Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37
  1. #1
    Forum Regular Florian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,959

    Warm sound, cold sound... whats it to you?

    Well here goes an interesting question maybe.

    Why do warm or cold sounds matter if you seek reality?
    I mean, a completely neutral unit has no tendency to warm or cold sound. Shouldnt the quest be to find the most neutralest of components?

    -Flo
    Lots of music but not enough time for it all

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    494

    Most people wouldn't...

    ...want "reality" in their livingroom night after night.

    Ever been to a small venue with blatty horns and crash cymbals 10 ft. from you? Pretty harsh! Sure, in small doses it's fine... but my ears sometimes hurt when the gig is over. I know a few in here are from Long Island... check out "Paula Jean's" in Seautaket - a half-way decent attempt at 'Nawlins food with some great live Jazz and Blues.

    Any recording (or stereo) will never approach reality, but sure, I tend to like neutral speakers better than colored ones. I think it's better to "tweak" after you found a speaker for you... which is why I'm going for that Prima Luna... I can't ignore the price/build quality! A bit of "tube warmth" should be a lotta fun for me...

    I'll need a phono stage... I heard good thing about Channel Islands.

    And, hey... a bit of honey poured over most of today's CDs probably ain't a bad thing!

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Site Moderator JohnMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    6,307

    Thumbs up

    I like my system neutral and my reality altered.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Sound preferences

    There is a certain amount of fun to be had with systems that are excessively analytical. As Stereophile once put it "With this system you can not only hear the conductor fart, you can tell which variety of legumes he had for lunch".

    Fun, yes, but for me, tiring. Although the definition of neutral seems easy enough, the ability to decide which systems are truly neutral appears a little tougher.

    Many CD are recorded "hot" i.e. over hyped high end. This is done either as a holdover from old AM car radio days or apparently to dazzle you on first listen. For me at least, those CDs get old fast.

    So I think it's desirable for a system to err a little on the warm side. It's a matter of personal taste (no not the legumes)

  5. #5
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    A speaker measured as "neutral" may not play neutral in different listening environments. Plus, everyone's hearing is different so what may be "aggressive" to one person may be "neutral" to another. I'd also think that music preferences has an effect on what type of speakers are preferred. For example, if someone is really into hard rock, a warmer speaker may have the dual benefits of less fatigue as well as an ability to mask poor recordings a little better.

  6. #6
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    I'm probably in the minority on this board when I say I really don't care for warm sounding gear at all. I don't hate it or anything, I've just experienced zero correlation between gear I like and "warmth". Sometimes it's warm, sometimes it's not. While the soft soothing tones might be desireable when you're busting out all your top moves over a candle-lit dinner with your woman, I much prefer the more realistic lively sound that I hear at live shows, which are almost always anything but warm. I think if the artist wanted it to sound warm it should be captured in the recording, and some music should never sound warm. Same goes for "cold" gear (never heard that one before, I assume it's the opposite of "warm").
    At one point in time, warm was just an adjective in the audio-community. Today it's almost synonnymous with "better". Maybe because it's just a cool word? Some warm sounding gear really sounds dull and boring to me. It might not be fatiguing, but I'd much rather get fatigued than just be bored from the start and shut down the system early.
    I rarely pay attention to whether it sounds "warm" or "cold", bright or soft etc...If it sounds good to you that's all that matters.

    As topspeed says, listening environments will make as big an impact as the gear itself, and an orthologist acquaintance of mine continues to remind me that the shape of one's ears can have a bigger impact still. This would certainly explain the inconsistencies in equipment reviews. What sounds "warm" to some isn't necessarily warm at all.

    While I tend to believe I seek "neutrality" in my system, I don't think that's necessarily the correct way to buy audio gear either...that's what works for me. Buy what makes you happy...if others consider it colored or harsh, uninvolving or dull, screw them. They aren't the ones listening to it. There's no rule carved in stone that says we have to listen to music the way the artist intended, or that it somehow sounds better that way. Enjoy yourselves.

    Good thread!

  7. #7
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    You're not alone!

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I'm probably in the minority on this board when I say I really don't care for warm sounding gear at all. ... I much prefer the more realistic lively sound that I hear at live shows, which are almost always anything but warm....

    At one point in time, warm was just an adjective in the audio-community. Today it's almost synonnymous with "better". ...

    While I tend to believe I seek "neutrality" in my system, I don't think that's necessarily the correct way to buy audio gear either...that's what works for me. Buy what makes you happy......
    To me "warm" is not better, either, and I'm all for "neutrality". It seems clear to me that people seek warmth mainly to mask the sound of excessively bright, poor records, and/or graining SS and digital components. Warmth might compensated for these things on the one hand, but on the other it masks really great records and other, great components you might own.

    I learned that best most recently when I upgraded from an ancient Phase Linear 400 amp to a Bel Canto eVo2i Gen II. Recordings that sound "harsh" or "hashed" with the Phase suddenly sound smooth, detailed, and full of ambience with the Bel. Prior to the Bel, I tried a NAD C270; while it removed the harshness, it came up away short of the Bel for detail and ambience retrieval. Also, the NAD had an excessively "fat" base. The NAD was, for an SS amp, relatively warm but not accurate.

  8. #8
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Question is...

    ...how can you judge "accuracy" in determining warm, cold or neutral?...

    Without hearing what went in, how can you classify what comes out? Unless you were present at the recording session, it's really a cr@pshoot as to the finished product's relationship to the performance...What was the performer's, or more importantly the producer's, intent? There are entirely too many variables in the process from the type of mic or the technique used with it to the sound characteristics of the monitors employed.

    If a piece of music was intended to sound best played through the "average" car system, do you think it will sound good on the "average" home system? What about that sound as we progress up the food chain toward the high-end market?

    Much like tuning a guitar so that a first position E chord is in perfect harmony, everything NOT an E chord or not fingered in the 1st position may not be (most likely won't be) spot on...even with new strings and correct intonation, chances are other notes and chords will be noticeably out-of-whack.

    Same with a hi-fi system...if you base your appraisal of a system's "accuracy" on commercially recorded sources, then establish this as your barometer and if that base-line is skewed, all that follows will be in error.

    I have, for some time, been critical of those who will play only "audiophile-grade" program material on their "minimalist" systems...i.e. without tone controls, using after-market wiring to enhance component's "synergy", etc.Many of the systems I have experienced, produce some of the most "colored" sound I have heard...far from the sound one would expect from using a "minimalist" philosophy. Far from "accurate", they appear to be a product of the owner's biases and neutrality is in a small minority. Other recorded material seems to be generally avoided due to the fact that this base-line is skewed and without the ability to tweak the sound, otherwise perfectly fine performances are judged "lacking" in some aspect or another.

    A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones.

    The old ideal of "flat wire with gain"...or neutrality...would seem to be the way to go. However, without the ability to control FR by placing "unwanted" devices in the signal path, many will spend too much time searching for their version of the Grail and too little time enjoying the music.

    Luckily, since I have been present at numerous performances(as both performer and recordist), and can therefore easily equate the finished product to it and since I have no qualms re: the use of electronics, I've spent most of my time enjoying...

    jimHJJ(..the music, that is...)

  9. #9
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Warm as opposed to rolled off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...how can you judge "accuracy" in determining warm, cold or neutral?...

    A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones.
    My friend and I have spent a few years working on our own speaker because we simply can not afford the better quality speakers on the market. We have access to two fine tools LEAP (a box/crossover designer) and MLSSA (a sound analyzer). I have learned a great deal.

    One surprise was in voicing the speaker a 2dB or even 1 dB change on one of our three way drivers changes the character of the speaker quite noticeably. How many commercial speakers (even quite expensive ones) accomplish this degree of relative flatness? Almost none.

    So, it is possible to make a speaker warm by adding a 1 or 2 dB very broad bump centered around 200 Hz . This is distinctly different from making a speaker warm by rolling off the highs. Words like warm unfortunately have somewhat different definitions to different people.

    When I speak of leaning towards warm, I mean in very small doses. Small enough that the deviation from flat might be the same in degree as adding a carpet to a hardwood floor in the listening room.

