In alt.home-theater.misc wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

In alt.home-theater.misc howldog wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:48:56 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:40:21 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


Agreed. The BeoLab 5 -- the big self-powered ones that look like Daleks, with
on-board room-correction DSP


Bwuaahahahahahha

1 That's it... let a bunch of idiots mutate (read enjunear)the sound you
hear into something else!


who the **** cares what it originally sounded like? If the speakers
change the sound, and it sounds better to you, then it IS better.

would be nice if you could turn the DSP off, just to hear it without.

You can.

And what maybe isn't clear, is that the purpose of such DSP is to
help maintain the 'original sound' by counteracting distortion *added* by the
*room*.


Total bull****.


Room correction DSP has been around in various forms at the consumer level for several years
how. If you had a clue you'd know that, and you'd know what I wrote is true. You could have
read about it in JAES articles, or even this popular source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_room_correction


But you're an ignorant, sputtering rantbox, so this is all new to you.









--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

In alt.home-theater.misc juniper wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

In alt.home-theater.misc howldog wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:48:56 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:40:21 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


Agreed. The BeoLab 5 -- the big self-powered ones that look like Daleks, with
on-board room-correction DSP


Bwuaahahahahahha

1 That's it... let a bunch of idiots mutate (read enjunear)the sound you
hear into something else!


who the **** cares what it originally sounded like? If the speakers
change the sound, and it sounds better to you, then it IS better.

would be nice if you could turn the DSP off, just to hear it without.

You can.

And what maybe isn't clear, is that the purpose of such DSP is to
help maintain the 'original sound' by counteracting distortion *added* by the
*room*.

That's starting to sound more and more like the Bose 901 system with
its active equalizer...


Only if a CD player is like a turntable because both spin play spinning discs
and produce sound.




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

In alt.home-theater.misc Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:48:51 -0400, Severian wrote:

juniper wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

In alt.home-theater.misc howldog wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:48:56 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:40:21 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Agreed. The BeoLab 5 -- the big self-powered ones that look like Daleks, with
on-board room-correction DSP

Bwuaahahahahahha

1 That's it... let a bunch of idiots mutate (read enjunear)the sound you
hear into something else!

who the **** cares what it originally sounded like? If the speakers
change the sound, and it sounds better to you, then it IS better.
would be nice if you could turn the DSP off, just to hear it without.
You can.

And what maybe isn't clear, is that the purpose of such DSP is to
help maintain the 'original sound' by counteracting distortion *added* by the
*room*.

That's starting to sound more and more like the Bose 901 system with
its active equalizer...


Little different approach, the Bose uses the equalizer to make the
system itself have something approaching a flat freq response, it is
designed to compensate for the fact that 9 small drivers don't have much
low or high frequency response. The DSP in the B&O measures the rooms
effect on freq response, particularly the bass where standing waves and
such are pronounced, and compensated for the room.

Back when Bose introduced the 901 there was no way to do the latter, the
technology didn't really exist to do it.

No more than the words of a goddamned B&O shill.

A saw ZERO science in these claims.

My ****ing sub-woofer has its own gain adjustment, I do not need some
third party reflection analysis done by questionable engineering setups
on a questionable DSP process screwing with my pristine feed.

Take an acoustical reading of the bass frequencies at your listening seat some day, you'll see
just now 'pristine' your feed is, moron.

Just because *you're* ignorant of the science behind digital room correction, doesn't mean
there isn't any. Hint: B&O is far from the only manufacturer using it.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Room correction DSP has been around in various forms at the consumer level for several years
how. If you had a clue you'd know that, and you'd know what I wrote is true. You could have
read about it in JAES articles, or even this popular source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_room_correction

It also doesn't really work all that well because it's trying to fix a
time-domain problem with a frequency-domain solution. It can compensate
for some bass problems, but it can't effectively deal with room problems
over a wide area because the response is different from one location to
another.

In the case of the treble, the response may change totally when you move
an inch. In the case of the lowest couple octaves, you have enough room
to work that you can actually flatten the low band response in the sweet
spot.

Problem is that you can only remove peaks in the sweet spot, you can't really
do anything much about dips. And of course anything you do to improve
response in the sweet spot makes everything outside of it even worse.

At the last AES show, everybody and their brother were showing off some sort
of automated room tuning box, and for the most part they did more harm than
good. Some of the demos were so nasty-sounding I could hardly stay in the
room.

But you're an ignorant, sputtering rantbox, so this is all new to you.

I am not sure myself how this bizarre thread came to be crossposted to
rec.audio.pro, but I would really appreciate if it ceases to be.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In alt.home-theater.misc Scott Dorsey wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Room correction DSP has been around in various forms at the consumer level for several years
how. If you had a clue you'd know that, and you'd know what I wrote is true. You could have
read about it in JAES articles, or even this popular source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_room_correction

It also doesn't really work all that well because it's trying to fix a
time-domain problem with a frequency-domain solution. It can compensate
for some bass problems, but it can't effectively deal with room problems
over a wide area because the response is different from one location to
another.

Actually it can work subjectively pretty well over multiple locations, depending on how it's
implemented...Audyssey being among the best.

And for the 'audiophile', where one one sweet spot needs to be 'corrected, they
can work very well indeed.

And the fact is they *are* aimed at correcting aberrations introduced by the room..which
the ranter claims is 'total bull****'.

In the case of the treble, the response may change totally when you move
an inch. In the case of the lowest couple octaves, you have enough room
to work that you can actually flatten the low band response in the sweet
spot.

Indeed, and this is what the B&O speakers focus on doing.

Problem is that you can only remove peaks in the sweet spot, you can't really
do anything much about dips. And of course anything you do to improve
response in the sweet spot makes everything outside of it even worse.

Which is one reason why some devices let you save multuple settings...one for
'sweet spot' and others for 'wide area'. For dips, physical room treatment
is required. But treating peaks is better then NOTHING.


At the last AES show, everybody and their brother were showing off some sort
of automated room tuning box, and for the most part they did more harm than
good. Some of the demos were so nasty-sounding I could hardly stay in the
room.

I'm never much impressed by anecdotal evidence, sorry. My own anecdote is that I've found that
to be true in rooms that had no correction/treament whatsover, and I've also found notable
improvement from room correction DSPs. Your mileage may vary. I dont' expect you to be
impressed by mine. But either way, room correction DSP is far from 'total bull****'. There's
good science and engineering behind it. And it's getting better all the time, as the engines
get more powerful.


But you're an ignorant, sputtering rantbox, so this is all new to you.

I am not sure myself how this bizarre thread came to be crossposted to
rec.audio.pro, but I would really appreciate if it ceases to be.

Responding to it from r.a.p. is not the way to make that happen, then.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

In alt.home-theater.misc UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:54:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


Only if a CD player is like a turntable because both spin play spinning discs
and produce sound.


Christ, what a retarded response that is.

Yet Jesus is laughing *at* you, not with you.

Now **** off, troll.

*plonk*


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

In alt.home-theater.misc Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:31:03 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:


It also doesn't really work all that well because it's trying to fix a
time-domain problem with a frequency-domain solution. It can compensate
for some bass problems, but it can't effectively deal with room problems
over a wide area because the response is different from one location to
another.

Actually it can work subjectively pretty well over multiple locations, depending on how it's
implemented...Audyssey being among the best.

And for the 'audiophile', where one one sweet spot needs to be 'corrected, they
can work very well indeed.

And the fact is they *are* aimed at correcting aberrations introduced by the room..which
the ranter claims is 'total bull****'.


Apparently you did not even read the paragraph which you responded too.

You're a ****ing shill and there is no way you will ever shed that
pathetic moniker, boy.

Wrong again. Now, **** off, troll.


*plonk* another of his IDs


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

"Severian" wrote in message
m...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Severian" wrote in message


Other parts of this thread talked about "5 pin Beolink", which defintiely
sounds proprietary, even if they do use DIN connectors.

B&O have their own, proprietary connector topology for reasons they
obviously think are valid.

Get real. They have proprietary connections for the same reason Apple do -
to tie you to their designs, charge $$$ for simple things (like connections)
and make high, high high profits.


In the future I suppose speakers will just plug into cat5e or cat 6
cabling (or wireless) like everything else and simply be told what they
are (e.g. left rear surround), link up and play that.

That would be an ideal way of doing it, going digital would eliminate a
lot of problems with ground loops, noise, shielding and such. We can hope
it'll get here someday, and there will be Luddite audio companies
resisting it even though it is logical and high performance. They'll also
try and sell you special digital interconnects for this that have all the
electrons aligned precisely so as not to interfere with the digital signal
bits.



The problem is getting the power to the speakers. Power over Ethernet is
not up to delivering the amount of energy required, so each speaker would
require a discrete [mains] PSU - not very elegant.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Severian" wrote in message
m...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Severian" wrote in message
Other parts of this thread talked about "5 pin Beolink", which defintiely
sounds proprietary, even if they do use DIN connectors.
B&O have their own, proprietary connector topology for reasons they
obviously think are valid.

Get real. They have proprietary connections for the same reason Apple do -
to tie you to their designs, charge $$$ for simple things (like connections)
and make high, high high profits.

No, they use DIN connectors because they are a European company, and for
the same reasons companies like Tandberg and Revox and Armstrong and
Naim use them, they are the standard in Europe, and they allow for a
compact, single connector/single wire bundle approach. They have many
advantages over the traditional US RCA connector, and the US is not the
primary market for any of the aforementioned companies.



In the future I suppose speakers will just plug into cat5e or cat 6
cabling (or wireless) like everything else and simply be told what they
are (e.g. left rear surround), link up and play that.
That would be an ideal way of doing it, going digital would eliminate a
lot of problems with ground loops, noise, shielding and such. We can hope
it'll get here someday, and there will be Luddite audio companies
resisting it even though it is logical and high performance. They'll also
try and sell you special digital interconnects for this that have all the
electrons aligned precisely so as not to interfere with the digital signal
bits.



The problem is getting the power to the speakers. Power over Ethernet is
not up to delivering the amount of energy required, so each speaker would
require a discrete [mains] PSU - not very elegant.



You may not think it's "elegant" but it's the way all self powered,
active loudspeakers are implemented, power supplies at each speaker with
a "mains" plug. Fortunately there are engineers who aren't as prejudiced
with respect to design constraints. The only thing you need to get to
the speakers is the signal, by IR, WiFi, BlueTooth, Cat5, whatever. It's
a lot easier to send line level signals over long distances without
degradation than it is higher power signals, the interface has higher
impedance and is a known, stable, and unvarying as opposed to the
impedance fluctuations you see at the speaker terminal of most any
loudspeaker.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:14:18 -0400, Severian wrote:

No, they use DIN connectors because they are a European company, and for
the same reasons companies like Tandberg and Revox and Armstrong and
Naim use them, they are the standard in Europe, and they allow for a
compact, single connector/single wire bundle approach. They have many
advantages over the traditional US RCA connector, and the US is not the
primary market for any of the aforementioned companies.

Well, if you say so. But Britain's in Europe, and I haven't seen a
DIN plug on any new equipment (except for MIDI) for 20 years.