big speakers

merlin,
don;t be a fool - of course it will

cheers


julian

 

If the 'port resonance' interacts with the cabinet, then yes it will, actually!

I don't know the precise function of the port in my speakers. I guess it's tuned to augment bass output at one frequency?

 

Bet you all you like that the port resonance on a stack of Mana measures the same as it would on any other stand. If Mana could change the port resonance of a speaker, I think Messrs, Colloms, Miller and Keywood might have noticed.

It is interesting that Paul Messenger preferred the integral stand with his Rehdekos to a custom built Mana one. His reason being that whatever the Mana was doing it was pulling them away from what he had bought them for. There are no hard and fast rules, you just have to experiment.

The Rehdekos nicely bring up the idea of temporal colouration or as Messenger deemed it "time smear". Electrostatics, or speakers with very light paper cones do seem to have an advantage here.

 

Well, obviously Mana won't alter the resonant frequency of a pipe. But if some of that energy goes into the speaker cabinet, it will end up in the stack of Mana to which the cabinet is attached.

 

You hope.

 

Well yes, but I also kind-of know because I can feel it happening.

 

Ah,

Like an orgasm

 

Not exactly, but you are on the right track.

 

Interesting to see PM's glowing review of the Vertex AQ supports, given his previous reliance on Mana for his Naim kit. Have you considered trying it out Bub?

 

Never heard of it, let alone heard it. Where is the review, and does he compare it with Mana?

 

Well I can comment a little on the proac vs the atc sound, having had scm50 actives, and proac studio 3s, which use the same bass and mid (ATCs)

The scms were curious, perhaps caus they were different, at first the treble seemed to bright, and they were VERY directional, I couldn't get them right. I got used to them, put the grills on and then the treble seemed too dull. I never got used to that about them, maybe the newer tweeter is better. they have had 2 since my pair.

Great detail and 'vision' into the mix, I love the detail and insight, and they weren't clinical or unmusical, it had an inherent 'rightness' bass as I have said was not as big as I was expecting.

Proacs studio 3s are like half a response 4, 1 atc 9" bass, 4 " mid and a scanspeak tweeter.

cabinets are actually chipboard, and they sounded like proacs, laid backish mid, fruity bass and brightish slightly splashy treble but still musically enjoyable, and eminently listenable. Not as insightfull as ATC's.

Very odd seeing as the same drivers and a TOTALLY different presentation.

I wonder if you are right Paul, re cabinet, however, methinks the crossover has a huge bearing in the way both drivers contribute at the same time.

Truly a speaker is a complex animal that cannot be simply understood and analysed. Intersting that proac make theirs almost always sound VERY similar despite drive units leads me to suspect the xover, as that is VERY VERY similar on all proacs, and I have seen and heard a lot written on them.

I fancy response 4s myself, but can safely say they will still sound like proacs, and not quite to my taste, still enjoyable.

 

Not a great one for magazines but I think it was in last months HiFi + (you know....accuracy doesn't matter!) Still I think PM has a vestige of respectability and yes he did compare it with his Mana reference used for his 552 and CD player. I seem to recall he considered the change to be revelatory so it might be worth having a listen for curiosity's sake.

 

PM, and of course our own JH, are the best things about that rag. I'll see if I can blag a free copy.

I think I've gone too far down one (happy) road to turn back, but I guess never say never.

 

That was the HiFi+ review I was a bit scathing about . Apparently our own John Cheadle (Chea Jondle) is involved with them .

They also make speaker cable with boxes that...ahem...prevent vibrations from the amp reaching the speakers :rds2:

Michael.

 

The change is always revelatory!
I feel mags should really rein in their superlatives a bit - after a while it's like the boy who cried "wolf"!
You'd think that any new piece of kit/cartridge/ceramic cable-holder-upper made a difference akin to that between a Waltham cassette player and BBC Maida Vale no.1 studio!

 

Sorry for coming back to this point.
I don't know what viewing a dozen flats before finding the room you wanted has to do with optimizing the acoustic of a room.

The only limits of a room is its size.
If if is a crap room measuring the frequencies and doing the appropriate changes (adding difusors, absorbers, bass traps, and and and...) you will be able to make quite a good job in having more or less a linear frequency response in the listening area and therefore to have a great room for listeming to music with that hifi system. Maybe it won't be the most perfect room but at least better than any very good untreated room. But to have this you have to do something and not just viewing some flats. If you have a crap room then you will need to spend eventually more money than when having in a good room. I also would like to say that any untreated room can be acoustically improved, also those which you believe sound great.

 

Hello Titian,

It's really a question of choosing what you guess will be a very good room, rather than trying to manipulate the acoustics of a not-so-good room, which as you point out, is expensive, and might not work. I'm fairly certain that I guessed right.

Mine is roughly 7m by 10m which is a good size for the UK. Most importantly, from an acoustics POV, the ceiling is over 4m high.

 

The height of the room is only one factor for the acoustic of a room and it is not even the most relevant factor. A big size like the one mentioned by you is a great start but not so relevant as you think it is. It is certainly relevant for a wider and better choice of your hifi system (especially loudspeakers). Actually it seems that in bigger rooms there are more possibility of having standing waves!
Just don't forget: in any untreated rooms you need acoustic changes to get a much better sound quality. My point, though, is that contrary to bad recordings (which you cannot make them better), a bad acoustic room you can make much much better.

 

Yes, I agree. Bottleneck suggested some acoustic floor underlay things to put under the rugs, and this made a good improvement (thanks again). And I've hung a rug on the wall behind the sofa where I listen, ostensibly because it looks nice, but mainly to reduce back wall reflections if I'm completely honest.

Irregular shapes such as pictures hung up on the wall can help, as can asymmetric speaker placement.