Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: "Johann Spischak" <johann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:01:53 +0100
> However, I am going to contact the technical person I deal with in
> Quad to see if he will take up answering Mr. T's technical questions.
> If so I will revert to this NG with the answers. Perhaps also the
> technical people who use this erudite NG will break their silence to
> give me some back up. I know I have a case but as a non tech person I
> cannot make measurements or other audio data so perhaps I should not
> be in this NG, except that I do know something about music.
It is not necessary to bother Yourself with measurements, since they can
be a trap for You. When he provocates to make a measurement from 1 metre
is tricky because of the different spreading of output sound wave from a
small boxed conus and a big flat free surface. You can recognise the
difference between loudspeaker technologies if You think on the
different drums in an orchestra. Boxes, like closed and small(er) drums
are invented to be loud, to achieve high sound pressure without to use
bigger membrane surface. The tuning variations of a closed drum are
endless. Similarly the development of loudspeaker boxes: The shrinking
of boxes and the balancing between compromises, trying to handle
distortions, the damages caused by interaction between membrane and box,
phase and amplitude unlinearity and so on, is an endless and hopeless
history. There was for more than 20 years ago the self-misleading
discussion about impulse response, high sound pressure and the 1812. The
naivity of people shows, that the main "avdantage" of a big box was,
that the membrane was not jumped from the box. Until today is this the
main ground to use boxes in studios. This has nothing to do with music.
The polyphony of a solo cello, a piano deep left hand accord with its
whistling transients will never come out so clearly from a box. You will
see, that after several weeks the sound of _any_ boxes will be less and
less bearable for You. Simply because it is distorted. People who
reading many prospects of box factories but have no own scientific
background and obviously no experiences with opened sound are not the
right discussion partner for You. As You see the lacking of scientific
arguments leads often to growing agressivity.
best regards
--
Johann Spischak
SDG, Spischak Digital GmbH
+49-911-965-7319
http://sdg-master.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Mr.T
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- References:
- Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: nowater
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Mr.T
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Geoff@home
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Mr.T
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Mr.T
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Mr.T
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Mr.T
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Johann Spischak
- Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- From: Derrick Fawsitt
- Quad 989's versus 1812
- Prev by Date: Re: How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
- Next by Date: Re: How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
- Previous by thread: Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- Next by thread: Re: Quad 989's versus 1812
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|