How many speakers do you have?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Hey, i was wondering how successful multi-speaker (ie more than 2) systems really are. So the question goes, how many speakers do you have hooked up to your pc? I use 4 myself, gives lovely surround sound (esp in games). I dont have a subwoofer though, it probably drive my flatmates crazy anyway :D.

[Heigar]

I have 2 and a subwoofer(Klipsch pro media 2.1).And they sound AWESOME.:D

[Todd The Kiwi]

Hey, i was wondering how successful multi-speaker (ie more than 2) systems really are. So the question goes, how many speakers do you have hooked up to your pc? I use 4 myself, gives lovely surround sound (esp in games). I dont have a subwoofer though, it probably drive my flatmates crazy anyway :D.

only 2 mate but more are imminent since i have a really wicked sound card (m-audio audiophile 2496) i think perhaps a waste of power not to run more than 2 , but considering they are wharfedale valdus 500's there isn't much room left in my p.c room for more maybe some bose mini beasts next ? rex & heigar > what brands of speakers do you guys have < dang ! todd the kiwi tried to insert an image ? does mozilla not do this ?

[Todd The Kiwi]

only 2 mate but more are imminent since i have a really wicked sound card (m-audio audiophile 2496) i think perhaps a waste of power not to run more than 2 , but considering they are wharfedale valdus 500's there isn't much room left in my p.c room for more maybe some bose mini beasts next ? rex & heigar > what brands of speakers do you guys have < dang ! todd the kiwi tried to insert an image ? does mozilla not do this ?

dang , it did work ? ignore my last comment , pretty cool speakers though . . .

[Todd The Kiwi]

dang , it did work ? ignore my last comment , pretty cool speakers though . . .
this is my insane sound card too

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Holy cow, those speakers are as high as the empire state building :D

[Todd The Kiwi]

Holy cow, those speakers are as high as the empire state building :D

ha ha yeah man sitting at p.c desk they are eye level , which is disturbing really :eek:

[drewkeller]

i've been pretty happy with my turtle beach santa cruz sound card with altec lansing 5.1 speaker set, upgrade options from dell. they sound better than the sony surround sound home theater system (dreamhome or some such) my girlfriend was set on

well apparently the poll thing isn't working properly

[Todd The Kiwi]

i've been pretty happy with my turtle beach santa cruz sound card with altec lansing 5.1 speaker set, upgrade options from dell. they sound better than the sony surround sound home theater system (dreamhome or some such) my girlfriend was set on

well apparently the poll thing isn't working properly

yeah man that was my first choice but really expensive down here :(

[Matt]

i have klipsch pro media 4.1. Fantastic speakers. Although i do want the new klipsch 5.1... soo sweet.

http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=712

[effika]

2 + subwoofer... Altec Lansing 621's. Glad I got them when I did, seems they were discontinued. :-(

[thetribe]

SB Audigy with Cambridge Soundworks DeskTop Theatre 5.1 (DTT2500) Dolby Digital speaker system.
:)

[Todd The Kiwi]

SB Audigy with Cambridge Soundworks DeskTop Theatre 5.1 (DTT2500) Dolby Digital speaker system.
:)

ok that sounds (excuse the pun :p ) cool . nice "angus avatar" man LET THERE BE ROCK ! and drum and bass and death metal

[Cabinessence]

I run my PC sound through my Venturer stereo, which has 2 speakers. It does have 2 crappy "mini" speakers for some kind of surround feeling, but I don't like them at all.

[ace2701]

Two Altec Lansing Series 100 (with subwoofer) plus Enhancer DSP plugin plus QCD give me all the sound quality I need in a VERY small computer room at home.

[-swt-]

Soundcard : Creative SoundBlaster 128 PCI
Speakers : Logitech - 2 Satelites + 1 Subwoofer

its okay for gaming, listening to mp3's and watching DVD's

no need for a newer/better Sound-System :cool:

[Todd The Kiwi]

i insisted that the removal guys should ''be careful'' with my gear...

[rorythedog]

I use a Soundblaster Live 5.1 card and Creative 5.1 speakers. They generally sound great with DVD's and can be fun with music too. However, I also use a Marantz CD player connected to a rather lovely Rotel amplifier and driving a large pair of Eltax Floorstanders., all connected with quality cables and interconnects from QED, Audioquest and Furukawa. If it's a stereo recording then any more than two speakers is just "over-egging the pudding". As they say. :rolleyes: I'm looking into the M-audio audiophile card though.

[Todd The Kiwi]

I'm looking into the M-audio audiophile card though.

there's a link in one of the other audiophile threads you may find interesting ... r.e 2496

[rorythedog]

I'm looking into the M-audio audiophile card though.

there's a link in one of the other audiophile threads you may find interesting ... r.e 2496
I clicked the link and it looks quite good, the only trouble for me is that I'm no musician and I'd rather not pay for features that I won't use. The market is wide open for a genuinely high-end product which is engineered to the same standards as stand-alone hi-fi components. Oh well, you can only dream.

[Todd The Kiwi]

I clicked the link and it looks quite good, the only trouble for me is that I'm no musician and I'd rather not pay for features that I won't use. The market is wide open for a genuinely high-end product which is engineered to the same standards as stand-alone hi-fi components. Oh well, you can only dream.

valid point man :D i tend to 'go overboard' just in case one day i'll use all the 'extra's'
mastercard appreciate it too :eek: i too am not a musician but , i've been known to play a mean 'air guitar' . incidentially new zealand has the best 'air guitarist ' in the world (not me)
there is actually an international 'tournament' for this i think it was held in norway ? not too sure though :confused:

[rorythedog]

valid point man :D i tend to 'go overboard' just in case one day i'll use all the 'extra's'
mastercard appreciate it too :eek: i too am not a musician but , i've been known to play a mean 'air guitar' . incidentially new zealand has the best 'air guitarist ' in the world (not me)
there is actually an international 'tournament' for this i think it was held in norway ? not too sure though :confused: You're right man, it was Norway. The only thing I play is the CD player...and QCD of course. Mastercard used to like me too :rolleyes:

[Roj]

Hey, i was wondering how successful multi-speaker (ie more than 2) systems really are. So the question goes, how many speakers do you have hooked up to your pc? I use 4 myself, gives lovely surround sound (esp in games). I dont have a subwoofer though, it probably drive my flatmates crazy anyway :D.Currently in my house seeing active service:

- 1 set of Monsoon MH-500s mated to a Fortissimo III (2.1 - my son's)
- 1 set of Monsoon Planar Media 9s mated to a Santa Cruz (2.1 - my wife's)
- 1 set of Monsoon Planar Media 14s mated to a Revo (2.1 - mine)
- 2 sets of Altec-Lansing ATP-3s mated to Fortissimo IIIs (2.1 - each of my two daughters)

Held as spares and soon to see active service as more machines go online:

- 1 set of Monsoon MH-505s which will be mated to a Santa Cruz (5.1 - my spare machine which will soon be upgraded to an Athlon XP 2000+)
- 1 set of Altec-Lansing ATP-3s

The Monsoons have all been mine at one time or another. I went from the 500s to the 505s and then to the PM9s and finally the PM14s I currently use. My next step up if and when I get there will be away from multimedia speakers completely - Monsoon is top dog for sound quality as far as I'm concerned and to get better I'll have to go "home audio". That being said, I have no pressing need to go there neither now nor in the foreseeable future.

Do note also that my network is a "Totally Creative Labs Free Zone (TM)". :D

Oh, and yes I do record vinyl to my PC - have done so many times.

[chicubs]

I have 2 speakers and a subwoofer....so I have no category :mad: ...Altec Lansing 2100, nice looking and nice sounding....VERY well constructed. I dropped them twice (dont ask) and they didnt get any damage.

[Hanzo]

I have to agree with Chicubs. I have 2 speakers and a sub. Harman Kardon, I don't have the model on hand. Sounds pretty good to me.

I have a home theater fully featured with 7.1 but that is exclusive for DVD's and movies. I prefer to keep Windows crashing and viruses and crap out my sweet home theater. :D

[GaBMaTrIx]

Well, my desktop is kinda mixed. Here it is:

2.1 Monsoon Planar Media 9
+
4.1 Klipsch Promedia THX

Although I have 2 computers around my desk, I mixed these 2 sets and the sound is really incredible. All surrounding me... Also, good highs/mids of Monsoon really goes well with Klipsch, who compensate on the low frequencies. I have 2 subs but they run at minimal power (Not really a bass guy) :p

Also, I wait for some Logitech Z680 for my new flat 27po TV, in order to fully enjoy my numerous digital movies.

[Artie]

I get by with two for now.

(A couple of Yamaha monitors.)

Artie

[Assmongrel]

Right now I'm running a soundblaster audigy 2, connected to logitech z560s (although atm I only have the 2 front speakers hooked up). Just can't say no to an entire system thats THX certified, with 400 watts of power! Its just too bad that thats too much power.... I rarely have my total system volume above about 25%.

[Roj]

I hate to disillusion you but the THX certification means absolutely nothing. There are several "flavors" of it, most of which are poorly documented (publicly at any rate) and in the multimedia arena it means only one thing: marketing hype. Also, said certification has no bearing on the actual quality of the sound. Similarly, the 400W isn't continuous RMS - it's actually burst. Even the mighty (and badly overhyped) Klipsch had to admit (when forced to take a stand) that the grandiose multimedia ratings of limitless power are, shall we politely say, overstated. Logitech ain't Klipsch.

[Heigar]

I hate to disillusion you but the THX certification means absolutely nothing. There are several "flavors" of it, most of which are poorly documented (publicly at any rate) and in the multimedia arena it means only one thing: marketing hype. Also, said certification has no bearing on the actual quality of the sound. Similarly, the 400W isn't continuous RMS - it's actually burst. Even the mighty (and badly overhyped) Klipsch had to admit (when forced to take a stand) that the grandiose multimedia ratings of limitless power are, shall we politely say, overstated. Logitech ain't Klipsch.
Absolutely right Roj ,Amen!:D

[Artie]

Its even worse than that . . . they aren't anywhere near 400 watts peak either. If that whole system puts out more than 50 watts, I'll eat it.

There's a review, if you do a Google search, where the guy takes them apart. The small speakers are rated at 15 watts each, and the woofer at 100w. But the system comes with 22 gauge speaker wire. (intercom wire), and it appears to use little car stereo type output IC's.

Artie

BTW - You can always get a ballpark figure as to output power by looking at the "watts" figure thats near the power cord. Take this value and divide by 2 to get the approximate total audio output power. In other words, a stereo amplifier that consumes 100 watts from the wall socket, will be approximately 25 watts RMS per channel. (100 / 2 = 50 total. 50 / 2 = 25 per channel.)

Audio amplifiers tend to be around 50% effecient.

[DeltaGuy]

2 Speakers, 1 Subwoofer, 2 Headphones, and a Remote Control (of course)...
Altec Lansing XA3021
The sound is great with them...

[rorythedog]

Its even worse than that . . . they aren't anywhere near 400 watts peak either. If that whole system puts out more than 50 watts, I'll eat it.

