Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Interesting. Unfortunately I don't understand the language. Could you elaborate?

The text is not that interesting anyway, just details how to build these cones. The first picture says it all: here, the mid-range speaker and tweeter are mounted in a closed box and positioned below and above the cones. These cones reflect the sound waves in all directions on the horizontal plane, so the "sweet spot" where you get the best sound is much larger than with normal loudspeakers. In addition the sound waves are reflected against the walls in your room, creating a much wider sound stage, just like with dipoles. Problem with dipole speakers is that the sound waves coming from the front and rear sides are 180° out of phase, and cancel each other out. The cone-reflecting design does not suffer from this problem. (interesting detail here, my Bose speakers have two tweeters mounted in opposite directions for a similar effect)

Other designs I've been pondering include motional feedback and plasma speakers. MFB could in theory produce a perfectly flat frequency response from any cheap loudspeaker. Practical problem is that you'll need a speaker with very flat phase response to start with, otherwise all you get is oscillation. For this reason it's often only used in a small freq range, like on woofers.
Plasma speakers would also make a true point-source speaker, and since plasma is lighter than air I think the frequency and phase response would be perfectly flat. They're quite easy and cheap to build, too. But of course this design has practical problems, like ozone emission and RF interference. And since they're driven by a modulated square wave, you'll need a carrier frequency somewhere in the GHz range to eliminate harmonic distortion.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Not necessarily so. The job of a sub is to extend the low frequency response of a system instead of changing the sound. A good sub - just as any other components in your audio chain - preserves the fidelity of the sound being played instead of changing it.

May I add to this, that the reasoning behind a subwoofer is that low frequencies are very difficult to localize for the human ear (since the wavelength is very long, the sound wave enters both your ears pretty much simultaneously). So instead of using two HUGE speakers, you can use slightly smaller main speakers and only need one big box for low frequencies.

But... I believe the limit for this effect is about 40Hz, or so. If your sub operates above this limit, you're effectively turning your stereo set into mono, in that frequency range. Most multimedia / home cinema sets use a crossover frequency FAR above this, since the tiny sattelite speakers don't do all that much below 200Hz or so. Or even worse, they leave a gap between the sub and main speakers...

I have used a subwoofer for a while, one which I built myself. It was a box the size of a small fridge, with a 12" JBL woofer and three bass-reflex ports. From my calculations it went down to 27Hz, IIRC. Never actually measured that, though. I eventually ditched it because I had some problems with standing waves in this room, at about 37Hz the whole room would resonate, which didn't sound all that nice. I also could never get the phase response right at the crossover frequency, so I would either have a "gap" or "bump" in the frequency response. In the end I decided my main speaker set goes low enough for most types of music anyway. But I might start experimenting with a sub again if I ever move the whole set into a different room.

Also, not entirely off topic, here are two frequency response plots of some pretty good Philips headphones:
SHP-5401
SBC-HP890

This was measured on a very quick and dirty setup so don't take it for truth. Notice the "dips" at 5k and 10k in both plots: this might just be coincidence, or a measurement error. I used a Panasonic WM-61A mic, mounted on breadboard with one headphone speaker pushed against it, playing a sine sweep from 20Hz to 30kHz with the spectrum analyzer set on "hold".

Hey very detailed information, thank you 😀

I have a nice 2.1 setup on my main desktop. But for me, it has to be 2.0 for my retro computer. And in this regard I'm stubborn 😵

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

I see. As far as music goes, how do you like 7.1 music, by the way? I always wonder, some people seem to hate it.

The music is ok, when upmixed. Sometimes, you feel like you're in a studio, with surrounded instruments. Sometimes, you can hear certain instruments separated out to certain speakers, and so on. Yeah, some don't like the upmixing and prefer plain stereo sounds.

The upmixing is more evident in some games - like the old Playstation 1's FIFA World Cup '98 game - where it only supports stereo out, but when connected to a decoder, the encoded audio becomes the real thing - the crowd sounds in the stadium will fill the whole room, etc. Playstation One also had some games with Dolby Surround encoded in them. Need For Speed III comes to mind too. As you know, PS1 does not have digital out, so it depended on external decoders to bring out it's true surround audio potential, via it's humble stereo out.

And you can also play Wing Commander IV DOS using decoders, since the game also supports Dolby Surround in the movies.

When I listen to music, I choose the "Music" setting of the Dolby ProLogic II EX output mode. For movies, you can select the "Movie" mode.

badmojo wrote:

Has anyone tried Harman Kardon SoundSticks III ? They look purdy if nothing else: […]
Show full quote

Has anyone tried Harman Kardon SoundSticks III ? They look purdy if nothing else:

Those look to have similar styling cues to the speakers Apple packed with the Powermac G4 Cube.

Here's a pic with both the Apple speakers and the SoundSticks so you can see how well they go together.

jwt27 wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Interesting. Unfortunately I don't understand the language. Could you elaborate?

The text is not that interesting anyway, just details how to build these cones.

I see.

jwt27 wrote:

The first picture says it all: here, the mid-range speaker and tweeter are mounted in a closed box and positioned below and above the cones. These cones reflect the sound waves in all directions on the horizontal plane, so the "sweet spot" where you get the best sound is much larger than with normal loudspeakers. In addition the sound waves are reflected against the walls in your room, creating a much wider sound stage, just like with dipoles. Problem with dipole speakers is that the sound waves coming from the front and rear sides are 180° out of phase, and cancel each other out. The cone-reflecting design does not suffer from this problem. (interesting detail here, my Bose speakers have two tweeters mounted in opposite directions for a similar effect)

Make me wonder: what manufacturers have tried similar design? Is it hard to build?

Right now I'm more interested in scalpel-accurate sound of exotic tweeters, but who knows someday I'll be more interested in dipoles .

jwt27 wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Not necessarily so. The job of a sub is to extend the low frequency response of a system instead of changing the sound. A good sub - just as any other components in your audio chain - preserves the fidelity of the sound being played instead of changing it.

May I add to this, that the reasoning behind a subwoofer is that low frequencies are very difficult to localize for the human ear (since the wavelength is very long, the sound wave enters both your ears pretty much simultaneously). So instead of using two HUGE speakers, you can use slightly smaller main speakers and only need one big box for low frequencies.

But... I believe the limit for this effect is about 40Hz, or so. If your sub operates above this limit, you're effectively turning your stereo set into mono, in that frequency range. Most multimedia / home cinema sets use a crossover frequency FAR above this, since the tiny sattelite speakers don't do all that much below 200Hz or so. Or even worse, they leave a gap between the sub and main speakers...

Indeed. Some manufacturers have taken this to the extreme: tiny satellites and 6" 'subwoofer' that is actually a bass unit instead of true sub. Or, tiny satellites with huge sub that produces thunderous bass, but leaves huge gap between the sub and the mains. Not to mention the tiny mains are usually deficient in producing midrange frequencies. Not only it turns the stereo set into mono, but it also effectively makes a "boom boom" system that is totally inadequate for anything other than explosive action movies (or Quake, for that matter).

It is interesting to note that in most subs (or subwoofer amplifiers), the hi-pass crossover is wired at 80Hz, which is far above the unlocalizable limit of 40Hz. Even Velodyne SC-1250 sub amplifier also suffers from this.

Anyway, in some music (like this), I also found that the bass are indeed localizable. Right now I'm not using sub, but when I do, I think stereo sub is interesting.

jwt27 wrote:

I have used a subwoofer for a while, one which I built myself.

It is interesting to observe that some audiophiles hate sub. It seems they prefer seamless integration between frequency ranges instead of LF extension. You know, things like "homogenous single image", "whole tonal picture", and such.

Not me, though.

Malik wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

I see. As far as music goes, how do you like 7.1 music, by the way? I always wonder, some people seem to hate it.

The music is ok, when upmixed. Sometimes, you feel like you're in a studio, with surrounded instruments. Sometimes, you can hear certain instruments separated out to certain speakers, and so on. Yeah, some don't like the upmixing and prefer plain stereo sounds.

I actually don't mind the bolded thing, although some audiophiles seem to hate that. Again, the "whole tonality" thing.

When I was kid, my dad added a pair of car speakers to my system in A/B configuration. Always wanting the sound coming from all speakers, I naturally played them in A+B configuration. The car speakers complimented the bookshelf speakers nicely. While the bookshelves are better in producing and have better "tonal balance", the car speakers are better in HF details. But such configuration also gave me a pleasant surprise. Once I listened to The Great Pretender by Freddie Mercury, and the song has repetitive string orchestra riffs that fade away until the song ends. Now, when the riffs are still quite loud, they sound as if they played from the car speakers. But as the riffs fade away, they begin to "move" to the bookshelf speakers.

It is weird, as if the amplifier sends different stereo phase to each set of speakers. And I said it's weird because the Marantz is not a surround receiver at all; it is a plain stereo amplifier. There is no way for the amplifier to upmix the signal, let alone sending different, distinct phase to each A/B channel.

Could anyone explain this phenomenon? Probably an unintended effect of comb filtering?

Malik wrote:

The upmixing is more evident in some games - like the old Playstation 1's FIFA World Cup '98 game - where it only supports stereo out, but when connected to a decoder, the encoded audio becomes the real thing - the crowd sounds in the stadium will fill the whole room, etc. Playstation One also had some games with Dolby Surround encoded in them. Need For Speed III comes to mind too. As you know, PS1 does not have digital out, so it depended on external decoders to bring out it's true surround audio potential, via it's humble stereo out.

And you can also play Wing Commander IV DOS using decoders, since the game also supports Dolby Surround in the movies.

When I listen to music, I choose the "Music" setting of the Dolby ProLogic II EX output mode. For movies, you can select the "Movie" mode.

Ahh, Wing Commander in surround. A real bliss. 😀

Have you tried upmixing DOS games? Say, Wing Commander 1 or Ultima 6. How do they sound? Since Ultima 6's sound mostly consists of music (instead of chanting crowd), does upmixing make it much better? Or not that much? How about Star Control II?

Wing Commander 1 (via MT-32 connected to the decoder), as well as the Ultima VI, connected in the same way sound good. There's no obvious separations or unwanted side effects of alienated instrument directions. Both sound like enhanced stereo, with equal stereo separation, and they just enhance the atmosphere, since you're surrounded by the music, say for example - "Stones" in Ultima VI - my favourite piece in that game.

I've never played Star Control II, though.

Malik wrote:

Wing Commander 1 (via MT-32 connected to the decoder), as well as the Ultima VI, connected in the same way sound good. There's no obvious separations or unwanted side effects of alienated instrument directions. Both sound like enhanced stereo, with equal stereo separation, and they just enhance the atmosphere, since you're surrounded by the music, say for example - "Stones" in Ultima VI - my favourite piece in that game.

I've never played Star Control II, though.

Man, you should try. 😀

to anyone here who is interested in high quality headphones for music.
The Alessandro MS1.
Open headphones and around $100 AUD.
simply amazing.
once described to me as "headphones on steroids". completely true.
looking at a frequency graph does not do these things justice. try them! 😀

I bought a pair of the MS1's years ago when my computer setup was within hearing distance of the sleeping kids. They do sound nice but their open nature means that anyone sitting in the same room can hear what's going on, and one of the phones fell off at one point, which required some glue to fix (no big deal).

Great sound for the price.

The specs is quite impressive indeed.

Frequency response: 20 - 22K Hz

Just wonder: anyone ever tried Psyko's Carbon surround-sound headphone? The design is outlandish and the review is skeptical, but I wonder if anyone ever fell for it.

