[music_man]

the memento's are even supposed to be a whole lot better than the homage. a whole lot more money too. they are certainly top class speakers.

i'd love to have them. my issue with them is i wouldn't be able to use their stands. i have been told by sumiko and others that they must be on their stands for optimal performance. also, they need some room. they can not be backed into a wall.

the utopia's on the other hand do not seem to care so much about placement. i have tried them in much better situations and they sounded similar. that is, good. the memento's are better but they have requirements i cannot meet. so that would just be a huge waste of money on my part.


i am planning on hearing the s-9's as soon as i can.

music_man

 

[chesebert]

the dealer near me sells S9 I don't know if he has any demo units available. I do worry about their "home brew" warranty issues.

They really have to beat and just equal Harbeth Super HL5 to make me change my mind.

 

[freeflier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_man /img/forum/go_quote.gif the memento's are even supposed to be a whole lot better than the homage. a whole lot more money too. they are certainly top class speakers. i'd love to have them. my issue with them is i wouldn't be able to use their stands. i have been told by sumiko and others that they must be on their stands for optimal performance. also, they need some room. they can not be backed into a wall. the utopia's on the other hand do not seem to care so much about placement. i have tried them in much better situations and they sounded similar. that is, good. the memento's are better but they have requirements i cannot meet. so that would just be a huge waste of money on my part. i am planning on hearing the s-9's as soon as i can. music_man

You do realize that if you want any speaker to image it needs to be away from the walls. On the other hand that is where bass frequency and impulse responce suffers and the "Allison Effect" becomes very pronounced. That is why the new digital crossover/ correction technology is so exciting. It is currently too different and radical for mainstream acceptance and it will probably be years (maybe even decades) before it catches on. But... for people in the know, there is a revolution in speaker design philosophy currently going on . It involoves placing a dedicated woofer (for frequencies below the 200-400 hz region) in the corners (where they perform best) and a mid/high satelite further out in the room (for maximum imaging). You then digitally cross the system using this technology to properly time and phase align the separate drivers. Add to that advances in room correction and the potential is revolutioinary. If I had the space I'd get a pair of old NHT super zeros (that have virtually no bass but were VERY good above 150 hz and dirt cheap ) and pair them with Tact designed high efficiency corner loaded woofers that can be had for $2000 (custom built using scanspeak drivers). Add a Tact 2.2X crossover/processor and pair of amps and you could build a state of the art setup (and I don't use the phrase "state of the art" lightly). The amps don't even have to be powerfull since the separation of satelite and woofer allows one to take full advantage of boundry reenforcement and makes for a very high efficiency system. This is the kind of thing that the real hardcore audiophiles (who aren't afraid to using cutting edge technology) are doing to today. They custom build a speaker satelite system based on thier favourite drivers and optimize the components using digital processers. The real beauty of this is that it can be done relatively cheaply. I would go this route myself, but I live in a small apartment and i don't have properly situated "corners" and boundries to work with. Music man, as a DIY'er whose not afraid to roll up his sleaves, this is right up your ally. If you want to research this further check out the Tact audio forum at : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TacTAudioUsersGroup/

 

[ooheadsoo]

Or you could buy bass traps and treat the acoustics problem at the source instead of buying a $5k tact, which can, realistically, only optimize for one spot. Music_man has a LEDE dedicated system with a pair of wilsons, already, anyway. Lucky him. This is for the casual listening setup.

 

[freeflier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ooheadsoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or you could buy bass traps and treat the acoustics problem at the source instead of buying a $5k tact, which can, realistically, only optimize for one spot. Music_man has a LEDE dedicated system with a pair of wilsons, already, anyway. Lucky him. This is for the casual listening setup.