There's a review, if you do a Google search, where the guy takes them apart. The small speakers are rated at 15 watts each, and the woofer at 100w. But the system comes with 22 gauge speaker wire. (intercom wire), and it appears to use little car stereo type output IC's.

Artie

BTW - You can always get a ballpark figure as to output power by looking at the "watts" figure thats near the power cord. Take this value and divide by 2 to get the approximate total audio output power. In other words, a stereo amplifier that consumes 100 watts from the wall socket, will be approximately 25 watts RMS per channel. (100 / 2 = 50 total. 50 / 2 = 25 per channel.)

Audio amplifiers tend to be around 50% effecient.


Quite right.

I used to use (before I blew it up) an Audio Innovations valve-driven power amp. It was only rated at 8watts per channel. It sounded awesome.

Awesome is not a word I use lightly.

The thing was the current delivery. Huge.

You could feel the heat off the thing from across the room - seriously.

Also, loudspeaker sensitivity plays a large part in overall sound pressure level.

[Roj]

Wait a minute - I may have heard of this beast. I was in the Audioshop in town (Ottawa) and Garth was telling me of this amp that was extremely high current, extremely low wattage and extraordinarily biblical (as in "Parting Of The Red Sea Biblical") in price tag. Is this the beast you speak of?

[rorythedog]

Wait a minute - I may have heard of this beast. I was in the Audioshop in town (Ottawa) and Garth was telling me of this amp that was extremely high current, extremely low wattage and extraordinarily biblical (as in "Parting Of The Red Sea Biblical") in price tag. Is this the beast you speak of?

Here you go :
http://
Shit, how do I insert an image?

Never mind. Go here>>>> http://audio-innovations.nl.eu.org/home.htm

I bought mine secondhand, so it was only about £200 (350can?).

I remember when that particular model was current (get it?) I worked in a Hi-Fi shop and the Audio Innovations sales guy would boast of it's egg frying capabilities.

I kid you not.

[Todd The Kiwi]

Here you go :
http://
Shit, how do I insert an image?

Never mind. Go here>>>> http://audio-innovations.nl.eu.org/home.htm

I bought mine secondhand, so it was only about £200 (350can?).

I remember when that particular model was current (get it?) I worked in a Hi-Fi shop and the Audio Innovations sales guy would boast of it's egg frying capabilities.

I kid you not.
rory firstly you have a cool sense of humour , secondly when you are typing the message ,go down the page a bit to where it says "manage attachments" and click it ,then follow the instructions and hey presto (sort of) i don't see the image until i've submitted the message though so don't panic if you don't either, also you may have to resize your images but it'll tell you if you do .

[rorythedog]

You mean like this?

[rorythedog]

Thanks Todd, now I can get some shut-eye.

Cheers. :beer:

[Todd The Kiwi]

that's cool mate , gannets aye . have you heard of muriwai beach in new zealand ? there is a 'BIG ROCK' called "gannet rock" you may be keen to have a look at some pics fom there ... HERE (http://www.deniswilford.com/photo/grp1/as0085.html)

[Assmongrel]

You all may be right, and most likely are entirely right. But frankly, wattage never really mattered to me... the fidelity is great for the speakers, they put out enough sound for me, and I've had no problems with them. And I certainly know that THX is essentially meaningless, but whatever. It still sounds impressive to those who don't know any better :cheeky:

[Hanzo]

You all may be right, and most likely are entirely right. But frankly, wattage never really mattered to me... the fidelity is great for the speakers, they put out enough sound for me, and I've had no problems with them. And I certainly know that THX is essentially meaningless, but whatever. It still sounds impressive to those who don't know any better :cheeky:
I completely agree. I'm no trained expert but I can tell the difference between crappy sound and high fidelity sound, and really power is what matters the least.

[rorythedog]

The old addage "Garbage In Garbage Out" is a computer term that is even more relevant in Audio reproduction.

The source is the prime mover.

The loudspeakers can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, can they.

Give me a really nice turntable (Linn LP12 perhaps?) and everybody heres' records and I'd be a happy man :nervous:

[Assmongrel]

You and your crazy vinyl. Its too bad that everything is going digital these days, because analog has always been, and will always be, superior. Oh well, c'est la vie.

[Todd The Kiwi]

amen to that man , i'm a vinyl junkie too.

[GildedSplinter]

I have a sub from an Altec-Lansing ACS48 set, and a pair of old ACS40 satellites. I just got the sub off eBay & didn't know about the multi-pin cable arrangement they used, so the controls for the satellites would affect the sub. Regrettably, one of those features is the power switch. I can hook the sub to the satellites with with the standard 1/8" male-to-male stereo cable, and can adjust the level manually with the knob on the back. All I need is to be able to TURN THE DAMN POWER ON!!! Can anyone help me???

[traveller]

I have a sub from an Altec-Lansing ACS48 set, and a pair of old ACS40 satellites. I just got the sub off eBay & didn't know about the multi-pin cable arrangement they used, so the controls for the satellites would affect the sub. Regrettably, one of those features is the power switch. I can hook the sub to the satellites with with the standard 1/8" male-to-male stereo cable, and can adjust the level manually with the knob on the back. All I need is to be able to TURN THE DAMN POWER ON!!! Can anyone help me???
I don't suppose it would be as simple as getting a standard DIN cable to connect the sub to the satellites? I'm not familiar with that particular set. My Altec 621's run the signal through the sub to the satellites, and have a remote (wired) control for power and volume which connects to the sub. Perhaps your sub needs a similar control, which you might be able to get from a decent retailer (probably special order).

[GildedSplinter]

I don't suppose it would be as simple as getting a standard DIN cable to connect the sub to the satellites? I'm not familiar with that particular set. My Altec 621's run the signal through the sub to the satellites, and have a remote (wired) control for power and volume which connects to the sub. Perhaps your sub needs a similar control, which you might be able to get from a decent retailer (probably special order).
I have this old keyboard layin' around... perhaps with some wire cutters & a spritz of pixie dust...

[Todd The Kiwi]

I have this old keyboard layin' around... perhaps with some wire cutters & a spritz of pixie dust...

you need a swiss army knife and a scottish surname for it to work man
Gilded McSplinter ha ha ha ha

[Sheepeh]

Hello children, today we're going to show you how to jerry-rig a set of speakers using nothing but a blunt bread-knife!

Just chop a little *here* and whack *this*...

Here's one I made earlier! Let's just turn it on and see what it sounds like!

*BANG!*

Well, it sure had a lot of bass, didn't it children?

Tune in next week when I'll show you gow to make a nice pair of oven gloves out of Ed the Duck and Gordon the Gopher!

[buvypapy]

I own an Altec Lansing ACS295 2.1 set, plugged into a SB16 Value (old sound card, I know, but yet sounds great) :cheeky: !

http://support.ap.dell.com/docs/acc/ACS295/front.GIF

[lillitnn92]

i'm using a m-audio 2496 as well and a 2.1 system from cyber acoustics. waitng to get some proper studio monitors, like Bheringer Truths or M-Audio BX's

[Todd The Kiwi]

i'm using a m-audio 2496

i have m-audios 2496 card too man all good aye
how much did you pay for it ?
are you doing anything nuts with it ?
do you use the ableton live delta that came with it ?

[nddst]

i have klipsch pro media 4.1. Fantastic speakers. Although i do want the new klipsch 5.1... soo sweet.

http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=712

Ditto.

[countryjoe]

i've got 2 speakers and subwoofer(altec lansing) i use the winamp enhancer 017 and i get superb sound. i like the reverb that it has. i listen to a lot of electronic music so i can up the bass for a kick butt sound. :cool:

[GildedSplinter]

Hey C.Joe... I was usin' Enhancer017 as well, untill I tried out the Isotope Ozone free sample that you'll see on QCD's home page. I HIGHLY recommend that you give it a go. It blows EVERY enhancing DSP plug-in that I was able to try, clean outa the water. Excellent UI, nice, warm, full sounds... worthy of every ounce of hype it has received.

(P.S.) After a little web surfing, and with the addition of a variable resistor, a couple o' jumper wires, and some toggle switches, my sub is a happy, healthy, active member of my audio family. THANKS LES!!!

[countryjoe]

I have 2 speakers and a subwoofer....so I have no category :mad: ...Altec Lansing 2100, nice looking and nice sounding....VERY well constructed. I dropped them twice (dont ask) and they didnt get any damage.i use an older altec lansing speakers. these you have i would sure like to have. how much do they cost?

[ONEentity]

My setup in the living room consists of a Onkyo DR-S2.2 DVD/CD/CD-R/CD-RW Receiver with 5 speaker Dolby Surround Pro Logic 2 and linear PCM 96kHz/24bit DAC converters. It has a nice sub too of course. Plus, in the same room I have a Philips FWC577 330-watt mini stereo system. The amplifier delivers 165 watts to each of the two main speakers, which feature 6-1/2-inch woofers, 2-inch Ferro Fluid tweeters, and 1-inch Polydome piezos. The speakers also include six Max bass ports, along with detachable grilles. The USB PC link remotely streams MP3 content. I was thinking about hooking this mini system up to the Onkyo.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Okay, ive done something really crazy. I have 2 medium sized speakers attached to my amp which in turn is attached to my soundcard. Now ive been struggling to get good bass from my speakers which are now positioned, 1 to the left of me and 1 to the right of me. But because my room isnt wider than, say 3 metres and a bit the bass is totally non-existent where i sit in front of my monitor and elsewhere in my room the bass is astounding! No matter what i tried i cant get proper bass where i sit, so (here comes the crazy part) i turned my speakers upside down. I must say the bass is better now because the bigger speaker cones are a bit more levelled with my ears. But still, how do i fix this dilemma? Ive never heard so much distinction in bass from one place in my room to the next only half a metre away from the 1st position. :robot: :puzzled:

[hedge]

Okay, ive done something really crazy. I have 2 medium sized speakers attached to my amp which in turn is attached to my soundcard. Now ive been struggling to get good bass from my speakers which are now positioned, 1 to the left of me and 1 to the right of me. But because my room isnt wider than, say 3 metres and a bit the bass is totally non-existent where i sit in front of my monitor and elsewhere in my room the bass is astounding! No matter what i tried i cant get proper bass where i sit, so (here comes the crazy part) i turned my speakers upside down. I must say the bass is better now because the bigger speaker cones are a bit more levelled with my ears. But still, how do i fix this dilemma? Ive never heard so much distinction in bass from one place in my room to the next only half a metre away from the 1st position. :robot: :puzzled:
I think the problem is the size of the bassier frequencies sound wave (they're generally quite big :D). So thats why up close you can't hear the bass, because your not getting all of the sound wave....
Now this is all just the ramblings of deaf dumb tired guy... so take it all with a grain of salt ;)

I'll also mention my own experiences here... A few years back i decided to waste my money on an oversized indoor powered sub (10inch 100watt job). Now of course anywhere in my room i can barely hear any bass, but the rest of the house definitely can :cyclops:
Even with my smaller hifi system, i can hear much more bass at the far corners of the room where i'm furthest away from the speakers.

As for solutions... well I'd like to hear em too.