    The other thing I have learned during our speaker development was that the better the overall system the smaller the smallest noticable change becomes. As our design matured, parts that were once good enough needed to be replaced with better ones. i.e. a mylar capacitor in the crossover needed to become foil and polyprop. System interconnects revealed themselves as limiting sound improvements and so forth.

    The definition of flat is simple, the creation of flat; damn near impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    Luckily, since I have been present at numerous performances(as both performer and recordist...)
    From my experience, many musicians lean towards systems that are somewhat boosted in the highs, presumably because sitting in the middle of other musicians and instruments that is what they mostly hear. So that is what sounds "correct" to them. The audience tends to receive less high frequency energy, high frequencies seem to diminish somewhat faster than the low frequencies with seating distance. So us non-performers might have different tastes, different definitions of flat, each is perfectly legitimate.

  10. #10
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    The question is how can you judge "accuracy" in determining warm, cold or neutral?...
    Easy. Be involved at the recording venue at the time. I have had the good fortune to hear my local symphony record for Telarc on more than one occasion. I've spoken with the conductor and have some understanding of his goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...
    Except, of course when those measurements are made in an anechoic chamber which in no way resembles the environment in which the speakers are designed to work. A truly flat speaker under those circumstances will be intolerably bright.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones.
    Our experience sure renders us with very different opinions. I hear significant differences in transparency and imaging in speakers that I find significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    However, without the ability to control FR by placing "unwanted" devices in the signal path, many will spend too much time searching for their version of the Grail and too little time enjoying the music.
    Or "B", use various sorts of room treatments to solve the primary issues of room nodes. I continue to be amazed at how good many old recordings really are. Occasionally, I'll use the HF contour provided with my 'stats to tone down some really old recordings that are a bit raw.

    rw

  11. #11
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326

    It's funny, but that's what I was thinking

    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    So, it is possible to make a speaker warm by adding a 1 or 2 dB very broad bump centered around 200 Hz . This is distinctly different from making a speaker warm by rolling off the highs. Words like warm unfortunately have somewhat different definitions to different people.
    People keep commenting that 3db is the smallest noticable change in performance, but to me 3db sounds like a nautical mile. Just a 2db bump in the midbass stands out to me bigtime. A 3db shelving of the treble sounds like a blanket over the tweeter! Possibly why I liked the Totem Mani-2 so much. The thing sounded dead flat across a good portion of the spectrum.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  12. #12
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    That 3 dB reference is wrong...I've seen a bit around here too. I think they got that confused with the "double the power" thing...
    1 dB is arguably the first noticeable change...guess that makes sense - they picked this unit for some reason. Although I have some litereature in front of me that suggest 1/2 dB is known to skew stereo imaging off-balance, so with 2 reference volumes, 1/2 dB changes are noticeable (David Weems). Geoffcin, this would certainly explain why you can notice that 2 dB bump. And if it's over a wide enough band relative a -2 dB dip in an upper band it's even more pronounced. I'm with you on that, 2 dB can make a huge difference...DIY-ers are always padding tweeters with slight differences in resistor values to get that perfect spot balance between detail and sibilance...often just "1 or 2 dB" from 10KHz -20 KHz.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968
    Alexander Bell coined the measurement a "Bell" at what he thought was the first noticable change. It later turned out that a "Bell" was quite large so we divided it by ten and called it a decibell. The fact that 1 dB is close to the smallest change is sort of an accident. By the way thats why the B in dB is capitalized like Volts, Amperes and Hertz it is someone's name.

  14. #14
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Warm to me is a bit veiled and a bloomey bass -- cold is grainy or harsh and fatguing treble and or lacks decay. Neither is good but the former I'd take over the latter if push came to shove simply because ti doesn;t give me a puounding headache after two tracks.

  15. #15
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326

    That's absurd!

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Warm to me is a bit veiled and a bloomey bass -- cold is grainy or harsh and fatguing treble and or lacks decay. Neither is good but the former I'd take over the latter if push came to shove simply because ti doesn;t give me a puounding headache after two tracks.
    According to your definitions a speaker can be both warm and cold!
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  16. #16
    AR Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    214

    What is warmth?

    I'm not sure what it means to other people, but, and perhaps I'm applying the wrong terms or characteristics to it, to me it means a certain smoothness and sweetness. One of my many tastes in music is classical stuff, all types, from solo, to chamber to orchestral, as well as all types of song. I am very familiar with violins, and let me tell you, they all sound different - if you have the ear for it, particular violins have characteristic sounds, and individual instruments can be recognised by their tonal or other characteristics, just like you can recognise your favourite singer from the very first notes they sing. Also, people who are into piano say they can tell what type of piano was used for a recording if the recording and the equipment it is played on is good enough. It's the same with violins - some performers have several, and chose to use particular instruments for particular purposes. Perhaps one which is brash and hard for a hoe-down, and another which is sweet and alluring for a romance.

    I want a system which will allow me to distinguish the different characteristics of the instruments I listen to. If my violinist has changed his instrument half way throught the concert, I want to be able to hear it. I still remember my very first purchase of a CD, a well known work, which incidentally, I also had on LP of. What a disappointment. All the subtlety, the emotion, the warmth had disappeared. All that remained was a cold homogeneity, albeit with no surface noise, and a harshness I can't even describe. What a let down after all the hype. I admit that more modern releases are now a lot better, and since I upgraded my system, even that original disk sounds better. Or have I just got used to it?

    The conclusion to all this? I want the warmth of a warm sounding violin to get through, I want the true voice and emotion of my singers to get through. I don't want my music coming out cold and unemotional. I don't want it changed in any way. My one concession - if the recording has too much treble sibilance on it, I will tame it with a tone control. My ear finds sibilance extremely unpleasant.

    So what sort of system do I need? I guess, as long as the recording is faithful to the performance, I have to vote for a neutral system.

  17. #17
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    According to your definitions a speaker can be both warm and cold!
    Yeah that's why I try not to use the terms -- because they're silly -- plenty of Klipsch speakers are described as bright and or cold -- yet they ALSO have the midbass humps other people in this thread say is a criterian for warm. Still SOME of these speakers that exhibit BOTH traits still come out to me as cold in that they're bright...Thus the TRUMP factor ios the harsh/bright sound.

    Of Course Geoffcin if you've never heard a speaker with a big mid bass bloom and also had a piercing treble then I can't help you (see many a horn). A warm only speaker won't have the treble annoyance which is why I stated I could live with it over the other.

    The same stupid adjectives of polite and Agressive I've used myself from time to time...Uggh -- bunch of drivel magazine writers concocted.

  18. #18
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Actually...

    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    From my experience, many musicians lean towards systems that are somewhat boosted in the highs, presumably because sitting in the middle of other musicians and instruments that is what they mostly hear. So that is what sounds "correct" to them. The audience tends to receive less high frequency energy, high frequencies seem to diminish somewhat faster than the low frequencies with seating distance. So us non-performers might have different tastes, different definitions of flat, each is perfectly legitimate.
    ...I'm quite the opposite. While I have used room treatments and ultimately equalization to acheive measurably "flatened" response(with instrumentation-not my flawed ears) , I have subsequently rolled-off the upper extreme to suit my personal preference...

    jimHJJ(...that's were the ears came in...)

  19. #19
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Er...um..huh...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Easy. Be involved at the recording venue at the time. I have had the good fortune to hear my local symphony record for Telarc on more than one occasion. I've spoken with the conductor and have some understanding of his goals.
    Gee, I thought I said that...in the next paragraph.


    Quote Originally Posted by EStat
    Except, of course when those measurements are made in an anechoic chamber which in no way resembles the environment in which the speakers are designed to work. A truly flat speaker under those circumstances will be intolerably bright.

    Gee, I didn't think I HAD to say that...pretty much took THAT as a given...


    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Our experience sure renders us with very different opinions. I hear significant differences in transparency and imaging in speakers that I find significant.
    Gee, all I said was..." A flat frequency response is paramount IMHO...furthermore, that it is singly responsible for our perceptions of those qualities beyond the obvious timbral ones." I think the importance of FR re: other parameters is given short-shrift by many...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Or "B", use various sorts of room treatments to solve the primary issues of room nodes...Occasionally, I'll use the HF contour provided with my 'stats to tone down some really old recordings that are a bit raw.
    Gee, I've done that too...except I call 'em "tone controls"...

    jimHJJ(...looks like we are in agreement...sorta'...)

  20. #20
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    Gee, I thought I said that...in the next paragraph.
    Ah, the rhetorical question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...it is singly responsible...
    I simply disagree with the term "singly" as I find multiple answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    Gee, I've done that too...except I call 'em "tone controls"...
    Indeed. I've always had speakers with such that eliminates the need for superfluous gain stages.

    rw

  21. #21
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    The language of sounds

    I suppose it's self evident but these posts have got me thinking about audiophile terms we all use and misuse.

    Before electronic reproduction there was simply sound, our language defined terms for pitch and volume, a few others but not much more.

    It took the invention of an electronic reproduction chain to find all the possible ways to screw up how something sounds. Obviously in retrospect it turns out there are a great many ways to screw up reproduced sound. Who could have foreseen doppler distortion caused by speaker cones?

    So although the magazines do tend towards hyperbole (gotta make a living, right?) the language to describe sound reproduction errors is obviously very new. When I listen to a system with an audio friend, we stumble around all kinds of phrases to describe what we are hearing. More often than not, we end up agreeing that we were trying to say the same thing but that the language had failed us. At least the magazines have given us a starting point.

    Has anyone ever seen an online glossary or dictionary of audiophile terminology? Perhaps we could import it and list it somewhere on the site. Maybe we could avert a flame war or two.

  22. #22
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Has anyone ever seen an online glossary or dictionary of audiophile terminology? Perhaps we could import it and list it somewhere on the site. Maybe we could avert a flame war or two.
    Here's one by J. Gordon Holt:

    http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

    rw

  23. #23
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Oh. Lordy...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Ah, the rhetorical question.
    Ah, the rhetorical answer!

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I simply disagree with the term "singly" as I find multiple answers.
    Dispersion characteristics don't necessarily have much to do with FR...or do they? Should have qualified the word "qualities" with the phrase "many of those"...I'll try to be more precise...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Indeed. I've always had speakers with such that eliminates the need for superfluous gain stages.
    Much akin to the old "tree falling in the empty forest" bit, if you use a tone control in the "cut" mode, is it still a gain stage? Is it a tone control? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

    jimHJJ(...let me whip out the old schematic and see how many more transistors are in the signal path...)

  24. #24
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    Dispersion characteristics don't necessarily have much to do with FR...or do they?
    All I'm saying is that FR alone (or singly if you please) does not a great speaker make. Witness the AR-LST. What a toad. But it looked great on paper! Or you can equalize any number of speakers to be flat, but not possess especially high resolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    if you use a tone control in the "cut" mode, is it still a gain stage?
    From my perspective, if you are using an equalizer using any number of active devices with a stated output voltage, then the answer is yes. Most folks don't consider a resistor (either fixed or variable) and a cap like you find in a speaker crossover as a "gain stage".

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 05-25-2005 at 09:25 AM.

  25. #25
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Speaking of rhetorical...

    ..."Dispersion characteristics don't necessarily have much to do with FR...or do they?..."

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    All I'm saying is that FR alone (or singly if you please) does not a great speaker make. Witness the AR-LST. What a toad. But it looked great on paper! Or you can equalize any number of speakers to be flat, but not possess especially high resolution.
    I said I'd try to be more precise. I remember them...although I don't recall their sound...Why were they toady? Resolution? That's an ambiguous term...resolving what exactly...image?...depth?...Did a flute sound like a flute?...a banjo like a banjo? I rarely see if I can play pin-the-tail on the oboeist...I listen to music...sonic holography is secondary...I rarely get to sit in the "sweet-spot"...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Most folks don't consider a resistor (either fixed or variable) and a cap like you find in a speaker crossover as a "gain stage".
    No, I guess that's just a load...

    jimHJJ(...or so it would seem...)

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Paradigm Studio 20 vs B&W 602 S3
    By Yeti2003 in forum Speakers
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-22-2005, 11:04 AM
  2. The Nuance thread
    By Mike H in forum Speakers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-06-2005, 03:45 AM
  3. Looking for a certain type of speaker
    By nahmed in forum Speakers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-31-2004, 10:14 AM
  4. Got a question about a small philips sound system
    By skitallz in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 06:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •