http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/ Home Entertainment and Audio Visual Home Consumer Electronics news, reviews and discussion forum en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:21:07 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.images.vb.static-avforums.com/misc/rss.jpg http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/ http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/3134-recommending-speakers.html Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:45:26 GMT I'm worried that it seems that almost everything I've reviewed gets recommended one way or another and I feel that I should throw some light on this.

I tried to illuminate the point (in an earlier blog post) that whilst not all speakers may to be my taste, that doesn't make them bad speakers. They're simply a speaker with a balance of strengths contrary to those I want and I hope I am illustrating those strengths for people that lean in that direction.

By way of an example, the MK 950s and Teufel System 9 are awesome for pure movie usage and I wouldn't argue against anyone who chooses one or the other for their purpose. I had huge amounts of fun with both systems - The MKs because they suited my room and my listening levels to a 'T' and the Teufels because they worked well in my room with a bit more work, but possessed the ability to lift the roof off, which I am prone to want to do. I'm a yob; Sorry.

But I wouldn't buy either. That's not because either aren't superb value which they both are, especially if they suit your room. No, It's simply because my requirements as a heavily biased music listener preclude a purely movie focused speaker and they both were. The reason they both rocked and got recommended was because they made it no hardship to put music listening on hold for a couple of weeks and in both cases, neither were actually that bad when it came to a tune. They just knew their priorities and aced them

No, the real reason that I've yet to diss a single product is this:

Manufacturers simply don't send out bad products for review. And let's face it; Why would you? No manufacturer is the master of all, but most of the majors are compelled to put out products that occupy all price points and most of them do, whether they want to or not.

So, next time you see a post regarding a product that has been around a while and you see a question asked on forum "I fancy X but can't seem to find a review", I'd suggest there is a reason why....

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/3134-recommending-speakers.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/2479-reviewing-changes-things.html Sat, 08 May 2010 00:19:10 GMT Once you take up the baton of a reviewer, then you tend to have to review products in isolation because that is what reviewing demands - Focusing on the product in question and sidestepping the inevitable forum demands of what's better, what's best.

The art of reviewing (as I quickly discovered once I thought about it and even then I'm not sure whether I hit the mark or not) is in having a neutral benchmark, even if it's not what you necessarily like and then commenting upon the strengths or weaknesses of what you're reviewing with respect to that benchmark, whilst considering the review item's market position and the expectations that brings.

This is tricky.

I review speakers which tend to have quite pronounced differences and having done one amp review, I'm bloody pleased to see Nick Peacock on board to take the heat off - the differences are altogether more subtle and to a degree dependent on what you're driving with them. I sweated on the Onkyo 5007 review far longer than any of the speaker reviews for instance. It's also tricky when you get a product from lower in the scale than you are used to. For instance, a £400 AVR is going to sound pants in comparison to a £xxxx Pre/Pro and yet that does not make it deserving of a bad review - It's strengths are only pertinent within the peer group of other £400 AVRs. It's not about the "what's best" forum type questions because it's seldom that defined and more about using experience to describe the differences. Remember - one man's bright/forward, is another man's detailed or another man's overly strident. There generally is no 'best'.

That said, reviewing does open up a different way of looking at things. I had heard a number of M&K speakers down the years and was always quite dismissive due to their purpose not coinciding with my own requirements, namely a do it all speaker - their movie focus was at odds with my need for a speaker that would do both movies and music, the latter being where my passion lies, although I love my movies.

I've found that the fact that you don't have to live with the review product until you can personally afford to rectify your choice, tends to mean that you can accept it on it's own merits without prejudice. It no longer compromises your own personal requirements and in fact, this had lead to a deeper understanding and enjoyment of what may be a non personally ideal speaker, without compromising your own integrity.

The bummer is that you find yourself wanting to keep the products that, in an ideal world you would 'stock' for that particular occasion when it is absolutely guaranteed to nail the experience it delivers. If I were to name a product that illustrated this point, then it would be the Teufel System 9 THX Ultra 2 speakers - My review would probably have best been written about a month after they left so I had sufficient time to appreciate what they delivered and what their passing left me without. One of AVs truly under appreciated bargains - period.

That said, personal restraint makes me realise that I would soon end up with a lot of stock if money and room allowed. Best just to enjoy stuff whilst it's here and concentrate on trying to leave a valid impression of what it was like to share a room with it.

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/2479-reviewing-changes-things.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/2201-dual-subwoofers.html Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:51:27 GMT Having previously written about the superiority of one good sub as opposed to two inferior examples at half the price, I now find myself the proud owner of two identical subs. This isn't quite the blatant hypocrisy it may seem as it is more a result of practical considerations. I couldn't really justify a single 200L box in my room at any price nor find an acceptable form factor that would agree with the wife, but a pair of 115L jobs disguised as tables disappear quite nicely, thankyouverymuch.

Have a look here to see what I mean.

To recap, I found that after extensive comparison of a pair of BK Monoliths against one SVS PB12 Ultra, the smoother repsonse and greater output possible with two Monoliths simply couldn't make up for the greater extension and increased texture the bigger box and better driver of the SVS offered.

What is new is that I've just spent some time with an AV receiver sporting stereo (not just dual mono) subwoofer pre-outs and it's quite distinctively different to a dual mono output containing the sum of the total stereo bass information. It makes sod all difference with studio recordings and electronica where there's no real sound stage, but with acoustic instruments that have a real position in space and deliver high order harmonics, even when the fundamental is in the sub-bass range, it seems to deliver a more spacious sound stage with a greater sense of the natural acoustic. The other aspect is that even if the ear is poor at discriminating the direction of certain frequencies, the body as a whole is pretty good at feeling the direction big impacts emanate from. The huge drum rolls in Dire Straits' 'Private Investigations' seem to occupy the room from wall to wall and not just between the speakers is an example that springs to mind.

As I've gone for two subs either side of the room and they're roughly equidistant with their corresponding stereo speaker making channel delays a non issue, I've also been playing with using higher crossovers; up to 120Hz in fact. This isn't just to increase power handling (although it helps), but was as a result of trying to alleviate floor bounce.

