Receiver reccomendation (Help me please :)

[Lapres_3]

Im new here, and Im sorry if this is a newbie question.

I have a Sony STR-DE935 right now which i purchased new a couple years ago... I want to upgrade... Im getting into DTS audio and AC3 encoded music. I like the idea of 4.1 and 6.1 channel encoded music. Im looking for a receiver that will allow me to set up, say, 4.1 channel, or 6.1 channel audio, but also allow me to use ALL the speakers for regular listening.

I have a pair of Boston Acoustics A150s, 4 Paradigm Atoms and an awsome overpowered home-built sub. I would like to select 4.1 channel surround sound for the Paradigms. 6.1 channel surround with all speakers, Stereo with just the Bostons, or "Really Freaking loud" with all 6 speakers in stereo, when i dont have 6 channel encoded music.

I have played with some newer 7.1 channel receivers and all are adamant that when your listening to a stereo, you only get your two front speakers. Unless you enable the processing and send echoe or reverb to the other speakers. I just want all my speakers on as either left or right.

If i have to go separates thats ok, but my budget is ~$1200. I would like as much clean power as i can get. I also dont really need video switching. And best of all, if what im trying to do is a common "Feature", please let me know what this feature is called so i can search for it.

Thanks,
Lap

[Mr Peabody]

You won't get surround sound with all your speakers on left/right. If that's alright, then I'd say you need a speaker selector box, not another receiver. If want both surround sound and all your speaker on left/right, that's not possible. You can set up a surround sound using a 5.1 speaker package and then put all the speakers that's left either on a selector box hooked to the "B" speaker terminals or try some type of configuration with a zone 2 output. Another zone will require another amp though.

[Lapres_3]

Hmm, Thanks but i guess im disappointed. It just seems to me that even though the receiver would be perfectly capable of doing what i want, none of the designers though it would be a good idea. Anyone know about hacking AV receivers ?? :-)

How would a speaker selector box work into this. I cant necessarily drive all 6 speakers from two channels, or at least, i cant think of how i would do that. I would need some type of switching matrix, and some external amplifiers.

Lap.

[Mr Peabody]

It it was a selector that allowed all the sets to be on at the same time, like one used for multiroom application.

Most receivers have a sound mode called "party" this mode sends the music to all the speakers, you can see if your receiver does this. That would be about as close as you would get to having all speakers play and still be set up for surround sound. I don't think what you are wanting to do is very common so you aren't going to see the capability on a receiver.

[Lapres_3]

Thanks again,
I have been searching and i have run into that "Party Mode" myself as well. That looks close. I guess the next step is to go and hear what it does. I have since fell in love with the Outlaw 990 and a matching amp. It claims "7 channel stereo: Minimal processing to music sent to surround speakers, general even music coverage"... Sounds close to what im looking for.

So many things to buy and so little money :nonod:

[pixelthis]

Thanks again,
I have been searching and i have run into that "Party Mode" myself as well. That looks close. I guess the next step is to go and hear what it does. I have since fell in love with the Outlaw 990 and a matching amp. It claims "7 channel stereo: Minimal processing to music sent to surround speakers, general even music coverage"... Sounds close to what im looking for.

So many things to buy and so little money :nonod:

Denon used to have an all channel stereo mode. My integra/ onkyo product has an all channels stereo mode. Look for that.
The reason you can only use two channels is thats what the original recording was made for, most, if they want enhancment go for proII music mode, I am a purist, want my two channel, but find that Dolby did a good job with proII, weather music or movie mode.
If you get a new receiver all but the most basic stereo models now have proII (prologic II)
It probably would be an idea to upgrade, just about anything would be an improvement
over a Sony, I had one, I know.
I recomend Onkyo or their slightly higher line brand, Integra, AND not just because I have one.
I have a friend with one, loves his also:1:

[Lapres_3]

I totally agree that my sony is not, and never was near the top of the line. Im looking forward to upgrading. And i love overkill... The one thing that prevented me from setting up a 5.1 channel system right now is no matter how much $$ i spent, the rear speakers would always sound like crud.

Thanks for the advice...

Lap.

[bfalls]

I have a top of the line Sony ES Series receiver. It's actually very well designed. It has 120W/ch x7 (rated at 20Hz-20kHz, not like many who only rate at 1KHz), It also has 6 HDMI 1.3 inputs one output, 5 optical in one out, three coax and all the usual S-Video, composite and analog inputs and outputs. It has an excellent GUI interface. The only drawback is the remote. It's not as intuitive as others.

Practically all modern HT receivers are capable of 2 ch (stereo or direct), 4.1 (Dolby Pro Logic and Pro Logic II), 5.1(AC3, DTS), 6.1(DTS ES, Dolby Digital EX), 7.1(TrueHD, DTS HD) decoding. Most have all-speaker stereo mode. All three of my HT receivers have this mode. If you want to use an extra pair of speakers when listening to two channel, you can connect them to the 'B' speaker outputs and select either a stereo, or direct mode. Many higher-end 7.1 ch receivers are capable of assigning the two rear speakers to a different region (another option for additional 2 channel listening.