[Todd The Kiwi]

rex - you need to turn it up mate ;)

i too get (and have got) the same thing
i'm sitting at my desk thinking "this is pretty damn loud,but where's the friggin bass?"
i walk to the kitchen only to realise i've been pounding the neighbours into sludge.
try having the back of the speakers 'aiming' into the corner rather than the flat part of the wall... :normal:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Sweet, ive done sone rediscovering of my old physics notes and found that it's all due to wave interference. Sound waves just behave like waves on the surface of water when you throw a stone in the water. However when you have 2 sources the waves interact and 'add up' at some places and 'cancel' at other places, see pic. Where there is a lot of bass, waves add up and where there is little bass, waves cancel! Now there is also a way to invert this problem by switching the +ve and -ve wires from one speaker on your amp. So this time, where there was no bass, there will be bass now and vice versa. It turns out i had this already configured properly as i got lots of bass in the centre between the two speakers and little bass near the speakers. The pic should clarify it all. The only other solution is a subwoofer because it generates bass from a single source.

[Todd The Kiwi]

sweet man i scored another three speaks today
they are made in England by Mordaunt-Short (http://www.mordaunt-short.co.uk/main.asp) i reckon i got a good deal and they appear to be rather high quality
really clean and clear sounding, the Holberg suite i bought today proves that.
one REALLY weird and cool thing is the centre does not move but the cone does this means the MOST INSANE amount of air comes out of the ports especially while listening to some dark 'n' twisted d'n'b :biggrin:

crappy pics i know, my camera ate my batteries ha ha perhaps i'll update the pics for better 'copies' tomorrow.
can anyone else comment on the quality of Mordaunt-Short speakers/components?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/mordaunt-short2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/mordaunt-short1.jpg

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

sweet man i scored another three speaks today
they are made in England by Mordaunt-Short (http://www.mordaunt-short.co.uk/main.asp) i reckon i got a good deal and they appear to be rather high quality
really clean and clear sounding, the Holberg suite i bought today proves that.
one REALLY weird and cool thing is the centre does not move but the cone does this means the MOST INSANE amount of air comes out of the ports especially while listening to some dark 'n' twisted d'n'b :biggrin:

crappy pics i know, my camera ate my batteries ha ha perhaps i'll update the pics for better 'copies' tomorrow.
can anyone else comment on the quality of Mordaunt-Short speakers/components?

So that means you have 5 big speakers attached to you amp now? Phwoooor! :biggrin:

[Todd The Kiwi]

So that means you have 5 big speakers attached to you amp now? Phwoooor! :biggrin:dang, you know it makes sense mate ;)
seriously i'll hook you guys up with a decent photo when i get some batteries.
the speaks are quite small too, about (well, exactly) 230 H x160 W x130 D
according to mr lufkin :biggrin:

[acushla]

I own a pair of Altec Lansings 2120's...an excellent and very reasonably priced planar type speaker. They exhibit good extension with a very fluid midrange.

I am a big fan of the iZotope Ozone plug in...and defy anybody to show me a room/speaker combination that wouldn't benefit from the employment of this plug in. I often think to myself that if one had to purchase a similar piece of equipment for your main sound system it wouldn't surprise me at all if it it ended up costing a couple of thousand dollars. In terms of audio it is the best $19 you will EVER spend.

All those threads discussing a BASS plug in for QUINTESSENTIAL? Never took part in them. Why? Have all the BASS I'll never need with Ozone. (That's correct...never.)

[Inthewoods]

All those threads discussing a BASS plug in for QUINTESSENTIAL? Never took part in them. Why? Have all the BASS I'll never need with Ozone. (That's correct...never.)The "BASS" name in the BASS plugin has nothing to do with low frequencies. BASS is the name of the audio library upon which the BASS plugins are built.

As for Ozone, it's clever enough, and ok to play with, but for serious listening I really hate gimmicks. If you have top quality equipment (notice I didn't say expensive necessarily), there is no need for any signal modification, other that the occasional, judicious use of a good equalizer, like Shibatch's.

P.S. As to the thread, I have a pair of Altec Lansing ACS40s, coupled to an ancient JBL Media Sub.

[acushla]

The "BASS" name in the BASS plugin has nothing to do with low frequencies. BASS is the name of the audio library upon which the BASS plugins are built.

As for Ozone, it's clever enough, and ok to play with, but for serious listening I really hate gimmicks. If you have top quality equipment (notice I didn't say expensive necessarily), there is no need for any signal modification, other that the occasional, judicious use of a good equalizer, like Shibatch's.

P.S. As to the thread, I have a pair of Altec Lansing ACS40s, coupled to an ancient JBL Media Sub.

Thanks for the clarification of the name 'BASS'...I read some of those threads and really did think they were referring to low frequencies. It would be interesting to read them again knowing that they are not referring to BASS frequencies.

As for the Ozone, I am going to strongly disagree with the word 'gimmick'. The fact of the matter is that your equipment, irregardless of the cost, is not the most significant element as to how the sound is reproduced. That honour goes to the room itself. Since the majority of systems are not placed in the ideal environment some solutions have been based on equalizers. However, the fact of the matter is 'Where poorly designed equalizers can add more harm than good by causing distortion and phase problems, the Valve EQ in Ozone is carefully designed to provide a smooth sound reminiscent of classic Valve Equalizers (analog active equalizers that used tube components.)

In a graphic EQ you have sliders that are fixed to certain frequencies. You can turn a frequency up or down with the slider. In the Ozone parametric EQ you have four "bands". With each band you can control the location (frequency) and width (bandwidth or "Q") of each band. You can boost the bass with one wide band, or just "notch" out a frequency with a narrow band. Combing the effect of all four bands gives you much more flexibility and a much better sound because you're affecting more of the sound with less processing (and therefore less undesirable artifacts.)'My suggestion is, if you've already justified the use of an equalizer, then instead of driving a Pinto why not opt for a Lamborghini?

[madjo]

Thanks for the clarification of the name 'BASS'...I read some of those threads and really did think they were referring to low frequencies. It would be interesting to read them again knowing that they are not referring to BASS frequencies.

As for the Ozone, I am going to strongly disagree with the word 'gimmick'. The fact of the matter is that your equipment, irregardless of the cost, is not the most significant element as to how the sound is reproduced. That honour goes to the room itself. Since the majority of systems are not placed in the ideal environment some solutions have been based on equalizers. However, the fact of the matter is 'Where poorly designed equalizers can add more harm than good by causing distortion and phase problems, the Valve EQ in Ozone is carefully designed to provide a smooth sound reminiscent of classic Valve Equalizers (analog active equalizers that used tube components.)

In a graphic EQ you have sliders that are fixed to certain frequencies. You can turn a frequency up or down with the slider. In the Ozone parametric EQ you have four "bands". With each band you can control the location (frequency) and width (bandwidth or "Q") of each band. You can boost the bass with one wide band, or just "notch" out a frequency with a narrow band. Combing the effect of all four bands gives you much more flexibility and a much better sound because you're affecting more of the sound with less processing (and therefore less undesirable artifacts.)'My suggestion is, if you've already justified the use of an equalizer, then instead of driving a Pinto why not opt for a Lamborghini?
because I can only afford a Pinto? :P euhm no wait I drive a Renault... never mind. :)

I just want to listen to music, don't spend half my time tinkering away with buttons and dials and who knows what else. :) I don't have the knowledge to know what I'm doing with it. (I have tried some other dsps in the past, and most of my settings distorted the sound, so I ditched those DSPs and just listen to the sound without any gimmicks or poohah :) (but that is just my own opinion) :)

[Roj]

All those threads discussing a BASS plug in for QUINTESSENTIAL? Never took part in them. Why? Have all the BASS I'll never need with Ozone. (That's correct...never.)

BASS (and other high precision decoders like MAD) actually give you MORE of your source due to their increased decoding precision combined with a quality dithering / soundshaping algorithm. OZone can't do that.

I'm also on side with wood's view of add-ins like OZone.

I now have two sets of these, both mated to M-Audio Revos (actually I gave one set to my wife - foolishly generous me :) ):

http://gear.ign.com/articles/386/386782p1.html

A classic design and more importantly sound that even subsequent multimedia speaker designs by Klipsch, Cambridge (let's face it - systems like the GigaWorks could never have been designed by Creative Labs) and pretenders like Logitech still can't match.

[Todd The Kiwi]

can anyone else comment on the quality of Mordaunt-Short speakers/components? i just realised all my speakers are British :biggrin:
do any of you guys have any experiences with Mordaunt-Short speakers ?

[Roj]

i just realised all my speakers are British :biggrin:
do any of you guys have any experiences with Mordaunt-Short speakers ?

Me - many years ago.

As I recall, they're quite linear little beasts but weak in bass if you're a bass monger - they're tight but have no boom. They do very well for jazz - I'm no bass monger.

[auster]

As for the Ozone, I am going to strongly disagree with the word 'gimmick'. The fact of the matter is that your equipment, irregardless of the cost, is not the most significant element as to how the sound is reproduced. That honour goes to the room itself. Since the majority of systems are not placed in the ideal environment some solutions have been based on equalizers. However, the fact of the matter is 'Where poorly designed equalizers can add more harm than good by causing distortion and phase problems, the Valve EQ in Ozone is carefully designed to provide a smooth sound reminiscent of classic Valve Equalizers (analog active equalizers that used tube components.)

Hey if you want to adjust your sound tht much..why dont you try the directx plugin ozone 3.You will have to use AdaptX .I think it is even more gimicky but then again it is what professionals use.Personally I use jammix (http://jammix.tk)
And as regards the thread...I have an audigy2zs platinum pro( the best card that I could get hold of in India) And a bunch of speakers tht are best described as DIY.But mind you...the fronts are floorstanders and the sub is a 12" car sub driver(sony Xplod) the amp is a mosfet 400 w rms(genuine) and five weedy sattelites. at approx 300$ for amp+ spks it was a real bargain...and would outperform any sub sat combo upto twice its price. Also to put things in perspective, A bunch of ordinary'creative' inspire 7.1 would set me back about 200$damn import taxes!@%!%!

[acushla]

BASS (and other high precision decoders like MAD) actually give you MORE of your source due to their increased decoding precision combined with a quality dithering / soundshaping algorithm. OZone can't do that.

I'm also on side with wood's view of add-ins like OZone.

I suppose if I was a wise man I should just acknowledge that. since you have a different opinion from mine, then I should just say "Oh" and go off and meditate on just exactly where it was that I went wrong.

However, since I am not a wise man, then I suppose I have no option but to explain/defend my position.

I have no argument with what you say regarding "high precision decoders like MAD"...however I would only point out that even though it would be a truism that the better the source then the less adjustment one would need to make with a product like OZone. it is not really what I'm talking about.

When I sang the praises of OZone I specifically related it to adjusting the sound to the environment one was listening in. Nothing more and nothing less.

Since BASS is what most people seem to want to hear more of...then I maintain that, of all the options I am aware of (save loading up on sub woofers), this is one product that can achieve that end better than any other that I am aware of.

It is simply a tool that supplies you another option to achieving the sound you envision. You can make it perform 'fireworks' if that is what you desire. You can also adjust for subtleties which make for better music recreation, if that is what you desire.

In conclusion (lets really keep this thread going) I will come right out and state categorically that there is not a system owned that couldn't benefit from the OZone in some way.

