CnoEvil

Wammer
  • Content Count

    5,696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

CnoEvil last won the day on June 23

CnoEvil had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,557 Excellent

About CnoEvil

  • Rank
    Veteran Wammer

Personal Info

  • Location
    Northern Ireland

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 1
    Linn Akurate DS/3
  • Integrated Amp
    Gato DIA 250S
  • My Speakers
    Harbeth Monitor 40.2
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think it most unlikely anyone will say that.
  2. Does this mean they're keepers?
  3. Anyone else with a Son or Daughter waiting on their Grades for exams they didn't take? I am profoundly uncomfortable with the blunt knife, that lowers grades of schools from disadvantaged areas, based on an algorithm. This has discrimination baked in. - England has lowered grades of 40% of students. - Scotland has now reversed this - and has decided to go with the teachers' predictions - which leaves the whole system unbalanced, if the rest of the UK doesn't follow. - England/NI seems to be suggesting that you can have the safety net of the results in the Mocks - if the school applies on your behalf and has met the criteria for adjudicating these mocks (which haven't been laid out). - Mocks are not a great assessment of a students ability. As I understand it, there is no standardised standard across schools; students don't necessarily take them that seriously; due to the latter, schools often mark them toughly, to give the students a wake up call. - On the up side, there should be less overseas students filling Uni places and students leaving it a year to avoid remote learning, giving more places; and Unis may take a more lenient approach, given the current situation. - I think using the school's predicted grades, which takes account of individual achievement, with the caveat that this needs evidence that can be challenged by the exam board....though far from perfect, is the fairest course of action.
  4. TBF. The posts giving info were as a result of you asking. It would have been rude not to reply!
  5. Mac, when are you expecting the grilles?
  6. Nobody has suggested otherwise. I am simply providing you with info on why the design is (and sounds) different ie. Not necessarily better. Ps. Leema speakers did not follow the BBC design, as they are not licenced to do so....and thus are a red herring.
  7. Here is Graham Audio discussing BBC Cabinet design: https://www.grahamaudio.co.uk/technology/cabinets/ A quote from Alan Shaw: "What underpins the BBC's thin-wall cabinet philosophy (and I was surprised to read that exact word in one of Harwood's papers recently) is the observation that a perfectly cast bell will ring on for many seconds. Conversely, a bell with a hairline crack will sound leaden and hardly ring at all. It's the same with cabinets: if the panels are all rigidly glued together then at some critical frequency or other a note or notes in the music will trigger the cabinet's natural structural resonance. In such a rigid structure, there is nothing that can be done to suppress the ringing - and each time that note reappears, it tops up the ringing which then becomes a permanent drone underneath the music. Conversely, in a thin-wall cabinet, the lossy joints (i.e. removable baffle/back and the generally 9-12mm thin panels used throughout the box) each act as an acoustic hairline crack. They inhibit the build-up of resonance. Simple as that really! Now, let's not kid ourself that it is possible to kill cabinet resonance stone dead. It isn't. Not with any approach to cabinet design because the sound pressure inside the cabinet is huge. What the thin-wall approach does is to move unwanted resonances downwards in amplitude and frequency so that they are adequately buried below the music and then pushed down in pitch. Note that I said adequately. Providing that the resonance, be it from the cone, cabinet or even recording - whatever the source - is x dBs below the fundamental, the BBC proved that it was completely inaudible. Once inaudible to trained listeners on all types of music/speech, that is the end of the matter. Inaudible to the trained listener is as good as the solution needs to be. It is neither necessary nor cost effective (nor good engineering) to continue pushing for a degree of theoretical excellence that nobody can appreciate but everyone must pay for. That pragmatism keeps our speaker affordable - and sounding natural. What we seem to be lacking in the industry today is the good old fashioned common sense that was abundant when serious researchers with zero commercial interest (i.e. the BBC) had their hands on the tiller. Thank goodness that they thoroughly documented their efforts for posterity since physics, acoustics and our hearing are the same now as fifty years ago. Now it seems we are all conditioned by marketeers to chase theoretical perfection which is far, far beyond what our ears can reliably resolve."
  8. My prediction is you will like them well enough, but not enough to replace your PMCs - especially given the price. It's something you should try, though...
  9. It's a claim backed up by Stereophile measurements. We are not talking massive amounts here - around 2dB above 7kHz measured on 30.2s 40th Annis.
  10. BBC designs are pretty much the opposite of modern speaker thinking. It works on the principle that "A cracked bell doesn't ring" - .and by having a cabinet that has thin walls that are designed to vibrate and lossy joints ....resonances are pushed down in the frequency range, to a point below which we can hear. Modern designs are the opposite, in that they are made as robust, inert and strong as possible, which pushes the resonances up into an area where they can be audible. The fuss is not because they're "better" per se, but because they are different - and different in a way that that the people who like them prefer. There is an old fashioned quality to the sound, which works if you find many modern speakers too forward, tiring and in your face.....but it is these same qualities that other people find too boring and lifeless.
  11. I made the comment to answer your question, not to attach any special attribute or bias towards Harbeth. Alan Shaw makes a point of saying that this is deliberate voicing. I don't think Kef, for example, work like this, as many of their speakers come without Grilles. BBC designs sound different due to their cabinet design. Some people like them and some people don't.
  12. With Harbeth, they are designed to measure correctly with the grilles on....and makes a difference of about 2dB in the treble.
  13. Venus's Day, is longer than its Year.