I don't think you're going to find anything more configurable than a well-made 7.1 channel receiver without spending megabuck on a system such as the Meridians.

[pixelthis]

I have a top of the line Sony ES Series receiver. It's actually very well designed. It has 120W/ch x7 (rated at 20Hz-20kHz, not like many who only rate at 1KHz), It also has 6 HDMI 1.3 inputs one output, 5 optical in one out, three coax and all the usual S-Video, composite and analog inputs and outputs. It has an excellent GUI interface. The only drawback is the remote. It's not as intuitive as others.

Practically all modern HT receivers are capable of 2 ch (stereo or direct), 4.1 (Dolby Pro Logic and Pro Logic II), 5.1(AC3, DTS), 6.1(DTS ES, Dolby Digital EX), 7.1(TrueHD, DTS HD) decoding. Most have all-speaker stereo mode. All three of my HT receivers have this mode. If you want to use an extra pair of speakers when listening to two channel, you can connect them to the 'B' speaker outputs and select either a stereo, or direct mode. Many higher-end 7.1 ch receivers are capable of assigning the two rear speakers to a different region (another option for additional 2 channel listening.

I don't think you're going to find anything more configurable than a well-made 7.1 channel receiver without spending megabuck on a system such as the Meridians.

VERY FEW RATE the power at 1khz anymore, the public caught on
And Sony receivers in the ES line are well reveiwed, but I WOULD rather have a receiver from a company that focuses on audio, where audio is their day job and not a sideline.
And receivers are probably best for most, even if they can afford a prepro they are probably wasting their money if they dont have the knowledge to get the full use outta it.
And 7.1 is a bad idea, there is no way to cram that many amps into a small box without compromise, and the two extra channels are problematic in their contribution, at best

[Lapres_3]

I like the point about buying from a company that focuses on audio... I find nothing wrong with my sony, because of where it sits pricewise. Had i paid $2000 for it i would be terribly disappointed.

That argument about the last two channels on the 7.1 channel amps is why i posed my original question. Can i get 6 channel stereo out of a 7.1 channel amp...
Im leaning toward some separates but my budget has basically doubled. (who would have seen that coming) :rolleyes:

[pixelthis]

I like the point about buying from a company that focuses on audio... I find nothing wrong with my sony, because of where it sits pricewise. Had i paid $2000 for it i would be terribly disappointed.

That argument about the last two channels on the 7.1 channel amps is why i posed my original question. Can i get 6 channel stereo out of a 7.1 channel amp...
Im leaning toward some separates but my budget has basically doubled. (who would have seen that coming) :rolleyes:

Heres the thing about six channel stereo, it doesnt exist.
Sure you can have three rights and three lefts, but have you ever seen that done much?
Theres a load of reasons, for one thing it gets incredibly complicated, moreso than just setting up speakers.
Ever heard of Bose wave cancelation headphones? They work on an old principle,
used to be called superhet and was how fm radio was tuned, basically two frequencies
in a circuit, when added together, produce the difference, not the sum.
In other words they cancel each other out, 12,000 hz and 10,000 hz added together gets 2,000 hz.
THIS APPLIES TO SOUND ALSO.
So, with six speakers basically pumping out two channels you're going to get all sorts of dead spots for certain freqs, and in some places stuff will sound weird.
This is why those who know recomend against using two center channels, they can cancel out certain freqs.
So use the all channel stereo modes, if you ever do succeed in getting "six channel" stereo you'll find that large chuncks of your sound will disapear, be artificially emphasized,
etc:1:

[johnny p]

I would go Pre-amp, and work up...... that's my goal.

[f0rge]

Heres the thing about six channel stereo, it doesnt exist.
Sure you can have three rights and three lefts, but have you ever seen that done much?
Theres a load of reasons, for one thing it gets incredibly complicated, moreso than just setting up speakers.
Ever heard of Bose wave cancelation headphones? They work on an old principle,
used to be called superhet and was how fm radio was tuned, basically two frequencies
in a circuit, when added together, produce the difference, not the sum.
In other words they cancel each other out, 12,000 hz and 10,000 hz added together gets 2,000 hz.
THIS APPLIES TO SOUND ALSO.
So, with six speakers basically pumping out two channels you're going to get all sorts of dead spots for certain freqs, and in some places stuff will sound weird.
This is why those who know recomend against using two center channels, they can cancel out certain freqs.
So use the all channel stereo modes, if you ever do succeed in getting "six channel" stereo you'll find that large chuncks of your sound will disapear, be artificially emphasized,
etc:1:

this man speaks the truth, my speakers have built in subs and i get bass cancellation with only 2 speakers, i'd hate to have to work out a placement for 6...

[Mr Peabody]

NO NO NO, Pix, that is not how it works at all. Frequencies don't subtract like that. If it did, hell, we wouldn't hear anything.

The way speakers can cancel frequencies is if they are out of phase. If you have bass cancellation then your speakers are out of phase, it's not because you have 2 or more speakers. Make sure your red (+) of the receiver is to red (+) of the speaker and the same with the black. If that is correct then you have a void or dip in your room and need to experiment with speaker placement. If you are running a sub with your Def Techs, then try the "phase" switch if it has one. If not the only cure would be to turn it off or reposition it. Noise cancelling headphones work by detecting the frequencies of outside noise and interjecting the exact frequency out of phase to cancel the outside noise out.

Think about it, if the more speakers cancelled out each other then the car stereo with the most woofers would be quieter not shaking my house as they roll by. If speakers cancelled out each other we'd still be listening to mono. You don't add a sub to your home theater to make the bass quieter.... , do we? I must be doing it wrong, my room shakes :)

If you had 2 or more pair of speakers of a different brand, they most likely would have different frequency responses and sonic characteristics. This would be the problem. In addition to poor sound stage. Some speakers are more sensitive than others, you may have to pair and not even be able to hear one pair.

[pixelthis]

NO NO NO, Pix, that is not how it works at all. Frequencies don't subtract like that. If it did, hell, we wouldn't hear anything.

The way speakers can cancel frequencies is if they are out of phase. If you have bass cancellation then your speakers are out of phase, it's not because you have 2 or more speakers. Make sure your red (+) of the receiver is to red (+) of the speaker and the same with the black. If that is correct then you have a void or dip in your room and need to experiment with speaker placement. If you are running a sub with your Def Techs, then try the "phase" switch if it has one. If not the only cure would be to turn it off or reposition it. Noise cancelling headphones work by detecting the frequencies of outside noise and interjecting the exact frequency out of phase to cancel the outside noise out.

Think about it, if the more speakers cancelled out each other then the car stereo with the most woofers would be quieter not shaking my house as they roll by. If speakers cancelled out each other we'd still be listening to mono. You don't add a sub to your home theater to make the bass quieter.... , do we? I must be doing it wrong, my room shakes :)

If you had 2 or more pair of speakers of a different brand, they most likely would have different frequency responses and sonic characteristics. This would be the problem. In addition to poor sound stage. Some speakers are more sensitive than others, you may have to pair and not even be able to hear one pair.

Sorry, but YES YES YES.
When two freqs are added together you get the difference between the two.
Fifteen thousand and ten thousand equal five thousand, for instance.
A FEW YEARS ago Audi tried to use this principle with autos, the idea was that noise cancelation would be broadcast over the radio, but they couldn't get a fast enough proc that would do it in real time.
So Bose took the idea, claimed it was theirs (of course) and produced noise cancelation headphones. A lot of helicopters have this tech in their headphones, also.
Its a lot more complicated but it was called superhetrodyning back in the early days of FM radio, this is simplistic but basically 99.5 mhz would actually be 99.510, etc.
By adding freqs (like 99.5) you get the 10khz, which you can hear.
Today its done with frequency synthesis.
As for sound, the same laws of physics applies, go to circuit city, they have these phones that work on the same principle.
I have seen demos where two speakers are facing each other and fed the same signal,
a constant tone, and nothing is heard, NOTHING.
Because they cancel each other out, this is why I never use two centers no matter how big the screen, sometimes sound will cross paths and disapear.
As for "phase" this is a complete kettle of fish.
If your red and black (positive and negative ) are on the wrong connector you will have lousey sound, thats HT 101:1:

[pixelthis]

As for your subwoofer analogy thats because the sound travels in about the same path,
they are all pointing in one general direction, I am not an expert on this type of thing, dont pretend to be, but do know that more speakers increase the chance of frequency
cancelation.
this is a fundamental tentet of electronics, and is very usefull, dont beleive me, check it out for yourself.
this reminds me of a spat I had with Kex a short while ago, he refused to beleive that higher freqs require more energy to produce than lower ones.
The fact is that a lot of natural law doesnt fit our notions of "common sense",
whoever or whatever created this universe didnt seem to have much concern for the opinions of us puny humans.
For instance, flip a coin , any coin, and suppose that it lands on tails 99 times.
What are the odds that it will land on heads or tails the 100th time?
50% , same as the last 99 times.:1:

[Mr Peabody]

Read article. BTW, "reverse polarity" is the same thing as out of phase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-cancelling_headphone

&, did he say 180 degrees out of phase?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/noise-canceling-headphone3.htm

THIS IS PERFECT
http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/acoustics/phase.htm

Please read the whole article and note what the difference between "constructive" and "destructive interference" is. You should comprehend that two frequencies, in phase, increase amplitude, where two of the same frequencies 180 degrees out of phase will cancel each other out.

You should also visit Dolby's website to notice speaker diagram of Dolby Pro Logic and early DD to notice rear surrounds fire AT each other. This would make an interesting surround sound of silence if what you said was true. HT-101

BTW, Kex is correct it takes much more power to reproduce bass. A speaker under powered will do highs all day long but the bass will lag. I don't have time today to find articles on that for you. Maybe another time.

[pixelthis]

Read article. BTW, "reverse polarity" is the same thing as out of phase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-cancelling_headphone

&, did he say 180 degrees out of phase?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/noise-canceling-headphone3.htm

THIS IS PERFECT
http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/acoustics/phase.htm

Please read the whole article and note what the difference between "constructive" and "destructive interference" is. You should comprehend that two frequencies, in phase, increase amplitude, where two of the same frequencies 180 degrees out of phase will cancel each other out.

You should also visit Dolby's website to notice speaker diagram of Dolby Pro Logic and early DD to notice rear surrounds fire AT each other. This would make an interesting surround sound of silence if what you said was true. HT-101

BTW, Kex is correct it takes much more power to reproduce bass. A speaker under powered will do highs all day long but the bass will lag. I don't have time today to find articles on that for you. Maybe another time.

Sorry, but I think I'll go with what I learned in three years of electronics class.
You keep talking about "phase", this has nothing to do with that.
ANYWHERE in the universe, you add two frequencies you get the difference, its as simple as that.
Bose headphones dont work with "phase", they analyze ambient sound (or try to) and produce the same frequency, this is why they are called noise CANCELATION phones.
Dont know how well they work, never tried them.
As for the energy required to produce higher frequencies it might be "common" sense
that that great big old subwoofer requires more energy than that tiny little tweeter,
thats why electronics designers use the laws of physics instead of "common"
sense.
the power required to move a tweeter over 12,000 times a second is vastly more that moving a sub cone 20 times in the same second.
Again, its a universal law, to produce the same amount of high frequencies as low ones requires MORE energy, thats why man started out with reletively low freqs in his electronics, it took time to learn how to produce higher ones, like FM, microwaves,
etc.
Now the Navy produces a ton of ultralow freqs to talk to subs with, and that requires a LOT of power, but thats just because they produce a LOT of low freqs.:1:

[pixelthis]

Now you might be cranking out MORE bass thatn highs, like the us navy, but freq for freq it always takes more energy to produce higher ones:1:

[Mr Peabody]

It takes a small man with a closed mind to keep spewing false information in light of overwhelming proof you are wrong.

The first 2 articles, which you obviously didn't take time to read, tells you exactly how Bose does noise cancellation and it does it by the frequency being 180 degrees out of phase of the noise being cancelled.

The 3rd article, and please notice Mr. electronics grad, that it is published by a university, tells you in pretty simple terms that same frequencies coming together IN PHASE increase amplitude, and same frequencies coming together OUT OF PHASE will cancel each other.

Pix, read the articles, enlighten yourself, no need to admit you are wrong or apologize, just shut up with the mis-information. I have no idea what you are talking about with frequencies coming together and subtracting, so maybe you can post some info and enlighten me. In your earlier post you were mixing up tuner frequencies with sound, two different things. So slow up your emotions and engage brain.

[bfalls]

Read article. BTW, "reverse polarity" is the same thing as out of phase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-cancelling_headphone

&, did he say 180 degrees out of phase?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/noise-canceling-headphone3.htm

THIS IS PERFECT
http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/acoustics/phase.htm

Please read the whole article and note what the difference between "constructive" and "destructive interference" is. You should comprehend that two frequencies, in phase, increase amplitude, where two of the same frequencies 180 degrees out of phase will cancel each other out.

You should also visit Dolby's website to notice speaker diagram of Dolby Pro Logic and early DD to notice rear surrounds fire AT each other. This would make an interesting surround sound of silence if what you said was true. HT-101

BTW, Kex is correct it takes much more power to reproduce bass. A speaker under powered will do highs all day long but the bass will lag. I don't have time today to find articles on that for you. Maybe another time.

Mr. Peabody is your name a reference to the cartoon with Poindexter and the "way-back" time machine from the "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show"?

I'm with you on this argument, "out-of-phase" causes cancellation and a woofer uses more power than a tweeter. He can test the phase arument himself by turning his left and right main speakers facing each other and placing his head in between. When wired out-of-phase practically all bass goes away. Bass moreso than the highs, because bass, even in stereo media, is mostly mono. With a totally mono source, the effect would be even more dramatic with cancellation of highs as well. Early Dolby Pro Logic deliberately limited the freq. response of the rear speakers to 100Hz - 7KHz because of this effect. It also helped to reduce "beat frequencies" caused when in-phase frequencies and their harmonics from front and rear speakers added together.

Another reason for xovers in speakers is so the tweeter and/or midrange don't burn out trying to reproduce bass frequencies. I really enjoy reading about all different types of speakers. It's been by hobby since I was 13, 40 years ago. That coupled with four+ years of Electronics classes and 30 years experience working tape and DVD replication for CBS and Sony, tell me he's wrong. I will keep an open mind if he can provide supporting articles as you have. If correct he should have no problem finding support, but I won't hold my breath.

[Mr Peabody]

You got it. When I first joined AR and was trying to think of a name I remembered Peabody always answering Sherman's questions and went with that.

I can't remember which link, I think How Things Work, had links that explained electrostats and dynamic transducers, if you are interested.

[bfalls]

You got it. When I first joined AR and was trying to think of a name I remembered Peabody always answering Sherman's questions and went with that.

I can't remember which link, I think How Things Work, had links that explained electrostats and dynamic transducers, if you are interested.

I thought so. I always liked Rocky and Bullwinkle , especially Clyde Crashcup. I'm always interested in reading about speaker design, I'll check it out.

You have some pretty impressive hardware. How do you like your Samsung BD player? We have it and every other BD player available in our Media Test Center. We use them as well as an additional 100+ players to check player compatibility with copy protected discs. They tell me for function and reliability, the PS3 is still the best BD player available.

We also have Dynadio, Genelec and Dunlavy SCIV speakers in our audio and video authoring suites. The Dunlavys sound pretty good, but the Dynadios are pretty hard to beat. Put five together with an SVS sub and you've really have a system capable of great sound on pretty much anything you play through at them.

I just got a great deal through Sony on their 52" XBR5 Bravia LCD and STR-DA5300ES receiver. I think the Bravia's retail is around $5000 and can be had for $3600 at the big box stores. The receiver retails for $1699. I got the Bravia for $2500 and the receiver for $789. It was too great a deal to pass up. I wasn't a big fan of Sony receivers, but this is their flagship receiver and has all the bells and whistles including 6 HDMI 1.3 inputs. I'm still in the process of getting familiar with the settings, it's remote isn't as intuitive as either of my Yamaha or Denon receivers, so the learning curve's a a little steeper. All my Sony equipment uses the media bar GUI, so it helps a little.

Enjoy.

[Mr Peabody]

The Sony package was a great deal. I haven't heard an ES in a while but the ones I have heard weren't bad at all and were better than Sony's typical line.

I like the Samsung pretty well. This model lacks in features but my TV is only 1080i and my processor is older. I do have multichannel analog inputs if I wanted to use them. The unit is built solid. I have had a couple black outs which were due to something with HDMI, usually a power down of my TV or BR player will take care of it. I'm not sure the cause. I also find firmware upgrades a hassle. That's probably an issue that seems to be here to stay for many products though.

How about you, have you found any of the BR players better than another in any aspect? I think you are right about the PS3. Some of the newer units coming out may be close, or there.

[pixelthis]

The Sony package was a great deal. I haven't heard an ES in a while but the ones I have heard weren't bad at all and were better than Sony's typical line.

I like the Samsung pretty well. This model lacks in features but my TV is only 1080i and my processor is older. I do have multichannel analog inputs if I wanted to use them. The unit is built solid. I have had a couple black outs which were due to something with HDMI, usually a power down of my TV or BR player will take care of it. I'm not sure the cause. I also find firmware upgrades a hassle. That's probably an issue that seems to be here to stay for many products though.

How about you, have you found any of the BR players better than another in any aspect? I think you are right about the PS3. Some of the newer units coming out may be close, or there.



I have just about lost any respect I have had for you, you say I am "closed" minded
but you havent heard a thing I have said.
You just keep blattering on about "phase".
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "PHASE" OF A SPEAKER!!!!!
That is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
GOD!
Look up superhetrodyning, ass.

Its based on the principle of frequency cancelation.
They built millions of FM radios with superhet.
You claim to know something about electronic gear and you have never heard of superhetrodyning?
Ask anybody, the sum of two frequencies added together is the DIFFERENCE
between the two.
12,000 +2,000 =10,000. etc.
AND 8,000 +8,000 =zero.
Which is how noise canceletion works, throwing speakers out of phase might be one way of doing it, but mainly ambient sound is measured with a mic, and a mirrorimage is produced.
AND THEY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
As for the tweeter vs sub nonsense, keep on beleiving that lower freqs require MORE
energy than higher ones, or maybe walk into a electronics shop once or twice and ask
And your articles are off the topic, they talk about PHASE, again that has NOTHING to do with the basic principle of frequency canceletion.
ADD two freqs together and you get the DIFFERENCE.
This happens whenever I get to talking electronics with laymen, and what they "know"
(which is usually wrong):incazzato:

[pixelthis]

BTW the wikipedia article is basicly saying the same thing I am saying, they even mention the helicoptor tech I am talking about.
They mention "destructive interferrence" which is an inaccurate way of saying THEY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT

The same article also mentions that only lower freqs are canceled , that canceling out higher ones would be "inefficent" in other words it would take MORE energy to produce the higher freq wavewforms, its more efficent to use insulation.
And that is really all I have to say on it, come back when you learn something
about basic physics, and you open YOUR mind a little:1:

[pixelthis]

Heres something thats a little over your head, but thats ok, you only have to read the first chapter:1:
www.compeng.dit.ie/staf/ptobin/chapt04.pdf

And if thats a bad link just google hetrodyning , its the first link labeled chapter four.
Google has nine pages+ on what I am talking about, if you can understand ANY of it.
Basically they talk about creating a "beat" freq (or difference freq) by adding two others,
the beat freq is the DIFFERENCE between the two.
THIS SAME BASIC PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO SOUND WAVES, or any other kind of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum.
And kintergarden will be dissmissed for today:1:

[Luvin Da Blues]

I have just about lost any respect I have had for you, you say I am "closed" minded
but you havent heard a thing I have said.
You just keep blattering on about "phase".
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "PHASE" OF A SPEAKER!!!!!
That is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
GOD!
Look up superhetrodyning, ass.

Its based on the principle of frequency cancelation.
They built millions of FM radios with superhet.
You claim to know something about electronic gear and you have never heard of superhetrodyning?
Ask anybody, the sum of two frequencies added together is the DIFFERENCE
between the two.
12,000 +2,000 =10,000. etc.
AND 8,000 +8,000 =zero.
Which is how noise canceletion works, throwing speakers out of phase might be one way of doing it, but mainly ambient sound is measured with a mic, and a mirrorimage is produced.
AND THEY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
As for the tweeter vs sub nonsense, keep on beleiving that lower freqs require MORE
energy than higher ones, or maybe walk into a electronics shop once or twice and ask
And your articles are off the topic, they talk about PHASE, again that has NOTHING to do with the basic principle of frequency canceletion.
ADD two freqs together and you get the DIFFERENCE.
This happens whenever I get to talking electronics with laymen, and what they "know"
(which is usually wrong):incazzato:


Yep, always smart to attack one of the most respected and knowledgeable members here, real smart. :nonod:

:idea: Why don't you publish a white paper (you do know what that is right?) on all you know and edumacate all of us. :eek:

[Mr Peabody]

Pix, babe...... follow me hear, OK, we... are.... talking.... about..... SOUND.... frequencies. You on the other hand are talking about radio bandwidth frequency. As I stated before and I will state again as you are obviously one of our "special" members, sound frequencies and radio frequencies are TWO different things. Now, mellow, don't have a stroke here. We started talking about some one using multiple pairs of speakers, speakers reproduce sound, we use our speakers for listening, NOT, FOR HOOKING AN ANTENNA TO AND LOOKING FOR THE FLIPPING BALL GAME. Do you get it? Alright, maybe not, but try this. Dr. Bose invented the Noise Cancelling headphones as given credit by 2 of the 3 articles. Pix who knows more about how they work, you or Dr. Bose? Don't answer that! I'm afraid of the answer. Pix, when talking SOUND FREQUENCIES, PHASE IS VERY IMPORTANT. It's not just switching wires around. Read the articles a couple more times, slowly, breathing, thinking.

Is it really that difficult for you to realize you are totally off the trail here? Talking about losing respect.....

I'm not even going to bother with which takes more power, high or low frequency, if you can't grasp phase and frequency cancellation I don't even want to attempt talking amplifiers. I'm not going to search through all your insane ramblings you post here but it is interesting if you really believe it takes more power to reproduce treble that you advised some one to buy a sub/sat system to "lightening the load on the receiver". If it takes more power for treble, I wonder why we don't have powered tweeters? Hmmmm, there's a project for you. Take off to the garage, surely a man with your infinite knowledge of electronics can built that and put it on the market.

[blackraven]

I have to agree, it takes more energy to creat a low note of the same sound level of a high note which is a direct quote from an article on wikianswers. And here's a link to another article reinforcing that:
www.soundandvisionmag.com/tips/367/speakers-step-by-step.html

[pixelthis]

Pix, babe...... follow me hear, OK, we... are.... talking.... about..... SOUND.... frequencies. You on the other hand are talking about radio bandwidth frequency. As I stated before and I will state again as you are obviously one of our "special" members, sound frequencies and radio frequencies are TWO different things. Now, mellow, don't have a stroke here. We started talking about some one using multiple pairs of speakers, speakers reproduce sound, we use our speakers for listening, NOT, FOR HOOKING AN ANTENNA TO AND LOOKING FOR THE FLIPPING BALL GAME. Do you get it? Alright, maybe not, but try this. Dr. Bose invented the Noise Cancelling headphones as given credit by 2 of the 3 articles. Pix who knows more about how they work, you or Dr. Bose? Don't answer that! I'm afraid of the answer. Pix, when talking SOUND FREQUENCIES, PHASE IS VERY IMPORTANT. It's not just switching wires around. Read the articles a couple more times, slowly, breathing, thinking.

Is it really that difficult for you to realize you are totally off the trail here? Talking about losing respect.....

I'm not even going to bother with which takes more power, high or low frequency, if you can't grasp phase and frequency cancellation I don't even want to attempt talking amplifiers. I'm not going to search through all your insane ramblings you post here but it is interesting if you really believe it takes more power to reproduce treble that you advised some one to buy a sub/sat system to "lightening the load on the receiver". If it takes more power for treble, I wonder why we don't have powered tweeters? Hmmmm, there's a project for you. Take off to the garage, surely a man with your infinite knowledge of electronics can built that and put it on the market.

You have NO friggin idea WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT , and you have the nerve to talk down to ME?
I am only going to say this once, doesnt MATTER if its sound, radio , light, microwaves,
non-ionizing radiation (heat) or ionizing (gamma) they are ALL part of the electromagnetic
specturm and behave in the same way, some have certain characteristics, but basic
principles apply to ALL of them.
One is the principle of wave summing, or cancelation, and for the LAST time, the SUM
of two frequencies is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
Doesnt matter if your monkeys brain cant understand this, or you're too lazy to look it up,
but its a fundamental physical and electronic theory.
When two freqs cross paths they will sum, and the difference is all that will be left,
doesnt matter if they are sound waves, microwaves, radio waves.
Try and think about it this way moron, you sit and listen to "sound" quite a bit, think they are sending "sound" to you over the radio? oF course not, they use radio, too high for you to hear.
So its converted to a sound freq, no different than any other form of electromagnetic energy, travels through a wire, but as an electrical current. A loudspeaker converts it to something you can hear.
But before it was sound (electromechanical) it was in a wire (electrical), once sound
its physical, moving air, but like the ripples on a pond from a rock its still a freq,
still subject to the same laws.
Beleive what you want idiot, but dont call me "special" , my I.Q measures out at 140
(probably about 100 above yours) or any other insulting, condescending BS.
I dont want to hear it, and I dont want to hear that what I spent three years learning isnt true just because a ninny like you refuses to beleive it.
Dont beleive any of this? They hide it in books, if you have ever bothered to read one ,
web pages if you havent.
And dont argue with someone whos been in this so long that they used slide rules when
he first started.
"special" !!!
DAMN ! WHAT GALL!:incazzato:

[Mr Peabody]

Pix, your stupidity is exhausting. Dr. Bose invented noise cancelling headphones, the articles explain how it is done, if you want to believe your 3 years jerking off in tech school makes you smarter than the inventer of the product then so be it. I've given you info in black & white with one article from a university website and several practical examples that show you are wrong, you are left to your own.

BTW, Superhetrodyne is a TUNER principle which use a variable frequency oscillator to maintain a constant between itself and the frequency received. The constant mixed with the signal received actually produces two other signals. This is about as far off topic and as far away from noise cancellation as you can get. As this has nothing to do with noise or frequency cancellation. First of all AM begins around 540kHz when last I checked a human would be lucky to hear 20kHz. The tuner is designed to reject other RF signals. Again, allow me to say, this is totally different than the topic this thread was talking about which was the cancellation of audible sound frequencies.

I was thinking about telling you that you are an idiot and if you had a 140 IQ you do an excellent job of hiding it but I will refrain from that as to stay above your level.

[bobsticks]

Hey L.J., pass the beer nuts...this is gettin' good.

[L.J.]

Hey L.J., pass the beer nuts...this is gettin' good.

What's up Sticks......I'm thinkin' that's a good idea. Might as well crack open a few beers while we're here :cornut:

[pixelthis]

What's up Sticks......I'm thinkin' that's a good idea. Might as well crack open a few beers while we're here :cornut:

Yeah, pull up a chair, I'm trying to teach some elementary physics to a nimrod who is so stupid that he thinks Bose came up with noise cancelation, something Audi was working on in the eighties, helicopters had had for years, and is based on the same principle of
hetrodyning, which has been around forever, which is based on the FACT that
any two freqs, when added , produce a third , which is THE DIFFERENCE
between the two.
ADD two freqs of identical frequency and they cancel each other out completely.
I first learned about this in the 1970's in electronics class.
Which were taught by an electronics engineer who flew bombers in WWII
(but what did he know?)
Actually this is all my fault, the principles of electronics are a bit arcane, and took years for me to get my mind around, but we're talking simple physics here, what ARE they teaching in school these days?
Nimrod here doesnt even know about the electromagnetic spectrum, about how all energy is a part of that spectrum, and share certain characteristics.
AND about how the principle of freq summing applies to ALL forms of energy,
sound, microwaves, electricity, radio.
Mix two freqs and you get the DIFFERENCE between the two, its as simple as that,
and if you dont watch it two sound waves intersecting the right way will also cancel,
seen it happen. Its not as easy as two freqs being mixed in a circuit but it happens.
But heres the most basic thing, the various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum has
both energy and material aspects, light is photons, but acts like energy, electricity is electrons, but acts like energy also, and SOUND is kinetic energy, and consists of anything it travels through.
And the same fundamental laws of physics applies to ALL of them.
Think you need light to create a laser? the first (masers) didnt even use light at all.
AND THINK SOUND CANT CANCEL OUT? They sell headphones every day that does just that, same thing that happens in a superhet radio, and BOSE didnt invent
that anymore than he invented the principle behind the "wave" radio.
As for higher freqs requiring more energy to produce than lower ones, thats physics
101, if you're stupid enough to beleive that bose invented ANYTHING then you will NEVER get your soggy brains around that one.
But again its all my fault , This happens whenever I try to explain anything to a layman,
especially one stupid enough to pay $$$ for a friggin POWERCORD, the latest con to come along, like trying to teach calc to a resus monkey.
But look at the bright side, you'll wander through life thinking you're an "expert" on this stuff, and you dont even understand the relationship between the amps that come out of your gear, and the sound that comes out of your speakers.
Which is fine if you'd admit that you're a total dumbass instead of insulting ME for trying to tell you the damn world is ROUND (opps! did I let something slip that might hurt and
confuse the little nimrod?):1:

[Mr Peabody]

Yeah, pull up a chair, I'm trying to teach some elementary physics to a nimrod who is so stupid that he thinks Bose came up with noise cancelation, something Audi was working on in the eighties, helicopters had had for years, and is based on the same principle of
hetrodyning, which has been around forever, which is based on the FACT that
any two freqs, when added , produce a third , which is THE DIFFERENCE
between the two.
ADD two freqs of identical frequency and they cancel each other out completely.
I first learned about this in the 1970's in electronics class.
Which were taught by an electronics engineer who flew bombers in WWII

You have failed to produce one shred of evidence to show you don't suffer from mental retardation and more importantly to back up what you say. Find me anything to show that like frequencies in phase cancel one another. All your hot air you can blow won't change the facts.

Actually this is all my fault, the principles of electronics are a bit arcane, and took years for me to get my mind around, but we're talking simple physics here, what ARE they teaching in school these days?
Nimrod here doesnt even know about the electromagnetic spectrum, about how all energy is a part of that spectrum, and share certain characteristics.
AND about how the principle of freq summing applies to ALL forms of energy,
sound, microwaves, electricity, radio.
Mix two freqs and you get the DIFFERENCE between the two, its as simple as that,
and if you dont watch it two sound waves intersecting the right way will also cancel,
seen it happen. Its not as easy as two freqs being mixed in a circuit but it happens.

Apparently they teach better when I was in school than when you were there. You seen sound waves? You are really on drugs. So what's the right way to intersect the waves so that they cancel?

But heres the most basic thing, the various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum has
both energy and material aspects, light is photons, but acts like energy, electricity is electrons, but acts like energy also, and SOUND is kinetic energy, and consists of anything it travels through.

Pix, you need to really shut up, you are providing a large stock pile of evidence that you are a total fool. Your rambling is utter non-sense. Why don't you crack open a book? Everything, and I mean everything is made of atoms, including everything you mentioned, atoms contain protons, neutrons and are surrounded by electrons. Kinetic energy is the work needed to excelerate a given body of mass to it's current velocity, how is that sound? Please teach me.

AND THINK SOUND CANT CANCEL OUT? They sell headphones every day that does

Oh I know it does and I explained to you how it works.

just that, same thing that happens in a superhet radio, and BOSE didnt invent
that anymore than he invented the principle behind the "wave" radio.
As for higher freqs requiring more energy to produce than lower ones, thats physics
101, if you're stupid enough to beleive that bose invented ANYTHING then you will NEVER get your soggy brains around that one.
But again its all my fault , This happens whenever I try to explain anything to a layman,
especially one stupid enough to pay $$$ for a friggin POWERCORD, the latest con to come along, like trying to teach calc to a resus monkey.
But look at the bright side, you'll wander through life thinking you're an "expert" on this stuff, and you dont even understand the relationship between the amps that come out of your gear, and the sound that comes out of your speakers.
Which is fine if you'd admit that you're a total dumbass instead of insulting ME for trying to tell you the damn world is ROUND (opps! did I let something slip that might hurt and
confuse the little nimrod?):1:

Confused? If you read your post back you will see the apitomy of confused. You are all over the place and can't even focus on the point of debate, nor do you back up your position. I'm mad as hell at myself for even responding to this crap. If you decide to reply ,and I'm sure you will, if you don't show any more intelligence than you have so far, you are left to your own stupidity because I post hear for fun and educating you is better left to medication and special services.

[pixelthis]

Confused? If you read your post back you will see the apitomy of confused. You are all over the place and can't even focus on the point of debate, nor do you back up your position. I'm mad as hell at myself for even responding to this crap. If you decide to reply ,and I'm sure you will, if you don't show any more intelligence than you have so far, you are left to your own stupidity because I post hear for fun and educating you is better left to medication and special services.


Educating me?

The only thing you've taught me is that ignorance knows no bounds.
No wonder you like tubes so much , you have a vaccume between your ears.
If you ever do figure out that I am right I DOUBT if you'll be man enough to admit it.
But of course that would be like a monkey figuring out the special rule of relatitvity:1:

[pixelthis]

Educating me?

The only thing you've taught me is that ignorance knows no bounds.
No wonder you like tubes so much , you have a vaccume between your ears.
If you ever do figure out that I am right I DOUBT if you'll be man enough to admit it.
But of course that would be like a monkey figuring out the special rule of relatitvity:1:

The theory of relativity, BTW, has nothing to do with getting married to your cousin