Listening Get Together

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

Maybe, but does it matter if it achieves the goals of improved dispersion, punch, and quality of sound?

]

So how would you describe the "improved dispersion"? Wider-narrower-controlled down to what freq and so forth?

Is 500hz the same as 2K and 10KHz?

I am still waiting for ANY specs that would some kind a guidance as to a particular usage.

 

[Spenser Hamilton]

Re: Listening Get Together

Something in happening in the phase that completely fools the microphone. We believe it's because the information is packeted, and the differing arrivals are out of phase. You can't hear it, but the microphone can. Audio trickery? Maybe, but does it matter if it achieves the goals of improved dispersion, punch, and quality of sound?

Let's leave the audio trickery to the audiophools. Where are these measurements that the designers took?

 

[Art Welter]

Re: Listening Get Together

Let's leave the audio trickery to the audiophools. Where are these measurements that the designers took?

The measurements?
Perhaps they gave up on them when they realized how bad they look.

Post #40 Leland Crooks posted as he said a "curve I trust" of a 2x5" with tweeter.
I asked in post #40 what is it was he found "nice" about a studio monitor that is 15 dB down at 1000 Hz compared to 10,000 Hz, later he realized he had made an error designing the crossover.
He has not posted the revised design frequency plot, saying it is wet so he does not want to test outside.

In post # 256 I reproduced the only frequency response curve found on BigE's website, the Lil'E 21, a sub that was measured with a 36 volt input, showing about an 8 dB dip in response at 70 Hz.

Leland Crooks and Hart Designs Etc. are "licensed manufacturers of BigE's Manipulated Vortex Waveguidetm cabinets". They appear to be the only posters here who have heard the cabinets.

As Leland says in post #280:
"According to the phase plots, these cabs should sound awful. Incredibly awful.
When I first saw into a box even after hearing them I still called bullshit."
I know it seems like we don't know what we're doing. Countless hours on the phone and via emails working through the effects, trying to quantify what is going on in terms of accepted theory."

Leland and company seem to prefer spending countless hours talking about "effects" rather than interpreting phase and frequency measurements that could show us what actually is going on with the cabinets they build.

 

[Mike Brown]

Re: Listening Get Together

The measurements?
Perhaps they gave up on them when they realized how bad they look.

Post #40 Leland Crooks posted as he said a "curve I trust" of a 2x5" with tweeter.
I asked in post #40 what is it was he found "nice" about a studio monitor that is 15 dB down at 1000 Hz compared to 10,000 Hz, later he realized he had made an error designing the crossover.
He has not posted the revised design frequency plot, saying it is wet so he does not want to test outside.

In post # 256 I reproduced the only frequency response curve found on BigE's website, the Lil'E 21, a sub that was measured with a 36 volt input, showing about an 8 dB dip in response at 70 Hz.

Leland Crooks and Hart Designs Etc. are "licensed manufacturers of BigE's Manipulated Vortex Waveguidetm cabinets". They appear to be the only posters here who have heard the cabinets.

As Leland says in post #280:
"According to the phase plots, these cabs should sound awful. Incredibly awful.
When I first saw into a box even after hearing them I still called bullshit."
I know it seems like we don't know what we're doing. Countless hours on the phone and via emails working through the effects, trying to quantify what is going on in terms of accepted theory."

Leland and company seem to prefer spending countless hours talking about "effects" rather than interpreting phase and frequency measurements that could show us what actually is going on with the cabinets they build.

Maybe they should bundle those "negative ion bracelets" with their speaker sales?

 

[Dick Rees]

Re: Listening Get Together

Maybe they should bundle those "negative ion bracelets" with their speaker sales?

Or this:

 

[Mark Cadwallader]

Re: Listening Get Together

Based on the statements made in post #280, I conclude that there are measurements (the source for the plots) which exist, but which are not being publically revealed. I recognize that such data might be "preliminary", or obtained under questionably conditions, but that's a pretty interesting circumstance for an item being commercially offered for sale to various markets.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not intereted in aural sleight-of-hand tricks. Mark C.

 

[Josh Ricci]

Re: Listening Get Together

Leland,
If you are interested in an unbiased 3rd party test of your product I would be willing to measure one of your products. (Call me extremely curious about some of the claims made.) I generally do bass systems, but can do most any typical measurement that would be taken and have a variety of programs and equipment. Measurements would be taken outdoors. You can pick what to send and you or the guys here or myself can decide what measurements would be most appropriate. About the only typical thing I am not setup for currently is a full polar workup. You would cover all shipping costs and I would have no liability for any inadvertent damage that might occur to the unit/s sent. The weather likely won't be good for another month or so though.

You can see an example here. The measurement tabs all lead to other types of measurements. There are many other tests of systems, and raw drivers, just click around.

If interested let me know.

 

[Leland Crooks]

Re: Listening Get Together

I am familiar with your site Josh. It was recommended to me a while back by a user. You were on my short list of people to contact.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

I am still waiting on a description of what is considered "Improved dispersion".

Improved over WHAT? How do you know?

As compared to what? What is wrong with "non improved dispersion"?

What is good and what is bad dispersion?

Do you have any numbers-not necessarily data (we understand you can't measure anything)-but spec numbers? What were the target numbers during the design-assuming there was a "target" or did it end up "being what it is"? And if so-What is it?

I am sure others would like to know the rated coverage of the cabinets-------------------or maybe I am the only one-who cares about such things----------------

 

[Leland Crooks]

Re: Listening Get Together

I am still waiting on a description of what is considered "Improved dispersion".

Improved over WHAT? How do you know?

As compared to what? What is wrong with "non improved dispersion"?

What is good and what is bad dispersion?

Do you have any numbers-not necessarily data (we understand you can't measure anything)-but spec numbers? What were the target numbers during the design-assuming there was a "target" or did it end up "being what it is"? And if so-What is it?

I am sure others would like to know the rated coverage of the cabinets-------------------or maybe I am the only one-who cares about such things----------------

I have to make a living. I did not get to the shop yesterday until 5:30pm, after starting at 6:00am answering emails, then shipping out all that evil DIY stuff all day.

Wider. More even. And yes I know sometimes narrow is more desirable.

Today is a slow day, unless a bunch of orders dropped in the middle of the night. I haven't looked yet on purpose. I busted it yesterday so I could take today and measure.

 

[Per Søvik]

Re: Listening Get Together

Wider. More even.

Wider and more even than what?
Sorry we are giving you such a hard time, but we have been presented with some pretty insane claims that include weird reflections of football field scoreboards, 3" power alleys, sound that is so diffuse it doesn't interact with the room and what have you.
Most of the observations that are described can be easily attributed to well known properties of sound, making it easy to dismiss the stated explanation of same observations as the product of clueless persons. Since some of the claims come from people that most of us here on the forum have long considered to be far from clueless, we are a bit curious about what is going on.
I have no problem accepting the listening test observations, particularly since we were given one very strong clue (some recorded music sounds great, other music very much less so) as to the nature of the sound coming from these speakers. Speakers that are a total mess in terms of phase, multiple arrival times, distortion etc. will often sond good on material that is "thin", like a single instrument, a singer and a guitar, etc. because it adds to the sound in a way that one might find desirable or at least not undesirable.

 

[Jay Barracato]

My current question is how can you advertise a line array element with no idea what its pattern is or how it behaves when arrayed?

 

[Spenser Hamilton]

My current question is how can you advertise a line array element with no idea what its pattern is or how it behaves when arrayed?

I've been wondering the same thing since page one, and I'm pretty green when it comes to line array theory.

 

[Jack Arnott]

Re: Listening Get Together

I am still waiting for ANY specs that would some kind a guidance as to a particular usage.

Geez Ivan, how fucking dense are you?
Don't you get it? This is the perfect speaker to replace every single other speaker. (On the planet.)

Don't get caught up in the semantics. Just be afraid, very afraid. He is looking to make you unemployed.

/snark, rudeness, vulgarity, hype

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

Geez Ivan, how fucking dense are you?
Don't you get it? This is the perfect speaker to replace every single other speaker. (On the planet.)

Don't get caught up in the semantics. Just be afraid, very afraid. He is looking to make you unemployed.

/snark, rudeness, vulgarity, hype

Thanks for clearing that up.

And here I was thinking that a flat/smooth phase and amplitude response was a good indicator of how well a loudspeaker could reproduce a particular input signal.

I seem to have thought that a sound system loudspeaker should try to reproduce the input signal as faithfully as possible.

Guess I was wrong.

I guess having a really wide coverage pattern can be a good thing-especially if the sound does not reflect off of the walls.

I always thought that you should try to avoid reflections. But it seems to have worked well for that "mountain" company.

 

[Jack Arnott]

Re: Listening Get Together

Thanks for clearing that up.

And here I was thinking that a flat/smooth phase and amplitude response was a good indicator of how well a loudspeaker could reproduce a particular input signal.

I seem to have thought that a sound system loudspeaker should try to reproduce the input signal as faithfully as possible.

Guess I was wrong.

I guess having a really wide coverage pattern can be a good thing-especially if the sound does not reflect off of the walls.

I always thought that you should try to avoid reflections. But it seems to have worked well for that "mountain" company.

Exactly!

And I hope you took my post in the spirit that it was intended.
Your valuable input is probably better spent on a thread with more intelligent discourse.
Or where the humor is intentional.

 

[Per Søvik]

Re: Listening Get Together

Exactly!

And I hope you took my post in the spirit that it was intended.

Oh, you were joking, and here I thought I had spotted a genuine troll (ref Troll thread) :razz:

Your valuable input is probably better spent on a thread with more intelligent discourse.

All seriousness and no jest makes Ivan a dull boy.

Or where the humor is intentional.

Unintentional humor is often the most hillarious.
It might be just me, but a couple of the videos posted by the BigE guy where he states that you can't hear phase issues as the camera moves about in the room and it sounds like someone is working the EQ like mad really makes me chuckle and makes me believe that allthough my hearing is seriously screwed, I've still got a bit of golden ears left in there somewhere. ~:-D~:grin:

 

[Brad Weber]

Re: Listening Get Together

It seems like it comes down to three basic missing pieces of information:

1) Measured performance data from a reputable source.
2) Listening impressions from unbiased, reputable sources not directly involved in the manufacture, distribution or sales of the products.
3) An explanation of the technology involved or admission that there is no explanation. When you claim something to be revolutionary or to break from already established physics then a pseudoscientific description is not going to be well received and also makes Items 1 and 2 that much more necessary and valuable.

Promoting a product here without already having such information to present has probably not helped either but I don't think this discussion will go anywhere positive without addressing some or all of these three issues.

 

[Greg Cameron]

Re: Listening Get Together

One thing I can say for certain. Based on this thread and the abominable marketing demonstrated within it, I doubt anybody would consider ever buying these boxes after reading it. I don't care what measurement data is presented at this point, good or bad. First, second, third, and forth impressions are everything.

 

[Mark DeArman]

Re: Listening Get Together

One thing I can say for certain. Based on this thread and the abominable marketing demonstrated within it, I doubt anybody would consider ever buying these boxes after reading it. I don't care what measurement data is presented at this point, good or bad. First, second, third, and forth impressions are everything.

I'm still waiting to see the measurement data. I want to to see how the Vortex affects the far field response. According to the website I should expect to see the near field response in the far field with this box; As it will transport the sound packets in the vortex to the far field.