Back to @Robh3606 his cherry picked plots on his post #139.
How is my feeble mind supposed to work out, in real-time, which of those peeks/peaks is/are the one that describes the sound coming in
There are two or more options for that waveform to give me some PRaT, and I sort of need it to be clear, in order for me to get it.
And if the sound is further delayed by a cycle, then that is also making it difficult to line things up.
It might be possible that some people are just better at processing the sounds, and others need some help with an easier and more accurate sound?
Do you have know what those plots represent? Well if not, they are 1 point is space on axis measurements. They are convoluted from the impulse response to the Step responses shown for two different speaker systems. The Step Response shows the arrival times of all drivers in the system.
The impulse response where the Step comes from contains amplitude, frequency and phase so a complete picture of what arrives at you ears at that distance and listening axis.
They were posted to show the difference between a Time Aligned system and one that is not.
If the non time aligned speaker is time coherent you will not be able to hear the time arrival differences between the drivers. The group delay of the overall system is below the audible threshold.
Almost all speakers fall into this category.
Remember this is a measurement, a very useful one, but not a predictor of what you will actually hear. There are way to many variables for a single measurement to do that.
This is market driven as people believe that if I have a big box then I should have deep bass. I think much better sound could be achieved by trading the bass extension for higher efficiency. Also, as you say, they should have higher impedance as well. If the person wants bass extension then get a pair of subwoofers that are specifically designed by the manufacturer to mate with the speaker and handle below 40Hz. But what do I know ??
I agree there are always trade offs but I gladly take a bigger box for higher efficiency and less bass extension. Just add a sub if needed.
There is no getting around Hoffmans Iron Law. There is the rub between big box and small box. You can't have high efficiency bass extension and a small box. For high efficiency you need a bigger box so only 2 of the 3 at any one time.
It was post 156 where the group delay vs audibility criteria was posted by Rob, which is exactly what you were commenting on wrt my 4th order xo at 400 Hz, except it's a DSP so you have to look at latency of the DSP instead of delay caused by the passive xo. But even if there was a a passive 4th order xo, you don't know the what the mid xo is, nor the physical locations of the drivers, so you can't assume anything with the info I gave you.
Preventing a rise of distortion with frequency in a solid state amp 35 years ago was pretty well impossible. The Gain Bandwidth Product needed to support the feedback was very hard to obtain.
Sill better figures than tube amps of that age, the rest is just current day marketing, what you sell today is always better on paper. I always wonder where the big revelation i read about are, i just don't hear them. Same old vine in different more expensive bottles.
Sill better figures than tube amps of that age, the rest is just current day marketing, what you sell today is always better on paper. I always wonder where the big revelation i read about are, i just don't hear them. Same old vine in different more expensive bottles.
As the SETs have shown, THD does not matter if distortion rises with frequency. The result is unpleasant.
Now if a solid state amp can be engineered to not have that problem (and that's 'fairly easy' with class D implementations) then you can have the best of both worlds.
FWIW there were tube amps made in the early 1960s that rival the best solid state amps of today in terms of distortion. So 'always' isn't accurate, just so you know.
Now if a solid state amp can be engineered to not have that problem (and that's 'fairly easy' with class D implementations) then you can have the best of both worlds.
Maybe it's not that easy? I've had a chance to listen to the Ncore modules assembled in an Audiophonics product, and that failed to impress me. Veiled in comparison to my regular "amp".
It was post 156 where the group delay vs audibility criteria was posted by Rob, which is exactly what you were commenting on wrt my 4th order xo at 400 Hz, except it's a DSP so you have to look at latency of the DSP instead of delay caused by the passive xo. But even if there was a a passive 4th order xo, you don't know the what the mid xo is, nor the physical locations of the drivers, so you can't assume anything with the info I gave you.
Maybe it's not that easy? I've had a chance to listen to the Ncore modules assembled in an Audiophonics product, and that failed to impress me. Veiled in comparison to my regular "amp".
The problem with the Hypex and the like is the input buffer and power supply are not included and they both have a significant effect on how the completed amp can perform. Some implementations are good and others a like- huh??
Maybe it's not that easy? I've had a chance to listen to the Ncore modules assembled in an Audiophonics product, and that failed to impress me. Veiled in comparison to my regular "amp".
This amp modules really good when the complete amp is too expensive. When you have a good powersupply at home.(output 50v dc min 300watt) if drive with rca not balanced you need active rca to xlr board.
Maybe it's not that easy? I've had a chance to listen to the Ncore modules assembled in an Audiophonics product, and that failed to impress me. Veiled in comparison to my regular "amp".
Ncore is indeed yesterday's technology. HypeX had moved onto the NcoreX and the Nilai, which is now their best module: "With Nilai®, we've taken our existing control-loop topology to a whole new level, resulting in an immense performance upgrade compared to NCORE®. The overall performance has increased again by a factor of 10!"
Not sure how they measure that increase, but the current iterations of the original Ncore technology sound substantially better. Lots of tonal colors now. But, as @Atmasphere mentioned, and Bruno Putzeys has said, the input circuitry is what gives the amp its sound. And, of course, without a proper power supply that both outputs no/little noise and rejects noise coming in via the power source, the full potential cannot be heard.
Having lived with several Ncore-based amps, I can say from experience that the input circuitry and power supply make a huge difference. Of course, there are many alternatives out there.
Now that there are good subs available designed for a Distributed Bass Array, there isn't a really good reason to have bass extension in the main speakers- ....
Any sub will work. Most of them aren't designed to sit in the room boundary effect so have to be a bit from the walls to avoid being boomy. Golden Ear makes a nice sub that has output from the top, bottom and two sides. If you have two of those and angle them so the side output is bouncing off of a nearby wall they can do the job very well.
I agree that at any volume it can be enjoyed, but different recordings and different music types
encourage one to find different volume levels most appropriate for the individual recording for a greater sense of realism. I turn up rock and big band jazz to more closely remind me of that listening experience when heard live.
With classical music, it depends. There’s large scale with big dynamic swings in loudness and small scale chamber music can be all over the place too, but there is usually one volume setting were all clicks in to sound most convincing. The ability to find that volume by adjusting it without losing engagement is very important and I think the hallmark of a good system. Some systems allow this more than others.
