sure everyone heard the difference though
i had ignored the batteries alone for years thinking they weren't doing anything they had gone dead ...I WAS WRONG!
I should probably replace mine as well!Quote:
had ignored the batteries alone for years thinking they weren't doing anything they had gone dead ...I WAS WRONG!
Rob:)
Anecdotally I had a similar experience with my DD66000s... after several years of enjoying them I thought they were starting to sound a bit harsh and brittle. After some head scratching, I checked the batteries and they were several years past their expiration date. I replaced them and musical bliss came back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
Widget
Am i wrong that CC network in DD66000 without battery at all?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
After so many years,there is still a debate on CC network:crying:,is there any method to measure CC network?:confused:
Yes, the existence or non-existence of measurements was part of my initial question. As a convinced disbeliever in anything that can't be realized by our five senses or measured by any means or proven scientifically, I wouldn't have asked if I had found papers with valid measurements (e.g. DBT's) that prove the benefit.
Best regards!
Well the difference with the Solen 250V Fast Caps is plainly obvious.
If you don't believe it nobody cares and no one gets hurt.
Technically the steady state distortion measures a bit higher in charge coupled mode. But you are talking 0.00X %.
The problem as I see it is the dielectric which imparts vibrations or resonances at certain frequencies. Its mechanical.
If the dielectric is resonating that will impact on the capacitance at particularly frequencies and smear the sound.
So the vibrations are modulating the signal like a feedback loop.
This is exactly what I hear in the case of the Solen Fast Caps.
The DC sets up a charge on the dielectric and changes the tension on the windings anode/cathode.
This reduces the vibrations.
If you care to run a charge coupled crossover into a dummy load with a sine wave a 1 khertz these vibrations are quite audible. (be careful not to touch the terminations as this may result in an electric shock)
I have build the diode rectifier version for other people and not had a complaint.
I have been to a couple "high end" shops, one place the owner ceramic wire holder to keep them off the floor, bells around the room that change resonances or something and also powered cables and who knows what else. he had me a-b some of his stuff , I couldn't hear a difference when turned off something...he swore he could , "you cant hear that?" the honest answer was no...This I hear.
Yes, you are wrong. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
You must be thinking of the DD67000.
Widget
Been there too... you won’t get a disagreement from me. More over, I have heard differences in some “fancy” cables with fat networks on them where I thought plain wire sounded better.Quote:
Originally Posted by opimax
Widget
1 other time I heard a big difference was when Maple Shade interconnects were tested on my system, . Very expensive and too fragile for my use. I may splurge when I move soon to retirement and know they wont be moved EVER, scarred they will get ripped in my life style and moves and such.
Mine are nothing special at all and do have room for improvement but surprised how much it improved..nothing has helped with speaker wire or AC wires
All of this is to my ears, your mileage may be different
PS Largest improvement of all is when my tinnitus is on a "low" on any given day :(
Fully seconded :crying::crying::crying:!Quote:
Originally Posted by opimax
Best regards!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelossus
Obviously laughable comment... at least you don’t scream!! ... Yes! I heard both 4355’s. Mine, non coupled and a friend’s pair. The coupled sounds very bad...
It would seem then, that the charge coupled pair were poorly executed. At a minimum there should be no difference in sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
Widget
Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
Okay.
What active crossover are you using?
If it’s an old Jbl 5234, 5235 or any of the other pro pa active crossovers it’s not surprising.
On the other hand are they equipped with old” compression driver diaphragms.
There are too many variables to cast a judgement like a line in the sand.
Without fully understanding the whole system it’s difficult to express one view over another.
That is why people are now spending more time watching YouTube, webinars and then trying it for themselves.
It’s not surprising the hifi industry refers to people with opinions on forums as keyboard warriors.
The odd of taking away some facts are remote.
If Greg Timbers says it works then that is fact.
Everything else is noise.
Both, mine and his are with 5234A with the right cards, all original alu compressions with everything the same with drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Even the same amplifiers as both are big fans of SAE.
Big difference between the two...
With all due respect for Timbers and nothing against him but I trust my hearing.
BTW, he must know how many pairs of 4355’s have been built! Subject of another topic!
It is amazing how not having the same opinion, in this forum, produce vile reactions similar to antifa! Very annoying...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
Dude! When you jump in like on post 4 with “Coupled is a scam!!”, what type of response do you expect?!?
LMAO!
This can be a funny place. :)
Barry.
Calling it a scam may be an opinion, yes. But a barbed opinion that comes off like trolling. So it didn't work for you. I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
Whatever you call it!Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidF
Should I remind everyone that JBL went bankrupt, that Timbers has been fired by Harman and now “JBL” is Korean owned by Samsung! And the new 4312 is not coupled...
Good job for a brand that was the leader...
For one pair of 4355s to sound presumably good and another to sound "very bad", there must be something else going on. Different rooms, different equipment in front of the speakers, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
I don't know the "test" conditions of your comparison, but in my experience, after speakers, the room is the next largest variable in sound quality.
FWIW: I am not blindly defending CC networks. For my own DIY speaker projects, I have opted to go with higher quality caps and keeping them simple, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, anecdotally it did appear to me that the factory CC network in my DD66000s did have a positive influence.
Widget
And GM used to be the largest car company in the world... what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
JBL today is hardly the company it was under the control of Sydney Harman. I suppose a 50-60 year run at greatness is pretty good... I'm not holding my breath waiting for new wonderful products to come out of Northridge in the future.
Widget
Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger604
I did some investigations into Biamping with better /best quality capacitors and CC about 10 years ago.
The upshot was that the bi amp active crossover can have the effect of an overall blanket to transparency or cast an electronic glare on what your hear subjectively.
So in your scenario you have the vintage Jbl active crossovers feeding your power amps and the crossover in the midrange horn array.
If the Jbl active crossover is injecting a sonic signature it’s possible the non charge couple passive crossover to masking the signature.
The charge coupled (Solen Fast Cap 250 volt at least) is comparatively far more transparent so your subjectively hearing the vintage Jbl active crossover signature.
I have used both the 5234/5235 and they are far from what might be termed transparent or a price of copper wire.
Something to chew on.
Btw what are the caps in the non charge coupled network?
Everything from Solen. You can see it somewhere here around...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
If you grab some Y rca connectors and run the high mid/ horn array direct from your preamp into the power amp that will validate if it’s the Jbl crossover or the charge coupled network.
These days l prefer full discrete analog active crossovers.
I agree 100%. Adding additional gain stages is never ideal, but sometimes it is the best compromise. Every time I have gone down the multi-amp road I have taken great care to use the most transparent active crossovers I could afford.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Widget
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Although truth be told, I am running a hybrid with an all analog system augmented with a bit of strategically placed DSP action.
Widget
Which famous speaker using C-C network like JBL?:blink:
Vandersteen and Gryphon have speakers with CC'd networks.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
Great!then what kind of passive crossover network that have been using by other speakers?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by kelossus
While we may have moved on from charge-coupling to superior electronic-based, active bi-, tri-, and quad-amped systems, I've NEVER heard a properly charge-coupled network that wasn't better than its non-charged counterpart.
There's no need for an unnecessarily complicated double-blind test for this, if you have a pair of speakers. A single-blind will do. It's not like you don't already know the speakers in question—in fact a single speaker may be better. All you need is three people and two batteries: one fresh and full, and one dead. One person, out of view of the other two, switches batteries randomly and keeps a record of which battery he replaces (or leaves in place) for each trial. Another person controls the trial without knowing if the network is charged or not and insures that the sounds and music played are consistent, repetitive (each trial repeated four times at random and a record kept), and timed. The third person does the listening and "scoring" of each trial. It's boring, but verifiable and easy to replicate.
While folks are working up a sweat, take a break to watch this video all the way to the end. There are a couple of names that everyone will recognize, at least one of whom I respect. Even if we never want to do the work of building charge-coupled networks or believe that c-cs are pointless, we can appreciate the effort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2a-OtN1IHQ
(Sorry about the music.) :band:
Moved sideways.
Not everyone would agree active is an automatic upgrade
In many instances it’s a sideways move depending on your preferences and budget
As the video shows, you don't waste much time building Charge Coupled Crossovers.
And they work.
This article from 2017 shows GT converted his Everest from passive charge coupled to fully active analogue, then active digital. Don't know if this is still how's he's implementing his system however.
Quote: ..."I have been playing around with electronic crossovers at home for many years. There is a detail and clarity to electronic systems that passive has trouble matching. However, there is often a musicality to the passive stuff that is difficult to achieve with a purely electronic chain. I was stuck with the compromise between a very nice analog active crossover system vs. digital stuff. The analog sounds very nice, and in my case better than any digital solution I had tried. The digital has the ability to do room EQ for free and fix a lot of problems. I could get great response and tonal balance, but I was always lacking in the musicality and "out of the box" presentation.
I had read about the DEQX and decided to try them. My system is very complicated being a fully active 4-way system so implementing the DEQX solution took a while. I was intrigued by the ability of the DEQX to eliminate group delay at the crossover points. This is something that can't be done in analog and although people claim to have time aligned systems; they still have group delay in the crossover range. Even first order crossovers can't solve this problem since the individual drivers do not have the bandwidth above and below the crossover points to not contribute to the "acoustic slopes".
By using FIR filters, amplitude and phase can be manipulated independently so this constraint can be overcome. The hardware in the DEQX is very well implemented indeed, but it is no match for the esoteric discrete analog stuff. Still, the complete amplitude and time correction easily overcomes this handicap and has given me the best of both worlds. I now have all of the detail, dynamics, smoothness and spacial attributes I have been searching for with the ability to do room correction and frequency shaping as I wish. It is a win-win for me.".....
http://positive-feedback.com/intervi...g-timbers-jbl/
Greg’s system has evolved over time and is highly complex. There is a lot of skill and experience is setting up a system of this caliber. It sounds incredible. I think Greg now uses a bunch of outboard from EMM Labs now. The DEQX is s nice approach but use chip based op amps. The EMM Labs dacs have discrete class A circuits.
Glad to hear that. I'm working toward a similar arrangement with a DEQX and outboard dacs in the (hopefully) not too distant future. Perhaps he'd be willing to update us about the journey?
Not quite the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
Nobody builds a regular crossover by building a charge coupled crossover and leaving out the battery, and without comparing a "dead" charge coupled crossover to a regular crossover of the comparable configuration, we don't know if these "extra pieces" would have any sonic impact of themselves.
Well, it's the other way around, isn't it? AFAIK, no one builds a charge-coupled network that doesn't also work as a non charge-coupled network for obvious reasons. Otherwise Widget's Everests and my K2s would have stopped working the moment the batteries gave up. The comparison above is the same speaker with the same components with or without charge-coupling, since there is no charge with the dead battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by toddalin
Few of us are likely to build a purely analog network to see if the designer of these speakers was selling a pointless tweak (or maybe had stock in Everyday or Duracell), although I don't doubt a few members here feel it would be a challenge they could win. :p
If one were to build a "comparable" network for comparison, it's not really the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
It's not that it "doesn't work," but maybe it doesn't work exactly the same as a non-charge coupled version without the extra caps and dead/missing battery..., and isn't that what we are trying to compare here?
I made up a charge coupled first order (two 10 mfd Spragues, 2.2 meg resistor, 9 volt battery) and connected it to a Heil.
The RTA shows no discernable difference in the spectrum of pink noise with the battery connected or not. Furthermore, there is no readily audible difference in the pink noise though the Heil.
This was just one Heil on one channel and I did not listen to music as I didn't have enough caps to do both sides.
I seem to remember reading that once charged, the capacitors in a CC network take a significant amount of time to return to their original state after the battery is removed. Perhaps on the order of hours/days? If I'm recalling that correctly (:dont-know:), it would require 2 separate sets of identical networks to do a valid a/b/x test. One set charged, the other not.
That's exactly what I was suspecting. No measurable difference means if someone believes to hear some difference it can be deduced to expectation bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by toddalin
Best regards!
This thread is turning into a Seniors Moment.Lol.
While in principle I agree with your logic, you fail to take into account that no sophisticated measurements were taken. What effects did the network have on impulse response, phase response, distortion, etc., etc., not to mention the frequency response offered was only a 1/3 or perhaps a 1/6 octave RTA measurement. Useful for basic indications, but not particularly resolving if you’re looking for subtle changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha
Widget
That’s the wrong tool set, and I think you know it. It’s no surprise you got the answer you expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by toddalin
What you are looking for would require a test rig approaching an Audio Precision level measurement platform.
If you don’t hear it, skip it. Easy as that.
Barry.
TheI think you making an assumption merely based on a few posts in this thread where like opinion polling only those with a negative opinion post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha
There are hundreds of diy change coupled networks out in the field and in 18 years l have not heard a negative response. This applies to networks built and tested to a specification.
You might wish to do some searching of prior threads featuring diy charge coupled networks.
So you’d post might appear to Toll on what is an otherwise non issue.
No, the test is inconclusive in so many ways. The results may be so small as to be hearable, but not readily discernable on the meter that is in continual fluxuation of "whole numbers." Furthermore, the meter is looking at the frequency response and not the multitude of other things that can impact the sound. And, as I noted, it was only one channel and I didn't listen to music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha
I would bet that if one were to do the same test but add a by-pass cap, the addition of the 0.01 mfd would not be discernable on the meter under these conditions either. But there are certainly people who can hear this difference under ideal listening conditions.
Is it worth the $$$? That becomes a value judgement. The difference in sound may be audible to some and not others, but it will certainly increase the costs drastically regardless. Consider that you not only need twice as many caps, but their values are twice as large and this will get into some coin.
I would bet that there would be more benefit in taking the time to to really tweak the standard cap crossover to the listening room, and use some "creative" electronic architecture to address each drivers adequacies and faults through selective contouring, you would end up with a better result than just taking the standard crossover and making a charge-coupled version
Speed costs money..., How fast do you want to go?
Hi Todd,Quote:
Originally Posted by toddalin
You make some interesting points.
The subjective awareness is going to depend on your associated equipment and your sensitivity to subjective differences. The ability to determine subjective differences is acquired through an evolution of listening experiences as a learning.
As a rule the more transparent the source is along with signal chain the more obvious any subjective differences will be in capacitors etc.
For example if you have an old Sherwood receiver the impact of a capacitor upgrade won't be as identifiable as a Mark Levinson or Macintosh set up.
A real example of a capacitor bypass improvement is to bypass a Clarity SA Capacitor with a 0.01uF Auricap. The subjective difference is painfully obvious.
However, I am more inclined to state for the record that getting getting the signal path as pure and neutral as possible is the priority. The marriage of those factors to the innate accuracy of the loudspeaker will determine if you system is in fact transparent and can be enjoyed without listener fatigue. The two are not mutually exclusive and this is where some some experience and judgement is required. For example a very analytical capacitor (like a Teflon capacitor) and an analytical (four way) loudspeaker a driven by harsh sounding amplifier may not be your idea of an enjoyable listening experience.
So be careful what you wish for.
You can't EQ room problems with a capacitor recipe. That and any snake oil is a slippery slope to Hell.
BTW if your happy with your Sherwood amp and like what you hear then there's no reason to change anything. But don't expect every audio buddy you invite over for a beer to agree with you.
Their listening experiences are going to be uniquely different to yours and they will agree to disagree on what you like and don't like in some instances.
Hello Toddalin
That's why it's best to try on a simple 2 way system to see. When I built my CC L250 Jubilees and 1400 Be Arrays it got very costly compared to a standard network.Quote:
Is it worth the $$$? That becomes a value judgement. The difference in sound may be audible to some and not others, but it will certainly increase the costs drastically regardless. Consider that you not only need twice as many caps, but their values are twice as large and this will get into some coin.
Rob:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Actually, you can't not eq for room problems when that is the only space you have to develop/test in.
Whatever problems are in the speakers and in the room will show up on the RTA and will be observable through listening in the seating position and cannot be readily differentiated. Any attempts to correct this curve though crossover development would necessarily address the room, at least to some extent.
These speakers were designed to be used in this room and while they would probably be spectacular most anywhere, this is where they are to be used. I am not designing for other environments.
I understand where you are coming from and agree with your overall premise, that we typically intentionally or unintentionally tweak our DIY endeavors to suit our tastes and the effects of our listening rooms.Quote:
Originally Posted by toddalin
I hi-lighted the bit above in bold type because I have experienced the opposite regarding the use of an RTA.
