 |
 |
|
|||
|
Member
Whatever, Curtis. You have stated since last year that I never posted that the 170's were run full range in the review and comparison of them. I have now posted proof, and THAT is not good enough.Originally Posted by curtis
Your agenda is crystal clear.
I could post numerous links in which Stereophile ran subwoofers with speakers, and the speakers were run full range. But nothing like that matters to you.
Good night.
Craig
Forum Founder
You know Craig, I made no attacks on you here, just differing opinion on proper setup.
When is Stereophile right and when are they wrong? I remember you questioning a review of their's recently with some un-flattering graphs. By they way, they also speak highly of using crossovers for proper subwoofer integration...but I guess in my case, they are wrong?
I have acknowledged at one point I knew you had 170's running fullrange with the STF-1.....what would you like next? It is interesting as well that it is in the one thread that you picked a speaker over another certain brand, but yet it is a very obscure comparison, and the comparison is not part of the thread title.
Your attitude and agenda are clear as well. Tomorrow, we can talk about what triggers you asking if a listener has blind tested. There....that was my attack.
-curtis
Elite Member
I find this interesting in that thread also...
The 340's are scheduled to ship this week, along with the H-K 630. The DVD set up will be a Pioneer 563iA ... This will be the system that will be the basis for future "inexpensive" bookshelf tests...
--------------------
Craigsub
You now look down your nose at my suggestion to have used a reciever so you could have properly integrated the system. It appears you had a H-K 630 on-hand (with pre-out) AND a NAD available to do so. Which goes back to my original question of why you chose to run full-range (and on more than one occaision apparently). It wasn't because you lacked the equipment or the apparent original intention to use it... afterall you DID order the H-K with the package.
Randy
Member
Mr. Chang - Your words. This sure sounds like you were contradicting the fact that the methodology had been publicly posted.
Craig
Member
Again your words. You CHALLENGED me to show where I stated the crossover status. By the way, The "other speakers", as you noted in "3", above, were not tested in the same manner as were the 340's. The 340's were given the use of a subwoofer.
The other speakers were run full range, with NO subwoofer.
Craig
Member
Randy - Quite simply, For the purposes if this test, The way I set the speakers up and the volume levels which I used were optimal..
I am not "looking down my nose" at the receiver. I am stating a McIntosh MA-6900 is far superior in sound quality to a Harmon Kardon.
By definition, using what David Fabrikant stated in the room dimensions and listening levels, had I truly done what he said, He would have a point.
"High listening levels" typically means 90 to 100 dB for most listening, with 110 dB peaks.
This would require 50 times the power for a pair of speakers vs. what I used here - add into that doubling the size of the room, over what it really is, and you are looking at 500 watt peaks, rather than the 5 watt peaks I used here.
Again, I also used music which concentrated on the mids and highs.
But, hey, IF you guys want to think I was wrong because running less than 1 watt with normal listening levels and 5 watt peaks because that would somehow cause sonic degradation, go ahead.
Personally, I know the 340's are a better speaker than you guys give it credit for.
I had also OFFERED to use the H-K receiver in order to do another test using Rocket 250 Mark II's and Ascend 340's with a Hsu VTF-3 Mark II. I was asked not to by David F. It was HIS call, not mine.
Last edited by craigsub; 06-11-2005 at 06:42 AM.
Craig
Forum Founder
I will post it here and now. From your first post about the 170's, and how you were going to listen to them, you DID state that you were going to listen to them full range on a seperate forum. Point given to you Craig. My apologies as well. In the future, may I suggest that you keep a copy of your methodology in every comparison thread that you start.Mr. Chang - Your words. This sure sounds like you were contradicting the fact that the methodology had been publicly posted.
Now, back to the issue of your comparison with the 340's. I will state this here and now as well. The 340's were not set up optimally. The use of a crossover for subwoofer integration was not used, and should have been. I know you know this is the case, but not willing to admit it.
You had the equipment to use a crossover. It is very unlikely that anybody purchasing these speakers would have $7K of electronics in front of them for solely 2-channel use.
No....again, that is not the case. We know it is an excellent speaker. We are saying that you did not have them set-up optimally.Personally, I know the 340's are a better speaker than you guys give it credit for.
-curtis
Junior Member
Craig,
I would just add my point, being the starter of this thread. I never wanted to start here the discussions from hometheaterforum, just wanted an answer at a benign question…
But now that we’re there, I would make a comparison. I’m a totally inexperienced audio user, but I’m quite a good high-school physics teacher. When discussing with my students I’m usually right, but from time to time a make a mistake, and afterwards, after realising it, I just tell Sorry guys, I was wrong, and my image in their eyes never suffers because of this.
No one here questions your experience and knowledge, we just feel that you made a mistake. Acknowledging it wouldn’t harm anything, on the contrary. Continuing to say that putting them on Large was best for their performance will affect your credibility, however, on the long run. Come on, Craig, is it so difficult to say Yes guys, I made a mistake, sorry!
Virgil.
Member
Curtis ... I did later try the STF-1's crossover with the 340's and the STF-1. Using the front I have here, there WAS sonic degradation. It is a $299 subwoofer whose parts cost less than $100. How much of that money do you think was spent on the high level crossover ?
I do agree that most people won't use $7000 worth of front end. I also opined that the 340's might be an easier speaker to drive than were the 550's. Note - I said "MIGHT" ... not "WERE" ...
This was another reason I offered to continue testing with the H-K.
The offer was declined.
I also offered to try the bookshelf version of the 550 - the 250.
The offer was declined.
Finally - If you look at what was said by David F., and do so with an objective eye, he basically said I abused the 340's in the test.
It is clear the 340's are NOT intended for high level listening in an 8000 cubic foot room. To play them IN an 8000 cubic foot room at high volume levels would be to abuse them.
The idea that I somehow abused the 340's is just plain not true.
Craig
Member
Virgil - You are right. I have made quite a mistake. I believed that when one publically posted the methodology to be used in a test, and when everyone whose product was being tested agrees with said methodology, that they mean it.
I also discussed, via e-mail and phone, the test equipment being used, and the methodology. Again, I got approval.
Now, we have people saying that I:
1. Never posted the methodology prior to the test.
2. That I used high volumes.
3. That my room is 8000 cubic feet.
The fact that none of these MAJOR items is true is irrelevant to the members of this forum. I understand that.
I was a Physics major at Penn State, and taught several high school courses while attending university.
I have to deal with over 100 employees, 200 clients, and over 6000 people who work for those clients. I am wrong several times per day. This is not one of those instances.
The 340's and STF-1 do, in fact, sound the best in the McIntosh system run full range on the 340's with the STF-1 augmenting the bottom end. This is within the confines of moderate levels for SPL's which we used.
I never said, at ANY time, that running the 340's in "large" was ALWAYS optimal. For high output home theater spectaculars, they would NOT be best used as "large".
And, again, I really have offered to do a retest, using any methology that everyone agreed on. That offer was declined.
When running any type of experiment, one plans out the methods to be used. We did that. Some people had a problem with the results.
Ok ... I understand that.
But, when an offer is made to re-do the test, and the offer is snubbed, and then people attack the test methodology, that is just plain wrong.
Last edited by craigsub; 06-11-2005 at 09:10 AM.
Craig
Posting Permissions
