Why do you need a speaker crossover - discuss

[ursus262]

I was wondering. Does bi-wiring overcome the the technical challenges? Each driver is presented as an individual load to the amplifier and impedance issues seem to be less important.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I was wondering. Does bi-wiring overcome the technical challenges? Each driver is presented as an individual load to the amplifier and impedance issues seem to be less important.
Nope, under normal circumstances it just halves the resistance and inductance and doubles the capacitance of the speaker cable used, and in some speaker designs takes the crossover board earth junction back to the amplifier speaker terminals. The load presented by the speaker remains identical.

Bi amping is a different matter.

[ursus262]

Back to the drawing board then.

[BTH K10A]

Sigh! you know perfectly well I was talking about the BBC design speakers amongst them.

Not from your reply I didn't. I asked a simple question to which you responed "We had agreement to borrow anything new from a couple of existing AR dealers, or we would go and do it in the shop. I don't know of any early to mid 70's widely marketed speakers we didn't get to listen to." :rolleyes:

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Not from your reply I didn't. I asked a simple question to which you responed "We had agreement to borrow anything new from a couple of existing AR dealers, or we would go and do it in the shop. I don't know of any early to mid 70's widely marketed speakers we didn't get to listen to." :rolleyes:
I give up, it is just continuous attempts to find angles to diss and aggravate, I missed out a word that should have been obvious as that was the subject and what I was asked in the first place - so go play games with yourself as it seems games is all you are after.

[Marco]

Richard, I can tell you that Andy is not the type to play games.

If he misunderstood you for whatever reason, then it would've been genuine. Knowing Andy, he is most certainly NOT deliberately trying to aggravate you, so please stop over-reacting and being so defensive, cheers! :cool:

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, regarding your views of some of the BBC designs.

Marco.

[BTH K10A]

I give up, it is just continuous attempts to find angles to diss and aggravate, I missed out a word that should have been obvious as that was the subject and what I was asked in the first place - so go play games with yourself as it seems games is all you are after.

Don't give up, carry on as you are. I had until now given you the benefit of the doubt but you just don't give straight answers and then cry wolf when you are misunderstood. You have lost all credibility in my eyes with your blinkered views and constant paranoia.

As a parting contribution you may want to consider these speakers that did have a mechanical crossover

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f120/emttsd15/419-8B420A1.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f120/emttsd15/419-8B420A2.jpg

And yes they sounded crap but that's probably because like the BBC, Altec did not know how to design decent speakers:rofl:

[Marco]

None too shabby those, I wouldn't have thought, Andy! :)

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

I give up, it is just continuous attempts to find angles to diss and aggravate, I missed out a word that should have been obvious as that was the subject and what I was asked in the first place - so go play games with yourself as it seems games is all you are after.


Ay, calm down!

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5944/aycalmdown.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/aycalmdown.jpg/)

[Marco]

:lolsign:

Can you do the Scouse accent, Ali?

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

Ay, calm down!

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5944/aycalmdown.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/aycalmdown.jpg/)

Shouldn't that be "Och aye the noo Jimmy, calm yersel' big man, calm yersel' !

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/russabbot0709_228x411.jpg

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard, I can tell you that Andy is not the type to play games.

If he misunderstood you for whatever reason, then it would've been genuine. Knowing Andy, he is most certainly NOT deliberately trying to aggravate you, so please stop over-reacting and being so defensive, cheers! :cool:

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, regarding your views of some of the BBC designs.

Marco.
I am sorry Marco that was quite deliberate there was no misunderstanding, he was angling for it. It is ridiculous, this could be a normal maybe informative for some thread and conversation, but there are people who want conflict for what ever reason, I presume to try and make me lose my rag. The thread has largely been about it, there is no way he couldn't have known I was referring to BBC design.

It is not some of the BBC designs, it is all of the BBC designs, it is the principle behind BBC design, which in fact wasn't applied to that many loudspeakers. Recent designs have nothing to do with it as the crossover complexity back in the 70's was due to the crap Bextrene / plastic drive units that everyone had to use. But the companies still call it BBC design because it is good marketing nothing more nothing less.

Why can't I have an opinion? why do my opinions have to be restricted, what are people scared of, surely not that someone disagrees with them. They can please themselves, they can start a thread that complex crossover are the best and say that all US paper coned simple crossover speakers in the 70's were crap, I would disagree, but I wouldn't go on their threads with personal insults and try to disrupt them, so what gives?

[Marco]

Aye, insert a Rab C Nesbitt pic instead, and yer away!

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

That's the whole point though Richard, you seem to think anyone who may disagree with something you say has an agenda against you. Take a chill pill. T'aint so.

[Marco]

Why can't I have an opinion? why do my opinions have to be restricted, what are people scared of, surely not that someone disagrees with them. They can please themselves, they can start a thread that complex crossover are the best and say that all US paper coned simple crossover speakers in the 70's were crap, I would disagree, but I wouldn't go on their threads with personal insults and try to disrupt them, so what gives?


Richard, I hear what you're saying, but the fact is I know Andy better than you. He was not "angling" for anything, and was simply expressing his opinion, the same as you. Sometimes you don't always explain yourself clearly. No doubt you think that you do, but I can assure you that it's not always the case.

However, it's the aggressive and defensive/overly suspicious way you react sometimes to people's innocent queries, that they don't deserve, and the inflammatory language you're prone to using in response, which is a problem we're going to have address.

I'll give you a ring over the weekend and we'll have a chat! :cool:

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

That's the whole point though Richard, you seem to think anyone who may disagree with something you say has an agenda against you. Take a chill pill. T'aint so.
Oh bollocks in that case you can't read English. Read the posts it is obvious what happened. His retort a couple of posts ago is exactly what it was leading up to, a means of tuning it personal and into conflict, the way a *small* number of member here have consistently done even though Marco has asked them to stop. This is just a continuation of the same process.

One word (or 3 letters) BBC missed out but written or implied in every post before it leading up to it. That would have been obvious to anyone unless they wanted to deliberately ignore it - Pointless.

[technobear]

Quite a few driver manufacturers still make cones that decouple with rising frequency.

The Biflex is an extreme example. Others use pleated cones.

The movement of a whizzer cone is usually decoupled from the main cone at higher frequencies so this too is a form of mechanical crossover and is employed to good effect in my Zu's.

One very clever model uses a metal film cone of varying thickness. It's thinner in the middle. As frequency rises, the outer part of the cone progressively stops moving - a sort of continuously variable mechanical crossover. I am of course talking about the Jordan JX92S.

Any other examples?

[Ali Tait]

Aye, insert a Rab C Nesbitt pic instead, and yer away!

Marco.

Ah will tell ye this-Calm doon!

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2670/rabg.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/146/rabg.jpg/)

[Marco]

Or ah'll scoan yur napper wi the fat end of a boattle a Bucky, ya bam that ye are! :eyebrows:

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard, I hear what you're saying, but the fact is I know Andy better than you. He was not "angling" for anything, and was simply expressing his opinion, the same as you.

It's the aggressive and defensive/overly suspicious way you react sometimes to people's innocent queries, that they don't deserve, and the inflammatory language you're prone to using in response, which is a problem we're going to have address.

I'll give you a ring over the weekend and we'll have a chat! :cool:

Marco.
Nope, it was completely deliberate, he knew exactly what he was doing, create a situation where he could post with personal insults. He was in this thread for no other reason. Where was anything he said constructive or thread contributing, go back and look at the thread, no just looking for an angle, and he found it because I missed out a word and thought it would be obvious that it was implied.

The whole situation is pointless Marco they wont let it go, they are creating threads about it that you have to close. I hate to let them win but there really is no point in me trying to post here.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Quite a few driver manufacturers still make cones that decouple with rising frequency.

The Biflex is an extreme example. Others use pleated cones.

The movement of a whizzer cone is usually decoupled from the main cone at higher frequencies so this too is a form of mechanical crossover and is employed to good effect in my Zu's.

One very clever model uses a metal film cone of varying thickness. It's thinner in the middle. As frequency rises, the outer part of the cone progressively stops moving - a sort of continuously variable mechanical crossover. I am of course talking about the Jordan JX92S.

Any other examples?
Struth not someone who actually wants to contribute to the thread, what a surprise!

[Marco]

I disagree, Richard. Much of it is down to the unnecessarily aggressive way you react sometimes to fairly innocuous things, which creates a bigger problem than was there in the first place. You need to learn sometimes not to react, and instead turn the other cheek.

You will gain many more friends and respect that way, which will go some way towards eradicating any problems in future.

But let's leave it there now until we have a chat - ta! :)

Marco.

[Welder]

Dr Bunsen Honeydew

Why?

Well this is a matter of opinion but to date I haven’t heard a full range driver that gives an even response throughout the audible frequency range.
So, at least for the majority of commercial designs two drivers as a minimum have been preferred.
It is possible to drive a two unit array with separate amplifiers or even by using an electronic crossover; with the later obviously there is still a crossover, it’s just not in the box.

Part of the problem is even full range drivers change impedance with heat. Granted some of the open baffle designs partially overcome this problem but they still present an amplifier with a variable load.
Once again in theory, a well designed crossover using say a zobel network, post main crossover, can ensure that any impedance changes are compensated for.
I personally still favour a 3 unit array. What components and what crossover complexity gives the best results is open to debate.
However, the 3 unit array, with a crossover gives the easiest path for ensuring that each drive unit is restricted to its optimal frequency imo.

[Alex_UK]

The whole situation is pointless Marco they wont let it go, they are creating threads about it that you have to close. I hate to let idiots win but there really is no point in me trying to post here.

I think you will probably be surprised at me chipping in here Richard, but walking away really isn't the answer. In the same way that Marco banning you because some people don't like you being here - isn't the answer.

I'm going to offer some advice, which is of course "in my opinion" so please, accept it for what it is. Were you ever in the Scouts? It matters not if you were, or not - I'm going to tell you the story anyway... :)

Traditionally, a handshake is always offered with the right hand - the theory being that in doing so, the parties no longer had access to their weapons - in those days of course, a sword.

Now the Scouts always shake hands with the left hand - the theory in this case being that it is a far braver thing to do to put down one's shield and drop your defence.

I'm not sure if that really gets my point across, but I hope so.

And really, I am not trying to be smart or clever - there is much you can offer to this forum, but always expecting to be attacked is only going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy - I really think you need to consider how best to become part of the community and using offence as the best defence is not (in my opinion) the way to go about it.

There's no reason why we can't all get along, if both sides exercise a bit more tolerance, and crucially, respect.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Richard, I hear what you're saying, but the fact is I know Andy better than you. He was not "angling" for anything, and was simply expressing his opinion, the same as you.
Marco.
You obviously haven't read the posts, he expressed no opinion, he made no contribution, he asked me questions until he thought he had found an angle or mistake in my reply, that was all he was after. And that is all that a *few* of your members are after and it will just go on and on in a pointless manner, they are not listening to you, they have an agenda, they start threads you have to close trying to angle the subject into it.

We have discussed it privately that I will stick with it as I don't want to let the bastards win (as in the saying), but it hasn't lessened, they are still simmering in the background waiting for an opportunity. I am far from perfect but I am who I am that will not change - so as I say it looks pointless.

[Marco]

Good advice, Alex! :cool:


I am far from perfect but I am who I am that will not change....


Richard,

Everyone can change (a little) if they want to, and sometimes it is necessary in order to make things better. And this is one such occasion.

You told me that you thought AoS and I had changed MASSIVELY, compared to how things were a few years back, and that this was the reason why you rejoined, so if I can change, why can't you?

Intelligent human beings adapt in order to survive successfully in different environments.


Please read again (and digest thoroughly) what I wrote to you last night:



Much of it is down to the unnecessarily aggressive way you react sometimes to fairly innocuous things, which creates a bigger problem than was there in the first place. You need to learn sometimes not to react, and instead turn the other cheek.

You will gain many more friends and respect that way, which will go some way towards eradicating any problems in future.



Think about that *very* carefully (especially the bit in bold), and we'll discuss it later :)

Now, this time I'm insisting that EVERYONE leaves it there (and that means you too, Richard), as far as this subject is concerned, so only on-topic posts, regarding speaker crossovers, will be allowed to remain. ANYTHING ELSE will be deleted instantly, and if necessary, the thread locked.

I trust that I've made myself clear, folks!!

Marco.

[DSJR]

I've been itching to contribute to this thread for pages and pages now, but didn't feel qualified before to make an opinion before for fear of being slaughtered online. Still.....

I personally like the idea of a well designed drive unit needing as little "correction" as possible and I personally think that this is being done quite well these days and from unlikely "BBC derived" sources too, judging by the anti-BBC speaker design views by a couple of posters on this thread IMO (how out of date you guys are, the main offenders were discontinued twenty five to thirty years ago now and it was only with sluggish vinyl sources that these products really suffered).

The thing is, as I understand it, is that mounting a drive unit onto a baffle is going to modify its response, isn't it? Shoving a modified driver on top of a cubic box may be one way of doing it, but doesn't that just transfer the problems into room reflections? I had enough of this with Isobariks where no two 'Brik systems ever sounded the same due to room differences, even though Linn tried very hard later on to get them all as similar as possible. Get it right and its stunning, get it wrong and you'd suffer. The other thing is that dispersion can be an issue as a cone speaker of say 6 to 8" goes up in frequency and a blocking capacitor on a tweeter a la Epos 14 is going to mean the tweeter is working down into the upper mid and significantly overlapping with the bass unit giving all sorts of possible phase issues? and apparently their acoustic output alone is enough to even set the bass unit ringing in the case of many metal-cone drivers, which take off big-time when they finally let go at 5khz or so, right in the lower treble and this despite steep crossovers being used on some -

Again, as I understand it, a conventional driver-in-a-box setup as most of us use can be very good indeed, the designer-trick being to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts I think.

Rather than adding yet more gunk to a speaker to slug its treble response, shouldn't the diaphragm and motor assembly be ideally made light in weight to increase efficiency? I understand there are modern cone materials out there now which have a fantastically wide and smooth response and with great clarity. This is where my lack of knowledge comes to bear, but it's an honest question - I'm afraid I had enough with heavy cones/coils with my ATC's, the coil assemblies of the 20's being massively heavy for what they were and really needing those massive magnets to get them to work at all ;)


By the way, speech is a wonderful thing to use as a reference because our ears are set up to be most sensitive to this apparently - same thing should be considered when setting up our living-listening rooms IMO. Get our voices to sound reasably ok in a room and the rest can often fit in well. I found in my time that one man's bass is another's boom and another man's clarity, detail and sonic-excitement is another's harshness. Just my thoughts, but often repeated in dems I found.

[MartinT]

Great observations, Dave. The BBC Radio 3 presenter's voice test is a mandatory one for getting things sounding neutral.

I wonder whether some speakers of old, vilified for their old-tech drivers, would actually sound very good on the end of current highly capable sources and amps. I used to have a lovely pair of Cambridge R40 transmission line speakers using the classic KEF B139, B110 and T27 trio and a Falcon crossover. I loved those speakers and they remained with me for some years. I'll bet that they would sound quite reasonable driven by quality modern electronics.

I am mindful of Marco's Celestion Ditton 66s, which he and others have been most impressed by. Perhaps the source-first system hierarchy prevails and many older speakers could surprise us today.

[hifi_dave]

I believe that Dave is using and enjoying a pair of BBC inspired Spendor BC2's, both with modern and vintage amps.

[DSJR]

Yep, have done for a few years now. They're not perfect by any means, but they don't boom like the BC1 could if used incorrectly and have come into their own with more modern setup and sources - and I knew these boxes when I sold them to a mate back in 1974.. The thing is, I can hear the family resemblance to current exponents of these old ideals and readily accept that the modern versions improve on mine in practically every aspect :)

[Alex_UK]

I think I said it several posts back, but it is all about implementation. I too use a pair of Spendors - SP1's - which were the domestic development of the BC1 - and I really like them - so I am obviously going to support the BBC "legacy" from which they were born. But that doesn't mean I would endorse anything just based on the technology or history behind it - or conversely turn my nose up at it.

We of all forums will (I hope!) agree that it makes not a jot of difference whether the drivers are punched out from old Coke cans and the crossovers need a fork lift truck to move them - if they sound good to you, then really, that is all that matters.

[DSJR]

Alex, the SP1mk1 which you have was a development and improvement on both the BC1 AND BC2, as the need was to retain the midrange clarity of the "1" yet with the power handling of the "2." This yours do in spades and, unlike mine, the SP1 will compare properly with ANY modern speaker of quality and IMO will give very little away.

I don't think I mentioned this, but when I spent some very enjoyable hours in great company and audio gear, I was able to listen to some £800 Rega speakers, a three way I believe, and I thought they sounded wonderful. All that gave me cause for concern was a remaining touch of spit-n-sparkle in the treble, which a typical vinyl source would largely mask in any case. In all the FE parameters of pr@t and tunes, these were excellent. What appealed to me was that the timbres of acoustic instruments were good as well, making for an endearing package way beyond the now totally outclassed ELA's of old - IMO...

[The Black Adder]

That's the whole point though Richard, you seem to think anyone who may disagree with something you say has an agenda against you. Take a chill pill. T'aint so.

Quite true Ali... Just calm down Richard ol fella. Nobody is here to mock you. I'm not sure if you understand how much people actually respect your judgement and a lot of your skills.

[hifi_dave]

I think I said it several posts back, but it is all about implementation. I too use a pair of Spendors - SP1's - which were the domestic development of the BC1 - and I really like them - so I am obviously going to support the BBC "legacy" from which they were born. But that doesn't mean I would endorse anything just based on the technology or history behind it - or conversely turn my nose up at it.

We of all forums will (I hope!) agree that it makes not a jot of difference whether the drivers are punched out from old Coke cans and the crossovers need a fork lift truck to move them - if they sound good to you, then really, that is all that matters.

Exactly, though I do object to paying premium prices for 'Coke cans'.

I've delved inside some very expensive speakers (as I enjoy doing), to find some very disappointing components. Often, there are impressive looking surrounds, which once unbolted, show thin, press steel chassis drivers, held in palce with quick-drive screws into the thin front baffle. Quite often inside there is bell wire, push on tags and cheap x-over components but all this goes unseen by the customer. If it looks impressive, the manufacturer can charge accordingly and get away with it.:(

[Ali Tait]

Quite so. Best to DIY!

[John]

Its a shame some manufactures do this I think ots one of the reason we become more cynical

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Quite true Ali... Just calm down Richard ol fella. Nobody is here to mock you. I'm not sure if you understand how much people actually respect your judgement and a lot of your skills.
Not gone, just completely pissed off, with a desire to kick a small number of you in the balls.

I will stew in my juices for a while, as if I try to post and contribute the stalkers and dissers will just join in every thread I start or post in and ruin it - so what is the point. If I feel strongly motivated by something posted in the future or if I am asked questions I will contribute, but that is all. I tried to be part of the community but some of you don't want me and have made the whole process a challenge for Marco who in this case just doesn't deserve it, so I am sodding off into mainly lurk mode.

But thanks for the sentiments.

Dare I say if anyone wants more intimate contact they can always post at Subjectivist, because at the moment it is like wandering through an open field with one man and his dog somewhere on the other side. There ad hominem is banned so this sort of crap doesn't happen. Though there is freedom of speech so *other forums and their members can be discussed or even criticised* :ner:

[Beechwoods]

Though there is freedom of speech so *other forums and their members can be discussed or even criticised* :ner:

You were once very kind on there about me though, so thank you :kiss: ;)

[BTH K10A]

Not gone, just completely pissed off, with a desire to kick a small number of you in the balls.

I will stew in my juices for a while, as if I try to post and contribute the stalkers and dissers will just join in every thread I start or post in and ruin it - so what is the point. If I feel strongly motivated by something posted in the future or if I am asked questions I will contribute, but that is all. I tried to be part of the community but some of you don't want me and have made the whole process a challenge for Marco who in this case just doesn't deserve it, so I am sodding off into mainly lurk mode.

But thanks for the sentiments.

Dare I say if anyone wants more intimate contact they can always post at Subjectivist, because at the moment it is like wandering through an open field with one man and his dog somewhere on the other side. There ad hominem is banned so this sort of crap doesn't happen. Though there is freedom of speech so *other forums and their members can be discussed or even criticised* :ner:

I've given this thread some thought over the weekend.

I ask a simple question to clarify and ambiguous statement, get a reply that reinforces my "wrong" assumption and then find myself subjected to accusations and insults.

I had decided to carry on and avoid or drop out of any threads where he posted but, the implications of, and the sheer hypocracy of his last sentence have done it for me. This is crap that I don't need.

[Marco]

Hi Andy,

I think you've misinterpreted the bit you've highlighted... Richard wasn't referring to you personally, but rather anyone or everyone, when he feels it necessary. It's a very different type of forum to AoS.

Although, TBH, his whole post was meant to be tongue in cheek, but that has obviously backfired due to the somewhat 'fractious' nature of the recent dialogue between you.

On his site, there is no censorship regarding the discussion or criticising of other forums or their members (probably one of the reasons why it's dead as Dodo, Richard - ahem, but anyway...;))

So that statement wasn't aimed at you personally. If you look at Richard's site, you see what I'm referring to http://thehifisubjectivist.noadforum.com/viewforum.php?f=4

Therefore, I suggest (and indeed would be much obliged) if you stuck to your original plan of carrying on and avoiding or dropping out of any threads where he has posted (if you feel that this is necessary) rather than give up, as you know that you're a valued member here :)

And we've still got our forthcoming sesh to do at your place, which I'm very much looking forward to :gig:

So let's get back to where we were, dude!

Marco.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I've given this thread some thought over the weekend.

I ask a simple question to clarify and ambiguous statement, get a reply that reinforces my "wrong" assumption and then find myself subjected to accusations and insults.

I had decided to carry on and avoid or drop out of any threads where he posted but, the implications of, and the sheer hypocracy of his last sentence have done it for me. This is crap that I don't need.
I don't want to be the cause of yet another member throwing a tantrum and leaving, as Marco says none of this post was about you. You just happened to be the final straw. But ask yourself, what is the title of this thread, why couldn't you post on subject, why do you have to make the subject the poster, me. It always has the potential to lead to conflict, especially if that was the purpose of the intervention *which I am not saying is correct in this case*. It really was frustration with all that had gone before, but really when it had been said so many times that it was referring to early BBC speakers it should have been obvious, So you suddenly bringing in JBL just made me pop!

For me it just looked as though you were deliberately questioning to find an angle and excuse or a missed or mistaken word in error in order to pounce with ad hominem, as so many others had done before. *I* was not the subject of the thread, so why talk about me, why try to draw me into conflict. For me there can only be only one reason, to try to make me lose my rag and get me removed. It is not as though it is something new, I have been stalked across the forums by certain individuals for at least a couple of years with the one aim to get me off all the forums.

Now you refer to my paranoia, well I do have one because I am coming to the conclusion that my opinions tread on too many industry toes, and at least some of these stalker are industry shills.

So don't be silly unpack your bags, go into lurk for a while, and as I have been told "chill".

Back to lurk.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well this thread created a lot of curfuffle and the BBC thing was brought up again even though I didn't initiate it. So anyway some new information that I think is important to copy here.

I have a customer with NVA pre and power amps using Spendor S6es speakers and he has been singing the praises of the combination on subjectivist, so I decided to investigate them and I find *a more un BBC like design it would be hard to find*

I quote my post on Subjectivist:-

"Well I have just investigated those Spendors Blue Nile uses. Simple well made ported 2 way floor stander with minimum load impedance of 6.2ohms and reasonably simple crossover. THIS IS NOT A BBC TYPE DESIGN!!! they obviously are capable of making good loudspeakers and these are so far removed from their early designs to make it like they were made by a different company."

So as I said before that I thought the old BBC type companies now only paid lip service to the design principles for marketing purposes turns out to be true for this speaker from this company at least.

[DSJR]

Spendor today aren't the Spendor of the 70's, for good and bad IMO :)

I re-wired my BC2's the other week. HiFi Dave had been on at me for a couple of years to do it and Alex having a go at his 401 really got me going (summat better had :lol:) You know, I don't think the crossover in the BC1 and 2 is hugely complicated by some that I've seen and, without looking again at the scematics over on the Yahoo Spendor group, I don't think there's that much in the signal path. For me, what makes it look complex is the bit for the little Coles super-tweeter, which looks a bit ridiculous for a 10-12kHz region crossover. Not being a speaker designer, just an enthusiastic amateur, I dare not comment further. The one Spendor which has a frightening crossover (to me at any rate) is the BC3. I'll try to find some pics when I get home and post them...

By the way Richard, I was once told that the radio transformer type of inductors were "better" than those conventionally used, although I'm sure you can tear this statement to pieces, certainly for power handling, which none of the domesticated BBC have..

TTFN

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

It is the principle that is the problem Dave. Normal principle (used by all UK manufacturers pre BBC design and all US loudspeaker), do it physically if you can and only do it electrically as last resort. BBC design principles, do it electrically and only do physically what you can't do electrically. Their other principle is voicing to the spoken voice, normal companies voice to music.

Re inductors, I hate them (as with all coils) and will only use them as last resort, and then large and air cored - no ferrite!

[DSJR]

I really do see where you're coming vfrom, but I ought to suggest (please) that the human voice is precisely what our ears are most used to hearing???????

I should also like to correct, or at least modify the view that the BBC tried to solve all the problems in the crossover. I'm not sure that's entirely true and although I haven't studied their research papers in depth, I'd respectfully suggest that the engineers of Harwood's time and before, really DID know exactly what they were doing, cared passionately about the end result but were hampered by the technology available at the time.

I've heard from a few engineers now that paper cones could be a nightmare way back then. maybe AR got utter consistency, but the pulp "mix" could apparently vary if you weren't absolutely careful. The same with the gloop Tannoy use(d) to dope the corrugated surrounds of their DC cones. OK, I know you'll argue that the transition to bextrene was fraught with other dangers, and I think any of the "BBC Legacy" designers will agree with you. Polypropylene ain't any better either apparently, as the "BBC Crossover "smile"" was put there to hide things going on in the drivers - and my gawd, I live with an exaggerated version of this every day :lol:

What all the rubbish above is trying to say, I hope, is that these days, the BBC derivative manufacturers (the two main ones and ONE in particular) have designed FAR better drive units which do the job with the absolute minimum of messing around. I'm glad you didn't dislike the Spendor S6? and if you think they were tolerable, you'd hopefully be very impressed with harbeth's current models. OK, the tonal balance may not be to your taste, but the way they engage the listener and the detail at domestically-necessary low volume levels is remarkable I think myself. Other well rated "hifi" speakers, like Zu Druids for example, needed the a*se thrashing off them to even begin to give any bass weight or power and at low volumes sounded very unrealistic when I heard them. In comparison, the Tannoy Turnberry was a revelation - a tragedy that they cost so much and noone in the UK will pay the price asked - even half price is difficult to achieve for mint used ones, sadly. people don't know what they're missing, but I digress.

Apologies, I was trying to defend the BBC engineer's way of doing things in the 60's at any rate. It would appear that later BBC models were designed more by commitee once "the gentleman" Dudley Harwood retired, ending an era, and started Harbeth going in 1977. The LS5/8, 5/9 and especially the truly dire LS5/12A, were anything but neutral apparently, although the 5/9's I have coming (when I can get to collect them) may suit my room better in the bass.....

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well I will just have to disagree with you. I was around at the time and was intimate with what was going on. To voice to the human voice is OK but they had a fixed idea of the human voice and that is the BBC announcer using the BBC approved accent, I don't think you realise how fixed and finicky the beeb were in those days, they even taught there announcers how to speak.

Everything I said in my post is correct and as all of them were about 20 years older than me at the time then they are all highly likely to be dead. So take it or leave it - I lived it!

I haven't heard the Spendors *I investigated them as to how they were designed* and what the constituents are. So they could still sound crap IMO I just don't know, but we are onto a good start as one of my customers loves them.

Regarding modern versions and your reference to bass performance, well if you seriously think a port can ever give you real bass then you are sadly deluded. It will make you think you have bass, but it doesn't time, and is often a one note fart. There are only two ways to get correctly timing bass they are infinite baffle, or open baffle, preferably line array. Every form or port or line makes the bass not time.

[DSJR]

I agree about ports, but you know as well as I do (better!) that it's to do with port tuning. The ATC 100A's I had were well ported, but nowt ever came out of it as it wasn't tuned to increase bass per se. Having said that, most smaller modern speakers these days depend on the one note fart to give any bass at all IMO. As for my own speakers, the port hole has been better tuned along modern thinking recommended lines and I can live with the results. It certainly doesn't honk like old BC1's did, but all I'd graciously ask is that you don't tar all BBC derivatives with the BC1 or Rogers Export brush, as things have moved along quite noticeably. Not sure about Spendor's current "Classic" series as they refused to allow us to try them once the take-over was completed and the "S" series came along. I believe they've tinkered with wiring and cap changes, but the rest is similar to their late 80's output I believe, along with the rapidly ageing and hardening rubber cone surrounds which lose all the bass after several years. I believe this has been looked at in current models, but some of the stuff from the 90's seems to suffer I'm told, including some ex-video editing suite SP2/3's a mate now owns.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

It is *very* simple, things have moved along because those companies (including Harbeth) do *not* design to BBC principles, they pay it lip service for marketing reasons.

I really don't care how well you tune a port it still does not time to the music, and if it is there then music *has* to come out of it. The best thing you can ever do with a port is put a sock, or preferably a few socks, in it.

[WAD62]

Bi amping is a different matter.

Hi Richard, or anyone else, would bi-amping, or tri-amping for that matter, with gain/power matched amps into sensitivity matched driver units invalidate the requirement for a crossover?

Or am I being too simplistic :scratch:

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

By splitting the legs of the crossover then you simplify the load conditions on the amplifiers being used, but you still need the crossover. Or you need to move the crossover to be at line level as in active crossovers so involving power supplies unity gain amps hung around filters etc etc, even more gumf.

The answer to all this is to go back to basics, complication never solves anything. Select drivers and cabinets (in shape size and material) and if need be alter the physical characteristics of the drivers so they don't need all this electronic gumf hung around them.

Or do as Paul Hynes has done, as that seems the best application of full range drivers as I have seen - then no crossover, no doping, in reality not even a cabinet. But it is a solution for real hi-fi nerds and tweakers.

One rule, simplicity with excellence (both design and material), problem solved.

[BTH K10A]

I should also like to correct, or at least modify the view that the BBC tried to solve all the problems in the crossover. I'm not sure that's entirely true and although I haven't studied their research papers in depth, I'd respectfully suggest that the engineers of Harwood's time and before, really DID know exactly what they were doing, cared passionately about the end result but were hampered by the technology available at the time.


I would agree that the engineers at the BBC certainly knew what they were doing. It is important to remember that they were designing (voicing) speakers for their own specific applications such as outside broadcast monitoring etc. I doubt that they were ever intended to be marketed as domestic speakers but the licensed companies manufacturing them saw an opportinity.

I have owned some of the BBC derived speakers such as BC1'a, Studio 1a's and LS3/5's. The Studio 1a's gave the best all round performance but the little LS3/5's albeit bass limited, had an amazing soundstage if partnered with a good amp with lots of power. The Celestion SL6 range responds in a similar way. Anyway that's enough about BBC speakers. Who was it who introduced them into the discussion. :hmm:;)

I currently use large JBLs which have more inductors than you can shake a stick at yet sound surprisingly good. :)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f120/emttsd15/1400Arraypg09.jpg

If you really want to go to town with crossovers, this is one found in one of the best speakers I've ever heard.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f120/emttsd15/bbsmxoversmall.jpg

In reality good crossovers are expensive. They are not the ideal solution but better that individual drivers are correctly integrated with complementary roll off slopes and all working within their ideal parameters than something left to trial and error.

[Marco]

Lol - love it, Andy! That's a huge subliminal 'feck off' to the notion of any absolutes! :eyebrows: :eyebrows:

Marco.

[BTH K10A]

As you and I know Marco, when it comes to proper loudspeakers, size matters. :lolsign:

[Marco]

Yes indeed-io, daddy-o!! :fingers: :gig:

Marco.

[jandl100]

.... I wonder whether some speakers of old, vilified for their old-tech drivers, would actually sound very good on the end of current highly capable sources and amps. .....

A very good point, Martin, imo.

I've come across a few vintage speakers in my boxswapping saga that still have the baggage of criticism from when they were new models. Quacky mids, spitty treble, wallowy bass and the like.

For the life of me, I often cannot hear these faults when used with decent modern ancilliaries.

I do wonder if some of the original 'flaws' were in fact largely due to unsuitable partnering equipment of the time.

[Marco]

For the life of me, I often cannot hear these faults when used with decent modern ancilliaries.

I do wonder if the original 'flaws' were in fact largely due to unsuitable partnering equipment of the time.

Nail>head >BANG!

;)

And that also applies to some other quality vintage gear......

Marco.

[Effem]

It has always been my belief that inexpensive speakers on the end of a top flight hi-fi system sounds better than an expensive speaker on the end of a budget system. I have heard some fairly mediocre speakers with flimsy cabinets and cheap drivers sound very nice when they were bullied into submission by a cracking good front end. Speakers with a modest power rating have produced some exceptional quality sound at high volumes, whereas all too often I have heard inefficient speakers being distorted by underpowered amps going into clipping.

I too agree that vintage speakers should be looked at again with modern electronics and probably why vintage speakers in particular are seeing increased resale prices on the secondhand market.

[Alan]

I absolutely agree with this, and in particular Jerry's point.

This can a bit hit & miss though, as the speakers were developed with the gear we now imply to be somehow lacking. If some vintage speakers are in fact better with decent modern ancillaries, it is partly down to quality, as Marco says, and also a large dose of luck - as the speakers will never have been heard before with the equipment we are partnering them with.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.

OK before anyone says it again, obviously some things are essential otherwise you wouldn't have a system or music. But because everything interferes use the minimum to the maximum quality. Within a price, or price no object is the choice that creates different product and different price points, but not by adding complication.

So what is really necessary. Is a crossover part of this, my argument is that it is not as its work can be done largely mechanically without adding to the musical interference.

[nat8808]

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.



Is that an absolute or is just "common sense"?

I'd say common sense is normally just a factor of people's ingrained previous experience and not necessarily a 'truth' in the grander scheme of things. Physics is often less than common sense, quite often counter intuitive (based on common human experience anyway).

i.e. Perhaps there are possibilties where it doesn't effect the music in practice?

In my view absolutism should be challenged now and again to try and gain a more open-minded view point, even if tenuous, if just to provide less constraint to think out the box.

Can we also apply the no or minimal crossover aims over to non-cone based transducers like electrostic panels or ribbons without compromising their qualities more than an electronic cross-over would?

[lurcher]

Is that an absolute or is just "common sense"?


I would say its about one of the few absolutes in this area. However what isn't absolute is if the amount of interference is significant or if the effect of "its" absense does not cause more interference than "its" presense. Thats where common sense and judgement has to be applied. But as a absolute starting point I agree with Dr BH, it all matters, but to paraphrase, all things make a difference, but some things make more of a difference than others.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

No it is an absolute, the same as a rock in a stream will influence the flow of a stream in one way or another, it is an absolute. Or you standing in a storm will interfere with the flow or air which is why it tries to push you out of the way.

And before I am started on again this is obviously IMO!

For me the confusion is created by people replacing those rocks with better rocks that don't influence so much, without realising that just removing the rock takes away its influence completely. A large percentage of this industry is founded on people trying to sell you better (and more expensive) rocks. And so you will see the vested interests at work.

[nat8808]

I would say its about one of the few absolutes in this area. However what isn't absolute is if the amount of interference is significant or if the effect of "its" absense does not cause more interference than "its" presense. Thats where common sense and judgement has to be applied. But as a absolute starting point I agree with Dr BH, it all matters, but to paraphrase, all things make a difference, but some things make more of a difference than others.

I do mean specifically effecting "the music" and not just whether it effects anything or just the energy flow (physics energy not musical energy).

Will a human ALWAYS be aware of the electronics being there or are there ways of designing cross-overs whereby a human will not notice?

Unfortuantely there's no way of doing an A/B kind of test.. so you have to rely on it being a thought experiment or only basing it on past experience.

Taking that stance precludes experiments to design cross-overs that can't 'be heard' so to speak - you abandon the attempt and go off in the mechanical cross-over direction..

It's like saying, "that's the best I can do so I'll give up" while nirvana awaits around the corner.

[jandl100]

Swings & roundabouts as far as I am concerrned.