Floor bounce? It's the cancellation you get at the frequency that corresponds to the extra distance covered by sound output from the bass/midbass driver of your stereo speakers. The sound that 'bounces' off the floor creates a destructive interference as it combines with the direct radiated output at your ears and it happens at a number of frequencies. At the lower frequencies affected, the dip in the power response is wider and deeper and audibly a lot more obvious, although as it's one of those things most people have always lived with, it's not really noticed.

I was reading about this phenomenon and noted the example of floor-standers where the dedicated bass driver in a 2.5 or 3 way design was positioned as low as possible to minimize the differential path lengths and thought 'hang on!" We've all basically got at least one bass driver right on the floor and so I set about finding if it was a practical solution.

The measured response of my speakers shows about a 3-4dB dip at 140Hz, spanning 120 to 160Hz and so I simply EQ'd the subs flat with a full range input (easy with DIY subs) and simply turned up the crossover one step at a time until the dip disappeared as the subwoofer progressively filled it in. I wasn't hopeful given the high frequency the dip was centred on, but it turned out that a 120Hz crossover was perfect, 110Hz was near as dammit indistinguishable and 100Hz notably better than either 80 or 90Hz. The audible effect was a notable extra tunelfulness to the bass, an added warmth and a much increased mid-bass kick with music and of course it all goes a bit louder with a bit less strain. All of this is without increasing the subwoofer's levels. Nice.

Now I must emphasize that I am running two subs either side of the main stereo speakers with drivers that were chosen very much because of their clean upper bass output. Other subs may not allow a crossover that high due to their natural limitations (regardless of where the sub's crossover is set) and I am using both channels of a BFD to EQ the subs independently, not as a sum of the combined output, so it's all very much conducive to being run as what I will call an 'extended stereo pair'. However I would suggest those with a single good sub placed somewhere in between the front speakers may find that for stereo music at least, it's worth trying out. As ever, YMMV.

What I don't want to do is fog the one good v two lesser subwoofer debate although I fear this one will become blurred by the box tickers and feature counters. The problem is that as more receivers deliver 7.2 outputs, the rush to put a plug in every output to satisfy pub bragging rights will overwhelm the quality argument. Two inferior subs will become the norm in much the same way as people with 7 crap speakers shoehorned into a room assume that it's the ultimate in surround, when those in the know are getting a superior experience with 5 better examples with space to breath.....;)

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/2201-dual-subwoofers.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/693-before-you-pm-me.html Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:28:34 GMT ....could I ask that you post the query on the open forum and if you want me to respond, PM me with a link to the topic and I'll take a look.

I'm being bold and offering to speak on behalf of all of the members who have a large amount of inbox traffic - more than 10 one day last week.

I'm not about to come over all Ringo Star or anything, but the point of a forum is for questions to be asked in public so the answers can be for the benefit of all. The problems PMs create are one; I don't want to seem rude when I don't answer a question and two; Time taken answering PMs, prevents forum members from participating in the forums, which is why we joined in the first place.

I know it's easy to be scared of starting a new thread, or feeling that your question will be looked upon as basic or daft, so it's less daunting to do it privately. However, remember this, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers and the people giving them will more likely be the ones to get pounced on!

Believe me, I should know.:god:

If, on the other hand, you have some dirt to dish, you know where to find me.

Peace and love, peace and love....:grin:

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/693-before-you-pm-me.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/648-xtz-me.html Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:12:47 GMT I've decided to post a little background in my blog as to how I ended up with a home demo of most of the XTZ range, thus saving anyone reading the reviews from a windy description of my personal AV journey.

Unlike a professional reviewer, I am not inundated with gear to review on a minute by minute basis, so it may help to understand what I am chasing from my system. Everybody has their own idea of what their system should offer, but I feel it only fair that my comments and preferences should be judged against what my priorities are, in order to give them context. This way, I can get down to the nitty gritty without further justification and you can decide, against this background, how relevant the review is to your needs.

Coming from a resolutely stereo background in the '80s and early '90s, I worked in retail until 1993, selling such brands as Mark Levinson, Meridian, Sonus Faber, AVI, Audiolab, Ruark and ATC, as well as the usual Mission, Cyrus, Tannoy, Denon, Pioneer gear. Exposed to such gear 8 hours a day I couldn't, as a 21 year old, afford a home setup that would match up to a fraction of what I was accustomed to on a day to day basis and so I didn't have a system of my own at all. It should be noted that AV as such was in it's infancy back then. The shop had invested over five grand on a 33" Sony 4:3 CRT driven from Laser disc via a Yamaha Pro-Logic surround amp. This meant stereo with a couple of bandwidth limited rear channels (that were actually a mono signal as I recall) and frankly, it was crap once you got over the novelty value. Never the less, the shop was run by a visionary, but owned by idiots and so disappeared a couple of years later.

Anyhoo, a small windfall in 2001 resulted in the pairing of a Denon DVD-2800MkII and AVR-3802 with Kef KHT-2001 speakers, all showing on a Toshiba 36" 16:9 CRT. Thus, I was immediately infected with upgraditis. Bitten by the AV bug, I have ever since stuggled with AVs below par performance with my beloved stereo music. Every upgrade since has been as a result of trying to upgrade stereo performance with movies enivetably benefitting as a result because, in my humble opinion, get music right and movies will follow.

So, as I write this my system is as follows. A PS3 hedges my bets on Blu-ray having won the HD format war, but not yet the general publics affection. A venerable Marantz CD52 spins CDs, but only as a transport. An Audiolab 8000AP acts as DAC/processor/preamp as it is the only option that even attempts to deal with multichannel sources of all ages, whilst treating stereo music as it should. An Audiolab 8000P stereo poweramp is dedicated to the front stereo speakers, whilst an aged, but solid, Rotel RB-985 feeds the centre, surround and rear speakers. A BK Monolith DF, EQ'd via a Velodyne SMS-1, handles bass duties from 80Hz down and in spite of some serious subs passing through this very room, remains in residence on account of it's musical ability combined with manageable size. Speakers are PMC GB1s and TB2M-C at the front, plus M&K Xenon tripole surrounds with a single Xenon monopole filling in the rear. In other words a totally accessible range of gear, some new, some second hand and not at all uncommon.

So, how come the XTZs?

A while ago, I was pondering changing my front speakers as it was their turn and the 'upgraditis' itch needed scratching. I had a number of requirement boxes that needed ticking, based on the experience and restrictions of my room and set about narrowing down the list of likely candidates for audition. In pole position of priorities by a long head was music ability, but as a multichannel (movie) listener, I wanted to ensure a solid tonal match across the front three speakers. In my humble opinion, this matching issue is not served by a centre speaker differing in size, orientation and number of drive units to those standing either side of it, so I wanted to find a manufacturer that sells speakers singly to facilitate buying three. See previous blog entries as to why I think this is so.

Now, the imminent patter of tiny russ.wills castrated my original intentions to go with active monitors (Dynaudio BM6A MkII) across the front on cost grounds. But undeterred and requiring my upgrade fix, I set about searching out a solution that would surpass my current setup for music and at least match it for movies.

About six months ago, a Swedish company called XTZ registered on my radar and ignoring the name that only works if you are American (say it quick), I was drawn by a feature set that offered some of what had previously attracted me to studio monitors; namely room tuning. They offered the ability to adjust treble levels, plus bass levels via the usual port plugging method; the latter of interest as I had long since suspected sealed speakers were what I wanted in my bass-weird room. I also wanted to see if the treble tuning would offer the opportunity to affect the slightly different balances that music and movies enjoy.

So, I contacted XTZ regarding demoing the 99.25s. Soon after, the economy died and being in construction, upgrades of any sort were off the menu as job stability looked dubious. As it turns out, things look more stable than they did, or at least for the fore-seeable future. A short while down the line XTZs Room Analyzer package raised my interest and being involved in general subwoofery, I enquired if a demo unit existed. It turned out that a pesky Spaniard (who lives in Germany) had beaten me to it and pending a bit of forum politics, it turned out XTZ were looking into setting up some forum powerbuys. Thus encouraged and with a bit of history in these matters, I tried to blag their DSP Eq'd sub for a write up. It was extremely unlikely to replace my resident example, but knowing this they (I should say Rikard) ran the idea up the flag pole to see if his management saluted it.

To my intense pleasure, not only did they like the idea but suggested that I might like the opportunity to try out not only the sub, not only the 99.25 stand-mounts that had started the whole ball rolling, but the 99.36 floor-standers as well, as long as I write them up. I restated my effective pauper status, but added that I knew a reviewer on a very stereo biased site and said I'd wheel them round to some selected members houses and maybe host a few too. 'Cool' they said, 'When do you want them?'

I was never going to turn it down an offer like that, was I?:thumbsup: ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/648-xtz-me.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/558-hero-its-mis-use.html Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:43:01 GMT I can't be the only person who feels like this (because I'm simply not original enough), but it really gets on my goat when I hear the word 'hero' used inaccurately. Heros are not and never will be footballers, TV stars, Film stars, etc, etc.

David Beckham did not become a 'hero' when he scored that goal against Greece. He did what he is paid a vast amount to do and at best he is an idol. Bob Geldof is not a 'hero', inspite of all of his charitable efforts down the years. He is quite possibly a modern day saint, but it's not his life that's at risk.

The soldier who rescues a wounded comrade in the line of fire is a hero. Anybody who walks into a burning building is a hero. The person who dives infront of the proverbial oncoming bus to rescue the proverbial stranded child is a hero. Morgan Tsvangirai is a hero.

Most of all, a hero is someone who, having risked their life or well being for the benefit of others, would never accept that they are a hero.

Clear?

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/558-hero-its-mis-use.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/411-what-speakers-should-i-buy.html Sat, 17 May 2008 00:05:52 GMT Is a question which is frequently asked in the speaker forum and with a few specific exceptions, almost never receives the only answer it should, which is:

Nope! I give up. What speakers should you buy?

It would of course seem rude, but it's actually the only correct one because it's a question that ignores virtually every salient issue involved in buying speakers. This situation is borne out of ignorance surrounding the subject and that ignorance is precisely because of that font of all knowledge, the internet.

The problem is, this vast pool of information, which you dear reader, are only able to read this as a result of, is seldom probed much deeper than the proverbial toe in the water. It is instead used to ask other, perhaps equally clueless individuals, to tell them what's what, rather than actually elevate their own level of understanding with research. How few people actually bother to extend their knowledge beyond the facts that speakers have Watts and Ohms? Not many and judging by the weekly questions, even fewer bother to actually understand what these terms mean, much less the actual implications of what they're planing to plug their speakers into.

Worse still, the interweb has relegated hi-fi and AV to the levels of price driven commodities, that are bought with the eyes, inspite of them clearly being designed for the ear and so people are buying components never having heard them. Ever. Apparently, it's enough to know what the speakers look like and on that basis narrow the candidates down to those with a five star press rating. NO IT'S NOT!!!

So, before this turn into too much of a rant, here are some points that are absolutely unavoidable when buying speakers....

1. Your ears are yours and my ears are mine. I know what my ears like, but how in asking my opinion do you judge that what I perceive to be detailed, you won't find strident and bright. How do you know that my idea of laid back, won't be your idea of warm and sluggish? You don't, so don't base your preferences on my experiences; You absolutely must use your own ears and that means a demo at the absolute minimum.

2. I may have a pair of speakers that you crave, but you won't be listening to them in my room, with my rooms layout, dimensions and furnishings, or my system, so don't imagine for one minute that you'll hear what I'm hearing. My opinions will be based upon my system in my room and therefore, largely irrelevant to yours.

3. The speakers are not a component in isolation. In fact, no component is isolated within a system, that's why it's called a system. The difference with speakers is that their sound is very dependent on the amplifier to which they are connected and this relationship is tighter than any other component relationship.