Uhhhh...No!
Wrong on virtually every count. The Tact can only optimize "phase" responce at one location (tube traps can't even "attempt" to address that issue). Frequency response is not so specific. More importantly there is no free lunch. Trying to compensate for environmental frequency distortions with Tube Traps is a complete waste of time. If you actually knew anything about the Physics of acoustics (which I do) and what Tube Traps attempt to do you'd realize this fact. Mechancally trying to fix the highly complex and unique way that each room interacts with a speaker is very difificult and virtually impossible with a generic design. Even if you had multiple "tunable" traps you'd need know exactly what frequencies (plural) to hit and how much to attenuate. At best, with multiple custom designed "traps" based on the speciic requirments of your room you could improve things a bit. To get anything better than random hit and miss results you'd first need to map the room responce and design each of a number traps to target numerous unique, and very specific, frequencies. That is only half the problem. You then need to design each of these traps to attenuate these various frequencies by specifically correct amounts. Any major changes, like moving the speakers, or a sofa or filling the room with guests or opening a large window will change the results.
You might "subjectively" think that a few generic bass traps are working, but they can NEVER yeild a properly flat frequency responce. If you don't believe me get some equipment and do a frequency sweep on your room. Realistically there is no "perfect" solution but digital processing at the source can, and does, yield significant improvements.

 

[ooheadsoo]

Yes, sir, right away, sir.

 

[freeflier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ooheadsoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, sir, right away, sir.

Right back atcha.

 

[music_man]

i am well aware of the tact. i am rather old fashioned. i use tubes and vinyl still. i know the tact can work wonders. it is not really physically "correcting" anything. it is playing a trick on your brain. yes, it can make a system sound much better. many may say that is all that counts. i am just too old school to enjoy my brain being "tricked". regardless if my brain thinks it sounds better. maybe i am missing out because i am stedfast in my ways. i like what i like and that is just personal. i'd rather hear a systems limitations than digitally "fix" it. even if those limitations are vast and could be vastly improved upon via processing. i think tact is good for many people. it does work. even for me. it's completely a personal issue with me.

on the other hand the tact is designed to remedy most real world situations.
i feel it is still no match for a completely custom designed listening enviroment built to achieve specific sonic properties. of course aproaching this design solely in the physical domain does not allow one to constantly retune the room to their liking or changing needs as the tact does.

i think that digital signal processing is great for people that are open to accepting this technology. i am not. in the studio we routinely use dsp in one manner or the other. home theater relies heavily on dsp and "steering" of signals. i just prefer to hear what is really acoustically present. whether it sounds any good or not. normally if it did not sound good to me i would attempt to remedy the issues physically. in my bedroom this cannot be done. for various reasons. it still sounds pretty good to me all considered. i wouldn't even have room for the tact sub/sat system you describe anyhow in this room.

when you measure the room after tact processing it does measure as to whatever changes you made. in all honesty it is also tricking your measurement devices. to me unless the sonic properties imparted upon a room exist in the physical sense it does not count.

i mentioned home theater. the high end theater processors of today do even more than the tact does. with 9.1x speakers. might as well do multi channel sacd or dvd too. just not my thing.

btw, the dbx driverack is a professional product similar to the tact. it is in respect to the tact the same type of bargain the presonus cs is.

music_man

 

[freeflier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_man /img/forum/go_quote.gif i am well aware of the tact. i am rather old fashioned. i use tubes and vinyl still. i know the tact can work wonders. it is not really physically "correcting" anything. it is playing a trick on your brain. yes, it can make a system sound much better. many may say that is all that counts. i am just too old school to enjoy my brain being "tricked". regardless if my brain thinks it sounds better. maybe i am missing out because i am stedfast in my ways. i like what i like and that is just personal. i'd rather hear a systems limitations than digitally "fix" it. even if those limitations are vast and could be vastly improved upon via processing. i think tact is good for many people. it does work. even for me. it's completely a personal issue with me. on the other hand the tact is designed to remedy most real world situations. i feel it is still no match for a completely custom designed listening enviroment built to achieve specific sonic properties. of course aproaching this design solely in the physical domain does not allow one to constantly retune the room to their liking or changing needs as the tact does. i think that digital signal processing is great for people that are open to accepting this technology. i am not. in the studio we routinely use dsp in one manner or the other. home theater relies heavily on dsp and "steering" of signals. i just prefer to hear what is really acoustically present. whether it sounds any good or not. normally if it did not sound good to me i would attempt to remedy the issues physically. in my bedroom this cannot be done. for various reasons. it still sounds pretty good to me all considered. i wouldn't even have room for the tact sub/sat system you describe anyhow in this room. when you measure the room after tact processing it does measure as to whatever changes you made. in all honesty it is also tricking your measurement devices. to me unless the sonic properties imparted upon a room exist in the physical sense it does not count. i mentioned home theater. the high end theater processors of today do even more than the tact does. with 9.1x speakers. might as well do multi channel sacd or dvd too. just not my thing. btw, the dbx driverack is a professional product similar to the tact. it is in respect to the tact the same type of bargain the presonus cs is. music_man