You can agree with me...or you can be wrong!

[acushla]

Hey if you want to adjust your sound tht much..why dont you try the directx plugin ozone 3.You will have to use AdaptX.

I am not entirely certain what you mean when you say "...Hey if you want to adjust your sound that much..."

If you read the post again I think you will see that what I was saying is that there is no greater influence on the final sound of your system than the room you are playing it in.

To compensate and adjust for some of those characteristics then I believe that the iZotope OZone is unequaled.

In fact, I will state that there is not a system owned that wouldn't benefit from this plug in.

As for your suggestion to try the Directx plug in...I will look into it...although from the picture you supplied it simply looks like an earlier version of the current OZone.

[Inthewoods]

Thanks for the clarification of the name 'BASS'...I read some of those threads and really did think they were referring to low frequencies. It would be interesting to read them again knowing that they are not referring to BASS frequencies.

As for the Ozone, I am going to strongly disagree with the word 'gimmick'. The fact of the matter is that your equipment, irregardless of the cost, is not the most significant element as to how the sound is reproduced. That honour goes to the room itself. Since the majority of systems are not placed in the ideal environment some solutions have been based on equalizers. However, the fact of the matter is 'Where poorly designed equalizers can add more harm than good by causing distortion and phase problems, the Valve EQ in Ozone is carefully designed to provide a smooth sound reminiscent of classic Valve Equalizers (analog active equalizers that used tube components.)

In a graphic EQ you have sliders that are fixed to certain frequencies. You can turn a frequency up or down with the slider. In the Ozone parametric EQ you have four "bands". With each band you can control the location (frequency) and width (bandwidth or "Q") of each band. You can boost the bass with one wide band, or just "notch" out a frequency with a narrow band. Combing the effect of all four bands gives you much more flexibility and a much better sound because you're affecting more of the sound with less processing (and therefore less undesirable artifacts.)'My suggestion is, if you've already justified the use of an equalizer, then instead of driving a Pinto why not opt for a Lamborghini?

My turn to take issue I guess. A person's equipment absolutely is the most important element in the reproduction of sound, particularly the speakers. That's why the appropriate match of speakers to room size, acoustics, listening position and even furnishings is so important. The room colors the sound which has already been reproduced by the equipment, either well or poorly. Some people think they can compensate for poor equipment with gizmos that do nothing more than color the sound, just like a room does. Just go to any discount store and check out all the 3 (or 5) piece "compact stereo systems" with all their whiz-bang special effects. Those are simply trying to mask the fact that the equipment is crap to begin with. Any processor that tries to improve substandard sound is simply going to add artifacts and distortion of it's own. To the untrained ear it may sound "better", but it isn't. The key is to choose excellent quality, appropriate equipment, and to take the time to set it up properly, and forget about the gadgets. There are some high end preamplifiers that have no other controls than source switches and a volume control for that very reason.

As to equalizers, you are correct about parametric equalizers being more adjustable, and in fact they are not limited to 4 bands, as Ozone's is. However, your statement that there is less processing in a parametric EQ, resulting in fewer artifacts is not true. The artifacts generated depend entirely on the design of the EQ and even more so, on the way the user adjusts it.

I have no idea why Ozone uses the name "valve EQ", since an equalizer in it's truest form is a passive device, with no active components whatsoever. True, there are "active EQs", which are very tricky to design from a circuit feedback standpoint, but they function the same way, and we're talking software here, so the term is totally meaningless.

PS: Years ago, I had a girlfriend who went ballistic every time someone used the non-word "irregardless". you should be glad she didn't read your post.;)

[Roj]

I suppose if I was a wise man I should just acknowledge that. since you have a different opinion from mine, then I should just say "Oh" and go off and meditate on just exactly where it was that I went wrong.

However, since I am not a wise man, then I suppose I have no option but to explain/defend my position.
Why are you defending your position? I wasn't attacking it. :) :) ;)

You like your sound fluffy and I like it flat (that's a joke).

My comments on BASS and MAD (both exemplary decoders) weren't aimed at OZone. They were merely to illustrate that higher precision decoders coupled with effective dithering and soundshaping would bring out more of a lossy compressed file than a normal stock decoder like FhG or XAudio would. OZone didn't even enter into the equation.

That being said, and to counter your statement, I'll state categorically that *my* system would definitely NOT benefit from warping the sound any more than it already is with something like OZone.

I tried OZone.

It was interesting but not for me.

I don't like equalizers either.

I play flat.

End of (my) story.

[rorythedog]

"I don't like equalizers either. I play flat."

Me too. In fact my amp doesn't have tone controls.

Anyone want a pair of TDL rtl2's? Free to a good home. Slightly damaged (new bass driver required - £40). Excellent sounding "transmission-line" design. Very smooth. Nice with jazz and classical.

[Roj]

"I don't like equalizers either. I play flat."

Me too. In fact my amp doesn't have tone controls.

Anyone want a pair of TDL rtl2's? Free to a good home. Slightly damaged (new bass driver required - £40). Excellent sounding "transmission-line" design. Very smooth. Nice with jazz and classical.
I recall transmission line designs - Infinity used them as did Heil, I believe. Very linear and clear highs.

[acushla]

My turn to take issue I guess. A person's equipment absolutely is the most important element in the reproduction of sound, particularly the speakers. That's why the appropriate match of speakers to room size, acoustics, listening position and even furnishings is so important. The room colors the sound which has already been reproduced by the equipment, either well or poorly.

The key is to choose excellent quality, appropriate equipment, and to take the time to set it up properly, and forget about the gadgets. There are some high end preamplifier's that have no other controls than source switches and a volume control for that very reason.

... your statement that there is less processing in a parametric EQ, resulting in fewer artifacts is not true. The artifacts generated depend entirely on the design of the EQ and even more so, on the way the user adjusts it..

First of all...my apologies to your former girlfriend. She is correct inasmuch as irregardless is not a word...I will try to remember in the future. (I wonder why spell check did not pick it up?)

Taking some time to think about what you have written in relation (now I'm nervous I'm going to use another non word...or the like.) to some of my comments on the Ozone, allow me to approach it this way.

Let's agree that everything, from the source disk, to the equipment, the speakers, their placement AND the room are all factors that determine the final sound. Let us also suppose, that no matter how good all of these links are, there will be a weak spot.

My contention is that where that weak spot shows up, Ozone, in the hands of somebody knowledgeable with it's capabilities, will be able to, if not perfect, then at least improve that area.

There was a sentence you used that brought sheer joy to my heart:

"There are some high end preamplifier's that have no other controls than source switches and a volume control for that very reason."

Oh...if only more people were aware of this...would go a long way to eliminating the need to use a tool like Ozone.

Have you met Roj?

[acushla]

I play flat.

End of (my) story.

Since we all seem to be in agreement that the room, among other factors, influences the sound, it would seem self evident that flat in one room is going to sound a lot different than flat in another room.

[Roj]

Have you met Roj?

To the untrained ear it may sound "better", but it isn't. The key is to choose excellent quality, appropriate equipment, and to take the time to set it up properly, and forget about the gadgets. There are some high end preamplifiers that have no other controls than source switches and a volume control for that very reason.

I think the above is ample explanation of why he wouldn't need to - he's already at the same point I'm at.

[Roj]

Since we all seem to be in agreement that the room, among other factors, influences the sound, it would seem self evident that flat in one room is going to sound a lot different than flat in another room.
Yup.

That's exactly why the "my" is in that sentence.

[rorythedog]

If there are weak spots and these are due to the room then all something like Ozone does is degrade everything down to that level, surely?

[acushla]

Yup.

That's exactly why the "my" is in that sentence.

So, what exactly is it that you are saying? Are you implying that the room you listen in is conducive to your playing your system flat? If so...what if you were in a room that didn't meet that criteria?

[Shadowraven]

I'm not sure that you can point to any one thing in the chain of playing back music and say "This is the most important thing". Every part of the chain is important in it's place. A break in any the links can adversely effect the final sound you hear. You must pay careful attention to the whole chain if you want an accurate playback.

Every time that you process a signal you introduce errors, or artifacts, to it. That's not an opinion, that is a fact. Depending on your viewpoint, you may find that a good, or bad thing.

Roj says that you ruin the sound by adding any additional processing to it. Acushla says that you can improve the sound with processing. It is all a matter of taste and neither of them are wrong, or right.

To any audio purist, processing the signal any more than is necessary, to produce an accurate reproduction, is sacrilege. When you alter the sound, you are altering what the artist intended for you to hear when they made the music. Now you may not like the original and want to "improve" it. That is personal taste.

I personally prefer to leave it to a case-by-case basis. While I can be an audio purist, I often find myself enjoying music that has been made "fluffier" with a DSP. I like richer tones, clearer treble, with good bass. I can't stand muddy sounding music. So consequently I will "improve" the sound for my own ears. That is definitely not for everybody. I will listen to music both ways, depends on what I feel like hearing.

[acushla]

If there are weak spots and these are due to the room then all something like Ozone does is degrade everything down to that level, surely?

You have an interesting perception on this, interesting but ultimately wrong.

What Ozone is able to do is compensate for the weak spots...thus improving the sound. I do not imply in this that it makes the sound 'perfect'...nobody knows what perfect is...it simply makes it 'better'. Of course, again, nobody knows what 'better' is, it is something you will judge for yourself.

I suggest that anybody responding to this Ozone thread who in fact does not have or has not used Ozone...might want to refrain from commenting on what it can or cannot do. Using other components which are like Ozone but which in fact are not Ozone does not qualify you to comment on what you think Ozone will do.

[Shadowraven]

You have an interesting perception on this, interesting but ultimately wrong.

What Ozone is able to do is compensate for the weak spots...thus improving the sound. I do not imply in this that it makes the sound 'perfect'...nobody knows what perfect is...it simply makes it 'better'. Of course, again, nobody knows what 'better' is, it is something you will judge for yourself.

I suggest that anybody responding to this Ozone thread who in fact does not have or has not used Ozone...might want to refrain from commenting on what it can or cannot do. Using other components which are like Ozone but which in fact are not Ozone does not qualify you to comment on what you think Ozone will do.

I've used the Ozone Demo and quite liked it, but I also like processed sound in it's place too. Just because I like the music run through a DSP doesn't mean someone else will.

I see what you are saying about compensating for a perceived deficiency in your listening environment, but it is still altering the music. Most audio purists would adjust the environment and equipment before they would add any processing to the original signal. For you and me Ozone would probably work. It most likely would for most people, but not for a true purist audiophile.

[acushla]

I see what you are saying about compensating for a perceived deficiency in your listening environment, but it is still altering the music. Most audio purists would adjust the environment and equipment before they would add any processing to the original signal. For you and me Ozone would probably work. It most likely would for most people, but not for a true purist audiophile.

I would NEVER suggest that Ozone be used as a first response...only as the final tweak after you have done everything you are able to do to create the best environment for the listening of music.

I did indicate that it was to be employed only to strengthen the weakest area. I do not make any distinction between the placement of a speaker and the shaping of the signal that passes through that speaker if the stated end is to produce the most natural sound possible.

To not use something that can bring you closer to the truth based on the fact that it is a 'processor' is lunacy. Let's be honest...your music is processed from the time the musicians show up in the studio.

[Shadowraven]

I would NEVER suggest that Ozone be used as a first response...only as the final tweak after you have done everything you are able to do to create the best environment for the listening of music.

I did indicate that it was to be employed only to strengthen the weakest area. I do not make any distinction between the placement of a speaker and the shaping of the signal that passes through that speaker if the stated end is to produce the most natural sound possible.

To not use something that can bring you closer to the truth based on the fact that it is a 'processor' is lunacy. Let's be honest...your music is processed from the time the musicians show up in the studio.

That is true. Most modern music is digitally processed from the instruments the artists play or when the music is mixed at the board. What I'm saying is that many audio purists don't want any more processing involved. They want to hear the music as it would sound if the artist was there in the room with them.

With acoustic music this is especially important. Jazz is one form that comes to mind that utilizes alot of acoustic instruments. What you consider the most natural sound possible, is more likely what you think the music should sound like. That is not the same as what it does sound like. When we use a DSP we are by definition adding changes to the signal to make it sound better to us. That doesn't mean we are improving the sound, only that we are improving it in our opinion. What you consider a weakness, someone else may consider a more natural sound. Hence, it is like I've said before. Listening to music is a personal experience and we each have a different take on what sounds good to us. That doesn't mean we are right or wrong, just right for ourselves.

[acushla]

What I'm saying is that many audio purists don't want any more processing involved. They want to hear the music as it would sound if the artist was there in the room with them.

What I am saying is that if it means using Ozone can contribute to making that artist sound as if he was in the room with you (fat chance of ANYTHING save the artist being in the room with you making it sound like the artist is in the room with you.)…if Ozone can contribute to that illusion…then use it.

When we use a DSP we are by definition adding changes to the signal to make it sound better to us. That doesn't mean we are improving the sound, only that we are improving it in our opinion.

Well…duh! What do you consider placement of the speakers is? If we are improving the sound (which is an interesting concept in itself…why should we be improving the sound…I thought the goal was to reproduce as naturally as possible the music as it was created.) So in fact, we are NOT using Ozone to make the sound better…we are using it to make it as natural as possible…which is better than what we are achieving without it.

Listening to music is a personal experience and we each have a different take on what sounds good to us. That doesn't mean we are right or wrong, just right for ourselves.

Thank you.

[Roj]

So, what exactly is it that you are saying? Are you implying that the room you listen in is conducive to your playing your system flat? If so...what if you were in a room that didn't meet that criteria?Very simple:

I'd make it be that way (translation: I'd rearrange the room). Been there, done that, saw the movie, bought the T-Shirt.

Let's get to the meat of the matter:

First of all, OZone is intended for use with multimedia gear. If you can't control a three foot by three foot space (the area in front of your PC), you have more problems than poor sound. :) :) :)

Secondly, if you're talking a full sized room, planning and speaker placement go a long way to fixing that. All something like OZone does is "pretty up" the sound in much the way that the "acoustic presets" of some preamps do (anyone for "large auditiorium orchestral"?). So, while one of my sound cards has that capability (the Santa Cruz has all kinds of funky presets), not to mention my buddy's $4000CDN Anthem AVM20 preamp, the novelty of those gimmicks wore off about half an hour after we listened to the Anthem.

In short, we consider them a cute gimmick like so many other audio toys on the market today (and yesterday - remember DBX "espanders"?).

But that's just us.

Now, you can rationalize as much as you want about "making it sound natural" or "getting closer to the truth" - but a rationalization is all it is (I can hear the "but but but" spluttering beginning already). Some of the stuff that comes out of OZone sounds anything but "natural". I've certainly never heard anything like it in a jazz bar with the four guys playing at the front of the room - THAT'S pure and unvarnished natural, warts, farts and all in terms of room acoustics. As to "closer to the truth", that's just nonsense. The "truth" is what the engineer heard as he was mixing the sound in the studio and no piece of software is ever going to give you that. In fact, the closest approximation you'll get to "the truth", namely "what that engineer did" is the plain unvarnished sound without modifcation that comes off the CD, in short, the material played FLAT and even THAT won't be "the truth" based on varying room acoustics. You can't duplicate the studio as you have often said yourself.

Now, what you're really doing with OZone is tailoring the sound to something you like. That's fine but it has little to do with it sounding so-called "natural" and even less to do with "the truth".

Let's call a spade a spade.

That being said, one man's meat is another man's poison. After all, there are people here who use a STACK of DSPs with QMP where I would blanch in horror at the very thought. And you *are* the one who likes 5.1 surround sound for music, right? :)

[Inthewoods]

I would NEVER suggest that Ozone be used as a first response...only as the final tweak after you have done everything you are able to do to create the best environment for the listening of music.

I did indicate that it was to be employed only to strengthen the weakest area. I do not make any distinction between the placement of a speaker and the shaping of the signal that passes through that speaker if the stated end is to produce the most natural sound possible.

To not use something that can bring you closer to the truth based on the fact that it is a 'processor' is lunacy. Let's be honest...your music is processed from the time the musicians show up in the studio.

Problem is, it's not bringing you "closer to the truth", it's trying to compensate and in the process it's introducing problems and colorations of it's own. The single exception is a "room compensator" which is custom designed, individually tuned, and would probably cost in the range of $10,000 IF you could get someone to design it for you.

In short, if the response of one's system isn't free of coloration, then (ideally, of course) either the electronics, the speakers, or the environment needs changing. If a device like Ozone could really bring a system "closer to the truth", then we could all run SB Live! soundcards, $20 speakers, amd have high fidelity sound. We should be so lucky. We need to remember that "high fidelity" literally means "high degree of truth". Any device which intentionally alters the original signal, regardless of intent, is going AWAY from the truth.

It's not lunacy at all. It's high fidelity.

[acushla]

Very simple:...you *are* the one who likes 5.1 surround sound for music, right? :)

When it is done properly...

[acushla]

Problem is, it's not bringing you "closer to the truth", it's trying to compensate and in the process it's introducing problems and colorations of it's own. The single exception is a "room compensator" which is custom designed, individually tuned, and would probably cost in the range of $10,000 IF you could get someone to design it for you.

In short, if the response of one's system isn't free of coloration, then (ideally, of course) either the electronics, the speakers, or the environment needs changing. If a device like Ozone could really bring a system "closer to the truth", then we could all run SB Live! soundcards, $20 speakers, amd have high fidelity sound. We should be so lucky. We need to remember that "high fidelity" literally means "high degree of truth". Any device which intentionally alters the original signal, regardless of intent, is going AWAY from the truth.

It's not lunacy at all. It's high fidelity.

I'm going to tell you something...at this point, after having given a great amount of thought to this subject and reading the responses from various forum members...I am beginning to understand and appreciate the arguments. The reasoning...the intellectual reasoning...if you will.

Then I go and listen to my music without Ozone. Then I listen to my music with Ozone. Then I don't understand a word of what any of you are saying. Better does NOT mean 'pretty'.

I am willing to live with the realization that you consider my enjoyment of music somewhat tainted by my lack of knowledge/understanding of 'high fidelity' which leads me to using Ozone. I am also willing to accept what my ears tell me.

[Roj]

Better does NOT mean 'pretty'.

Sure it does.

Your definition of "better" means "pretty" to some. It's purely subjective. Similarly, your definition of "worse" means "flat, uncoloroed and therefore optimal" to some.

I am willing to live with the realization that you consider my enjoyment of music somewhat tainted by my lack of knowledge/understanding of 'high fidelity' which leads me to using Ozone. I am also willing to accept what my ears tell me.

Lack of knowledge has nothing to do with it. The one real fact of the matter is the following:

If you don't add anything (not even bass), you're getting back something as close to the original CD as is possible for your equipment.

Period.

Nothing can change that.

It's simple logic.

As soon as you turn up the bass, you're moving away from the original, never mind processing it with OZone.

That being said, if you don't like that sound and choose to make it what some of us consider "pretty", that's perfectly fine. If you like it, and choose to leave it in a state that you consider much less than optimal, that's fine too.

Just don't clutter the issue with rubbish about being "close to the truth" or "natural"; that stuff is all purely subjective.

Capisce?

Oh, and one more thing that may make you feel better:

MAD and BASS are both higher precision decoders. They are commonly used with dithering and soundshaping to bring out more of the sound. Guess what those are:

DSPs.

Fluffy, not flat. :) :) :)

[auster]

DSP means a lot of things .Not all of them alter the input signal. To limit its meaning to winamp DSP's would be extremely short sighted.

[Todd The Kiwi]

whose ears are we talking about again ? :cross-eye

[acushla]

Personally I use jammix (http://jammix.tk/)

I finally had some time to download this program...more out of a commitment to being aware of and learning as much as I am able to many of the options/issues that are available to me. (mememememememe)

First glance tells me it is not nearly as intricate as Ozone...but I will reserve judgment until I've actually used it for a while. When the entire room becomes a pretty red and I can hear echos bouncing off all four walls out of phase with each other...then I will be satisfied.

[acushla]

whose ears are we talking about again ? :cross-eye

mememememememememememememememememememinemememememe memememe

[Roj]

mememememememememememememememememememinemememememe memememe
BTW, it occurs to me that you didn't get what I was driving at when I said that *my* system wouldn't benefit from OZone. It had nothing to do with my *gear* or *listening area*. It had everything to do with my *preferences*.

[acushla]

Let's call a spade a spade.

OZone is intended for use with multimedia gear. If you can't control a three foot by three foot space (the area in front of your PC), you have more problems than poor sound.

How did you Know?

Now, you can rationalize as much as you want about "making it sound natural" or "getting closer to the truth" - but a rationalization is all it is (I can hear the "but but but" spluttering beginning already). Some of the stuff that comes out of OZone sounds anything but "natural". I've certainly never heard anything like it in a jazz bar with the four guys playing at the front of the room - THAT'S pure and unvarnished natural, warts, farts and all in terms of room acoustics. As to "closer to the truth", that's just nonsense. The "truth" is what the engineer heard as he was mixing the sound in the studio and no piece of software is ever going to give you that. In fact, the closest approximation you'll get to "the truth", namely "what that engineer did" is the plain unvarnished sound without modifcation that comes off the CD, in short, the material played FLAT and even THAT won't be "the truth" based on varying room acoustics. You can't duplicate the studio as you have often said yourself.

I erred in using the word ‘natural’ and the phrase ‘getting closer to the truth’…in retrospect I see that is not what I meant to say at all.

What I should have said is that I am interested in achieving what I consider to be the best possible performance out of any particuliar piece of music I play over my system that allows me to fully enjoy that experience.

With Ozone I can pretty up the sound so much that it is actually better than it was when it began its journey from the CD to the amplifier! And I didn't need a $4000.00 pre amp to do it.

Imagine that. :cheeky:

[acushla]

BTW, it occurs to me that you didn't get what I was driving at when I said that *my* system wouldn't benefit from OZone. It had nothing to do with my *gear* or *listening area*. It had everything to do with my *preferences*.

Hey...if you prefer mediocrity sometimes...I understand...after all...it is your preference. (hahaha) :ponder:

[Roj]

And I didn't need a $4000.00 pre amp to do it.

Imagine that. :cheeky:
Actually, you're a lot closer than you think. The DACs on your Revo are the same ones in that $4000 preamp. :) :) :)

[Roj]

Hey...if you prefer mediocrity sometimes...I understand...after all...it is your preference. (hahaha) :ponder:
Hey, *I'M* not the one using Altec Lansing speakers... :)

[acushla]

Actually, you're a lot closer than you think. The DACs on your Revo are the same ones in that $4000 preamp. :) :) :)

So what I should have written is: With Ozone I can pretty up the sound so much that it is actually better than it was when it began its journey from the CD to the amplifier! All I needed were the DACs from a $4000.00 pre amp to do it. :chinese:

[jkrzok]

My mom always told me not to discuss DSP's in polite company :laugh:.

I after many years of refusing to use a dsp have started to use Ozone, pretty much exclusively for classical music. It just sounds better to my ear and that's good enough for me. It adds a certain spaciousness to the sound that I like.

But Ozone sounds like death for other types of music, especially on music that I'm very familiar with. That fact by itself tells me that Ozone is adding something to the experience that was never intended to be there in the first place. I can listen to a piece of music on my pc with Ozone modifying an mp3 and then listen to it in the same room with a quality stereo system from the original CD OR mp3 and hear just what Ozone does. It ain't pretty.

[acushla]

Hey, *I'M* not the one using Altec Lansing speakers... :)

That's gonna change! Given their cost/value ratio I could have done a lot worse...but I agree...another pair of speakers is definately in my future.
Monsoon PlanarMedia 14's will be my starting point.

Oh...and by the way...YOUR mother wears army boots. :devil:

[Roj]

So what I should have written is: With Ozone I can pretty up the sound so much that it is actually better than it was when it began its journey from the CD to the amplifier! All I needed were the DACs from a $4000.00 pre amp to do it. :chinese:
...not to mention white light and fairy dust...

[Roj]

My mom always told me not to discuss DSP's in polite company :laugh:.

I after many years of refusing to use a dsp have started to use Ozone, pretty much exclusively for classical music. It just sounds better to my ear and that's good enough for me. It adds a certain spaciousness to the sound that I like.

But Ozone sounds like death for other types of music, especially on music that I'm very familiar with. That fact by itself tells me that Ozone is adding something to the experience that was never intended to be there in the first place. I can listen to a piece of music on my pc with Ozone modifying an mp3 and then listen to it in the same room with a quality stereo system from the original CD OR mp3 and hear just what Ozone does. It ain't pretty.
10-Q for that interesting bit of insight. :) :) :)

[acushla]

...not to mention white light and fairy dust...

I have the white light in abundance...but the fairy dust...hmmmm...

[Roj]

Oh...and by the way...YOUR mother wears army boots. :devil:
And YOUR mother sews socks that smell. :) :) :)

[acushla]

And YOUR mother sews socks that smell. :) :) :)

You've met my mother! Funny...she didn't say anything to me about it. Hmmmm....

[Roj]

You've met my mother! Funny...she didn't say anything to me about it. Hmmmm....
Did you never see the Saturday Night Live skit where Belushi and Akroyd are trading insults in that vein?

"You mother eats kitty litter!"

"Your mother sews socks that smell!!!"

[acushla]

Did you never see the Saturday Night Live skit where Belushi and Akroyd are trading insults in that vein?

"You mother eats kitty litter!"

"Your mother sews socks that smell!!!"

Yes...I never saw it. Sounds good though.

[acushla]

...Ozone sounds like death for other types of music, especially on music that I'm very familiar with. That fact by itself tells me that Ozone is adding something to the experience that was never intended to be there in the first place. I can listen to a piece of music on my pc with Ozone modifying an mp3 and then listen to it in the same room with a quality stereo system from the original CD OR mp3 and hear just what Ozone does. It ain't pretty.

I have several observations/questions about your comments. Given the sheer complexity of Ozone and how the many different elements can interact with each other to achieve an infinite number of possibilities...would you be willing to admit that, perhaps, in the hands (ears) of somebody adept at using Ozone, then perhaps other results other than 'Death' could be achieved for those types of music?

My second point/question goes to the heart of the matter...at least in relation to mp3 files. Now, I'm going to confess (like most of you don't know already!) that I know next to nothing about the technical aspects of the creation of a mp3 file. What I think I know is this...when I make a mp3 file which is done at a bitrate of 320...I have taken a dollar and reduced it to .25c...yet, I'm told...still retained the $1.00 aspect. Obviously I haven't retained the $1.00 aspect because it is not longer 1...it is 1/4 of 1. (I once stated in an early post that I didn't understand why, for those obsessed with mp3 files, why we didn't just increase the size of our hard drives by 4x...it seems my irony was lost upon everyone...either that or people just see my Avatar and move on!)

So...the point I'm making is that now we have a file 1/4 the size of the original. Does that mean that 3/4 of the information has been butchered out...or, as is more likely, does it mean that the file has been condensed into 1/4 the size but only a small portion of the original has been eliminated?

So what gets eliminated? More importantly, how intricate to the presentation of 'music' is that which is eliminated? In other words...we are no longer simply concerned with shaved 'notes' but how the totality of those shaved elements affect the integrity of the final sound.

It is my experience that highs just aren't...and although Ozone is not able to put something where something doesn't exist...it is able to modify what is there to at least maximize what is there and reintegrate it and present it in a manner which is truer to the original file than the mp3 is able to do on its own.

Do you know what I mean?

[Roj]

What I think I know is this...when I make a mp3 file which is done at a bitrate of 320...I have taken a dollar and reduced it to .25c...

That's about right.

yet, I'm told...still retained the $1.00 aspect. Obviously I haven't retained the $1.00 aspect because it is not longer 1...it is 1/4 of 1. (I once stated in an early post that I didn't understand why, for those obsessed with mp3 files, why we didn't just increase the size of our hard drives by 4x...it seems my irony was lost upon everyone...either that or people just see my Avatar and move on!)

mp3s vame along at a point in time shen drives were much smaller and even today they retain their value for portability.

So...the point I'm making is that now we have a file 1/4 the size of the original. Does that mean that 3/4 of the information has been butchered out...or, as is more likely, does it mean that the file has been condensed into 1/4 the size but only a small portion of the original has been eliminated?

OK - here's the skinny. Lossy compression works on illusion, both in images and in sound. As one example, in sound the frequencies that appear after a loud sound are dropped on the grounds that the human ear won't notice them *because* they were preceded by a loud sound. This fine tuning on what to lose is arrived at through psychoacoustics and is more art than science. So yes, you've lost information but not enough that your ear can't be fooled into thinking that it's still there, depending on bitrate. Now, if you compare a mp3 to the orginal the differences become readily aparrent but if all you have is the mp3 and it's well encoded...

So what gets eliminated? More importantly, how intricate to the presentation of 'music' is that which is eliminated? In other words...we are no longer simply concerned with shaved 'notes' but how the totality of those shaved elements affect the integrity of the final sound.

Some dynamic range is lost. Depending on bitrate, frequency ranges are chopped. Some details and subtleties will be eleiminated. The form of the music is still there though.

It is my experience that highs just aren't...and although Ozone is not able to put something where something doesn't exist...it is able to modify what is there to at least maximize what is there and reintegrate it and present it in a manner which is truer to the original file than the mp3 is able to do on its own.

Wellllll, it's *trying* to fake it so your ear is conned into thinking that is happening and for some pieces of music it does a better job than with others.

Now, unless oyu have really good gear and ears, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between 256 and 320 very easily, if at all. There is some noticeable difference between 192 and 256. The variable bitrate presets and the fine tuning inherent in them go a long way to minimize what gets lost.

BTW and as an aside (the inevitable "aside"), I refuse to use any version of LAME to encode with greater than 3.92. IMNSHO, the devs made too many compromises for performance purposes and screwed audio quality in versions past that point. As a case in point, the latest version produces MP3s that sound to me like a typically tinny Creative Labs Audigy on my Revo.

The Horror THE HORROR!!!

[acushla]

First…let me commend you on your concise and illuminating short explanation of the creation of a mp3 file.

However, it does raise some interesting points, namely:

This fine tuning on what to lose is arrived at through psychoacoustics and is more art than science.

If this is true then it should go to reason that ‘what to adjust’ is arrived at through psychoacoustics and is more an art than a science. Therefore the person and his/her experience using the process (Ozone) would be key to its ultimate success or failure. Not the process itself.

So yes, you've lost information but not enough that your ear can't be fooled into…

Wellllll, it's *trying* to fake it so your ear is conned into thinking that is happening and for some pieces of music it does a better job than with others.

Since we’ve already conned our ears with the creation of mp3’s it seems a mute point to extend and refine that con so the ears thinks its hearing more than it is.

So to speak.

[Roj]

If this is true then it should go to reason that ‘what to adjust’ is arrived at through psychoacoustics and is more an art than a science. Therefore the person and his/her experience using the process (Ozone) would be key to its ultimate success or failure. Not the process itself.

Well, considering that much of the fine tuning takes place with people listening with headphones and making changes based on their experiences...

Since we’ve already conned our ears with the creation of mp3’s it seems a mute point to extend and refine that con so the ears thinks its hearing more than it is.

If I understand you correctly, that totally obviates the need for OZone with mp3s.

Is that what you're really trying to say?

[jkrzok]

Since we’ve already conned our ears with the creation of mp3’s it seems a mute point to extend and refine that con so the ears thinks its hearing more than it is.

So to speak.

This kind of speaks to the point I made in my post. After listening to music I was very familiar I was on to the Ozone con. It was adding effects that I know I were not in the original. It made things sound prettier but not better. It happened dramatically to a string section of one ABBA song. The file started playing and my head jerked up. I'm wondering "what the #%%$ happened to those strings?" Sure enough when I turned Ozone off the strings went back to what I've known for (God I feel old now) 30 years.

Most of my pc listening is of new material I've found on the net. So when using Ozone on that stuff I didn't really know what the original, real song sounded like. If Ozone makes it prettier it must be better and closer to the original, I'm thinking. I'm wrong, I'm thinking now.

And yes I did try playing with Ozone's settings. I did pay good money for it and I for one will never admit that I've wasted money on software. Witness Musicmatch, Virtuosa and Media Center still being on my hd even now. But if I have to spend extensive time to make each file sound good I've just wasted 20 bucks; it's just not worth the effort on a per-file or per-artist basis. I never did get those files sound like the original.

Ultimately dsp use is personal thing; either you think it sounds good or not. No amount of arguing will settle what is a matter of personal preference. It would be like me trying to convince a speed metal freak that classical music is better; it just ain't gonna happen.

To paraphrase Roj, "let your ears decide."

[Roj]

Ultimately dsp use is personal thing; either you think it sounds good or not. No amount of arguing will settle what is a matter of personal preference.

In the end, that's pretty much what I said, no?

[jkrzok]

Just joining the Choir here :cheerful:

Can a mod perhaps split the dsp discussion off?

Or add "JAZZ" to the thread title? :cheeky:

[acushla]

Since we’ve already conned our ears with the creation of mp3’s it seems a mute point to extend and refine that con so the ears thinks its hearing more than it is.