For instance, when people talk of a speaker with tight deep bass, I absolutely promise you they should have said the speaker and amp combination has tight deep bass. That same speaker hooked up to a different amp of alleged equal power, could sound bloated and slow if that second amplifier has lower damping factor. But no, the amplifier will almost never be blamed because there are plonkers who say all amplifiers sound the same. They may well, but you can't listen to an amp without speakers attached and all speakers are resolutely very different propositions for amplifiers to drive....

4.....which means you must demo speakers with the amplifier you plan to use them with. Again you must demo, because it isn't as simple as saying the Yamaha sound suits x, whilst the Denon sound suits y. To a degree this maybe true, but £1000 Yamaha A may be more capable of driving speaker x, than £500 Denon B which has a supposedly superior sonic match. It is never as simple as saying one brand matches another. Ignore anyone who says otherwise. Again it's all about the system/room match.

And so we come back to the interweb and it's pool of information. Whilst it can lower the price of an individual component, it cannot tell you the value. It's an old story, but way back when I used to flog hi-fi (in pre internet days) the bain of every dealers life was the punter who would refer to What Hi-fi, whilst actually listening to the kit. It was there for his (I say his, because it was always a he) ears to hear, but unless he could correlate the mainstream opinion with what he was hearing, then it resulted in confusion. Women were/are always less swayed by the opinion of others. They listen, they hear and they buy on the basis of what they actually believe to have heard. They seldom buy a speaker because it looks cooler and thus often spend less. Where the woman was the customer (or in charge, if you see what I mean) it was noticeable how many MF A1 plus Mission 751 based systems were sold against the bloke choice of Pioneer A400 plus Mission 780. One combo was pure audio gold, the other went a bit louder and had five stars across the board. One set of owners went home to listen to a fantastic music playing system, the rest had pub bragging rights...

The internet's wealth of 'opinion' hasn't changed this status quo for blokes though. The modern generation, in particular, seem to want their visual preferences validated by canvassing opinion of other such superficially affected owners and thus, they will all end up owning the same narrow band of five star press products.

If they have bothered to understand any of the above, they may just realise that those five stars were garnered in a room totally unlike their own, on the end of a system they don't have and thus, is unlikely to sound as described once they've bought said speaker blind, for £30 less. Go to your dealer and be prepared to spend a few quid more. Listen to the gear and the pairings he suggestes. If he's older than you, don't be surprised to find out that his experience may be able to narrow down your likely candidate components to some you may not have considered and elevate the actual system synergy beyond what the sticker price may suggest.

However, don't be scared to try different dealers; It is a competitive market after all, but above all, look for a dealer who asks lots of questions to actually understand what you're after. Don't be surprised if they come up with a system you didn't expect, but above all use this rule:

If you can't hear a difference, there isn't one, buy the cheaper one.;)

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/411-what-speakers-should-i-buy.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/224-av-hifi-myths-pt-v-spikes.html Fri, 16 May 2008 19:38:38 GMT This is a fine example of finest vintage hi-fi 'knowledge' being concreted with the passing of time and passing into accepted wisdom regardless of application.

In actual fact, spikes are very interesting because they really do work very well. Just not for the reasons they're sold. To understand why this wisdom became accepted, you have to consider the background against which they were introduced.

It's the late 70's, flares, long hair and dodgy 'taches are the norm. Britain is about to throw off the shackles of nationalised industry and find it's balls. I'm being brought up in a Cambridge suburb, mostly inhabited by young get ahead families fighting against high interest rates as they struggle for home ownership. But that's not important right now.

Hi-fi is starting to feel the grip of the 'source first' first system building ethos and vibration, along with it's transmission is starting to be taken seriously. Companies like Linn, actually mostly Linn, are getting a real grip on effective isolation and how to deal with it. I shouldn't single out Linn, because I have great deal of respect for the engineering quality of their gear as a former Linn dealer employee and further more, they were in the forefront of dealing with such issues before anybody else even cared, never mind tried, to understand.

However, the LP12, which is still a king amongst music sources dealt with vibration in a compliant nature. In other words the system was suspended (in this instance on springs and latterly engineered rubber feet) that absorbed vibration and converted it to harmless heat by placing the systems resonances down in the low single figure Hertz. They weren't the first to do this, but they did it really well and took it further by understanding that the energy fead into the arm by the cartridge, needed somewhere to go. This is not wrong, because the last place you need stored energy is something as sensitive as a low output moving coil cartridge tracking a micrometre groove on an LP. Thus, they invented the, now de rigeur, three point cartridge mounting system.

This was interesting and technically correct because instead of the universal flat machined faces mated through the pressure of a pair of two bolts, they chose to adopt three high lands of metal around each bolt. Everybody can see the sense in this. Two plates will distort away from contact with each other as you move further from the bolts.

However, if you ignore the idea of surface contact area between two surface areas being anything but when two bolts are distorting them, then providing three high 'lands' of contact securely in contact is rigid like tripod. There is no engineering tolerance of flatness or material distortion to take into account, three equally torqued points of contact are solid and rigid and will therefore provide the maximally efficient path for energy to pass from the cartridge, into the arm and thus into the mass energy sink of the turntable wher it can interfere less with the transcription of the precious vinyl.

So what's wrong with this this? Nothing. Nothing at all at least when applied to turntables, but a soon as the idea of a rigid mounting, three point or otherwise is applied to loudspeakers this previously solid thinking gets turned on it's head and where previously it transmitted energy, now it isolates?!?!

Now you may think, 'the turntable is applying pressure via a bolted mount', but the principle is the same. The smaller the surface area, the more rigid the mount. The 'point' of a spike ensures an even higher pressure in compensation for it's smaller surface area, thus it's coupling with the floor is ensured. The heavier the speaker, then the higher the equivalent to 'bolt torque' is applied assuring a firmer contact.

The whole 'isolation' rational behind a spike is that it has a vanishingly small contact area through which energy cannot pass because the area is too small, thus limiting the transmission. In reality, there's no such thing as a vanishingly small point unless you have a perfectly curved, perfectly hard surface bearing on a perfectly hard, perfectly flat surface. That's now ball bearings work - minimal contact surface providing minimum friction and this is what I would suggest if what you want to achieve is minimal energy transmission....

Except that your speakers would slide freely back and forward on the floor and that wouldn't be ideal to provide the rigid mounting the speaker's drivers require for transmitting the maximum energy into the air around them. The cabinet would be allowed free movement in reaction to the drivers travel.

So, you see we have a dichotomy. You can either have isolation or a rigid mounting, but not both through spikes.

So where do spikes work? Well it's simple. They work best when providing a rigid mounting onto a massive floor. By massive I mean concrete where any energy transmitted through the spikes will 'sink' into the sheer mass of the floor. Quite literally, the energy will be absorbed. This is good. The speaker will have a rigid mounting, thus ensuring the drive units are held constantly in place and any vibrations from the speaker cabinet will be sunk into and therefore damped, by the mass of the floor.

A lot of people don't have concrete floors, so what use is the spike? Well, that depends whether you think sinking energy into a resonant structure is a good idea or not.... ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/224-av-hifi-myths-pt-v-spikes.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/405-damn-i-hate-when-sony-makes-me-wrong.html Thu, 08 May 2008 23:31:29 GMT Further to my earlier "Am I turning Into My Dad" post where I bemoaned the agro involved in implementing an HD DVD player into my system, I feel compelled to post again on the same subject.

Of course, like any post that involves bold predictions, I was proven wrong in more ways than one. However, I remain unbowed as I put my money where my mouth was and thus had as much to loose as the next bloke. Loose it I did. The HD EP-35 may have given a superb picture and it may even have done so from the most complete and clearly thought out format, but that's unimportant now, as it was on the loosing side, so the arguments are over.

However, salvation came from the not only an unexpected source, but the one I'd least like to receive salvation from. Yup! The Coca-Cola/McDonalds/TESCO of AV; Step forward Sony and the PS3. Whilst catagorically failing to deliver any of the features HD DVD had already enshrined in stone, the master of the ill-conceived Blu Ray format, had thoroughly conceived the PS3 as the vehicle for the latest incarnation of the 11cm silver disk.

Ignoring what it didn't deliver as a Blu Ray player, the fact that within an hour of getting home I had performed a firmware update and was gaming online, speaks volumes for the simplicity of the PS3s operation; Even I simply couldn't go wrong. Compare this to two days of scanning, posting, giving in and eventually sending away for an EP-35 firmware disk that, thumbs up to Toshiba, arrived next day.

Here we are a few months on and it's delivering all of the features promised by BR and super quick loading times t'boot!

Okay, whilst the latest generation of dedicated players are only now starting to surpass its picture quality, it's not by much. Still no other BR player sports this level of future proofing and further more who cares about them? No one with a brain is buying them until they do deliver the full monty. Apart from the usual early adopters that is and I can safely say, that I'm no longer amongst them.

Yesiree! Thrice burned and I've learned my lesson but that doesn't mean it hasn't raised issues.

One, having considered that I'm past it, I'm buying games again and I'm buying them to play online. Okay, the experience isn't flawless; You always get one low bandwidth idiot that manages to host a race, but damn it's fun and I can win!

Two, it's good enough and I can't believe I'm saying this. The picture isn't class leading, but bloody hell it's sooo far ahead of anything off DVD, that whereas I had a string of £800 DVD players, the PS3 will do quite nicely thankyou.

Three, I don't get why people are getting all juicy over the HD sound formats decoded in the amplifier? The PS3 delivering the same formats via LPCM (especially now DTS-HD MA is on the menu) is so far ahead of even the best DTS-ES soundtrack I'd previously had, it's embarrasing.

Four, the fact is, the biggest games release of last year, grossed more than the biggest film release and a thoroughly thought out convergence source was always going to be a compelling argument to the bean counters. So I can't believe I was stupid enough to buy the 'quality will win over quantity' argument yet again, especially where the quality in question was the quantity of Yen backing the format.

Talking of quality, when are they going to get round to re-issuing Transformers on BR?

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/405-damn-i-hate-when-sony-makes-me-wrong.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/342-so-you-think-your-picture-looks-wrong.html Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:59:26 GMT Ever wondered why your projector picture looks like it has super contrast in bright scenes, but looks mid grey in dark scenes?

So do I, but while we're waiting for an answer, click this for other ways of tricking your brain:

http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/O.../illusions.htm

The first one is doing my swede in, but they're all a really good subjective lesson in subjectivism.

Nice.

Here's another:

http://www.lottolab.org/Illusions%20page.html

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/342-so-you-think-your-picture-looks-wrong.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/273-av-hifi-myths-pt-iv-subwoofer-crawl-method.html Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:24:03 GMT Oh, this one makes me laugh! It ignores so many obvious inconsistencies, only an 'audiophile' would pick it up and run. So....

Successful subwoofer integration is all about getting the sub and speakers to deliver a smooth frequency response which can only be as a result of their combined positioning relative to the listening position. This would seem common sense, no? If it doesn't, read more as to how bass wavelengths can interact in room to give massive peaks or dips in the response between two speakers, never mind by the time a sub is introduced. What is important is that the results only matter where you sit, because that's the only place you hear them.

The traditional suggestion of the 'crawl method' is absolute toss and here's why:

Let's assume that the human ear is discriminating enough to discern a flat bass frequency response; For the crawl method to work, the subwoofer will have to have it's effective acoustic point of radiation positioned exactly where the middle of your head would be in the listening position. No small task with some of the subs being talked about on here. Assuming you've managed this (possibly 80Kg) task, the reverse is true and a point midway between your ears will now have to occupy a point where the subs effective point of acoustic radiation would be when it's on the floor.

Now, you don't have to be too clever to spot that in the case of a down firing sub, the top of your head will stop your ears from reaching the requisite two inches from the floor. Let's ignore that (inconvenient for all of those REL ST Series owners), but needs must. If you are lucky enough to have a front firing sub (and lets suppose a 18" driver), your head will still be required to be about 12" off the floor.

Now I'm no expert, but I'm sure I'd struggle to achieve a comfortable listening position that places my ears thus and would allow me to remain there long enough to build up an interpretation of the subs likely success. Remember, you're supposed to be crawling around the room examining where the bass is improved or not and remaining in that position long enough to to develop a real impression of the overall bass performance. Give over!

Even if that were possible, it ignores one critical fact that makes the above method complete bunkum, regardless of whether it is even likely to work....

During all of this, where exactly are the main speakers supposed to be?

That's right even if all of that works, the complex relationship between the speakers and room means it's all cobblers because the eventual response of the sub is as inextricably linked to the speakers, as it is to the room.

So, when the sub is in the middle of your head and your head is in the middle of the sub, the main speakers haven't moved and yet having changed the relative separation by possibly metres, the crawl method can deliver an even response?

I'm sure you'll agree, it doesn't even sound plausible, never mind likely. Buy an SPL meter, download some test tones and measure the in room response. It's the only way to be certain.

Russell ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/273-av-hifi-myths-pt-iv-subwoofer-crawl-method.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/204-av-hifi-myths-ptiii-bi-wiring.html Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:01:59 GMT This is as a result of the following quotes from an 'engineer' from a very well respected British speaker manufacturer, in response to a technical query;

"So when you have a loudspeaker which has a coil of wire moving in a magnetic field pulsing to a signal, that same speaker is acting in reverse (like a microphone) producing its own back current or EMF, this EMF can travel back up through the short 2" jumper links on the terminal tray at the back of the loudspeaker into the mid/high frequency crossover and induce very low level distortion that can blemish or mask the fine details evident in midrange & treble content.

The higher the volume, the greater distance the bass drivers voice coil moves and so the greater the EMF is produced, and the more bass drive units you have, even more back EMF produced.

So, by removing the jumper links and extending the cables (say 5 metres) all the way back to the amplifier by using separate runs of cable to drive the low frequencies, and a separate run to the treble, this EMF is dissipated through the (5m) run of cable back to the amplifier instead of the 2" jumper lead.

Now, bi-wiring is more evident in a 3 way system because you are effectively splitting the bass away from the midrange AND treble, however in a 2 way and 2.5 way system you are only splitting the treble signal away.

I would always recommend bi-wiring where possible with high quality loudspeaker cable to reduce the cross-distortion and offer the best performance."

What a load of cobblers and no more than you'd expect from an engineer that produces bi/tri-wirable loudspeakers. Both this and the later quote are based on pseudo science and a healthy dollop of general public gulliblity.

Lets turn these claims on their head:

"So when you have a loudspeaker which has a coil of wire moving in a magnetic field pulsing to a signal, that same speaker is acting in reverse (like a microphone) producing its own back current or EMF, this EMF can travel back up through the short 2" jumper links on the terminal tray at the back of the loudspeaker into the mid/high frequency crossover and induce very low level distortion that can blemish or mask the fine details evident in midrange & treble content"

So far so good. Nothing what-so-ever to disagree with there.

"The higher the volume, the greater distance the bass drivers voice coil moves and so the greater the EMF is produced, and the more bass drive units you have, even more back EMF produced."

Also correct. A driver is a motor. The more electricity you apply to it, the more it moves. Equally, it's an electric motor in reverse - a dynamo. The more it moves the more electricity it generates. In this context, the back EMF (ElectroMotive Force) is generated in the voice coil and sent back down the cable. We're agreed.

"So, by removing the jumper links and extending the cables (say 5 metres) all the way back to the amplifier by using separate runs of cable to drive the low frequencies, and a separate run to the treble, this EMF is dissipated through the (5m) run of cable back to the amplifier instead of the 2" jumper lead."

Hold the phone! You what? A signal (which is what the back EMF is) is "dissipated" in the speaker cables?

What the hell is he talking about? A signal is a signal. If there were a single electrical property of a cable that was capable of "dissipating" the back EMF, the it would do exactly the same to the signal from the amplifier and you would not want any cable capable of such feats.

The only electrical property capable of "disipating" a signal at all frequencies (and both of the drivers generate EMFs at all the frequencies they're fead) is resistance and that would work on both signals in direct linear proportion. If it reduced one signal by half (3dB), then it would reduce the other by half (3dB) because contrary to some claims, cables are not and cannot be directional.* The result would be that you'd compensate by turning the amp up by 3dB, thus restoring the status quo to it's original state.

In reality the electrical properties (resistance, capacitance, inductance) of a cable are measured per KILOMETRE of cable and even then, these properties are two or three orders of magnitude (100th to 1000th) of the load presented by either the speaker or the amplifier to signals travelling in whichever 'direction' and as is obvious, would apply to both signals, so you just wouldn't want this claimed effect and it matters even less when travelling over only the "5m" of cable used as an example.

The fact is that the "5m" of cable is so vanishingly small in all electrical terms, as to be insignificant. In all practical terms (unless you are using a cable of shockingly bad design) the amplifier is connected AT the terminals of the speaker. Whether the distance is 5cm, 50cm or 5m makes such a vanishingly small difference as to be completely irrelevant. Claiming that the ill effects of driver interaction can be "dissipated" over such a distance is laughable at the minimum.

And this is the bit that really narks me. These same 'engineers' that we accept the word of, will give these pseudo science explainations, whilst fitting our speakers with electrically disasterous flat steel (gold plating doesn't fool me) jumper plates to link the bi-wire terminals.

In simple terms a cable is a pipe - a pipe that channels the current (the analogy holds true) in a direction. Widen it suddenly, then as the current spreads to fill the jumper plate, it creates eddy currents where quite literally, the current eddies around in it's new found space. Think of the stream of water from a tap as it would flow into a wider bath before flowing out of another constrained pipe (plug hole) at the other end. The signal in is good, the signal out is of precisely the same flow, but somewhere in between it got muddled up a bit as it slowed and swirled around. Current is a flow of electrons. More electrons is more current and a consistent current flow likes a consistent diametre pipe that does not change shape.

Whilst not an exact analogy, this paints a picture that holds broadly true. If wide, flat and solid conductors were ideal, cables would be that shape and the speaker manufacturers would be using conductors of this shape inside their speakers. They don't and this tells you all you need to know - avoid using jumper plates - they're not good.

The fact is, if you bare an extra inch or two of your speaker cable to pass through all of the terminals on the back of your speakers, than you will have made all of the claimed improvements ascribed to bi-wiring. In other words, the improvement has nothing to do with two runs of cable, but everything to do with removing the jumper plates.

The funny thing is, these plates never existed before bi-wiring. Go figure.....

I'm not surprised that, in the later quote, Mr 'Engineer' starts prattling on about the "detail and resolution arena.... echos....cues....nuances.....etc", because he's clearly struggling to justify the unjustifiable by couching it in subjective terms that only need to be proved in his own head, or rather whilst toeing the company line. By the time he got to the point where "the bass drive units are actually physically moving backwards and forwards", I'll be honest, I was struggling with bladder control, because I was trying to imagine a frequency at any volume that did not require a drive unit to move back and forward.

The fact is, bi/tri-wiring terminals on a passive speaker have only one real use and that's passive bi/tri-amping. Even that is of debatable use if the ability to accomodate this feature is offered by a mid range or budget AV receiver.

Russell

*Directional audio cables - the next great myth. Last time I looked a musical signal was AC not DC. As a result of the musical signal applying a AC voltage across a pair of terminals, the current in the cables flows back and forth in both cables to move the speaker cones. As such there is no direction because the signal is flowing in all directions at all frequencies at the same time. The idea of cable polarity is purely to maintain exactly that - polarity and absolute phase. It has nothing to do with current direction.

This needs no more discussion because it is yet more bunkum. ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/204-av-hifi-myths-ptiii-bi-wiring.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/201-av-hifi-myths-ptii-centre-speaker.html Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:30:44 GMT "Buy the centre speaker that matches at least your front stereo pair. It will ensure an even tonal match across the front, creating a seamless sound field and panning of effects."

Wisdom doesn't get much more accepted than that but it's complete cobblers. For two speakers to sound the same, they have to be the same, period.

The chances are that, unless you have a perfect symmetrical listening room in layout and furnishing, even your main front stereo pair don't sound the same. So when we have a smaller box, with different driver layout, possibly different drivers (even though they're from the same range they can be smaller), placed under or over a TV (but seldom at the same tweeter level as the main speakers), why do we think there's a cat in hells chance it will sound the same as another different speaker?

It can't and never will, especially if all of the above is true. It's even worse the moment you choose to sit off centre/axis.

You see, inspite of the manufacturers hype, it doesn't matter how carefully you design a centre speaker crossover, it cannot deliver a flat frequency response at all listening positions. With increasing frequency, the dispersion pattern of treble narrows, meaning the further off centre you sit, the less treble you will receive and the duller the sound. That's true for all speakers though, even the vertically aligned stereo front left and right, but that's about all they suffer from and the effect is consistent across all of the speakers.

A typical centre speaker aligns the drivers in the horizontal plane and this creates another effect, that you would only get with a normal speaker by standing above or lying below it and you don't do that when watching a movie, do you?

Basically, moving to a seat other than the central sweet-spot, changes the the distance from you to the two drivers, but as they are along side each other, you also change the relative distance - one driver is made further/closer than the other. As the wavelengths of the frequency being emmitted gets closer to the physical dimension between the the tweeter and mid/bass driver the output from the drivers can start to destructively interfere with each other as they are now out of step. It's a further cruel trick of physics that these wavelengths correspond to slap bang in the middle of the already difficult crossover region and right where the sounds happen that make human speech intelligeable.

Double Damn! And that's just for two drivers - add in a second mid/bass driver (which most designs do) and they can interfere with each other only as the dimension has now increased, you can add even lower frequencies (still in the critical band) to those already suffering.

There is an article here showing the effects by measuring a variety of speakers in vertical and horizontal orientations which adds some verifiable science to this problem.

Solutions?

1. Resolutely sit in the sweet spot and sod everyone else!

2. The only real solution is to buy a third example of your existing stereo speakers and mount it exactly a per the stereo pair, but in the middle, obviously. Now it's perverse, but the most compromised speakers of the lot - small sub/sat combos, do exactly that. - Speakers like Kef Eggs, Canton CD10s, B&W M-1s, etc offer the easiest way of accommodating three speakers vertically.

3. Buy a three way centre speaker with a tweeter and midrange driver arranged vertically between or next to the bass drivers like this one. That's a rather expensive example, but the sensitive treble and midrange frequencies are handled by drivers vertically aligned - that's the important bit. The crossover to and the bass frequencies are all down at wavelengths approaching metres in length and therefore insensitive to the lobing issue.

4. Buy a coincident source speaker using a concentric source driver such as made by Tannoy or Kef. A bit of a one trick pony this as they trade dispersion issues with frequency modulation problems - in the crossover region there are frequencies being emitted by the tweeter that are being modulated by the mid/bass cone emitting the same frequencies, so still not ideal.

5. Put up with it and the sound of the wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other asking "what did they say?". ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/201-av-hifi-myths-ptii-centre-speaker.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/200-av-hifi-myths-pti-dont-believe-everything-youre-told.html Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:17:49 GMT I, like many people, find myself blindly following conventions without realising it.

They are conventions, because they are 'accepted wisdom' and they're usually accepted because having heard it repeated often enough, it's believed. Usually they're easy to believe, because the alternative involves thought, doing something 'unconventional' or even worse, a bit of effort.

There are more than a few conventions floating round this industry, that are just wrong, down right lies based on marketing ploys or worst of all, pseudo science. They are therefore worth unearthing in the pursuit of audio nirvana the.

As I come across a 'myth', plenty of which are well known and just as often ignored, I'm going to write about it here and point to it when-ever a question arises on forum. It'll save me a lot of typing in the long run and I can add the superior wisdom of others to make it comprehensive. ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/200-av-hifi-myths-pti-dont-believe-everything-youre-told.html http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/132-am-i-turning-into-my-dad.html Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:52:46 GMT Or at least, is the bit of me that loves new technology? Is there going to come a point when I just can't (be arsed?) to keep up with the next 'Greatest Thing'TM? It's probably no coincidence that this thought has forced itself to the front of my mind in the week that I've enjoyed one of the single biggest system upgrades I've ever made. What is this paradox of technology?

HD DVD.

It's arrival has simultaneously thrown the light on (quite literally as I use a projector) the greatest reason for technological progress, my own technical shortcomings and the idiocy of the industry. I'll start with the joy.

The never ending path of upgrades has given some severe cause for unbridled enthusiasm at points. My first 36" progressive scan enabled CRT TV driven by a progressive DVDP, elevated picture quality to a level that even my mother noticed, although I'll come back to that. My first big subwoofer and my first subwoofer EQ device, are another couple of examples of where an upgrade has delivered far more than I expected. Forum hyperbole leads you all to often to expect miracles, but we've all noted examples of, shall we say, 'Over emphasised superlatives leading to slight disappointment'. Regardless, they all delivered a real sense of money well spent.

Anyway, this week I had one of those shining moments of upgrade epiphany that, almost immediately, was dulled to depression. Step forward the offending Toshiba HD-EP35 HD DVD player.

For the record, I'll point something out now. There is nothing wrong with this particular machine. From the moment I plugged it in, it has done exactly what it claims in a near flawless manner and indeed sometimes spectacularly. Firing through a Mitsubishi HC6000 1080P/24 projector the image is nothing short of staggering on occasion, with a depth of field, detail and involvement that would have been scarcely believable, never mind available two years ago.

Ok, HD DVD playback is a bit slow to get going and I've had to dial in 18ms of lip-sync delay, but otherwise, it's even surpassed some expectations. Compared to my Denon DVD-3910, it's like greased lightning at SD DVD replay, upscales with nary a juddery pan and it's CD replay is far less prone to spitty sibilance. All of the HD sound formats are piping their way down the PCM route and delighting as surround sound has never done before. All for a mere £600 less, than the Denon it replaces. Ding dong, job done.

What's this? It's out of date already! Or at least the firmware is. It's less than two days out of the box ferchistsakes! Now I should point out that I as far as I can tell, none of the required firmware upgrades actually effect what I currently experience, or expect of the player. Regardless, technology has taught/brainwashed me into wanting to be up to date, but I can't get the ethernet connection to work, or burn an ISO image of the update to CD that will work either.

I'll admit, the lack of computer understanding probably comes from being an Apple Mac user. I don't understand IP addresses and the like because I've never had to. You plug, it plays and if it doesn't, or can be improved, it downloads the upgrades for you. I love Macs. Am I ignorant? Maybe, but I wouldn't buy a car that forced me to spend weeks fannying around under the bonnet before it met the brochures claims. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy driving, quite the reverse. I've done trackdays for instance, but I really couldn't care less what my spark-plug gap is and I shouldn't have to know. Likewise the IT bloke who happens this way at work, thinks I'm the magician when he sees what I can do in Photoshop. I'm a user, not a tweaker.

Why does this have to be so hard? Why can't a piece of AV ever arrive in your rack, fully formed from the off? Because the damn stupid industry never learns and if there's a way of making things difficult, Sony will find a way.

So, already my enthusiasm for the technology is dented. Furthermore, I'm depressed because it was obvious it was coming, but still I ignored it. You see, this is the third time this has happened (to me) and I'm not sure as time goes on that I can be arsed anymore. At least, I'm buggered if I'm going to fall into the early adopters trap again, because the people responsible for this stuff are idiots.

Prior to this, my DVD-3910 required an update to enable SACD (Sony again!) over Denon Link, which was one of the main features of the player. That was even more of a nervous affair because at the time Denon said they weren't interested in sending me a disk because it was a multiregion player and they didn't make any. Luckily a dealer was not so 'constrained'. I lost count what update the latest firmware was on, but I can tell you I wasn't on it.

Prior to that I had a progressive scan Denon DVD-2800MkII which because of industry stupidity, could only play Region 1 DVDs progressively for over a year after release. Eventually some studio exec put his bottom lip back in and Europe was finally allowed access to the technology for which it had paid.

There'll be older people on this forum who've had SACD, DVD-A, Minidisc, digital compact cassette, Betamax, V2000 etc, etc who'll fill in the gaps on the format war(s), but for the record I don't think there will be a winner this time. I think two years from now, people will be buying HD Disk players and the format in the drawer will only be of relevance to a bean counter in Japan and idiot execs who'll still think there's a war to be won.

I've been among the most enthusiastic embracers of new technology for the advantages it can deliver, but it's grinding me down. The fact that we've bought into this lunacy is only really brought home when you sit down over lunch with a collegue. He or she will ask about AV because someone said you were into it. There is no way you can let a series of words pass your lips that will A) Clarify the situation to a layman or B) Not make you, me, the rest of the industry sound like a bunch of imbeciles who struggle to breath with a closed mouth. Their innocent and varied lines of questioning punch hole after hole in the reasons we use to self justify purchases of underdeveloped kit and you can see there isn't a cat in hells chance they're going to fall into that same trap. By the time I've explained why that CD on my desk is 2.5x time the price of the one they bought from Tesco's because it's got a 'super audio thingy' on it, I'm ready to get me coat, because I've just about confirmed everything they thought about techno-nerds.

Between, my regressive learning ability and the increasing worthlessness of the latest thing, I'm wondering when I'll do a 'dad' and revert to pure, high quality, unpretentious, straight stereo?

It's already been mentioned that I dance like him, so I suppose it's only a matter of time. Still, it could be worse, I could have paid double and bought Blu-Ray. ]]> Russell.Williams http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/russell-williams-96948/132-am-i-turning-into-my-dad.html