Dude you are really starting to worry me. First Yamaha and now this? To begin with I believe I made the point that to "fix" room issues mechanicaly requires a completely custom solution. You may know some stuff about electrical circuit design, but I've done a Physics degree and know a little bit about constructive and destructive wave interferance (actually it's pretty basic first year stuff). You claim the Tact "tricks" your brain. Do you even know how the Tact works? First of all it doesn't "sheer" the signal, it attenuates it. If you have a problem with this you should probably stop using your volume control. Older analog technology that attempted this created more problems than it fixed (introduced serious phase distortion). Dealing with the problem in the digital domain can totally bypass/ compensate for this. On a very basic level, one of it's main functions is to create digital filters that are mirror images of the rooms response in order to attenuate constructively interfering standing waves. How do you get that this is a trick? and BTW the closest thing I've heard to my AKGs is my main home rig so it must be doing a pretty good job of removing some of the rooms distortion. The only differences are that the speakers image better while the headphones have more detail and less smearing of the bass in the time domain (impulse).

And that said, yes, Tact does room correction. That's what I use it for but... just as importantly (maybe even more so) some of their models also serve as completely flexable digital crossovers. That's HUGE! Think about it. Half of the problem in good speaker design comes from choosing and implementing the crossover. This is a magor problem in analog design and must, as a result, fix the drivers relative to each other in a cabinet ( with all the compromises this implies).The way low frequencies behave and interact with the room is vastly different then the way the higher frequencies do and so having to put all the drivers in the same place has major inherant drawbacks. That means that ALL speaker design is a compromise where the designer tries to aim at a broad range of environements and must make permanent decisions regarding how the drivers will integrate. With a digital crossover you can create the exact crossover slope you need and then time a phase align the drivers after they are positioned. That means one is freed from the worst compromise imposed by the old technology (the need to group all the drivers in fixed cabinet). Actually if you don't get the problem with optimizing impulse, time, frequency and phase responce using older technology then there's no point in me explaining further. It took me a few months to see what all the fuss was about myself. I only brought it up because you seemed to be someone willing to go the extra mile to get the very best. Do a little research. People with speaker systems that are conventionally considered state of that art are ripping out their crossovers and adding corner loaded woofers (essentially runnig running top of the line B&W, Appogees etc etc for the mids and highs only). Like I said, if you don't want take advantage of what is possible with digital today be my guest. (BTW this the kind of stuff NHT is getting into to push performance up and price down. They have a $4000 system that is ranked by Stereophile as class A. Right along side the $45,000 Wilson Maxx)
Gerry

BTW I really don't care if there is digital gear out there that is cheaper then the Tact. I picked mine up for $1600 and it does the job just fine. Pro gear like the CS is great but if I had to do it again, quite frankly I'd just buy another DAC1. It does a better job with less muss and fuss. Likewise the Tact gets the job done just fine. I seriously doubt the guys at DBX have an engnineer of the caliber of Tact's Dr Bozovic (a PHD in wave propagation research) . The main point isn't to quible about who does it best, the main point is how to use this technology to solve problems that have pagued designers for the last 50 years. Everyone has a choice. Stay in the box or think out of it.

 

[freeflier]

Delete...