If I understand you correctly, that totally obviates the need for OZone with mp3s.

Is that what you're really trying to say?

No...what I saying is that since the creation of the mp3 file involves a conning of our ears then why not continue that con with the use of Ozone in the playback of that file.

[acushla]

...I was on to the Ozone con. It was adding effects that I know I were not in the original. It made things sound prettier but not better.

I reiterate: Given the sheer complexity of Ozone and how the many different elements can interact with each other to achieve an infinite number of possibilities...would you be willing to admit that, perhaps, in the hands (ears) of somebody adept at using Ozone, then perhaps other results other than 'Death' could be achieved for those types of music?

Most of my pc listening is of new material I've found on the net. So when using Ozone on that stuff I didn't really know what the original, real song sounded like.

(Oh yeah...this is going to generate some comments...oh well...everyone is entitled to my opinion). I submit it really doesn't matter what the 'original' song sounded like. If you have adjusted things to the extent that you are enjoying the music...what does it really matter what the original sounds like? Too often we complain about the transfer as it is...not to mention that if it is a mp3 file we are talking about, well, do I really need to say more? I do? OK...whatever you might want to say about that file...it does not sound like the original. Period. As far as you are concerned you are listening to the original. If you were to discover that listening to the original was not nearly as pleasurable as listening to your version of it...which would you listen to? Why?

... it's just not worth the effort on a per-file or per-artist basis. I never did get those files sound like the original.

This is secondary to the discussion.

Ultimately dsp use is personal thing; either you think it sounds good or not. No amount of arguing will settle what is a matter of personal preference. It would be like me trying to convince a speed metal freak that classical music is better; it just ain't gonna happen.

I agree...but I would suggest that the end result is spurious to the purpose of this topic...it is the discussion between interested parties that provides the enjoyment...and that is the purpose.

To paraphrase Roj, "let your ears decide."

Every day!

[jkrzok]

I reiterate: Given the sheer complexity of Ozone and how the many different elements can interact with each other to achieve an infinite number of possibilities...would you be willing to admit that, perhaps, in the hands (ears) of somebody adept at using Ozone, then perhaps other results other than 'Death' could be achieved for those types of music?

Of course you're right logically; if there are an infinite number of possibilites one of them must sound good to even me. It's also true if you give an infinite number of monkeys typewriters and infinite time they'll eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. I'd still rather go to a library for my copy. In reality there really aren't an infinite number of settings in Ozone, just gradiations within a limited number of effects; they just don't sound good to me, with the exception of classical music. Even here I rule out solo piano.

I submit it really doesn't matter what the 'original' song sounded like. If you have adjusted things to the extent that you are enjoying the music...what does it really matter what the original sounds like?

There's still some place for artistic intentions. Also, by that logic, you should be happy with someone humming Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, if it sounded good to you. But you are sure missing out if you don't experience the full orchestra in a concert hall. So I will always seek out the original for my favorite music. Also, by original I mean the CD or vinyl, not an mp3, so yes, the original will sound better to my ears. If nothing else, my playing with Ozone has taught me new respect for FLAC and OGG, APE to a lesser extant. While these aren't the original, they come closer than any mp3.

[Willow of Oz]

Just joining the Choir here :cheerful:

Can a mod perhaps split the dsp discussion off?

Or add "JAZZ" to the thread title? :cheeky:

yep, split the discussion.

[acushla]

In reality there really aren't an infinite number of settings in Ozone, just gradiations within a limited number of effects; they just don't sound good to me, with the exception of classical music. Even here I rule out solo piano.

You are right on all counts in your reply…and if nothing within those graduations sounds good to you then that’s the end of it. I do find it interesting, as I am sure you do, that you make an exception with classical music…I wonder if you have any thoughts as to why that is. As for solo piano…I always have maintained that the reproduction of a solo piano is the true test of any system.

There's still some place for artistic intentions. Also, by that logic, you should be happy with someone humming Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, if it sounded good to you. But you are sure missing out if you don't experience the full orchestra in a concert hall. So I will always seek out the original for my favorite music. Also, by original I mean the CD or vinyl, not an mp3, so yes, the original will sound better to my ears. If nothing else, my playing with Ozone has taught me new respect for FLAC and OGG, APE to a lesser extant. While these aren't the original, they come closer than any mp3.

I did not mean to imply that the original would not sound as good as the mp3 file you were listening to…and obviously, in the majority of cases the mp3 file would not sound as good as the original.. However, I cannot help but wonder if there might be exceptions to that…where the ‘processed’ mp3 file in fact did sound better.

[acushla]

There is one concept I learned many years ago when it came to audio...a concept that I am continually forgetting.

Different is not better...different is different.

I think I have strayed from that concept in this thread. I will make every effort not to let it happen again.

[Roj]

No...what I saying is that since the creation of the mp3 file involves a conning of our ears then why not continue that con with the use of Ozone in the playback of that file.
Because I wouldn't want ot make an already bad situation MUCH worse. I really do dislike what I discern as warped and twisted sound.

[acushla]

Because I wouldn't want to make an already bad situation MUCH worse. I really do dislike what I discern as warped and twisted sound.

Well, if that would be the result (and I'm beginning to see why that would be the result), then no, there is nothing to be said for it.

See...if I was a wise man I would have just said 'You're right' and gone of to meditate on exactly where it was that I went wrong.

Would have saved a long thread.

The one bright note is that this way I can say 'You're right' and NOT have to go of and meditate on exactly where it was that I went wrong.

I've been told that. :evolved:

PS The trick now is to see whether I can remember this tomorrow.

[Todd The Kiwi]

if i could make you guys use msn i would.
actually if i could make you do stuff i'd... :scared: nevermind

[Shadowraven]

Seems to me like we have been arguing apples vs. oranges in this thread. Just no comparison is able to be made. To each his own. Regardless of how you put it Ozone is altering the music, even if it is in a good way sometimes. In my opinion that is. Jzrok is right about Ozone though. I've heard it butcher some music that I'm well familiar with. It apparently completely removed some passages that I'm used to hearing. In short it's often good, but not always. Personal preference, plain and simple.

P.S. I said it before and I'll say it again acushla. You are a mixer. ;)

[Roj]

Well, if that would be the result (and I'm beginning to see why that would be the result), then no, there is nothing to be said for it.

Here's where I get to throw a monkey wrench in the works and play Devil's Advocate (Gawd, I wish I had Pacino's savoir faire in that role :) ) with the following:

If you like it, then it's right for you. It's no secret that I personally dislike the sound of Klipsch Pro Medias, viewing the sound as too brash, in-yer-face, bereft of soundstage and depth and boomy in the bass department. However, I know others who absolutely adore those speakers. What that boils down to is that they're your ears, not minem and if it's right for you...

See...if I was a wise man I would have just said 'You're right' and gone of to meditate on exactly where it was that I went wrong.

Those who have known me for a long time will not actually believe it when I write the following:

Outside of technically definable limits, there is not much in the way of "right" or "wrong" in audio. There is a lot of "different" though.

Would have saved a long thread.

Ah, but then you would have been bored for days. :) :) :)

The one bright note is that this way I can say 'You're right' and NOT have to go of and meditate on exactly where it was that I went wrong.

You actually meditate on these discussions? :)

PS The trick now is to see whether I can remember this tomorrow.

See my above quote on "those who know me..."

[Roj]

if i could make you guys use msn i would.
actually if i could make you do stuff i'd... :scared: nevermind
OOOOOOOOOOOOOH - Todd The Puppetmaster. What a concept! :)

Well, you'll be happy to know my presence in these discussions is likely to become less frequent. Life is getting too hectic of late for me to be able to spend much time at them.

[Todd The Kiwi]

Rojs' wife the puppetmaster aye ;)

[Roj]

Rojs' wife the puppetmaster aye ;)ROFLMAO!!

And a bonny good one she is too, aye! :)

[Todd The Kiwi]

come on roj, off the floor mate :biggrin:
and i'm sure she is :apple:

[acushla]

You actually meditate on these discussions? :)

Well...I know you understand that my primary objective in this forum is to have fun, but yes, I do in fact meditate on these discussions. I have an interest in clarifying my thoughts and to learn...and what better way than to discuss these issues with others who are interested in them and who have a point of view. I have learned a great deal through the time I have been a member, which means I have had fun learning.

I cannot think of a better way to learn.

PS I believe that I begin everything knowing that it all simply comes down to personal taste...but I also know that even that can change through better understanding. In other words, one might think that a 1982 Mouton Rothschild to be the finest wine the world has ever produced...then I come along and share with you a bottle of 1982 Petrus. Trust me...by the end of that bottle your personal taste (and knowledge) will have changed!

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

You guys have ruined my thread about speakers :cry:

Actually i dont care but please throw in the word "speakers" so now and then. Thank you ;)

[acushla]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOH - Todd The Puppetmaster. What a concept! :)

Well, you'll be happy to know my presence in these discussions is likely to become less frequent. Life is getting too hectic of late for me to be able to spend much time at them.

Very sorry to hear that...I doubt very much there would be even one person who will be 'happy' to see your presence in this forum become less frequent.

Speakers.

[Todd The Kiwi]

i bought a pair of new sneakers :biggrin:
woops, i mean streakers dang :cheeky:

[Shadowraven]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOH - Todd The Puppetmaster. What a concept! :)

Well, you'll be happy to know my presence in these discussions is likely to become less frequent. Life is getting too hectic of late for me to be able to spend much time at them.

Speakers.

I understand, but I for one will be sorry to hear less from you.
It's always good to read your posts. It's certainly entertaining.
I hope everything works out OK with you Roj.

Speakers. Lots of speakers.

BTW, my wife is pretty good at it as well. Definitely the Italian in her. They certainly know how to talk! (and talk, and talk...)

P.S. Speakers all over the place.

[Todd The Kiwi]

these are the first speakers i've found to be like this.
the centre bit is stationary and doesn't move.
the outer bit moves a lot, most speakers the whole lot moves.
also the port generates enough air pressure to blow out a lighter from just under a metre away :shocked: and it's not even big enough to fit my thumb into, insane.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/movingbits.jpg

p.s 5.1 surround sound (for music) SOUNDS LIKE TOTAL SHIT :depressed

[acushla]

p.s 5.1 surround sound (for music) SOUNDS LIKE TOTAL SHIT :depressed

Sorry to disappoint...not going to bite.

[Todd The Kiwi]

i wasn't goading.

there's some weird delay thing going on that ruins the music
the whole idea is to play in time ha ha ha :cheeky:
it's certainly cool for movies though.
unfortunately (?) i listen to music all the time and infrequently watch movies
so i just have 4 speakers running from 4 'normal' outs on my amp.
still loud as hell though and crystal clear :apple: :biggrin:

[Willow of Oz]

why all this effort building rapports with people we are never likely to meet...

*squints eyes in a clint eastwood fashion* Is that a dare??