As I mentioned on my Project Widget thread, when I moved from one house to another I could hear issues in the low end caused by the room that were not present in the first house. These were painfully obvious to my ears, but I could not reliably measure them with an RTA, or even MLS measurements. Ultimately I used a room analyzing tool called LARSA. With this tool I was easily able to isolate a narrow Q mode in my room that was driving me nuts. (Yes, that was what was doing it! ;)) I applied a notch filter tuned to the offending frequency and the room became much friendlier towards my system.
Widget
Hello Widget;
Good find. Did LARSA display the mode width?
In my experience singular room modes are only two or three Hz wide.
Barry.
I didn't dive into the full analysis that LARSA offered. When I saw the very narrow peak at whatever frequency it was, can't remember now, I popped my Meyer Sound PEQ in the system and dialed in the sharpest Q filter I could set it to and dialed the mode mostly away. There was a much smaller one an octave up in frequency, but I left that alone as It didn't bug me. I bet there was another an octave above it, but it got buried in the signal.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1audiohack
Widget
What are RTA,MLS,LARSA?where to download and how to use them?:applaud:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
The first two are technology types, the third is a specific iOS app.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
RTA can be a dedicated machine with a CRT or LED screen or it can be part of a computer program or phone/tablet app.
Here is info on LARSA: https://studiosixdigital.com/audioto...aker-and-room/
I use it with the ACO Pacific iPrecision mic. https://studiosixdigital.com/audio-h...iprecisionmic/
Widget
I use a Behringer Ultracurve Pro deq2496 for the RTA. It has 61 bands so basically there is a separate band for every two notes of the musical scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
https://youtu.be/mYZVFjxkMq8
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/45...o-Deq2496.html
I only use the Behringer for Real Time Analysis (RTA) and decibel (dB) measurement and it is not in the signal path as an eq unit for "source listening." BTW, I'm sure that the Behringer with the mic in the seating position would have detected that peak in the bass range noted by Widget.
I prefer the sound of the system when both the Oppo and Yamaha are in "direct mode" and no digital or analog processing is used. Obviously, this then necessitates optimizing the speakers to the room.
Another thing. Look at crossover frequencies, both in the JBL line and in general.
There are less than a half dozen in common use between the woofer an midrange regardless of what woofer and mid are used. But if you do an RTA on every speaker and driver (even in an anechoic chamber), you will find that these are not necessarily the ideal frequencies because they don't address the peaks and dips inherent in those particular drivers' parameters and a better frequency(s) is out there to mate the pair. These may even under/overlap to get the most out of what you are working with.
Grumpy, you are 100% correct: charge-coupled capacitors reduce the crossover circuit distortion AND push the behavior anomalies of the capacitors to a level equating to a peak of 2 1/2 to 20 watts output level (biased at 9 volts), instead of in the miliwatt or microwatt level. These distortions become so miniscule relative to the signal level (and sound pressure level into the 100dB-plus range for cone drivers and to 110-120dB level for compression drivers) that the distortion is undetectable compared to the relatively large distortion at milliwatt output levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy
No scam, just simple facts.
*Your mileage may vary, depending on crossover capacitors employed, bias voltage applied, transducers used, type and condition of wiring, amplifier quality, signal spurce, and other factors... :drive:
Yup. Your two ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
God gave you the best measuring equipment known to man - and the ONLY two that really count.
And, the brain that they are connected to...:p
As I had lessons in otorhinolaryngology during my university studies and having been examined in this subject also, I'm well aware how the complete human hearing sense works. Believe me, human ears aren't any measuring equipment at all. Due to the lack of any memory, our ears can't be calibrated, they even fail in reproducible comparisons - and often replace it by expectation bias :p.
Best regards!
I would argue that this is a blessing and not a curse... this is how we can listen to music through very poor reproduction systems and still enjoy the music– think transistor radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kay Pirinha
Regarding expectation bias, this is true up to a point. I think it has a lot to due with the perceived "warm sound" of a lot of tube gear, the upgrades due to fancy speaker cables etc... but there are real differences too and you need to open your mind to hearing them or your expectation bias will lock you out of enjoying real benefits too.
Widget
Well said, Mr. Widget!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget