rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Jul 6, 2009 15:10:22 GMT
BTW-I find it both notable and interesting how often "failed" technologies have an overflow into "new technologies" so for instance "Quad" and in particular Discrete CD-4 LPs gaves us much improved phono cartridge styli shapes when it was discovered the former "best",the Eliptical was not capable of tracking the 40kHz subcarrier frequency that was at the heart of the CD-4 decoding method thus we had the Shibata,the Stereohedron and other shapes developed that could not only do this task and well but as a side beneift it was found they were also capable of retreiving more information from a STEREO LP so even though we have not seen thelikes of "Quadraphonics" in the past 3.5 decades or so,unless you realized by now Surround sound is just the new "quad" the improved styli have and are still used today in the top end phono carts. Then there is the Digital Analog Delay Line that was designed in the beginning to emulate the delays and reflections inherent in ANY live performance with the first inception being the AR "discrete 16 channel" version (that's right,16 delay lines,16 amplifiers and 16 loudspeakers ) that was deemed to be so successfully demonstrated as creating a NATURAL sounding music ambient field that work on a commercial version was started immediately which was finally realized as the Audio Pulse Model One but it had a weakness,too damn expensive for many "audiophiles" because not only was the unit itself costly for the times but you needed to add ANOTHER stereo power amplifier AND another set of stereo speakers with the only saving grace being the "new" speakers did not have to match the bass or treble extension of the main pair (sound familiar ? ) So a heavy load back then which meant it was back to the drawing board for a more "consumer freindly" version which was essential if this new technology was to ever take hold and become mainstream.This second product,the Audio Pulse model Two had less features but was actually more "useable" if that makes any sense,included a four channel mix out for headphone amp driving AND included a 20WPC built in amp so was self contained other that the end users choice in speakers. THAT was the unti I purchased and is the unit I still own to this day because even though I hardly ever use the damn thing it is just too cool and too well engineered/assembled to part with ;D anyway.The Model Two was successful after a fashion and if you know anything about audio in general and high end audio in particular it is that once the "others" see there is a buch to be made they jump on the badwagon and then as now each wants to be different,to stand out,to try an make the "pick me,pick me" statement and that is where the wheels fell off because once the asshole brigade got into the act the waters became muddy and the consumer baffled because to be honest,not only did many of the "features" not make sense in any real world use but even worse,they took the initial premise of AMBIENCE EXTRACTION and added AMBIENCE EMULATION and so now we had Type 1 units,type 2 units and even more confusing combination units which was too much for many to grasp the reason/concepts of and worse,then as now any attempts at SIMULATING and effect that is not inherent to the piece has the effectof First-sounding damn cool Next-sounding damn artificial and the cause of listener fatique So the "emulators" by being confused with the "extractors" ended up killing off the entire technology because both had the same bad rap on them the average consumer notbeing savvy enough to know the difference AND never knowing the "why" one way worked and the other did not they being zero technical skill oriented (pre internet means you either studied a thing or you did not KNOW that thing and when the studying meant most ofthe information came from manufacturer ad copy it was a losing cause) So David Hafler showed us how to get the L-R content inherent in any recorded live performance that has an open mic but was limited by precedence and the Hass effect,a situation that meant A-you forgot to compensate for the upper frequency attenuation that a sound has once it travels TO a place and then BACK again B-The ambient signal that returns willbe at a MUCH lower level unless the venue terrible for music anyway C-This signal will be time shifted by a degree that is a function of the size of the "arena" so for instance if the back wall is fifty feet away you want a 50mS delay at the secondary speaker pair to recreate it,something IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in the home