If they actually had any idea about how surround sound works they would've used normal two-speaker headphones and an HRTF algorithm.

jwt27 wrote:

If they actually had any idea about how surround sound works they would've used normal two-speaker headphones and an HRTF algorithm.

Indeed.

But strangely enough, the resulting sound is sufficiently directional - at least according the review. The sound quality, of course, is entirely another thing. (thumbs down).

What an awesome thread! 😀 I'll spare the boredom of listing all of my gears though. 😵

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Make me wonder: what manufacturers have tried similar design? Is it hard to build?

Right now I'm more interested in scalpel-accurate sound of exotic tweeters, but who knows someday I'll be more interested in dipoles .

Yes, a few come to mind. The first thing I thought of from the pictures was MBL and their Radialstator (or however it is properly spelled); never seen one in the flesh though. Mirage produces (or at least produced) speakers that are somewhat similar at least in the HF and mid-range, the bigger ones are actually pretty good (the Omni350 and 550, and the even larger ones with 8" woofers) - I vaguely remember them being perpetually discounted through Crutchfield if you're inclined. And finally, the Sansui SF series from way back in the 1970s - SF-1 and SF-2. I happen to have a reasonably held together pair of SF-2s under a blanket in storage (I might have pictures somewhere, or I might be able to go take new pictures - I have a scan of some old marketing material that I will upload if that's allowable). They radiate almost perfectly 360* across almost their entire frequency response, which is a somewhat odd effect - you can walk around anywhere "between" them and still more or less be in their sweet spot which is kind of eerie at first - they're pretty huge speakers (they have 2 8" woofers and weigh quite a lot) and they will more or less disappear if you close your eyes (that is, it's hard to point your finger out and go "the speaker is right there!"). Where they really excel is being used as surrounds (which is what Sansui originally designed them for, best as I can tell - they were likely meant to be the "back" speakers in a Quad setup, they're also designed to look like side-tables so they will blend in with your couch) - even setup in 4.0 with reasonable speakers up front, the surround effect is very good from a DVD or something else that is mixed for surround.

The Mirage speakers are almost as good in terms of how wide of an area they cover, but they do have a "front" and a "back" to them, and most of them want for bass extension (I've never heard the really big one with 8 or 10" cones; but the 550 and the line-array-esque tower (Omni3 or something like that), as well as the model with 6" woofers are all pretty weak when it comes to "explosion blam blam" effects). Probably easier to fit into modern decor though...

I think some of the older JBL, Realistic, and Technics speakers use at least somewhat similar shaped diffusers on their compression drivers too (you'd only get "half" the cone there though) - sound quality is all over the place though (IOW some of them are stellar, some aren't).

It is interesting to note that in most subs (or subwoofer amplifiers), the hi-pass crossover is wired at 80Hz, which is far above the unlocalizable limit of 40Hz. Even Velodyne SC-1250 sub amplifier also suffers from this.

I know a lot of receivers and other devices that output or handle 5.1 signals have their crossover set somewhere like 80-100hz. Wonder if that's because of how subs are set by the manufacturers? 😕

Anyway, in some music (like this), I also found that the bass are indeed localizable. Right now I'm not using sub, but when I do, I think stereo sub is interesting.

I used to have a Yamaha that did "stereo subwoofers" (it had a left subwoofer and right subwoofer port; according to its manual the ".1" from DVD or Laserdisc (did I mention it was really old?) would be sent to both and reduced by 3 dB (because together you should get that 3 dB back as long as they aren't canceling each other out), but in "stereo" mode, it would match left to left and right to right not only for the front channels, but for all other channels (if I remember right it did 8; six in front and two in back) as well). In general it was pretty slick, but it was kind of a bear to operate - it had something like 70 processing modes to choose from, and did very little automatically. 😐

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

When I was kid, my dad added a pair of car speakers to my system in A/B configuration. Always wanting the sound coming from all speakers, I naturally played them in A+B configuration. The car speakers complimented the bookshelf speakers nicely. While the bookshelves are better in producing and have better "tonal balance", the car speakers are better in HF details. But such configuration also gave me a pleasant surprise. Once I listened to The Great Pretender by Freddie Mercury, and the song has repetitive string orchestra riffs that fade away until the song ends. Now, when the riffs are still quite loud, they sound as if they played from the car speakers. But as the riffs fade away, they begin to "move" to the bookshelf speakers.

