Re: the are only two kinds of amplifiers
- From: <nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:29:03 GMT
"Sander deWaal" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uhipo1d2btpa1meuvfiaca0rabmep5t526@xxxxxxxxxx
> <nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>>> To be brutally honest, I have the same feeling when people are trying
>>> to comvince me to get 5.1 or even 7.1 systems in my house, just for
>>> listening to music (I don't do movies).
>
>>As Floyd Toole said in the interview I posted the link to, it's hard to
>>listen to only 2 channels once you've heard 5.1 or 7.1 sound for music. I
>>have a concert video of Peter Gabriel and another of Bruce Springsteen
>>both
>>of which are in 5.1 stereo. Both of which sound better because of it.
>>Swich to regular stereo and it just seem to collapse. I'd think you'd
>>want
>>to have a DVD player and 5.1 sound just for the concerts that are
>>available,
>>if not for movies. IMO there's no doubt that HT applications are going to
>>be a boon to music only playback becuase they will allow more people to
>>enjoy music in a much more realistic way.
>
>
> That's entirely possible, but the way it looks to me now, is that
> multi-channel is foisted upon costumers that either don't feel the
> need for it, or simply can't enjoy the ebnefits of it, considering
> what is sold under the "surround" moniker in stores like Circuit City
> or Best Buy.
>
They're trying to make money on selling what's popular, not neccessarily
what's good.
I have yet to hear any speakers at any of those places that I would actually
want to own.
That being said, even a low priced surround speaker set up tends to sound
more live than an eaully priced 2 channel set up, especially when using some
of the synthesized surround modes on medicore recordings.
>
>>> Mstly, the 5 or 7 speakers are of mediocre quality at best, and the
>>> money spent on them would be spent more wisely on just *two* good
>>> speakers.
>
>>> Just my 0.02 volts, of course.
>
>>They don't have to be of mediocre quality and the money required to get
>>really good speakers for the extra channels can come from all the money
>>people can save if they stop buying desinger cable and overpriced amps,
>>etc., etc..
>
>
> You're assuming of course that most customers do have some idea about
> how to carefully select good equipment, how to place it correctly and
> have at least a clue about how instruments sound in reality.
>
> Most don't, is my experience.
>
I thought it was all about making it sound teh way the listener wanted it,
accuracy has nothing to do with high end. :-)
> As for multi-channel-recordings: it is hard enough as it is to get a
> 2-channel recording right, let alone 5 or 7 channels.
>
> What most people don't seem to realize is that even stereo recordings
> of classical music are heavily processed, and the result is an
> artificial "stereo" (or 5, or 7 channel) soundfield that is composed
> entirely behind a computer.
> Almost no one is using a simple XY-microphone recording setup, almost
> ach and every instrument has its own microphone , and an end mix is
> made from 48, 96 or whatever number of channels.
> The end result is not stereo or ambient, it is an artificial sound
> field composed of all those channels panned in the 2 or 4 quadrants
> somewhere.
>
People hear sound from all those places. I don't know how many channels
we'll end up with. I only know that more of them done right sounds more
lifelike to me. It seems far eaiser to set up multiple speakers to get the
feeling of ambience, than setting up 2 speakers. Generally 2 channel sound
seems to spread out in front of the listener, but live music engulfs you and
you feel as much as hear sound from all around the venue.
> As long as recording engineers don't get the simplest things right,
> stereo is just enough for me.
Most of them have never been trained on how the stuff they use is supposed
to work and have lost much of their hearing from very lod playback of
nearfield monitors. My friend who owned a studio said that studios replace
the drivers in the monitors after a certain number of hours because of how
loud they play them, they are wearing them out.
> Another factor is that I have a collection of music that varies from
> the '50s to roughly the '90s, all in stereo, and I don't feel the
> slightest need to add more channels in order to create an artificial
> soundfield that has nothing to do with high fidelity.
>
Well of course it has to do with high fidelity, it's just a new kind. Way
better than quad, which for a while, everybody seemed to want. With the
advent of computers and DSP, they can do things with recordings that not
only remove a lot of noise from the old master tapes, but that can predict
and recreate what the soundfield of a given hall would be.
This is not going away, it's definitely here to stay, and while I agree that
most music recorded in 2 channel stereo tends to sound best played back that
way, I think that since they're already using multiple microphones anyway,
that it won't be long til everything gets recorded for multichannel
playback.
>
>>Also, the need for more channels and more speakers is generating
>>(hopefully)
>>more research into speaker design and that's got to be good. I look
>>forward
>>to a day when speakers can be as accurate as the electronics, either
>>through
>>new materials, or affordable DSP equalization of the sound in any given
>>room. The NHT system reviewed recently by SP
>>http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1105nht/ are a prime example of
>>what is coming and how good it's going to be. At $6000.00 retail for the
>>system, they may be out of reach for a lot of people, but they are, I'm
>>confident, just the beginning of a whole new and much better way to listen
>>to music at home. Of course Dynaudio makes a speaker system that measures
>>as flat as the NHT but it's around $80,000.00, so I think the NHT approach
>>will likely get bigger sales and deservedly so.
>
>
> Research in speakers is indeed advancing, which is of course a good
> thing.
>
> Every now and then, I walk into the demo room of one of my former
> employers/vlients, and listen to the progress in playback.
> So far, I haven't felt the need to replace my trustly old Maggies with
> something "better" , regardless the price point.
> The only speaker that tempted me to trhow my Maggies out, was Tony's
> "Soup" speaker.
If they sound as good as they look and live up to the potential of the
drivers, they should sound very good indeed.
> Once I have the money to spend, I'll buy back the drivers again and
> start building.
>
> In stereo, of course.
>
> Meanwhile, a sub is in the works, with the Adire 12D8, powered by a
> Hypex UCD-400 module.
>
I noteice the price of the Siva 12" drivershas gone up in price. I got mine
a year ago for $125.00 and now they're asking $179.00 for them. Hopefully,
dealers will offer some discounts. Are you going to use a normal cabinet or
go the Sonotube route? I recomend the tubes, lighter weight with no worries
about cabinet resonances, plus a smaller footprint, lower materials cost,
and ease of construction. There are plenty of resources and how to
resources on the web for building then. The only reason I have mine in a
cabinet is beause I didn't find out about the tubes until well after I had
the cabinet built and in use with a different driver.
You might even want to try one of the new Behringer A500's in bridged mode.
Higher power (500 watts @ 8ohms) and lower cost. $179.00 USD (213 Euros)
vs. $219.00 USD for 400 watts @ 4ohms. Compare:
http://www.adireaudio.com/Home/UcDAmps.htm for the UcD and:
http://www.behringer.com/A500/index.cfm?lang=ENG
230 wpc@4 ohms stereo
160 wpc @8 ohms stereo
mono bridged 500 watts @ 8ohms
Distortion < 0.01%
Frequency range: 10 Hz-25 KHz +0/-1dB
Crosstalk: typically 85 dB @1 kHz
Noise: -100dB, 20 Hz-20kHz, unweighted
Amplification: 25X (28dB)
Input sensitivity VRMS @4 ohms: 1.3V (+4.5 dBu) cinch connectors: 320mV
(_10 dBV)
Convection cooled
Push-pull class AB
230V~, 50Hz Europe/U.K./ Australia
Power consumption: max. 3.6A 230V/6.5A 120V
Breaker: 100-120V~: 50-60 Hz
200-240V~:T 5 A H 250V
Standard IEC receptacle for the mains connector
18.5 Lb. 8.4 Kg
It's worth a look, even if you can't exactly build it into the woofer the
way you can the Hypex. :-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the are only two kinds of amplifiers
- From: Sander deWaal
- Re: the are only two kinds of amplifiers
- Prev by Date: Re: Pre-amp recommendations
- Next by Date: Re: the are only two kinds of amplifiers
- Previous by thread: Re: the are only two kinds of amplifiers
- Next by thread: Re: the are only two kinds of amplifiers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
