-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlsstl
Aye, there's the rub. And that applies to all speaker design options. Take anyone's favorite speaker and there will be trade offs, no matter how expensive or fancy. The trick for a listener is to discover which speaker compromises in areas that he doesn't place at high priority.
agreed :thumbsup:
-
Feanor
You've done a good job I think in breaking down the forrest (the end result) into compartmentalized aspects (the trees).
Clearly designers choose the designs they choose because they think it's the best choice for the intended goal - and in that regard your breakdown is well done.
I mean really people they design SET amplifiers - hardly a "measurements first" approach kinda group now are they? I would hardly say the design is inherently better - not in the least - they leave me scratching my head - and on more than just what you presented. In fact I think you have done a very nice job of going out of your way to look at them quite even-handedly. In fact from a design stance they do a lot of things a lot worse on paper than you have written.
Take the speaker and then do one for their amps, and cd players - then ADD the three wrongs together!!!!! From a design perspective you have written pretty much what I wrote in my review.
-
Why thanks, RGA
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Feanor
You've done a good job I think in breaking down the forrest (the end result) into compartmentalized aspects (the trees).
Clearly designers choose the designs they choose because they think it's the best choice for the intended goal - and in that regard your breakdown is well done.
I mean really people they design SET amplifiers - hardly a "measurements first" approach kinda group now are they? I would hardly say the design is inherently better - not in the least - they leave me scratching my head - and on more than just what you presented. In fact I think you have done a very nice job of going out of your way to look at them quite even-handedly. In fact from a design stance they do a lot of things a lot worse on paper than you have written.
Take the speaker and then do one for their amps, and cd players - then ADD the three wrongs together!!!!! From a design perspective you have written pretty much what I wrote in my review.
I hope you'll agree that I wasn't suggesting that sum can't be greater than the parts.
I'm content with my current speakers for the time being, but as I intimated, the day might come when I need something to suit a different, less accomodating room. If and when that I happens I would be very interested in auditioning the relevant Audio Note product along with more more mainstream stuff like Paradigm, PSB, and whatever I can audition locally.
-
Feanor --
Having heard more speakers over the last while - it is more evident to me that most every maker is fighting against a number of limitations and they all must choose the compromise that best fits. So not all corner speakers are good just because they're in corners - the proponents of corners will tell you all the reasons why they should be in corners but they won't tell you about the negatives or they will tell you the negatives and glibly say that "other makers are wrong."
I got caught up in that for a time I must admit. Of course the cracks in the theory fall when you hear a free standing design beat a corner design - or a three way beat a two way or a ribbon beat a silk dome or a plastic woofer beat a paper woofer and on it goes.
My view is to try and and listen to all the different designs - or as many as you can - lots of people love line arrays or panels, stats versus planar, or those massive horns/SET combinations, or dual concentric or single drivers or omni-directionals, or the undamped boxes, or insist on time alignment, or transmission line. Or YG Acoustics that simply state "we make the world's best loudspeakers."
The better makers on all those camps do have passion for what they make and truly believe what they're doing. And none of them measure perfectly and all of them have some pitfall that someone else will gladly reject as being a weakness.
I was overly dogmatic on my Audio Note stance for far too long because to my ear it simply has the best balance that I have yet heard. What I could not get past is that some people want other things in a loudspeaker. I personally had two favorites - horns and panels - I felt Audio Note had the best of both of those (almost) while making little compromise. I can't help it - that's what I hear. But of course there are numerous compromises built in that plenty other speakers will beat them on - other people may hear more serious flaws that they can't live with. Frequency response is not perfect - they're not dead free of colouration, they're not ultimate bass depth or volume level hounds. There is a limit - the designers are trying to coax more and more out of them but in the end nothing is perfect and neither is AN. They're built to ear not to measurements and as some have pointed out - if your ear is similar to Peter's you'll love them - if not then look elsewhere - plenty of great loudspeakers I could live with till daisies grow from my scalp quite happily. I suppose I should recommend those one's more often!
-
Been busy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Feanor --
Having heard more speakers over the last while - it is more evident to me that most every maker is fighting against a number of limitations and they all must choose the compromise that best fits. So not all corner speakers are good just because they're in corners - the proponents of corners will tell you all the reasons why they should be in corners but they won't tell you about the negatives or they will tell you the negatives and glibly say that "other makers are wrong."
I got caught up in that for a time I must admit. Of course the cracks in the theory fall when you hear a free standing design beat a corner design - or a three way beat a two way or a ribbon beat a silk dome or a plastic woofer beat a paper woofer and on it goes.
My view is to try and and listen to all the different designs - or as many as you can - lots of people love line arrays or panels, stats versus planar, or those massive horns/SET combinations, or dual concentric or single drivers or omni-directionals, or the undamped boxes, or insist on time alignment, or transmission line. Or YG Acoustics that simply state "we make the world's best loudspeakers."
The better makers on all those camps do have passion for what they make and truly believe what they're doing. And none of them measure perfectly and all of them have some pitfall that someone else will gladly reject as being a weakness.
I was overly dogmatic on my Audio Note stance for far too long because to my ear it simply has the best balance that I have yet heard. What I could not get past is that some people want other things in a loudspeaker. I personally had two favorites - horns and panels - I felt Audio Note had the best of both of those (almost) while making little compromise. I can't help it - that's what I hear. But of course there are numerous compromises built in that plenty other speakers will beat them on - other people may hear more serious flaws that they can't live with. Frequency response is not perfect - they're not dead free of colouration, they're not ultimate bass depth or volume level hounds. There is a limit - the designers are trying to coax more and more out of them but in the end nothing is perfect and neither is AN. They're built to ear not to measurements and as some have pointed out - if your ear is similar to Peter's you'll love them - if not then look elsewhere - plenty of great loudspeakers I could live with till daisies grow from my scalp quite happily. I suppose I should recommend those one's more often!
Or I would have chimed in sooner.
Personally, I think AN just has its priorities striaght. My uncle is a big AN fan (well speakers, he prefers SS amps and other options for electronics). The AN E's (his are just normal, not $70K or anything) are one of the best sounding commercial speakers I've heard at their pricepoint. One of several I'd be happy to own.
They do a lot of engineering stuff that might be theoretically wrong - wide baffle that's bad for imaging, flat edges bad for diffraction, spacing between drivers, etc, etc. But I think AN realizes that 99% of the effects of what those "flaws" might produce in an anechoic chamber at 1 meter pales in comparison to the effects introduced by room acoustics, at typical listening positions. In other words, ya ain't gonna notice it.
I've made several iterations of a few designs I've built. I've done direct a/b comparisons on rounded edges vs square and chamfered, increasing significantly the center-to-center driver spacing, played with damping material, cabinet material, cabinet bracing, and cabinet width and depth. For each of those traits, and sometimes for combinations of them, I could hear almost no difference, or none at all. If it's there, it's almost indistinguishable, to the point I'm calling BS on any would-be golden ears. Not saying with some drivers or designs some of these properties might not be audible, and they're certainly measurable at 1 m, but I am saying that magnitude of the differences at distances of 8-12 feet pale in comparison to the effects the environment introduces to the sound waves by the time the signals reach your brain.
For my part, I would rather invest in quality drivers and components (by quality I mean not necessarily exotic overpriced), and the right crossover design, than fret over the small stuff. Especially if outside an anechoic chamber people just aren't gonna notice your edges are chamfered at 45° instead of rounded over.
As for designers and compromises..well RGA's right it is a battle of compromise. But I feel sorry of the Polks, and B&W's and Paradigms of the world that get crapped on by audio snobs for their entry-level to mid-fi stuff. It's pretty easy to build a helluva great sounding loudspeaker for $5000. But it's damn hard to build a good sounding speaker that pleases 90% of the people 90% of the time for only $300-600. Oh it also has to look absolutely great and fit in a typical condo. And I don't want to have to order it over the internet(increased overhead). And it has to be in stores everywhere for me to demo (increased overhead and markup). Do all that, pay your bills, staff, equipment, and make some money to take home. Oh, and did I mention the competition is 100 times more fierce? Good luck.
Feanor, I have little doubt you will easily exceed your expectations and goals for your project...for $1200 cdn I think you should aim higher than a $2500 commercial speaker. Much higher. Unless you're including the value of your labour or cost of tools, or are buying furniture grade cabinets possibly. Even then. But I assume you'll have time to spare and tools already with which to work. It might not look quite as nice but.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Or I would have chimed in sooner.
Personally, I think AN just has its priorities striaght. My uncle is a big AN fan (well speakers, he prefers SS amps and other options for electronics). The AN E's (his are just normal, not $70K or anything) are one of the best sounding commercial speakers I've heard at their pricepoint. One of several I'd be happy to own.
They do a lot of engineering stuff that might be theoretically wrong - wide baffle that's bad for imaging, flat edges bad for diffraction, spacing between drivers, etc, etc. But I think AN realizes that 99% of the effects of what those "flaws" might produce in an anechoic chamber at 1 meter pales in comparison to the effects introduced by room acoustics, at typical listening positions. In other words, ya ain't gonna notice it.
I've made several iterations of a few designs I've built. I've done direct a/b comparisons on rounded edges vs square and chamfered, increasing significantly the center-to-center driver spacing, played with damping material, cabinet material, cabinet bracing, and cabinet width and depth. For each of those traits, and sometimes for combinations of them, I could hear almost no difference, or none at all. If it's there, it's almost indistinguishable, to the point I'm calling BS on any would-be golden ears. Not saying with some drivers or designs some of these properties might not be audible, and they're certainly measurable at 1 m, but I am saying that magnitude of the differences at distances of 8-12 feet pale in comparison to the effects the environment introduces to the sound waves by the time the signals reach your brain.
For my part, I would rather invest in quality drivers and components (by quality I mean not necessarily exotic overpriced), and the right crossover design, than fret over the small stuff. Especially if outside an anechoic chamber people just aren't gonna notice your edges are chamfered at 45° instead of rounded over.
Yep... measurements at 1m in an anechoic chamber are not a good reflection of what you will hear sitting at 8 or 9 feet in your listening room...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
As for designers and compromises..well RGA's right it is a battle of compromise. But I feel sorry of the Polks, and B&W's and Paradigms of the world that get crapped on by audio snobs for their entry-level to mid-fi stuff. It's pretty easy to build a helluva great sounding loudspeaker for $5000. But it's damn hard to build a good sounding speaker that pleases 90% of the people 90% of the time for only $300-600. Oh it also has to look absolutely great and fit in a typical condo. And I don't want to have to order it over the internet(increased overhead). And it has to be in stores everywhere for me to demo (increased overhead and markup). Do all that, pay your bills, staff, equipment, and make some money to take home. Oh, and did I mention the competition is 100 times more fierce? Good luck.
For me the real magic happens at the sub $2K price points... Producing a truly exceptional product that is either affordable or at least can be purchased with a few month's disciplined saving, is a real challenge... having unlimited money to throw at a product is great for achieving SOTA, but irrelevant to most of us...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
I could hear almost no difference, or none at all. If it's there, it's almost indistinguishable, to the point I'm calling BS on any would-be golden ears. Not saying with some drivers or designs some of these properties might not be audible, and they're certainly measurable at 1 m, but I am saying that magnitude of the differences at distances of 8-12 feet pale in comparison to the effects the environment introduces to the sound waves by the time the signals reach your brain.
Am I to take that you are suggesting that 3dB lift at 800Hz with a corresponding 3dB drop centered at 130Hz would be inaudible in a real room?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Am I to take that you are suggesting that 3dB lift at 800Hz with a corresponding 3dB drop centered at 130Hz would be inaudible in a real room?
No. He's saying that these are measured at 1 meter.
In a normal room, sitting 3 meters away there will be acoustic situations that will make a more prominent difference.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
No. He's saying that these are measured at 1 meter.
In a normal room, sitting 3 meters away there will be acoustic situations that will make a more prominent difference.
kexodusc, are you are saying that a 3dB lift above the reference level (measured at 1m anechoic) at 800Hz with a corresponding dip at 130Hz will be masked in-room?
-
Another issue for clarification
kexodusc,
Assuming two ported speakers with broadly the same sensitivity, Would a speaker with a single 8" driver (covering both mid and bass) have the same LF dynamic range as another with 2 12" drivers(1 mid, 1 bass) the latter sitting in a box that's over twice the volume of the former?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Am I to take that you are suggesting that 3dB lift at 800Hz with a corresponding 3dB drop centered at 130Hz would be inaudible in a real room?