It is weird, as if the amplifier sends different stereo phase to each set of speakers. And I said it's weird because the Marantz is not a surround receiver at all; it is a plain stereo amplifier. There is no way for the amplifier to upmix the signal, let alone sending different, distinct phase to each A/B channel.

Could anyone explain this phenomenon? Probably an unintended effect of comb filtering?

My best guess: Comb filtering or phase cancellation probably - if they were anti-phase they would cancel out (same idea as noise-canceling headphones), and in-phase they would re-enforce - you'll localize the sound to whichever one "arrives" first (likely whichever is physically closer to you), and the secondary one will serve to make it sound louder (unless the delay is relatively large). It's related to the Haas effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect).

How it was wired may have made a difference too - I doubt it if they were really just "straight" to the A and B terminals, but if they were connected in series there will be filtering of whatever is downstream as the signal goes through the first speaker.

Finally, the track (I'm entirely unfamiliar with it - so this is a complete shot in the dark) may have had the riffs coming in and out of phase or panning or similar to create a desired effect, which may also have contributed to how things sounded. And/or the speaker's phase response in relation to this.

But that's just a guess...

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Just wonder: anyone ever tried Psyko's Carbon surround-sound headphone? The design is outlandish and the review is skeptical, but I wonder if anyone ever fell for it.

Haven't tried those, but I remember trying another surround-sound headset a few years ago (honestly don't remember who made it - Logitech maybe); was completely unimpressed - the sound localization was no better than my stereo headphones, and the comfort was pretty bad (it was pretty heavy and used a lot of relatively inflexible plastic, so it tended to "grip" your head - I really didn't get why the ergonomics were so bad for something designed to be worn for, ostensibly, a long period of time). I guess the one advantage it had was it had a mic integrated into it. 😢

rgart wrote:

to anyone here who is interested in high quality headphones for music. The Alessandro MS1. Open headphones and around $100 AUD. […]
Show full quote

to anyone here who is interested in high quality headphones for music.
The Alessandro MS1.
Open headphones and around $100 AUD.
simply amazing.
once described to me as "headphones on steroids". completely true.
looking at a frequency graph does not do these things justice. try them! 😀

I've used a number of Grado Labs headphones over the years (how this matters: Grado Labs produces the Alessandro headphones based on one of their models - although they, and Alessandro, are pretty mum on what the real-world differences between the two are); in general I would agree with this sentiment. The wooden models are usually the best performers in my experience, but the pricing can be kind of a runaway train if you buy the whole package (they have matching wooden boxes to connect them up to, and to store them in, etc - it all looks very pretty but costs quite a lot).

Personally I like an older pair of Sony headphones better for the "surround effect," these ones:
(not my picture; if it was wrong to post this I will remove it)

I'm pretty sure they've been discontinued (they used to appear periodically on Sony's website), but there's likely a newer model (I've used and seen other Sony headphones that look similar, so I would assume it's kind of their "thing").

sliderider wrote:

Those look to have similar styling cues to the speakers Apple packed with the Powermac G4 Cube. […]
Show full quote

Those look to have similar styling cues to the speakers Apple packed with the Powermac G4 Cube.

Here's a pic with both the Apple speakers and the SoundSticks so you can see how well they go together.

Could that get anymore Mactastic? 🤣 If nothing else it brings back memories...

To the question about their sound - yeah, they aren't terrible sounding, but I remember them being fairly expensive.

obobskivich wrote:

What an awesome thread! 😀 I'll spare the boredom of listing all of my gears though. 😵

What, are you kidding? List them here, better with photos!

Will reply to your other points but right now I'm delirious with flue. Nonetheless I enjoy reading them.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

What, are you kidding? List them here, better with photos!

Alas I don't have my own (digital) camera - I've borrowed one from time to time over the years, and I have some pictures as a result (with wildly variable quality as well). Part of the reason I'm remiss to "list them here" is that I currently own better than a dozen pairs of headphones, and have gone through probably a hundred over the last few years - 😅. I used to have a large-ish number of receivers, player machines, etc - but I've been working on clearing a lot of that out (when it started taking up its own room, I decided enough was enough). Went through and put together some of the pictures I've got of various equipment I have, or have had. 😀

Some various pictures of headphones I have, or have had, over the years:

Key to models shown in the pictures:

- First picture, Denon AH-D2000
- Second picture, left-to-right, AKG K701, Sony MDR-SA5000, Sennheiser HD 580 Precision
- Third picture, left-to-right, Kenwood KH-K1000, Koss ESP/950, Sony MDR-F1

Down below there's also a Koss ESP/10 that snuck into a shot.

There's quite a few not shown as well - ask and I may have one, or (more likely) have had one. 😵 (Off the top of my head, the only manufacturers I can say I haven't heard at least one model from are Victor (while the KH-K1000 technically count, I'm not sure of their relationship (if any) to the HP-DX line - they were/are an odd-duck in general), STAX, German-Maestro, Final, JDM Fostex, and as a genre magnetostatic headphones (I have never been interested in them)).

Moving away from headphones - some receivers/equipment I have decent shots of:

The box in the middle is a neat curiosity - it's an external CinemaDSP/Pro Logic processor/amplifier combo - it couples with a stereo receiver (like the one on the bottom) and provides surround sound functionality. It brings its own amplifiers for all the channels it adds as well (if I remember right its only around 20wpc though).

This is the same receiver as the previous picture but with different gears - the one on-top of it is a stand-alone digital audio processor, the goofy looking thing with meters is a Koss ESP/10 system (electrostatic headphones from the late 1970s - before they went bankrupt (the black Koss headphones up above are their current model)); also worth noting is the heatsink next to Chancellor Vallorum - that's off of a Xeon II, and it actually was serving a purpose there - the PSU in the audio processor got relatively warm, and the heatsink cooled it down.

Same table with a different receiver.

Notably I'm missing pictures of my two bigger Yamaha receivers; DSP-A3090 and RX-V995. The A3090 died over the summer and was recycled, but the V995 is still trucking last time I had it out and powered up. The VFD is getting dim as it gets on in years, but otherwise everything worked. Also missing pictures of my JVC CD players, but I have some old images from a magazine (or something):

They're from the same model series (JVC XL-Z; the top is 444, the bottom is 555), the bottom one is the "big brother" model. You may be wondering why it says "Best Album" too - it has a built-in memory and you can program in the name of your CDs (I think up to 32 CDs) and it will recall that when the disc is inserted. You can also program it to have specific playback macros tied to that, so for example if you have a CD that you really hated Track 2 on, you could program it to play 1, 3, etc when that disc was inserted. Unfortunately mine both suffer from read issues - the 555 finally had it (or I should say, I had finally had it with its issues) and was recycled with the 3090, the 444 I keep around for testing things (because it has a headphone output and line output). The 555 did have wooden panels on the sides - it was wider than a normal component as a result (the front panels with buttons and the CD tray were the same width between the two; the wood added another ~2" beyond that); they were some kind of black wood (honestly even in person you could hardly tell it was wood unless you went to take it apart).

Found the images for the SF-2 speakers:

These two look like they were facing pages in a book:

The final picture is my pair - the foam behind the grilles is in pretty bad shape (for a pair of speakers from 1977 they're in fantastic shape though), and there's some dings no the wood grilles - I haven't decided how I want to go about cleaning them up, but the best idea I've come up with thus far is to strip them down, remove all that foam, and then wrap speaker grille cloth around them to cover-up the damage to the wood but to retain the wood (the images from Sansui seem to indicate the wood serves more than a cosmetic purpose; and it does also serve to protect the drivers inside). I've peeked inside before and all of the cones are in fine shape, which is pretty surprising (my Mach Twos were pretty bad-off and those are probably a decade newer). The pink thing is a blanket that normally stays over them to protect them when not in use.

I have never even seen the "big towers" that are supposed to sit up-front with the SF-2/SF-1 speakers; I think they're called something like X-9000 (and from the bits I've heard about them over the years, live up to that kind of name; the woofers are supposed to be >15" among other huge specs). I've tried the SF-2 out with my Yamaha EF towers (which are also 2x8" but have a separate mid-range and tweeter, while the Sansui has more of a full-range driver for that role) and it works pretty well, but you really get the feeling of how different the design philosophies are (the Yamaha are designed to be very direct). Technics Linear Phase speakers tend to fare a bit better, but are a little bit out-classed (at least the models I've had (L36 and L55)) in the low-end department.

Picture of the Yamaha speakers as well:

Normally they aren't setup like that - just got them together for a shot. That's left/right and matched center. Never bothered with the matching bookshelves as surrounds - but they look like if you cut the towers in half and just kept the mid-range and tweeter segment (I'm told by Yamaha that internally that's how the towers are constructed too (two separated chambers in one bigger box), but I haven't been curious enough to pull them apart and verify that claim).

In the picture I know the cones look like they're metallic (like some of the Klipsch and Technics speakers from over the years), but they aren't - it's just a weird reflection. They're a silvery/white and the manual says they're "poly-mica" - whatever that means. They feel kind of like marshmallows to the touch.

And some Technics LPs:

If you think they look rough in that picture, you should've seen them after I cut the cabinets in half! 😈

I found those at a thrift shop for $5 and snagged them - the crossovers were completely shot, as were the tweeters, so they were running with those big 10" woofers from wherever their bottom end is (something like 30Hz) up to something like 5kHz (they actually will play up that high); sounded tubby like you wouldn't believe. Cut the boxes down with the original intention of using them for open-baffle, but the particle board just splintered apart, so I dumped them into compost and build my own baffles (out of 3/4" MDF - which I would not do again if given the choice) for those woofers and a pair of JVC ceramic drivers that I pulled out of an honest-to-god ghetto blaster. I have pictures of those somewhere, but can't seem to find them right now. They sound infinitely better than either of the original setups, and for less than $10 in total hardware it was a fine way to kill an afternoon, but they're not going to replace a more conventional pair of speakers any time soon (and because of this, I've kind of stopped tinkering with them). The "final goal" will be to paint them metallic blue; it should contrast nicely with the white driver cones.

I don't have a picture of the L55s (those are still in one piece though - they work!); they're very similar looking to the L36, except they have a midrange (same veneer finishing and wave-guides for the tweeters and all that).

Will reply to your other points but right now I'm delirious with flue. Nonetheless I enjoy reading them.

Hopefully you feel better soon! 😀 Flu is no fun at all. 😢

The Sansui speakers are cool! Sansui speakers tend to be under appreciated, probably because many of Japanese speakers during that day are kabuki speakers, to people tend to generalize.

obobskivich wrote:

Hopefully you feel better soon! 😀 Flu is no fun at all. 😢

Thanks, got better already. 😀

I installed an in-wall speaker system to keep clutter at a minimum and hide wires as much as possible (wires are in the wall and I installed speaker wall jacks)...they are Pheonix Gold 200W (probably 80-100W RMS) with a 6" driver and 1" tweeter...they actually sound very nice.

sorry about low picture quality...

Some every-day-SONY MDR-XD100 wannabe DJ headphones...not bad quality though

Very clean looking in-walls - is that a vintage woodie receiver I spy there in the pic?