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

i wasn't goading.

there's some weird delay thing going on that ruins the music
the whole idea is to play in time ha ha ha :cheeky:
it's certainly cool for movies though.
unfortunately (?) i listen to music all the time and infrequently watch movies
so i just have 4 speakers running from 4 'normal' outs on my amp.
still loud as hell though and crystal clear :apple: :biggrin:

It does sound as though 2 speakers are no longer satisfactory mate ;) (no pun intended). What i'd do with 4 speakers is to have two in front and two behind. Is that how you set up your speakers? It's a good setup because then you are literally in the music.

In the theatres i think there are as much as 14 speakers. One day i may want that :P I'll convert my living room to a cinema theatre lol. With a huge plasma screen and a whole shitload of speakers. Ok you can wake me up now :biggrin:

[acushla]

Why all this effort building rapports with people we'll never likely meet?

Ah...but we DO meet!

[madjo]

Why all this effort building rapports with people we'll never likely meet?

Ah...but we DO meet!
*clears throat*

"We'll meet again.. don't know where, don't know when...." :)

[Shadowraven]

Do you have to meet people to build a rapport with them? I think that you can have friends here that you can talk to as well as at home. Building rapport with folks is never a wasted effort! :)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

You guys, stop ruining this thread. Go to the qcd irq channel if you guys wanna talk about building rapports with other people.

[madjo]

You guys, stop ruining this thread. Go to the qcd irq channel if you guys wanna talk about building rapports with other people.
sorry... *blushes* Actually that is not a bad idea... if someone wants to jazz, he/she can do that in the chatchannel.. that way we would get more chatters too...



okay.. about speakers..
I have a 5.1 soundcard (cheapo c-media device), but only have 2 speakers attached.. (actually 4, but I splitted the output to both my computer speakers and my hifi-set-speakers)
So basically I'm underusing my equipment... :)

[Todd The Kiwi]

ok so i scored some hellish speakers today, a friggin' kilowatts worth!
yeeeaaahh 500 watts each x 2
made in Canada too, like all good things
ahem, except celine :cheeky:

these things sound fantastic, the box says they are studio monitors...

clicky clicky

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/th_thegearsa.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/thegearsa.jpg) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/th_pro-audio500watthellions.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/pro-audio500watthellions.jpg) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/th_thegears2.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/thegears2.jpg)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

OMG again new speakers? LoL. If i had so much money I'd prolly cover an entire wall with speakers or wait maybe build a wall out of speakers ha ha. Stuff would start floating on sonic waves counteracting gravity :P

Good looking speakers though!

I like how it says on the box, 'DVD compatible' ha ha ha

[Todd The Kiwi]

ok now i'm running 6 [six] speakers
i hooked two medium sized JPWs to my "centre" outputs of my amp
with ZERO delay and NO EFFECTS, sounds rawkus.

[acushla]

Seven...for a THX System.

Wharfedale Pacific Series PI-20 - Front L & R

Mission V6C - Center

Wharfedale 9 - DFS - Surround L & R

Wharfedale 9.1 - L & R Rear

Paradigm PS-1000 - Subwoofer

The Mission V6C was chosen as the Center Speaker simply because it is a superior speaker over the Wharfedale. I consider the center speaker to be the most important in the grouping as it handles most of the sound from any movie soundtrack...especially the voices.

[markdentoffe]

Let's bump this thread up a bit.;)
I've recently attached 2 extra speakers, so now I've got 4 speakers.:)
I had a decent 2-channel amplifier (30 years old pioneer) with 30Watts per channel + 2 77cm high speakers with a peak capacity of 280Watts I found for €50 (50% reduction because no-one wanted them - idiots, who'd let that go for that price?), which sounds really great considering what I paid for it.
Now I've added 2 Medion pc speakers that were lying around here. They're crap, but they only have to serve for satelites, so that's no problem. They do add a very nice surround effect, even though it's just 2-channel stereo music that's being mixed for 4 channels by windows.
The only problem I have this way is that I have 2 seperate volume controls - front and back.:ermm:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

The only problem I have this way is that I have 2 seperate volume controls - front and back.:ermm:

He he I've had that kind of setup for a while. Worked wonders in Unreal Tournament and for watching LOTR! :cool:

After that my setup changed and i could no longer position the two rear speakers properly so I gave up.

[markdentoffe]

In the theatres i think there are as much as 14 speakers. One day i may want that :P I'll convert my living room to a cinema theatre lol. With a huge plasma screen and a whole shitload of speakers. Ok you can wake me up now :biggrin:

Ooh I really like this idea. Only you're a bit outdated mate.
A giant laser tv is the future!
And I don't think 14 speakers is a good idea. You'd better have a decent 7.1 surround.
With "decent" I mean HUGE speakers of 5kW each that can blow women's clothes off (got that from Italian job).:laugh:

Edit:
I guess I'd also install some party equipment, like some dmx light effects. They're really cool.
I mean, you can make a light plan on pc, click "ok" and watch those lights actually do it. How cool is that?:cool:
I'd be fiddling with that whole days.

[acushla]

The only problem I have this way is that I have 2 seperate volume controls - front and back.:ermm:
Personally I would see that as an advantage...not a problem.

[markdentoffe]

Well, having 2 seperate volume controls itself is not a problem.
The problem is that both speaker sets are completely independant (seperate amplifiers), which means I have no master volume control.
If I want to change the volume, I have to twiddle both knobs.:knocked-o

[acushla]

.
If I want to change the volume, I have to twiddle both knobs.:knocked-o

You ever had peanut butter and jam in the SAME jar?

Saves having to do all the work of opening 2 jars.

[markdentoffe]

Now what kind of metaphor is that?:cross-eye

You can perfectly have, say, a 4.0 amplifier with 3 volume controls: front, back and master.
That way you have perfect configurability AND you don't have to change both separate volume controls all the time.

Also you use all surround speakers at once.

You do not, however, eat both peanut butter and jam on one slice of bread (well I don't anyway).

Not that it's that much of a problem.
Microsoft's crappy 4.0 support is far worse.
After booting there's always something wrong with the rear speakers (strange/no sound), so I have to set it on another setting (5.1, 2.0, 7.1, whatever) and back on 4.0 to get it working properly again. Very strange.
(control panel → sound → speakers → configure)

[acushla]

Now what kind of metaphor is that?:cross-eye


Ever hear of the comedian Brian Regan?;)

[Todd The Kiwi]

"you had logs?" :biggrin:

ha ha man i have six speakers running and i can wear my headphones @ the same time
sounds almost sepulchral :normal:

[Todd The Kiwi]

yeah i know this doesn't go here but dammit!

got these puppies yesterday for a song
well, swapsies for some stuff i didn't want, they work too.

[pics below]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/th_DSCF0025.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/DSCF0025.jpg) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/th_DSCF0024.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/toddthekiwi/DSCF0024.jpg)

[acushla]

I just counted that I have a total of 16 speakers in my studio.

Toe...when are they planning on having a 16:1 Speaker configuration?

Speaking of Earpods...my package, although sent (from Florida), has not yet arrived.

I am really hoping they get here by the end of this week...or....well, I really hope they arrive by the end of this week.:paranoid:

[Todd The Kiwi]

you have no faith in US mail? dot dot dot :rolleyes:

[WHAT?]

you have no faith in US mail? dot dot dot :rolleyes:
No, That's our communication system Dash dash dash.

[WHAT?]

Hey, i was wondering how successful multi-speaker (ie more than 2) systems really are. So the question goes, how many speakers do you have hooked up to your pc? I use 4 myself, gives lovely surround sound (esp in games). I dont have a subwoofer though, it probably drive my flatmates crazy anyway :D.
I've never answered this.
Mine is just two W/ sub-woofer. Didn't have that choice.
But it's also hooked to my Amp/receiver, and wired throughout (and outside) the house.
So total of 9 speakers + wiring to the back of my garage for two more (or for a hook-up of moved existing speakers). I like to stay versatile. Yet no wireless so far!

[PVTele]

2 on the desk + sub under the desk - 24W. But for serious listening / editing I always use headphones.

[acushla]

2 on the desk + sub under the desk - 24W. But for serious listening / editing I always use headphones.Totally agree...up to the final mix which I believe should be done through monitors...the way most people are going to listen to it.

Gordon Berry of Motown fame mixed his music using shitty car speakers because he knew most people would hear it that way.

[PVTele]

Gordon Berry of Motown fame mixed his music using shitty car speakers because he knew most people would hear it that way.

I love it! Absolutely right, too.

Mark you, that would mean these days we should all do our final mixes using those nastly (nasty, even - but I like nastly :evil: ) little earbuds you get with phones that play MP3s... :depressed

[Roj]

2

I used to have (actually still do - it remains unused) a 5.1 Monsoon system at one point.

7.1 is ridiculous overkill for a PC environment and a total waste of time unless one has a very large room and is using the PC as a HTPC.

[Todd The Kiwi]

2 speakers & FLAT EQ ftw!

[Toe]

2.1

My SuperZeros (http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/804/index.html) kick much ass, but pretty much HAVE to be paired with a sub.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

We all have different ears.

I didnt know humans could have 4 ears :P

[Toe]

We all live in different spaces. We all have different ears. We all have different desires.

If it works for you...great.

None of us need to justify it to anybody.:)
Huh? Where am I trying to justify my setup to anyone?

[acushla]

Huh? Where am I trying to justify my setup to anyone?Whoops...I see how that reads. It was while reading the review that I realized the 'we are all different...we do not need to justify our choices to anyone.'

Sorry for the confusion.

[acushla]

I didnt know humans could have 4 ears :PSome of us can hear with our hearts!

[badbite26]

I have a 5.1 Onkyo surround system in my family room. I have a wire running (through the wall)from the sound card and plugged into the reciever . 2 front speakers, 2 rear speakers, 1 center channel speaker and a sub for some bump, bump, scare the cat bass.

[Toe]

Whoops...I see how that reads. It was while reading the review that I realized the 'we are all different...we do not need to justify our choices to anyone.'

Sorry for the confusion.
Ah. I mainly linked that review because they're a discontinued model, no longer on the manufacturer's website.

[Todd The Kiwi]

cool, time for another speaker upgrade.
i'm selling my big 500w meat eaters and buying smaller [wattage] wharfedales.
150w each 2 drivers 1 tweeter, they should be a bit more efficient on this system.

[Todd The Kiwi]

whoah, hell yeah these sound really good!
crystal 40² by Wharfedale: pics to follow soon.

[acushla]

cool, time for another speaker upgrade.
i'm selling my big 500w meat eaters and buying smaller [wattage] wharfedales.
150w each 2 drivers 1 tweeter, they should be a bit more efficient on this system.I absolutely love Wharfedales...I think they are among the best speakers built...especially in their reproduction of high frequencies. A very neutral, open and detailed sound...given a good source of course.

Which model are you getting?

[Todd The Kiwi]

"crystal 40²" i bi-wired these monkeys too.
sounding pretty rawkus right now :pirate:

75w+75w > 150w x2 = 100% efficiency.


i'll see what they can do this weekend, bring tha noize.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

"crystal 40²" i bi-wired these monkeys too.
sounding pretty rawkus right now :pirate:

75w+75w > 150w x2 = 100% efficiency.


i'll see what they can do this weekend, bring tha noize.

I hope you're still on good terms with your neighbours mate. Unless...you're having an open house party!!! Can I come? :P