Quasar mkII (BD-Design)
hello
it has been some time since the quasar was on the site.
just wondering if you have moved on from this design and
if so why?
thanks
xero
Quasar mkII
by Bert 
, Monday, April 05, 2010, 09:32 (5134 days ago) @ xero
Hi Xero,
it has been some time since the quasar was on the site.
just wondering if you have moved on from this design and
if so why?
I have not really moved from the design, it is still available but on the site things seem a bit dead indeed. I need to redo the website as many things have changed (new products added and other products removed).
The Quasar MkII itself is a finished design but not forgotten. :wink:
Cheers,
Bert
--
BD-Design - Only the Best!
Quasar mkII
bert
that is great to hear. please forgive me in advance as i have not heard
your speaker so i will make a rather generic statement about open baffles
designs.
as you and no doubt others have seen, there has been increased interest
in the concept of the 'open baffle design'. many of which use a active crossover /
driver management / room correction package for proper implementation.
i would love to hear your thoughts on. hardware like the dcs etc, as it relates
to open baffle designs in particular and your speakers in particular.
thanks in advance,
xero
Quasar mkII
by Bert , Tuesday, April 06, 2010, 09:38 (5133 days ago) @ xero
Hi Xero,
as you and no doubt others have seen, there has been increased interest
in the concept of the 'open baffle design'. many of which use a active crossover /
driver management / room correction package for proper implementation.
I will always be against this "hype" to "correct" room problems by digitally manipulating the original signal.
It is impossible to correctly correct a room this way, the room (the real problem) will always be unchanged afterwards.
It is like applying make-up to an ugly person having a weird figure at the same time which will always be fake and hardly optimal. Using make-up on a beautiful lady and make her look even better...that might be what people should look for if they want things to be optimal.
Of course this only will improve things if the person applying the make-up is knowledgeable enough to make it work, if not then the net result will always be worse than the original.
One example is a standing wave. You can recognize such resonances very easy as the sound appears to be in your head (pressurizing your ears) instead of the sound emitting from the speakers towards you.
Lowering the amplitude of this frequency (and phase, timing, whatever...) will only lower the amplitude, it will never take away the pressure from your ears and make the sound emitting as if it actually comes from the speakers..., it is not curing the problem itself and THAT is what you should be looking for.
Curing such problems can be done properly as I did in my own room:
http://forum.bd-design.nl/index.php?id=16140
This leaves the original signal untouched without an extra polluting device in my system's signal path...
Another example are reflections of the sound in your room, how to cure these with a digital device? Just lowering the amplitude in the frequency range where the sound got stronger due to those reflections or cancellations?
Correcting a loudspeaker and optimize its drivers to better performance is something different but then still, it is not the holy grale or the only thing that matters...
It is just a tool helping and only a few people actually do recognize the real problems which need to be cured. Most people just leave the EQ-thing do its work and actually think that this gives them the optimal settings...
Yeah, sure...like all those computerized simulated loudspeaker systems, as if those sound okay. :fishy:
A lousy sounding driver will never sound more than okay either just by manipulating its amplitude and related phase/timing and a 300 grams woofer diaphragm will still be a 300 grams woofer diaphragm after optimizing!
I am glad that I do NOT need such devices for my speakers as these are being beautiful on their own already, even without make-up.
Cheers,
Bert
--
BD-Design - Only the Best!
Quasar mkII
bert
thanks for the reply. like the analogy to ugly women. but since there is not one universal standard for beauty there is room for interpretation. ( just like audio). regarding the purity of the signal. i guess that depends on where one considers the signal to end. is the signal just electronic impulses that are only in the components? or does the signal end when it comes in contact with the ear drum. if one considers it being the latter then anything we do to our room, be it using a sub, matching the curve and then inverting the phase or placing room treatments in the environment, would be altering the purity of the original signal.
just my to cents. would love to hear yours.
thanks again
respectfully,
xero
Quasar mkII
by Bert , Thursday, April 15, 2010, 00:33 (5124 days ago) @ xero
Dear Xero,
The signal ends in the brain...and the state of mind at the moment gives that a value.
Everybody should be free to use EQ to their best knowledge though, my main concern is only that digital and/or analogue EQ should not be seen as the holy grail solving all problems as many users tend to suggest...
Everything is a compromise and in acoustics there is simply no easy way out.
There are differences in changing the original signal though (limiting this topic to what EQ does to the frequency curve alone and not to confuse this with the other negative aspects such devices bring).
- If a speaker is changing the original signal due to design problems or limitations then an EQ correction at the speaker makes it more or less "original" again (as far as possible). The end result will be closer to the original signal if a speaker needs this "cosmetic surgery".
- Trying to correct what the room is doing at the same time is something completely different because the ear is very capable to separate direct and reflected sound (as most effective example)... EQ-ing the signal back to "original" at the listening position is only doing harm as it creates something completely different and will be further away from the original signal. Time coherence and phase is then mixed up seriously...
Compare 2 mike recordings with multi-mike re-mixed recordings...I know what I feel is closer to the original performance.
But let’s stop discussing this issue, I do not feel that I should change the world and tell people what they should do. I only respond to people asking and I do think I have expressed my thoughts enough now in this matter.
I seriously wish all people good luck whenever they start EQ-ing their listening room and hopefully their brains can be fooled with this and hopefully they will be very happy with the achieved compromise.
Cheers,
Bert
--
BD-Design - Only the Best!
Quasar mkII
bert
thanks for your clairty and eloquence on this subject. i do not
think that we disagree on this topic. my systems have always
been based on the KISS principle that and trying to think things
through as methodically as possible. my iquires (because it is not
a complete understand yet) about open baffle bass ( how it works
in a room and the lack of cabinet ) make me think that this would
be the ideal starting point for me.
again thanks,
xero
Quasar mkII
by Bert , Friday, April 16, 2010, 09:33 (5123 days ago) @ xero
Dear Xero,
An open baffle is nothing else than another loudspeaker system except the bass is dropping faster (which can be corrected with a simple EQ-network) but placement for an even bass response is more tricky.
An open panel will need its free placement more than common systems but both are always facing similar problems regarding room acoustics where an open baffle will be a lot worse when placed too close to surrounding walls...
To take full advantage of an open baffle is to put it into "free space" (at least 1 to 1.5m free from surrounding walls), only then room related problems are much less an issue...
If you do not have enough free space to position open baffles properly then do not start with such a system, it will only bring you more troubles (like the "need" for an EQ device to exchange problems for other ones).
The strong points for using an open baffle is "freedom" of sound...but this is not the case if it is pushed into a corner! Then common systems which are properly build and tuned for such placement will proof to be a whole lot more joyful...
Open baffles are just another example of an Audioworld Hype and being the "Holy Grail" without telling the whole story (usualy the drawbacks are not expressed properly or not heard due to blindness).
Bert
--
BD-Design - Only the Best!