using the DynaQuad method unless you can actually place the side/rear speakers fifty feet away and what the analog delay line was created to adress which as I said,sadly when south when the knuckleheads muddiedthe waters by trying to take the DIRECT STEREO signal,delay IT and try to con you into thinking this was beleivable ambience So we need reduced highs,possibly reduced lows,a means of delaying the L-R signal to give a sense of DISTANCE between the main front speakers and the "ambient field surround" speakers (WILL NOT DO to hear the "ambient sound before the PRIMARY sound,totally confuses the brain directional cues) and by the time they got it right ? A center channel was added,the "reverb" function was eliminated (simulated multiple paths of reflection by using multiple delay taps that were mixed and crossfed) and it was called MOVIE SURROUND so yeah,another case of a "failed" technology having a use in the "NEW" electronics and in this case has shown staying power but what do i see on the horizon ? NO ! NOT THAT ! don't do it man ! Won't work and you will destroy confidence in what you know works dammit ! Yup.another attempt at MUSIC ambience EMULATION which if these assholes wouldpay attention NEVER HAS and NEVER WILL work because it is FORCED,CREATED,NOT NATURAL and our brains KNOW THIS without being told or reading ad copy telling us why we are wrong,that the technology is PROVEN and is an UPGRADE ! The last frontier left to these knucklheads having conquered distortion and linearity and noise is TIME AND SPACE but if they would just read history or better yet,go to ebay and buy some of theold gear and fkn LISTEN it wouldbecome clear to them that it is doomed to failure,not that it will stop any of these knucklheads from trying and then lying ;D
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Jul 10, 2009 11:57:43 GMT
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/whatever_happened_to_51-channel_music/Exactly. For whatever reason they don't and likely never WILL "get it" with the "it" being: Stop trying to make an artificial "surround" effect for music ! Just shoot for increasing the ambient field/room size to beleivable proportions and be done with it ! But that won't happen because it leaves to much "out" Out as in not enough to manipulate in the recording process Out as in no need for sophisticated coding or processing Out as in no need for the additional channels to cost as much as the main stereo channels the requirements for "natural ambience" being far less than the requirments for the main stereo image AND and super-hyper refocused and fond no where in the natural world of music surround sound image which takes the natural of multiple reflections,decay and upper octave delineation/attenuation over distance and tries to make that signal FULL RANGE HIGH FI in direct competition with the main stereo signal thus increaing cost,increasing complexity while decreasing beleivability and the facts have not changed just as the laws of acoustics have not yet they ignore and trudge on then wonder why we didn't "fall for it" Unfkn beleivable to me that ANYONE does but they must or these attempts would not continue with a brand new version every five years or so touted as being THE ONE then as usual suffering the slow lingering death of all previous attempts not aimed at natural
|
|
robertkd
Been here a while!
Electronics Engineer from sunny Queensland
Posts: 111
|
Post by robertkd on Jul 11, 2009 14:35:00 GMT
well krap, Rick here's me thinking ambience is actually recording 4 (or more) discrete channels in order to create a sound stage with aural directional cues and the ability to pan any where in the sound scape space. now your telling me I can get all that by adding delay and choosing the difference l-r plus delay = ambience well I'm not buying it dude this isn't about making that 2Ch recording sound "real" it's about taking an honest to goodness real life frking sound stage with correct mic placements and recording it, encoding it and reproducing it. It ain't about making "ambience" from no dumb arse 2Ch recording next you'll be decoding surround from frelling MONO sources, ain't going to happen SERIOUSLY I really think were talking different things here Rick on one hand your trying to create the "ambience" from a preformance and kool a little reverb is usually added in the mix and albiet out of phase between L and R which makes simple matrix decoding easy, add a bit of delay and it's done. What I want to recreate are sound scapes for instance picture this you are seated by a stream running from your front left back towards your rear left birds and insects make their sounds from which ever direction they are. Conversations from your friends off towards the camp site to your right but slightly behind you. you turn left ward you cast your fishing fly it plops into the water out in front of you the stream now easily pictured as flowing right to left, the conversations now behind you,.. the sound scape should be natural and it should flow, above all else it should sound the way it would normally sound to you in real life,.. at least that's my take on it Robert
