Big E speakers: Pt 2

[David Jayne]

I have no idea what your speaking of as I didn't read the whole thread from top to bottom.

Probably this. I don't think Leland meant to imply he's created some miracle for the hearing impaired. But it could possible be taken that way.

This, I'm pretty sure, for all the frequencies amplified by the bells. Reinforced by our experiences with the hearing impaired. Pretty amazing to see the smile on a face when they pull their hearing aids out.

 

[David Jayne]

Man---we really have to be paranoid about everything we say!

Or you could simply ignore certain things.

 

[will33]

Is there a GC45 for dummies who want to keep the wiring and pole mounting simple?

I found a GC464 and 468. Different woofers though. No idea about response, spl, etc.


[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[mntngrown]

Thanks, I put the page in my favorites.
Glad to see my MA48 is not obsolete yet

 

[Thomas Ewers]

Someone close to me is losing her hearing and it's a shame how quick the charlatans engage to rip some money out of the situation. Their claims are outrageous

I know Big-E has no intent in providing hearing solutions for the hearing impaired. It was a shock to me and a gut reaction to see this implied however so subtly.

Dear seamonkey,

Let me assure you of no ill feelings and intentions in this matter. We in the Big E family are all touched by friends and family with such hearing loss and even some within our collective group (See Leland). However the issue was only to highlight the nature of the sound being a bit different and is heard differently.

These observations of the hearing impaired as noted actually came from our hearing impaired relatives and friends. Including one incident where the impaired was sure it was way too loud because she could here the music just fine and yet is was not precluding casual conversation. The anecdotal evidence was passed on in that manner. However, we do intend in the future to have it studied by those doing research in the field in case it may shed light into their research as well. I promise you we are not selling these on such evidence as yet.

As you noted there are several types of hearing loss and maybe just maybe this will help in one or more forms. If it does pan out in research you may one day see such products.

BigE

 

[Thomas Ewers]

Thanks, I put the page in my favorites.
Glad to see my MA48 is not obsolete yet

Never obsolete just newer voicings. If your happy no reason to change. Those things have made a theater owner I know come running as it had to be in the PA!!!! LOL

Also known to blow up a few beer bottles too...

 

[lelandcrooks]

Is there a GC45 for dummies who want to keep the wiring and pole mounting simple?

There is a GC46. 4 6" faitals,2 comp drivers. But it is currently under revision. the GC25 is just so good it has forced us to rethink all the other PA tops crossover and tweeter choices. The GC46 were already excellent, it was my intended opening salvo cab, until we tweaked the 25. It just took the sound to a level we have to try to match with the other cabs. There is a large line array cab (WT8)that is within a hair of being equal to the GC25, but it's also well over 2k in price.

Really, the GC25 is a swiss army knife cab. I have multiple applications waiting in the wings for it. Just stack em up. We have some ideas on that aspect to make it crazy easy.

Sorry for the hearing comment.

 

[One Drop]

There's stuff going on that results in some gain.




Okay, this one I can give a decent answer to. This is highly counter-intuitive, but imo utterly fascinating, and I use it in my best-sounding home audio speakers.

Controlled blind tests have been done on the effect of reflections on the intelligibility of speech (a great index for clarity). While very late reflections (echoes) are detrimental, oddly enough, reflections that arrive within a fairly generous early time window actually enhance speech intelligibility! Perhaps the world's leading researcher in the field of psychoacoustics, Floyd Toole, theorizes that the ear can do a better job of deciphering a complex music signal if it gets multiple "looks". And here's another wierd part - the reflections do not have to be coherent! The ear/brain system doesn't hear waveforms; more like packets of energy, that stimulate the frequency-specific cells in the cochlea. In fact, diffuse reverberant energy is perceptually more desirable than strong, coherent reflections.

My best home audio speakers are bipolars, which radiate full spectrum front & back (conceptually not unlike an open-back guitar cab, except that's a dipole so it cancels at low frequencies). So we should have twice as much "blurring effect" from the doubling of in-room reverberant energy. But guess what - the net effect is enhanced clarity and articulation, relative to an equivalent monopole speaker, even though the in-room impulse response of the bipolars would be atrocious in comparison.

So imo it is theoretically feasible that the backwave energy the Big E's harvest actually enhances clarity. Theory aside, such has been my observation.

You know, I got seriously slapped down by Seamonkey and B. Fitzmaurice for daring to suggest that there are things about the way we measure stimuli that do not yet reflect the way we truly experience them. Our ears are only the very beginning of the process, so far I haven't seen any artificial brains that approach the complexity of ours, and none that are able to integrate the input of multiple senses in real time that approaches in any way the complexity of our own selves.

In some ways I find scientists some of the most unwilling and unable to see past their own paradigm. The history of almost every advance in our understanding of every branch of science is littered with first attempts that are ignored or scoffed at, or brutally suppressed by the current scientific orthodoxy and community. Since our measuring tools have become more complex many tend to take an theoretical approach and then apply it to practice, while in fact most great inventions and leaps in understanding were probably a result of finding the maths to explain phenomena we experienced empirically, or attempts to explain hunches or ideas that seem to come from nowhere, a result of the way we process information and use it at a subconscious or subliminal level.

Sorry for the rambling, it's an idea that is dear to me and that I think will be in the forefront of the field in the next few decades, as our understanding of ourselves increases exponentially due to advances in neuroscience, brain mapping, etc.

 

[3rdcurve]

You know, I got seriously slapped down by Seamonkey and B. Fitzmaurice for daring to suggest that there are things about the way we measure stimuli that do not yet reflect the way we truly experience them. Our ears are only the very beginning of the process, so far I haven't seen any artificial brains that approach the complexity of ours, and none that are able to integrate the input of multiple senses in real time that approaches in any way the complexity of our own selves.

In some ways I find scientists some of the most unwilling and unable to see past their own paradigm. The history of almost every advance in our understanding of every branch of science is littered with first attempts that are ignored or scoffed at, or brutally suppressed by the current scientific orthodoxy and community. Since our measuring tools have become more complex many tend to take an theoretical approach and then apply it to practice, while in fact most great inventions and leaps in understanding were probably a result of finding the maths to explain phenomena we experienced empirically, or attempts to explain hunches or ideas that seem to come from nowhere, a result of the way we process information and use it at a subconscious or subliminal level.

Sorry for the rambling, it's an idea that is dear to me and that I think will be in the forefront of the field in the next few decades, as our understanding of ourselves increases exponentially due to advances in neuroscience, brain mapping, etc.

An eloquently made and completely valid point.

 

[will33]

An eloquently made and completely valid point.

Agreed.

 

[12bass]

... Research Tom Beardon's work on the gutting of Maxwell's equations as they relate to the complete understanding of Electrical engineering. Take a look at some of the old science of geometry that the Mason's teach in there temples as a hint. There are models coming out of quantum physics that are shedding light on many things. Sorry for the rant but the function of the current crop of rigid scientific skeptics serve only to protect cherished paradigms rather than innovate. The universe is always bigger than the science of the day......

Off topic obviously, but I'm most curious to know what you think about quantum mechanics. Are you implying a link between QM and consciousness or something along those lines?

 

[nostatic]

Could you please clarify who you are calling a charlatan. I can't tell whether you're still upset at Big E, or at someone else and were just taking it out on Leland.

maybe he's upset at these guys

Link Removed

 

[5StringPocket]

A pair of MAS 210's will cover a 1000 ft. room.

Looks like I underrated the artillery. That could be lethal.

 

[nomatic]

Off topic obviously, but I'm most curious to know what you think about quantum mechanics. Are you implying a link between QM and consciousness or something along those lines?

Yes.......

The QM folks are entering the library door
of the larger body of arcane knowledge I feel. Science at its cutting edge has not caught up yet with some of the things that are hidden in the esoteric schools.

 

[Mike Arnopol]

Looks like I underrated the artillery. That could be lethal.

Sorry---I meant a 1000 person room

 

[edwinhurwitz]

maybe he's upset at these guys

Link Removed

Or these guys:

 

[RoadRanger]

A pair of MAS 210's will cover a 1000 person room.

With "lead kick" and no subs? 105 dB peak? That would be quite the accomplishment .

 

[Balog]

Ok, that does it. I'm selling some basses and getting one of these. Anyone need a USA Peavey 5 string, an MTD Kingston, or a cool old vintage Roadstar II?

 

[Arjank]

.
We know that closed boxes have much better bass than open baffles, even folded-back open baffles, because closing the box blocks dipole cancellation.

Yes/No
Open baffle (sub)woofers can generate enough bass and with higher quality then regular "boxed" cabinets when placed correctly in the room (they don't do their job when they are placed in a corner since they are not "pressure" generators like boxed cabs). But I guess you know that Duke

.
Okay, this one I can give a decent answer to. This is highly counter-intuitive, but imo utterly fascinating, and I use it in my best-sounding home audio speakers.

Controlled blind tests have been done on the effect of reflections on the intelligibility of speech (a great index for clarity). While very late reflections (echoes) are detrimental, oddly enough, reflections that arrive within a fairly generous early time window actually enhance speech intelligibility! Perhaps the world's leading researcher in the field of psychoacoustics, Floyd Toole, theorizes that the ear can do a better job of deciphering a complex music signal if it gets multiple "looks". And here's another wierd part - the reflections do not have to be coherent! The ear/brain system doesn't hear waveforms; more like packets of energy, that stimulate the frequency-specific cells in the cochlea. In fact, diffuse reverberant energy is perceptually more desirable than strong, coherent reflections.

My best home audio speakers are bipolars, which radiate full spectrum front & back (conceptually not unlike an open-back guitar cab, except that's a dipole so it cancels at low frequencies). So we should have twice as much "blurring effect" from the doubling of in-room reverberant energy. But guess what - the net effect is enhanced clarity and articulation, relative to an equivalent monopole speaker, even though the in-room impulse response of the bipolars would be atrocious in comparison.

So imo it is theoretically feasible that the backwave energy the Big E's harvest actually enhances clarity. Theory aside, such has been my observation.

Hmmm. I don't know.
IME bipolars create a great stereo image but somewhat more blurry then regular "point" source loudspeakers. They don't have that pin-point accuracy but offer a nice wide spatial sound.
As far as guitar cabs go, I ones modified a 212 cab for a friend of mine. He got it back and the 1st thing he said that it sounded way more clear and articulate... the mod was that I closed the backside of the cab(yes, it was an open-back cab) and added some damping/lining inside).

 

[DukeLeJeune]

You know, I got seriously slapped down by Seamonkey and B. Fitzmaurice for daring to suggest that there are things about the way we measure stimuli that do not yet reflect the way we truly experience them. Our ears are only the very beginning of the process, so far I haven't seen any artificial brains that approach the complexity of ours, and none that are able to integrate the input of multiple senses in real time that approaches in any way the complexity of our own selves.

In some ways I find scientists some of the most unwilling and unable to see past their own paradigm. The history of almost every advance in our understanding of every branch of science is littered with first attempts that are ignored or scoffed at, or brutally suppressed by the current scientific orthodoxy and community. Since our measuring tools have become more complex many tend to take an theoretical approach and then apply it to practice, while in fact most great inventions and leaps in understanding were probably a result of finding the maths to explain phenomena we experienced empirically, or attempts to explain hunches or ideas that seem to come from nowhere, a result of the way we process information and use it at a subconscious or subliminal level.

Sorry for the rambling, it's an idea that is dear to me and that I think will be in the forefront of the field in the next few decades, as our understanding of ourselves increases exponentially due to advances in neuroscience, brain mapping, etc.

Thanks for taking the time, One Drop. Very well phrased and explained.

At the root of scientific inquiry is the word "inquiry". There's a difference between a scientific historian who can recite an impressive array of known facts, and a true scientist, who is actively working and experimenting to discover the fundamental, hidden principles which are in play in his area of focus.

I'm not one of those guys, but have had the privilige of associating with a precious few of them over the years, men and women who are way, way out on the tail end of the bell curve (like Tom and Steve). These people are pushing the frightening edge of discovery like an intrepid blind man exploring the unknown with only his cane, going wherever it takes them, and are not at all interested in defending the borders of current knowledge, although they are adept at using the tools it offers. They are pioneers, initiates, fire-bringers, heretics, witches, and blasphemers. And the best human beings I know.

I remember one time Earl Geddes was at odds with a majority of his fellow members of the Audio Engineering Society. One of them suggested that the matter be put to a vote. His reply was classic: "I shall abstain from voting. Science is not a democracy."

Obviously you have that excitement and sense of wonder at the discovery that there is more to the world than we have yet thought of. You and I may not be the ones actually pushing the boundaries, but we're serious enough students to recognize when there's something going on that is outside of the norm. Yes we risk being mistaken, but if we discover that to be the case, we course-correct and keep on seeking. If we wait until new knowledge becomes mainstream we run less risk of being mistaken, but we will have traded off our innate sense of curiosity and wonder and awe for safety.