This seems like a loaded question, but I'll play. But first, what are you getting at with these numbers?
To answer your question, what I'm saying is that the theory doesn't always correspond to the application.
Objective measurements are undertaken in lab conditions, typically 1m, anechoic chambers. How big is your listening room and what do you to do to treat it?
There's a great reason manufacturers don't use living rooms to measure specs, then publish them. The variance is too great from one home to the next. The results would look terrible, and it would be very difficult to draw much from an FR plot.
So we standardize it and use 1m, anechoic. That's just for a measurement reference. It is not what we will hear in most rooms.
What I was implying is that the minimal effects of an extra few inches width on the baffle might measure significantly in lab conditions, but in somebody's home there's gonna be so much "interference" (for lack of a better term) from the acoustics of the environment that by the time it reaches your ear, your 3 dB lift at X Hz might be offset by a -4 dB dip centered at Y Hz. Or not.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
kexodusc, are you are saying that a 3dB lift above the reference level (measured at 1m anechoic) at 800Hz with a corresponding dip at 130Hz will be masked in-room?
I guess it's possible if you had furniture or something in your room that affected those frequencies. I have yet to meet a home with an audio room that was "acoustically neutral" and didn't introduce some distortion. I'm not guaranteeing you that it will be masked.
What we measure at 1m anechoic and what we hear and interpret as "good" in a typical room are not the same thing. I think AN focuses on aspects that have greater variability in what they perceive as contributing to sound quality, and that many of those aspects exclude some of these other concerns.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
kexodusc,
Assuming two ported speakers with broadly the same sensitivity, Would a speaker with a single 8" driver (covering both mid and bass) have the same LF dynamic range as another with 2 12" drivers(1 mid, 1 bass) the latter sitting in a box that's over twice the volume of the former?
You're asking a guy who uses dual 15" woofers...:p
Bu yeah, sure. Since you're pulling scenarios out of thin air let me do so too.
If those 12" drivers were made by Bose and cost 40 cents a piece, had an xmax 4 mm, and a frequency of resonance of 40 Hz, whereas the 8" driver was made by one of the world's foremost expert driver designers, say, Seas, and cost $325 a piece, and had 3 times the excursion, and a frequency of resonance of 35 Hz, I'd expect an aweful lot more from the 8" than the two 12" woofers.
Or if the 12" woofers were 10 times the quality of the 8" woofer...no.
What's your point?
Be careful with dynamic range too - a 12" woofer could be far more capable in delivering dynamic range, but if the 8" woofer is up to the task of reproducing a dynamic range consistent with the music you're listening to, at the volumes you want to listen to it, then it's doing the job perfectly and any extra benefit of the 12" woofer's is non-existant. You'll never need it. Untapped potential.
You got some beef with Audio Note or something?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
You got some beef with Audio Note or something?
Be careful Kex or you may end up on TAH's bad side, along with RGA, me and GM.....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
What's your point?
Asked you a straightforward question, no need for an overly defensive/aggressive stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Be careful with dynamic range too - a 12" woofer could be far more capable in delivering dynamic range, but if the 8" woofer is up to the task of reproducing a dynamic range consistent with the music you're listening to, at the volumes you want to listen to it, then it's doing the job perfectly and any extra benefit of the 12" woofer's is non-existant. You'll never need it. Untapped potential.
You got some beef with Audio Note or something?
Well, you got there in the end which is given reasonable circumstances a 8" woofer covering mids and bass would be less capable than a 12" woofer covering only the bass. Untapped potential is besides the point since we are discussing capability, right?
-
Zero
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
...
Feanor, I have little doubt you will easily exceed your expectations and goals for your project...for $1200 cdn I think you should aim higher than a $2500 commercial speaker. Much higher. Unless you're including the value of your labour or cost of tools, or are buying furniture grade cabinets possibly. Even then. But I assume you'll have time to spare and tools already with which to work. It might not look quite as nice but.
Kex, the value of my labor is zero, I'm afraid! :)
I'm pretty sure it's possible with good versus ultra expensive components. The sorts of options I'd consider are these.
Mid/woofers:
Tweeters, a little trickier:
You can go nuts with crossover components too, especially capacitors, but there again I think one step up from basic might to very will.
My cabinet working skills and tools being what they are I might buy boxes. Parts Express cabinets like these are pretty nice and not stupidly expensive.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Asked you a straightforward question, no need for an overly defensive/aggressive stance.
No worries, bro...just not sure where you were going with it? Multiple drivers can sound better, but higher quality, small drivers can often do the job as good or better too...there is not a hard rule here.
Quote:
Well, you got there in the end which is given reasonable circumstances a 8" woofer covering mids and bass would be less capable than a 12" woofer covering only the bass. Untapped potential is besides the point since we are discussing capability, right?
No, I'm afraid you're wrong here. Capability is nice, but just because you have more doesn't mean it increases performance. SACD's boast a dynamic range of 120 dB. If both the 8" and 12" woofers do 120 dB perfectly, and that's the most you'll ever need, then there's no additional performance to extract from a 12" woofer with capability of 200 dB. It'll never be used. Above a certain point, excess capability is just waste.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
This seems like a loaded question, but I'll play. But first, what are you getting at with these numbers?
It's loaded, I am glad you spotted it
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
To answer your question, what I'm saying is that the theory doesn't always correspond to the application.
Objective measurements are undertaken in lab conditions, typically 1m, anechoic chambers. How big is your listening room and what do you to do to treat it?
There's a great reason manufacturers don't use living rooms to measure specs, then publish them. The variance is too great from one home to the next. The results would look terrible, and it would be very difficult to draw much from an FR plot.
So we standardize it and use 1m, anechoic. That's just for a measurement reference. It is not what we will hear in most rooms.
What I was implying is that the minimal effects of an extra few inches width on the baffle might measure significantly in lab conditions, but in somebody's home there's gonna be so much "interference" (for lack of a better term) from the acoustics of the environment that by the time it reaches your ear, your 3 dB lift at X Hz might be offset by a -4 dB dip centered at Y Hz. Or not.
I'll rephrase the question to elicit a less equivocal answer from you :smilewinkgrin: , Assuming a speaker has a midrange tone switch centered at 800Hz +3,0,-3dB and another centered @ 4KHz with the same settings. Would the efffects of the switches be masked in-room. By the way, I agree that baffle diffraction is a smaller issue.
-
Disagree with you here
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
No, I'm afraid you're wrong here. Capability is nice, but just because you have more doesn't mean it increases performance. SACD's boast a dynamic range of 120 dB. If both the 8" and 12" woofers do 120 dB perfectly, and that's the most you'll ever need, then there's no additional performance to extract from a 12" woofer with capability of 200 dB. It'll never be used. Above a certain point, excess capability is just waste.
Disagree with you here you overstated your point in your original post which is why I asked you loaded questions. Whilst there are hardly any recordings that test the capability of SACD dynamic range, the same cannot be said for our hypothetical woofers, There are any number of recordings than can take advantage of a 12" woofer's bass capability especially when compared to a 8" mid/bass woofer.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Kex, the value of my labor is zero, I'm afraid! :)
Well, I don't include my time in my projects, but I wouldn't say its zero. It's relaxing for me in some ways and I enjoy it so no value charged.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure it's possible with good versus ultra expensive components. The sorts of options I'd consider are these.
I'm very partial to the Dayton RS and Seas woofers. There's plenty of other options of course, but you can do some scary things for not a lot of money with some of these woofers. And there's hundreds of awesome, proven project designs available, giving you more ideas and the option to play it safe. Never a bad idea.
Quote:
You can go nuts with crossover components too,
Yeah, I really struggle with xo elements..I feel the need to cut costs sometimes by cheaping out here, but in some cases I have heard differences and regreted it. Cost me more money to place an order for better parts. Overall I try to pick components that have high value, but if I was building a speaker with drivers exceeding $100 or so I'd probably feel compelled to buy the fancy xo components just in case.
Quote:
My cabinet working skills and tools being what they are I might buy boxes. Parts Express cabinets like these are pretty nice and not stupidly expensive.
I bought some of the 1 cubic ft cabinets in the past (cherry). They are excellent. I build replacement baffles during testing phases for some designs I've done, but the finish is solid.
I usually just build my own though. This is the biggest area for cost savings IMO. I cheap out and paint, bedliner spray, or (mostly) use the vinyl laminates they sell. You can 3-4 pairs of speakers for a $50 sheet of MDF and $15-25 in laminate. Or spend $600-$800 for cabinets + shipping + duties, etc (which aren't insubstantial when building 5.1 or 7.1 systems).
They look "ok". Once in awhile I get up the nerve to veneer, and I've used Baltic Birch Ply and Oak ply in the past which were fun and looked reat. Actually most of my projects have gone to friends or relatives so they're bottom lines were the limiting factor. The vinyls look good enough for most rec rooms/ht rooms/ listening rooms, but people with discriminating tastes or wives might need something more polished. Then ya gotta pay.
My favorite is black because, well, it's not the best looking, but it's the most cooperative.
I uploaded a photo to my gallery of an old project from maybe 3-4 years ago that used it for an idea if you're curious. Maybe you've used the stuff before though?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
It's loaded, I am glad you spotted it
I'll rephrase the question to elicit a less equivocal answer from you :smilewinkgrin: , Assuming a speaker has a midrange tone switch centered at 800Hz +3,0,-3dB and another centered @ 4KHz with the same settings. Would the efffects of the switches be masked in-room. By the way, I agree that baffle diffraction is a smaller issue.
Of course not, nor would I expect a 6 dB variance in the gain of an amplifier to be unnoticed except perhaps for frequencies below 200 Hz. Nor would I expect every single room to allow a +3 dB gain to be observed at the listening position vs at 1 m across the spectrum. Care to deliver the punch line without masking? :p
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
This is the biggest area for cost savings IMO. I cheap out and paint, bedliner spray, or (mostly) use the vinyl laminates they sell. You can 3-4 pairs of speakers for a $50 sheet of MDF and $15-25 in laminate. Or spend $600-$800 for cabinets + shipping + duties, etc (which aren't insubstantial when building 5.1 or 7.1 systems).
If my wood working skills weren't non-existent, I'd seriously consider building my own speakers... since the biggest expense in getting good speakers to countries off the beaten path (like where I live) is the shipping costs and duties...
-
Definitely
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
...
I bought some of the 1 cubic ft cabinets in the past (cherry). They are excellent. I build replacement baffles during testing phases for some designs I've done, but the finish is solid.
I usually just build my own though. This is the biggest area for cost savings IMO. I cheap out and paint, bedliner spray, or (mostly) use the vinyl laminates they sell. You can 3-4 pairs of speakers for a $50 sheet of MDF and $15-25 in laminate. Or spend $600-$800 for cabinets + shipping + duties, etc (which aren't insubstantial when building 5.1 or 7.1 systems).
...
Absolutely true that the really cost savings is in making you own cabinets -- at least when you're shotting to duplicate $1000 commercial speakers.
BTW, cabinets identical to Parts Express are available in Canada from Creative Sound Solutions; worth checking out to avoid duty & taxes.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Disagree with you here you overstated your point in your original post which is why I asked you loaded questions. Whilst there are hardly any recordings that test the capability of SACD dynamic range, the same cannot be said for our hypothetical woofers, .
What do you disagree with? That if your speakers have capability (I.e, the dynamic range issue you brought forth) beyond the most any source you will ever play demands of them, that capability will never be called upon?
Quote:
There are any number of recordings than can take advantage of a 12" woofer's bass capability especially when compared to a 8" mid/bass woofer
Sure there are...and yet there are people who listen to 15" woofers, 12" woofers, 10" woofers and still prefer speakers with 8" woofers. When I designed my system, I originally had 12" sealed config in mind...wasn't enough for me...besides the point though...
BTW, while I admit I could be guilty, exactly what point did I overstate? I never even brought up the issue of woofer size...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Absolutely true that the really cost savings is in making you own cabinets -- at least when you're shotting to duplicate $1000 commercial speakers.
BTW, cabinets identical to Parts Express are available in Canada from Creative Sound Solutions; worth checking out to avoid duty & taxes.
I generally just use the duty free exemptions whenever I return from the US to bring back whatever I can duty free. Some times its well worth it. Some times things are priced better up here.
|