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Jul 11, 2009 18:11:12 GMT
Nope,that is "surround" dude.You can't make REAL instruments come at you from various directions even if you try to make the simulation of a live hall because then you would need to model THAT hall and with each simulation have a DSP code for the actual venue you are trying to recreatebecause "generic" has not and never will work as many many many previous attempts at this very thing have proven out over time (look at the old Yamaha DSP devices that tried this) In a nutshell ? YES add to that formula the need for upper octave reduction because high frequrncies don't travel well while bass frequencies do (you can hear thunder from miles away but the lightening must be damn near over your head before you hear the cracks ) and that is natural ambience EXTRACTION and by extraction I mean ANY live performance having open mikes because the ambient sounds come back to the mic after being delayed by the amount of distance of travel (1ms=1ft) and because it is a reflected and not direct signal will be out of phase with the original thus "extracted" via a L-R matrix (I use a single balanced line level transformer to so this in my headphone ambience simulator So if you can grab the out of phase information and delay it by an amount plausible for the venue of the event (with 50ms usually an upper lomit before it starts to sound wonky ) and then low pass filter that signal (variable LPF best since the rate of attenuation equates to distance also) you have just recreated the "space" of the performance in your home and if those knucklheads in the studio ever get their shit together it would be a SNAP to add to studio recordings by first predertiming the size of the venue they are trying to create,tossing in a matrixed L-R (IDENTICAL to the Dolby Matrix so doable),then in the lineal notes on the recording just tell the end user "Delay set at Xms,F3 at Xhx" AND BE DONE WITH IT ! But that is too easy because it means you would not need any expensive hardware or heavens forbid because it would destroy the entire concept "features" so they can try and out ad copy each other.Means not enough CONTROL for the engineer who these days is all about CONTROL and leaves the lab rats out becausethe technology has already been invented and maybe even optimized if you know what you want and or need {quote]It ain't about making "ambience" from no dumb arse 2Ch recording next you'll be decoding surround from frelling MONO sources, ain't going to happen SERIOUSLY I really think were talking different things here Rick on one hand your trying to create the "ambience" from a preformance and kool a little reverb is usually added in the mix and albiet out of phase between L and R which makes simple matrix decoding easy, add a bit of delay and it's done. What I want to recreate are sound scapes for instance picture this you are seated by a stream running from your front left back towards your rear left birds and insects make their sounds from which ever direction they are. Conversations from your friends off towards the camp site to your right but slightly behind you. you turn left ward you cast your fishing fly it plops into the water out in front of you the stream now easily pictured as flowing right to left, the conversations now behind you,.. the sound scape should be natural and it should flow, above all else it should sound the way it would normally sound to you in real life,.. at least that's my take on it [/quote] again robert with all due respect you have no idea WHAT you want because if you did you would realize you just described Quadraphonics and it did not work because it was not natural sounding.Dramatic at fist blush,very tiring over time and for some actually caused headaches when their ear/eyes/brains had a disconnect that they could not workout mentally. Trying to "paint a soundscape" is NOT music but an effect and trust me dude,it will never take because it never has
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Jul 11, 2009 19:07:11 GMT
|
|
robertkd
Been here a while!
Electronics Engineer from sunny Queensland
Posts: 111
|
Post by robertkd on Jul 12, 2009 10:38:43 GMT
not at all Rick, I know exactly what I want to achieve and to be honest it's a little past "quadraphonics" as the technology in quadraphonic records was at best krap, and very limited and the worst part was the fact the L & R mix where always done as a compromise for compatibility even "CD" encoded records and not to mention krap record reproduction in general. The only technology of the time was multi track tape 1/2, 1 and 2 inch multi track machines but way out of the price range of Joe public. Besides 4 channels is barely enough ah mmm dolby currently allows for 8 independent channels which still only covers the X and Y space coordinates other systems are being developed to reproduce the space in X, Y and Z and that with realistic 3D @ 4K (or better) resolution sounds damn exciting for me at least, some may prefer ambience and 720P Again I have never proposed multi channel for music and still much prefer 2 channel and allow my house to provide ambience Whilst simple L-R, (variable) LPF and delay could simply be encoded to provide the exact same result as you want I think the challenge here is for the producers to mature and use the technology. The other thing you might of missed is the stunning multi channel surround on some of the video games with aural cues usually very accurate and realistic sound scapes which on a reasonable system add to the overall presentation and their only getting better. Rick you also do of course realise simply doing an L-R and filtering and delaying blah blah is ONLY a gimmick given the time smear of any "ambience" arriving at multiple microphones (based on multiple reflections) in a given recording situation. time domain analysis and FFT would show this, not to mention the difference signal giving very unexpected aural cues and an obvious case in point is listing to pretty much any Beatles track as well any studio recording that has "ambiance", that is an none dry presentation is only an artificial add on so really it's as much a matter of personal preference DSP or matrix derived Ah yes back to it,... As for the piezo, oh do enjoy the intermod then, personally I have never liked them maybe that then depends on the producer, if it's part of a audiovisual presentation it might work in context, it may not, but it's a whole different ball game ;D Robert
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Jul 12, 2009 14:47:27 GMT
actually the technology of Discrete Quad was OK,it was the signal manipulation that was not.I had a copy of Frank Zappa's "Apostrophe" on Reel Tape (and one on eight track ) and while "interesting" was an effect NOT an attempt to expand the sound field to a realistic size and that is the crux.Once you let these knucklheads get hold of more than two channels they just CAN'T keep their damn hands off the controlsand the equipment designers just CAN'T leave the basic idea alone because they need to reinvent the wheel to justify their existance and if the technology is "locked",locked as the initial Dolby Surround Matrix was where EVERY decoder had to abide the same standard (notthat they didn't try to add "extras" its just that they HAD TO adhere to the standard and off it in the machine) and why it succeeded-knowing the results would be the same day in and day out no matter what movie and no matter what system used for playback not really.You will find that most homes actually run only four channels for surround including me who has no use for a center which being a L+R cue is already provided in the main left and right speakers until or unless they are so far apart they would suck even for stereo there being a "suck out" in the middle (which was addressed by Pual W. Klipsch DECADES ago) so theonly reason i can see for an actual USE for a center speaker is the above "too widely spread" or if you have access to some old RCA Three Channel disc recordings forums.klipsch.com/forums/storage/3/1084848/Stereo_2track_3channel.pdfforums.klipsch.com/forums/storage/3/279858/PHANTOMCENTER1.pdfforums.klipsch.com/forums/storage/3/279864/Klipsch2ph32.pdfso these "techiques" are just a blend of decades old technologies that can and were done with simple circuits but that are now done in DSP to justify the ticket price.i mean,who in their right mind would pay multy $K for a handfull of resistors and caps ? you need proof ? www.mininova.org/tor/2447943Was discrete quad in the seventies and in order to justify the resissue at a much higher price they converted it to a "Digitallly remastered Dolby 5.1 surround Recording" which means they added a center mix and ran it through an ADC but that it is STILL the same recording as my earlier reel tape copy AND WORSE something i could match "in house" by whipping up a simple ALL PASSIVE Band Limited L+R matrix with a volume pot to set the center level,adding a mono power amp then another speaker but WHY WOULD I WANT TO ? It has already been established there is no need for a "center" in most REAL domestic playback systems so what is the improvement here ? That they ran it through an AD Coverter,futzed with the signal a bit,burned a disc that you must now not only run through a Surround DSP but a DA converter as well and you TELL ME that is an improvement ? Don't wash bro but if it is your thing then here www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/2929794/Frank-Zappa-Apostrophe-5-1-Surround-quad-lp-to-DTS-cdSo rather than a Passive Hafler Dynaquad to extract the L-R signal and a Passive PWK L+R circuit to extract the derived center channel and a simple Digital audio Delay Line of say 25 to 50 Ms that SOLEY EFFECTS THE SURROUND CHANNELS AND NOT THE STEREO CHANNELS to get the "space" between the front direct signal and rear surround signal,a thing that if you have the in house space could also be done without any active electronics by merely placing the surrounds 25' to the rear,we need all this junk in the signal path and why ? Profits. By getting you to buy into the concept you also buy into the part that says you NEED a DSP,that you NEED a multichannel amplifier,that you NEED a 5.1+ multiple speaker array with each costing more than the two channel version even WITH the added passive parts for surround extraction bu a large margin if you want quality so is more market decision than anything to do with moving the audio arts forward and why they keep trying to get music to multichannel as a standard ALL cinema systems operate on arrays that function off the very same delay and bandwidth with the multiple speakers being there solely for audience coverage,something you don't have a problem with in a domestic setting,so why then are they trying to push MORE channels in the home than any actual movie theater needs or uses ? think about it dude,it'll come to you....tick....tick....tick... well "they" are and are determinedto make it the standard and why we mostly are moving away from the Redbook CD format which can only hold enough data for two channel stereo Which it can't,simple physics,simple acoustics. If a performance can actually FIT into your listening room,say a solo singer with a single instrument accompany (guitat,piano,sax,etc>) or max a trio then yes because the room size is the same or close to the venue where this could realistically be performed on all levels-bandwidth,delay,signal decay but move the software up a few notches to say concert hall size,music hall or worse an arena ? NO WAY BUBBA ! NO WAY ! and if you think you are creating a sense of the original "ambient field" well then you are folling yourself because at best you have reflections but no TIME DELAYED or OUT OF PHASE reflections because the room is just not big enough plus when you add short duration delays of the very same phase together ? Cancellation bubba.Your room plot looks like a damnrollercoaster and why we have acoustic treatments either electronic or mechanical so we can flatten out the peaks and valleys created bythe very mechanism that if out of phase would ADD to the music
|
|
robertkd
Been here a while!
Electronics Engineer from sunny Queensland
Posts: 111
|
Post by robertkd on Jul 13, 2009 14:02:26 GMT
well CD 4 was of course the show pony and the only format (almost) capable of 4 discrete channels where as SQ matrix (the predecessor to effectively dolby pl and directives) where based ona basic encode principle could at best maybe give aural cues but couldn't steer or properly localise a sound again you miss the point spatial x,y and z involves reproducing a 3d sound scape and that is a minimum of 8 speakers in a 4 surround at nearly (maybe 0.5mtr (2')) floor level and another 4 near 1.5 (ish) mtrs (4'6") above the lower 4 speakers,... there are of course other configurations and considerations, alas for the time being I'll have to endure 2d As for correcting room acoustics, absolutely system does auto eq, I have done as much as i can using the humble tools I have and it don't sound too bad actually ;D as for creating sound scapes it does happen, even the philistines in hollywood are getting their act together,.... at long last but still slowly for some reason they want to cater to the multitude of halfwits with no brain and no funking idea who think "wham bam thank you mam" is good "sound" as for "sub woofers" I scoff when the sales dude says "sir this unit goes from 80hz to 45" and I reply when my mains pick up for there shortfall then what? Sorry but all practical rooms have reverb and really big ones have echo Robert
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Nov 5, 2009 14:09:40 GMT
and why surround is "echo free" which means zero reverb and also why recordings that already have a natural reverb by being recorded as a PERFORMANCE need no such help either,already there. So it is only the MANUFACTURED ambient field,one that some human decides the parameters of that has the signal regeneration called "reverb" and why mostly ALL such recordings sound like what they are-fakes-and why multichannel has never really taken hold in the music side of things because we are trying to REcreate and not CREate the musical experience of a live act and that means less manipulation of the signal not more
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2009 21:26:12 GMT
and why surround is "echo free" which means zero reverb and also why recordings that already have a natural reverb by being recorded as a PERFORMANCE need no such help either,already there. So it is only the MANUFACTURED ambient firld,one tha some human decides the parameters of that has the signal regeneraton called "reverb" and why mostly ALL such recordings sound like what they are-fakes-and why multichannel has never really taken hold in the music side of things because we are trying to REcreate and not CREate themusical experience of a live act and that means less manipulation of the signal not more
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Nov 7, 2009 16:31:46 GMT
BTW Robert,tuning in a room is more often than not the make or break in a good sounding loudspeaker based playback system.In fact it cracks me up to see "audiophiles" arguing gear specs,which piece should sound better then playing in a room that would allow NO possibiity of comparing the two IT being the dominant sound. Fact is most sit too far away from their speakers,have their speakers in the worst possible places they can be (with corner subs being the worst culprit unless the sub is DESIGNED for corner bass enhancement of the box).have their mid/treble speakers too high or too low to produce a "correct" frequency spectrum,have their bass cabinet/main cabinets "plane" out of whack causing serious phasing and frequency discontinuities,have every possible kind of unpredictable wall/ceiling/floor diffusion,reflection/absorption qualities.............. In such a room who hears the gear at all ? In suh a room HOW would you get a strong sense of the STEREO image let alone any kind of multichannel image having any relationship to reality ? You won't,You can't,unless by sheer dump luck where you by accident have the perfect room and the "gear" just happens to fit the room. So discussing "reality" or "accuracy" is moot if the room itself is the dominate factor in the final resulting sound (and with a closed system,the headset/head interface the head size and shape combined with actual driver placement over the ear hole in combination with headset seal with make or break and if you are not consistant in headphone driver/ear placement ? Again you have no shot at any valid comparisons ) What I try to do,even in "nightmare" rooms (all hard angles,lots of windows and door openings and the room cube shaped-my personal nightmare and one it seems I have had at almost every single place I have lived ) is first set the mains AND subs outfrom the walls with ALL THREE on the same vertical plane which takes care of phasing and tonal accuracy NEARFIELD which is where I try to listen even with very large monitors (seems to increase detail and accuracy as well as providing a strong stereo image of the left-right spread is dialed in. If the surface BEHIND the speakers is highly reflective ? Some simple absorption.In my last "digs" this meant a wall hanging (decorative area rug) and in my "new" digs means ceiling to floor drapes covering the picture window centered behind the system (and no,don't have to be closed just have to BE there ) I also make use of "dual function" diffusors by using bookshelves filled unevenly with books,magazines and the here and there odd-shaped reflective artifact/collctable" which means I have my reading library (plus some Cds,some LPs,some DVDs,some Blue Ray discs) close to hand,my listening are looks like it is meant to be a ROOM and not just a LISTENING room which also means comfy for all. If I have hardwood floors then a small rug between me and my monitors to eliminate floor bounce Another small-form of "diffusion" directly behind my chair to degrade but NOT eliminate the rear relflection which while aiding in increasing the soundspace of the performance if too strong competes with the first signal thus making the image "shudder" for want of a beter word and the frequency spectrum shift to the the areas that are reinforced by the back signal-not good and takes patience to get right (but worth the effort) Far as I am concerned WAY more important than all the "anti-vibration" tweaks we do to our gear since until you can actually HEAR the music/gear how the hell can you "fine tune" the sound with various tweaks ? You can't. A well tuned room with good hi fi gear will always sound better than a piss poor room with GREAT gear and that goes X-how ever many channels you add to the basic front stereo two making multi-channel more of a challenge to get right than the ad copy "plug it in and get ready to be blown away" would have you believe and worse,adding those extra channels more often than not RUINS a system rather than enhances it simply because it is not being done right at either end (production-consumer) and another reason why multi-channel has never really caught on-more cash spent for less quality heard At least in my opinion ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2009 20:06:16 GMT
Rick That is my opinion too. Alex
|
|
|
Post by PinkFloyd on Nov 7, 2009 22:42:09 GMT
Rick That is my opinion too. Alex X2.... not only the "room" but the "person" sitting in the room to be taken into account too.....
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Nov 8, 2009 13:39:38 GMT
Sitting ? With other "persons" ? Hell son,We DANCE NAKED in my listening room ,something that also comes easier with a finely tuned room (though not as pretty as it once was with my now boney naaked ass jumping around gasping for air ).A thing that comes natural (dancing like a grinning skeleton,ripping articles of clothing off,singing off key and making up the words as we go) when the music sounds right
|
|
|
Post by PinkFloyd on Nov 8, 2009 13:43:26 GMT
Sitting ? With other "persons" ? Hell son,We DANCE NAKED in my listening room ,something that also comes easier with a finely tuned room (though not as pretty as it once was with my now boney naaked ass jumping around gasping for air ).A thing that comes natural (dancing like a grinning skeleton,ripping articles of clothing off,singing off key and making up the words as we go) when the music sounds right
|
|
Spirit
Been here a while!
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by Spirit on Nov 8, 2009 13:48:07 GMT
Agreed Rick! (though I tend to sing in tune, pretty well all the time ) Being in various choirs for almost a decade will do that for you...
|
|
robertkd
Been here a while!
Electronics Engineer from sunny Queensland
Posts: 111
|
Post by robertkd on Nov 8, 2009 14:03:06 GMT
of course it is,... ;D
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Nov 8, 2009 16:39:03 GMT
|
|
Spirit
Been here a while!
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by Spirit on Nov 9, 2009 4:40:40 GMT
PM me your email and I'll send you a few samplers...
|
|
Sol
100+
loves motorcycles !
Chief Technical Numpty
Posts: 135
|
Post by Sol on Nov 9, 2009 9:53:10 GMT
PM me your email and I'll send you a few samplers... I would be interested .. PM on the way
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Nov 9, 2009 12:25:40 GMT
PM me your email and I'll send you a few samplers... very cool..done !
|
|
Will
Been here a while!
Ribena abuser!
Member since 2008
Posts: 2,164
|
Post by Will on Nov 9, 2009 22:51:42 GMT
Hey Phil, it'd be interesting to have a listen
|
|
|
Post by jeffc on Dec 7, 2009 11:56:22 GMT
Hey this was fun and posting it here I'll loose all street cred completely geekdome to the max Take one toner cartridge box Cut in 2 as in the picture Use double-sided tape to attach a $2.50 exciter Use origami skills to fold into a winged panel Hook up to a old CDP and T-amp and wallah, music Seriously, I have 20 of these exciters with some cheap piezo tweeters on the way to dismantle and also use as exciters to build some door-sized NXT panel speakers. At this stage, panel material will be 6 mm Gatorfoam art board. This was just stuffing about to get a feel for how the exciters work and their potential for making sound, which they do quite amazingly well, room filling music really. Not high end or even HiFi, but based on what I'm hearing from these dinky panels, big NXT panels could be real high end contenders, a la the Podium NXT panels but replicated for relative peanuts. cheers.. jeffc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2009 13:31:25 GMT
Jeff, it's all good fun.
I remember plonking around with a cardboard ( corrugated stuff ) tonearm, needle and sacrificial LP.
Initially ran on a pram wheel 'platter' at super-accurate finger speed control!
By the time we got bored of our foolery, we had laminated the arm, installed a condenser microphone, motorised the wheel, fixed it all to a single board and linked up to an amp and 'speakers in double mono. It was actually better than those offerings you used to get on top of stack/midi systems.
I the think the final cost was about £3, for the condenser mic, as it was the only item we couldn't get from the parts box or rubbish bin! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeffc on Dec 12, 2009 9:44:49 GMT
My speakers always sound better at Christmas. Why? Because my darling wife Kym brings out the decorations and these little reindeer critters always get pride of place on top of each of my Wharfedale 8.3s together with the Eichmann "toppers". Whatever resonace control the Eichmann thingies bring (freebies ... I would never have paid for them ) the reindeer better them because they put a big on my face. cheers.. jeffac
|
|