 

[milkpowder]

But the thing is, does the TacT room correction have to replace your preamp? My understanding is that the TacT has a built in digital pre already. Tell me if I'm talking out of my rear end.

 

[freeflier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif But the thing is, does the TacT room correction have to replace your preamp? My understanding is that the TacT has a built in digital pre already. Tell me if I'm talking out of my rear end.

Yes the Tact does act as a preamp (if you want it to). I does the attenuation in the digital domain. With 24 bits of internal floating point precision and bit shifting the data it serves as a virtually transparent preamp (bettering, in this respect alone, preamps in it's price range). I am quite happy with it as pre. I'm a little anal about every detail so I've calculated that I have, in practice, 20 bits of resolution available (limited by my Dac1). That means 4 bits of attenuation before any degradation in dynamic range (or 24db). I figure the correction process itself gobbles up about 15 db of this so I have about 9 or 10 db a perfectly transparent attenuation available. I have calibrated the output of my Dac1 so that I can operate adequately in this range. If I ever need to go lower, I switch the output to full scale and use the analog volume control on my Dac1.
Gerry

 

[music_man]

you don't have to get mad because we have different views. i realise that some people enjoy the pursuit of high fidelity via any aproach available.

the tact will indeed make things sound "the way they should". by doing(in the most basic sense) room correction and acting as a crossover.

i am not one to tear up top of the line b&w's or similar speakers. furthermore i am of the feeling that room correction must be done mechanically or it is simply "cheating". where is all the fun anymore? i still love to hear a lp pop loud enough to blow the fuse on a 20 watt tube amp(they didn't have protection). lol.

i would not have a problem personally owning the tact. i am open to all kinds of new technology. i doubt however i would own it as my reference system. i could be wrong i have eaten words before. i am already familiar with the tact so i do not need to "warm" up to the idea anymore. it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

this is much different than redbook audio for instance. that was simply evolution and i more or less quickly embraced it. the tact is a rather radical approach, even still. oh, please do not tell me that tearing up $45,000 speakers is not a radical approach.

i put certain limits on myself. this is like telling a vegitarian that "they don't know what they are missing" because they won't eat a cow. they have their reasons. i have stated my reasons for not accepting the tact. at least not as mainstream. it is not. it is cutting edge. i tend to stay away from the cutting edge. if it becomes more widely accepted i may indeed end up with one.

freeflier, you and i simply have some different views on audio. we also have agreed on some things. not everyone agrees on everything. you don't have to get mad at me for that if you are open minded. open minded in the sense that even if you think i am somewhat closed minded in regard to this technology you will accept my view as well. even if we do not agree. i never push anyone on anything. i may recommend something. thats all.

i know that you like to really process your sound. you have big ben,squeeze box, tact. patrick82 is hugely into "cable research". i have my own views about audio as well. however mine tend to be more of the time tested type. ie, old technology. i am not quick to embrace the cutting edge.
as audiophiles one must choose their aproach to achieving the sound they so desire. their is really no right or wrong aproach to this. everyone has different ears and feelings. you should be accepting of this.

to that effect, yamaha actually does make a few decent(top of product range) receivers. they, imho will beat cambridge and nad. they are a lot more money so they should. will they beat krell or mark levinson? not a chance. i didn't say they would. they are upper mid-fi. not by any means ultra hi-fi.
i don't know why that statement offends you. it is just an opinion. you did state that you have not even heard them. go compare the $1,000+ yamahas to a cambridge or nad integrated or receiver than you tell me.
i have at least heard the tact to form my opinion.

anyways, i am calling peace here. i mean no offense. we have different views. thats all. no need to force them on each other. we can all coexist in harmony here. hopefully.

music_man

 

[freeflier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by music_man /img/forum/go_quote.gif i am calling peace here. i mean no offense. we have different views. thats all. no need to force them on each other. we can all coexist in harmony here. hopefully. music_man

Loa Tzu couldn't have said it better.
BTW, I'm not trying to "force" anything on anyone. I'm simply pointing out that there are new solutions to old problems emerging with the delopement of digital technology that many people are too closed minded to even consider. My ONLY beef is that some are so resigned to the compromises of old technology that their minds are closed and preconceptions dominate thier thinking. Many people who were around when "Stereophonic" sound was first introduced rejected it because it didn't conform to the "in a barrel" mono sound they were conditioned to accepting. More to the point in this case...in the past, it has been widely accepted that the less "processing" you did to the signal the better. This is a fundamental principle in analog technology as it applies to Hi Fi. You are taking that principle and applying it where it has no relavance. How does a Big Ben "process" the signal? That implies distortion and coloration. It simply reclocks it to reduce jitter. How does a Squeezebox "process" the signal? It simply relays data accurately from your computer. The paradigm shift that many people can't wrap their minds aroung is that digital doesn't transmit the picture...it transmits a "description" of the picture. You can't distort the picture by processing the data the way you can distort analog by going through extra devices. Think of reading text as an analogy for how digital works. Whether the text is faded or discoloured or undersized makes no diference to your understanding of the meaning (as long as you can read it). Analog on the other hand, if it is not implemented correctly, has the potential of actually changing the meaning of the text.
THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT PARADIGMS!

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeflier /img/forum/go_quote.gif Loa Tzu couldn't have said it better. BTW, I'm not trying to "force" anything on anyone. I'm simply pointing out that there are new solutions to old problems emerging with the delopement of digital technology that many people are too closed minded to even consider. My ONLY beef is that some are so resigned to the compromises of old technology that their minds are closed and preconceptions dominate thier thinking. Many people who were around when "Stereophonic" sound was first introduced rejected it because it didn't conform to the "in a barrel" mono sound they were conditioned to accepting. More to the point in this case...in the past, it has been widely accepted that the less "processing" you did to the signal the better. This is a fundamental principle in analog technology as it applies to Hi Fi. You are taking that principle and applying it where it has no relavance. How does a Big Ben "process" the signal? That implies distortion and coloration. It simply reclocks it to reduce jitter. How does a Squeezebox "process" the signal? It simply relays data accurately from your computer. The paradigm shift that many people can't wrap their minds aroung is that digital doesn't transmit the picture...it transmits a "description" of the picture. You can't distort the picture by processing the data the way you can distort analog by going through extra devices. Think of reading text as an analogy for how digital works. Whether the text is faded or discoloured or undersized makes no diference to your understanding of the meaning (as long as you can read it). Analog on the other hand, if it is not implemented correctly, has the potential of actually changing the meaning of the text. THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT PARADIGMS!

uh..I think you are essentially describing what BOSE does. which IMO sounds like POS.

True to your post regarding an active cross over, in which I believe you discussed means of acquiring impulse response curves in the time domain and convert hose impose responses gathered into a transfer function that will give you the end result of what perceived to be a balanced FR.

Couple things I have heard with system employing this type of cross over: BOSE and Bo Olf. both claim to do exactly that, and both sucked to no end IMO. And those systems were well over $5000 IIRC.

One of the fundamental paradigm of designing a good audio system is that any piece of audio equipment cannot be designed via equipment alone. The most important step is 'voicing' That step is purely subjective and consequently equipments that were voiced correctly sound great, those weren't sounded bad, despite their respective prowess in the measurement department.

To apply the same analogy, instead of using your ear and some 'ancient' mechanical technique to 'voice' those speaker to your room, you are applying one or a selection of sets of pre-determined/ or measured transfer function to your signal. Your active cross over know no more about what music is than the equipments that are used to design amplifier/speaker/CDP, you name it. To blindly trust a DSP program to 'come up' with an optimal set of TF is like designing an set of speaker in software.

I do not proclaim to know much about DSP except that I designed and programed one of the TI DSP chips when I was in college to perform as a sound card (IIRC I used matlab to design the filter TF). So basically I spent about a year learning DSP. know enough to get myself in trouble

One more things to consider: one cannot judge speaker output by merely looking at the FR curve. I hope you know that by now as should most ppl here on this forum.