Jump to content

Grant Slack

Members
  • Content count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About Grant Slack

  • Rank
    50+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Adelaide
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Grant Slack

    New Ultra Short Throw Projectors

    Oh, so that is how they work. Throwing a beam towards the audience, onto a mirror that reflects it back over its own shoulder. I didn't realise! 😏
  2. Grant Slack

    New Ultra Short Throw Projectors

    Hello there, thank you for the update. Can you please show a photo showing the projector in relation to the screen? thanks, Grant
  3. Grant Slack

    EOI: Nelson Pass F5 Firstwatt Clone

    Hi there, nice amp! How high is the cabinet? cheers
  4. Another interesting thread! Might I suggest: Krix Equinox Mk3 $795 (Australian content, genuine hifi sound) Yamaha R-N303D Network Amplifier $599 Eastwood Hifi (Phono in, digital in, WiFi, Bluetooth, Musicast, DAB+, Spotify, Tidal etc) Pro-ject Essential II TT $240 JB Hifi with cart Sony UBP-X800 player $450 Eastwood Hifi (Bluray, SACD, CD, DVD-A, digital out to N303D) TOTAL $2086
  5. Grant Slack

    Not happy with Krix Phoenix

    Hello there, another interesting thread! If it is the v2 Phoenix, the frequency response is pretty well faultless. I don't know about the Mk1, though. cheers
  6. Grant Slack

    what's goin on

    Hello there, I am interested in how this pans out for you. IMHO there are several possible sources of the problem here. However, I do not think that the quality of your digital equipment is going to be one of them. If your CD collection has a lot of music that was the subject of the loudness wars in the 1990s and 2000s, then there is a good chance that they are not well enough mastered to do anything other than grate on your ears after not too long. Any attempt to fix that by changing your gear, will never be more than a 'patch-up job', as they say. And then, when you play a good CD, it will be diminished by those changes. If, however, you are also not happy with CDs that you know to be excellent in terms of mastering, then I am looking at your loudspeakers, which I greatly admire by the way. It is quite possible that your LP gear, your speakers, and your room worked together by complementing one another, and that a more flat and neutral source has 'broken the circle' to some degree. The usual problem is treble energy, which is usually dialed back a bit on LP during the production phase, to suit some of the cheaper cartridges that they will be played on. These precautions are not needed with CD, and the resultant extra energy can be unwelcome, in a speaker and room that was purchased and set up based on how well it works with LP sources. Those 4425's have adjustable response in both the treble and the midrange, and I would not hesitate to use them to get the best sound in your room. That is their purpose, after all. You are lucky in that respect. Finally, there is the room, which might be a touch reverberant for that high-frequency energy. A few simple things like curtains, and heavier carpet in front of the speakers, could make all the difference. good luck, Regards Grant
  7. Hello Chris, I was actually replying to the post above mine, by member Assisi (John), and his use of the terms good, better, best, in relation to engineering of CD players. Yes, I understand. I have already commented on that in my initial comment in this thread, link. I am probably in the minority, I don't know. Regards Grant
  8. Thank you for your reply. I take good engineering to encompass all that. Everything that is needed and nothing (including price) that isn't. Going beyond that is a kind of over-the-top Veblen good, and is not better engineering, is not best engineering; indeed it is worse engineering. Any price is possible, almost any specification is possible, (certainly any weight is possible), but humans are strictly bound in sensory reality. Only our daydreaming isn't. Excellence is about matching the engineering to the reality, and not to the dreaming. Regards Grant
  9. Grant Slack

    How to quote?

    duplicate post (another failed attempt)
  10. Grant Slack

    How to quote?

    That isn't working for me, I'm afraid Sort of works, but not reliable and a bit messy. It makes me think that there must be an error-free, backup-free keystroke for splitting the quoted text to make room for one's reply text. But we haven't found it yet?
  11. Grant Slack

