Skip to main content
Recent Posts
1
General Audio / Re: Is it all bull**** now?
Last post by ajinfla -
Thanks for the read.  I agree with the conclusions, especially #3, which is relevant here. 

The design of the big pumpkin on the MBLs uses aluminum strips, flexed and then "filled" with rubbery pieces glued in.  You've never seen an aluminum spring, have you?  There's a reason!  Every conventional speaker has a spring force that returns the cone (or equivalent) to the center position.  It's only on midrange and lower drivers that you can demonstrate this with your fingers, but on the MBLs, the big pumpkin goes down to about 100 Hz.  I'm wondering what the spring force is and if it is linear.
Well, you are free to speculate about stuff that doesn't matter much if any, but for me, it's the stuff that does matter, as in #1:
Quote
1.  The perception of loudspeaker sound quality is dominated by linear distortions, which can be accurately quantified and predicted using a set of comprehensive anechoic frequency response measurements (see my previous posting here)
The data we have shows a rather uniform polar is expected.

That's actually remarkably uniform. Passive speaker too, a touch of DSP eq would make things even smoother. I think that's rather impressive engineering, not much else out there that can generate such a uniform field.
I've also done the Harman training (coupled with 40 yrs of speaker building, Klippel training, etc), so I'm not too shabby at detecting resonances. The MBLs do ok. Whatever your concern is about theoretical  "aluminum springs" etc, I don't share them, as I'm only concerned with what matters most audibly. Again, the MBLs are certainly "audiophile" priced, but in a rarity, there is actually some clever engineering going on. Yes they are going to be sold by folks who sell a lot of unadulterated nonsense also.

I found the midbass consistently unpleasant and boomy, however.  This was a demo in a listening room, so I would have expected them to be at their best, but I'm probably wrong about that too! 
Yes, that would be my only quibble, I find the bass quality to be sub-par to terrible, but that is true for about 95% of speakers (which are also ported boxes in rooms), for my tastes.
Unfortunately 30k cables won't solve that, but I'm sure he sells "traps" too.
5
General Audio / Re: Is it all bull**** now?
Last post by bdunham7 -
ajinfla;

I'll skip the quoting...

Nonsense?  Yes.  And a bad sales tactic, IMO (for the speakers anyway).  He could have said "I dunno.  They're German, and they're smart, I'm sure they got it right.  No idea how, though."   But cables? :o

Thanks for the read.  I agree with the conclusions, especially #3, which is relevant here.   I realize I wasn't clear--I was referring to the nonlinear distortion in the driver, not the overall response of the speaker.  I am assuming that you don't design or build drivers--correct me if I'm wrong--but as you likely know, drivers have been carefully developed and engineered over many years to have a linear, undistorted response.  Making sure voice coils are either completely underhung or overhung, designing the magnet for a uniform field, using a surround with appropriate qualities, using drivers in frequency ranges that avoid breakup modes, etc etc.  If you designed your own driver from scratch and weren't aware of all these issues, you'd likely make a bad product. 

The design of the big pumpkin on the MBLs uses aluminum strips, flexed and then "filled" with rubbery pieces glued in.  You've never seen an aluminum spring, have you?  There's a reason!  Every conventional speaker has a spring force that returns the cone (or equivalent) to the center position.  It's only on midrange and lower drivers that you can demonstrate this with your fingers, but on the MBLs, the big pumpkin goes down to about 100 Hz.  I'm wondering what the spring force is and if it is linear.

As far as the sound, these were the smaller models (116?) not the 101.  So the radial drivers only go down to 650 Hz, the remainder is handled by ported drivers on each side.  They had a spacious, omnidirectional sound, of course.  You could walk around and even behind or between them and they sounded good and the music was kind of all around you.  I found the midbass consistently unpleasant and boomy, however.  This was a demo in a listening room, so I would have expected them to be at their best, but I'm probably wrong about that too! 
7
General - (fb2k) / Re: foobar2000 for mac
Last post by Packgrog -
As others have stated, this is wonderful, but would be nice to have a functional Shuffle option, and to know whether bitperfect output is possible with files greater than 16-bit. Thanks very much!
9
General Audio / Re: Is it all bull**** now?
Last post by Cavaille -
Nice score, my kind of stuff thanks.
I would think "depth" was very much part of the original 3D soundfield, thus critical for a semblance of perceptual recreation. Even with lowly frontal stereo. YMMV.

Well, Dennis Sands mixed it (Alan Silvestri, Danny Elfman, etc.), he always prefers this sound (varies from composer to composer). The whole soundfield favoured the left channel, I attempted to correct it. The "3D spatiality" was a little too strong for my taste but the composer told me to leave it alone (he paid extra money for a mix by Sands), even though some stuff (like reverb) might cancel itself out because of phase distortions. On the other hand, both of us tested it on a variety of playback devices (car, kitchen, several headphones, surround, bigger stereo system, soundbar) and didn't find any problems. In the end, I didn't do that much; I altered dynamics, changed the frequency response with an EQ (the bass wasn't audible before) to make it a little more "charming" and limited peaks a bit. I gave the composer three versions to choose from, he chose the 2nd while I would have used the third. But I'm happy with the result nonetheless.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018