    Stopping floor vibration

    Hello, yes, I know what you mean. I think that my main point was about engineering a product vs stacking whatever materials come to hand. For instance, if you happened to be using one MDF grade from those listed on table 1 and table 2 (link), and Auralex carefully chose another, the acoustical result would be quite different. My speakers are a Corian-based 3-layer CLD panel, that I designed from first principles. Such are the trials and tribulations of the DIY-er. Probably, but the real work is in developing the total product, such that the layers, however they behave individually, complement one another together. Which is what I mean about "engineering a product": for example, to design a 500mm platform, Auralex might, might, choose a different grade of MDF or foam than for a 300mm platform. OTOH it is also good engineering to make affordable products work properly ($89...not bad...), so it would not surprise me if they use the same material in many products, including cheap MDF! But, one hopes, they actually "engineered it" as a system. That is the only point I wished to raise, and I have probably raised it once too often now (sorry). Yes, but specific to the application. "Engineered." 😂 IMHO knowing that it works for sports shoes gives nothing more than a hint, that it might, or might not, work in a very different application. Even if it was properly designed into that application. My pleasure. And yes, I also agree with your point that Auralex may not be well engineered, may not work well, and testing that assumption is a good thing! A good thing that begins with the purchase of at least one Auralex platform for testing.
  12. On the subject of recording control rooms, Floyd Toole wrote, "Traditional recording control rooms and studios are elaborately constructed and equipped spaces that musical groups rent at great expense. They exist for good reasons, but nowadays, numerous recordings are made in converted bedrooms and garages. The multichannel mixing and signal processing can now be done on site using powerful digital processing tools instead of massive consoles. The acoustics of small ordinary rooms has become a factor in the music industry, so, everything that has been learned from home listening rooms and home theatres is relevant to these small studio/control room venues." (my emphasis) So, what are the things that Dr Toole says have been learned from home listening rooms and home theatres? He says that there are many anecdotes with various opinions. He noted several instances, including Siegfried Linkwitz, who wrote that the floor reflections do not seem to be undesirable. But, he added, a lot of the information on room reflections is more "fashion and folklore" than science. "Some of it has become hand-me-down acoustical theory, with some misinterpretations of psychoacoustics propping it up." He noted that professional sound engineers are also not in agreement, or not all in agreement, and therefore their value in terms of guidance is limited. Figure 21.3 of the first edition of his book illustrates that, "…a good carpet on a good underlay is an effective acoustical absorber, and it is easy to justify a lot of it in a room." From the 3rd edition of his book, "If one is constructing a dedicated listening room, control room or home theatre, custom acoustical treatments are likely to be needed. Because it is a design space, there can be no excuse for bad sound. In contrast, if one is installing a stereo or multichannel system into a normal living space, there may be a reluctance to deviate from typical furnishings and decor. Fortunately, with a little thought, a perfectly satisfactory listening space can be created using absorption provided by heavy, lined drapes; clipped-pile carpet over felt underlay; upholstered furniture; and what I call the paraphernalia of life: bookcases, cabinets, tables, lamps and so on as scattering objects. Irregular wall profiles created by fireplaces, sculpture niches, and the like add value acoustically and visually." I therefore feel very disinclined to endorse the comments in the article referenced in the opening post of this thread, and endorsed with "many anecdotes" herein. Regards, Grant
  13. Hello there, and thank you for raising some questions. Regarding REW, I am referring to the EQ graph controls, where the smoothing should be set to Variable, which will result in REW smoothing its filters appropriately. There is, therefore, no need to apply smoothing to the measured response before moving to the EQ section of the software, as long as you do it during the filter calculation stage. If one tries to apply EQ to the Unsmoothed response, it is mission impossible, so REW definitely drops back to some smoothed response to generate the EQ filters. I believe it uses the Variable filter. Regarding multiple measurement positions, my thoughts are much like yours, except that where you, AFAICT, said to average the ones you don't delete and equalise the resultant average curve to some desired target result, I said to take multiple measurements and use them to inform oneself about the primary position measurement, and decide what adjustments to make to the target, then apply equalisation to the primary measurement to get there. The general advice not to go by one measurement is sound, in that it is cautioning against only taking one measurement and equalising that to a fixed target line. My approach is more sophisticated than that, but still focuses on the primary position, unless one wishes to compromise the primary position for the good of the rest of the audience. Regards, Grant
  14. Grant Slack

    Stopping floor vibration

    Hello Mr Sparkle, IMHO this is the best advice for your situation. It appears, above, that you are willing to try a DIY solution. Let us assume that the Auralex product is properly engineered for its duty, and not be cynical and say it is just any piece of wood over any piece of foam. I would therefore suggest that 'undesigned' DIY alternatives need to be relatively thicker and over-the top, using a hit-and-miss, belt-and-braces, try-and-try-again philosophy. This is unlikely to save any money, but I will testify that it can potentially be more rewarding. There has been some advice in this thread that you need to deal with airborne vibrations, assuming they are a major contributor to degraded sound quality. IMHO it is structure-born vibrations that are the real issue. Your speakers are the vibrating structure, so the best thing to do is to isolate them from other structures. Once this is done, airborne vibrations are so much less energetic that only large, lightly-supported surfaces are affected, such as window panes. IMHO, and this is just my humble opinion, suggestions to reconstruct your floor are not warranted, as long as you have isolated your speakers physically. Hardwood floors are designed to carry heavy loads over small areas, so they are one of the stiffest large surfaces in your room, second only to brick walls or concrete basements, so, if you want to reduce large vibrating surfaces, start with windows, then ceiling, then progress to gyprock walls. Although, bear in mind, Floyd Toole has written that rock-solid boundaries in one's listening room are a dire idea. So, I have very mixed feelings about some of the advice, other than to isolate the speakers from the floor, and fix any obvious rattling that would be detectable by ear with a sine wave sweep signal. Regards Grant
  15. @zydeco Hello, in my experience, REW already applies smoothing to its EQ filters as part of its filter generation process, so there is no need to apply smoothing beforehand. Also, regarding multiple measurements, you will get the best result at the primary position if you only generate EQ filters from the primary position measurement. If you are more concerned about everyone in the room than you are about yourself in the primary position, then yes, use the average of multiple measurements. The major benefit that I get, from multiple position measurements, is that they provide information about what is going on in the primary position, so I know which parts of the primary position response to leave unequalised, and which to equalise. But nevertheless, it is the primary position response that I apply EQ filters to. Regards Grant
×