Forcing a drive unit to play only within its low-resonance zone without messing around with its mechanical properties would appear to have substantial advantages to me.

I've heard and owned quite a few single driver or minimal x-over designs (apart from ribbons/stats which are a different kettle of swimmy things), and for the most part while I can hear the extra speed and dynamic freedom imparted I would not choose to listen to them due to colouration effects and obvious weaknesses at the frequency extremes.

My fave was the Epos 30 - I assume that was minimal x-over in line with Epos' usual philosphy? Others have been received far less favourably at Jerry Mansions.

I am prepared to lose a little in dynamic freedom for the sake of low colouration and extended bandwidth.

After trying all sorts I can honestly say ... Give me a full range speaker with multiple drive units and well designed crossovers any time! :) I'm happy to live with that particular balance of compromises.

[lurcher]

Taking that stance precludes experiments to design cross-overs that can't 'be heard' so to speak - you abandon the attempt and go off in the mechanical cross-over direction..

It's like saying, "that's the best I can do so I'll give up" while nirvana awaits around the corner.

Not at all, if you remove the electronic xover, then you may find the result is worst that if the xofer is used. So the choice at that point is either

1. replace the xover and assume thats as good as it gets
2. replace the xover with a mechanical version and see how that compaires
3. replace the xover with another electronic one and see if that can be improved
4. replace the xover and also employ mechanical methods to achive a better result than any of the either or methods.

What I have found often when trying the remove a part and see how it sounds is that while there is a cost that means that it can't be just used with the part removed, often in the resultant sound there is some quality that was not heard before, so the goal becomes to get that new quality while suffereing from the lack of the part. If you see what I mean.

As a non loudspeaker example I know more about, SET amps have many wonderful qualities, but they also suffer from many problems. As do PP valve and solid state amps. So having heard all the plus and minus points, the goal becomes trying to have the best of each type without their attached drawbacks.

[nat8808]

No it is an absolute, the same as a rock in a stream will influence the flow of a stream in one way or another, it is an absolute. Or you standing in a storm will interfere with the flow or air which is why it tries to push you out of the way.

And before I am started on again this is obviously IMO!

For me the confusion is created by people replacing those rocks with better rocks that don't influence so much, without realising that just removing the rock takes away its influence completely. A large percentage of this industry is founded on people trying to sell you better (and more expensive) rocks. And so you will see the vested interests at work.

You probably do see vested interests at work so it is definately hard to phathom from a consumer point of view and certainly profits and sales often preclude advances in technology..

And yes, simplification of something almost devalues it! So people will tend toward complication for a perception of extra value and progress.

Still, that doesn't mean that there aren't ways of making electronic cross-overs that effect the sound less so than even mechanical cross-overs. Certainly a rock and stream is not the same as electromagnetic fields and compents and electrical flows of energy - I would say that thinking about them in the same way would lead one to possibly incorrect conclusions, the mismatch between analogy and reality could hide the very key to solving the problem!

It could just be that no-one has got there yet, possibly because there's no commercial incentive to go any further or perhaps just the right minds havent applied themselves to the problems - normally innovation comes from the outside or fringes of a discipline (the very word discipline implies some required rigidity in thinking) , from people with less in-depth knowledge and therefore fewer beliefs in concrete absolutes i.e. they break the 'rules', have no absolutes.

[Neil McCauley]

......... or perhaps just the right minds havent applied themselves to the problems - normally innovation comes from the outside or fringes of a discipline (the very word discipline implies some required rigidity in thinking) , from people with less in-depth knowledge and therefore fewer beliefs in concrete absolutes i.e. they break the 'rules', have no absolutes.

Well Nat, I find myself in agreement with you on this point. A software patent I was awarded was the outcome of the above, in part. Frankly my invention wasn't very clever at all. The patent attorneys made it look that way to the point that I barely recognised it. The truth is, I just saw a logic-pattern that no one had (apparently) previously done. Serendipity and nothing more.

The point being that the next step-change in speaker refinement might occur in a similar way.

Personally, I thought the 6' line electrostatic driver driving a narrow but 6' vertical horn was the answer. The Beveridge speaker. Without exception, all of my designer and importer pals felt it was the finest evolution of speaker technology. But ....... other matters go it in the way.

Regards

Howard

PS: Neil Bachelor and my son David contributed greatly to the research that led to the patent - as indeed did quite a few of Ian's friends from Latymer.

[nat8808]

Not at all, if you remove the electronic xover, then you may find the result is worst that if the xofer is used. So the choice at that point is either

1. replace the xover and assume thats as good as it gets
2. replace the xover with a mechanical version and see how that compaires
3. replace the xover with another electronic one and see if that can be improved
4. replace the xover and also employ mechanical methods to achive a better result than any of the either or methods.

What I have found often when trying the remove a part and see how it sounds is that while there is a cost that means that it can't be just used with the part removed, often in the resultant sound there is some quality that was not heard before, so the goal becomes to get that new quality while suffereing from the lack of the part. If you see what I mean.

As a non loudspeaker example I know more about, SET amps have many wonderful qualities, but they also suffer from many problems. As do PP valve and solid state amps. So having heard all the plus and minus points, the goal becomes trying to have the best of each type without their attached drawbacks.

That seems to back up that nothing is really absolute, things are only absolute in opinion, which is another way of saying you've given up on a particular area or it's a matter of taste.

Instead it appears you end up only balancing variables, some mutually exclusive, and there's no path that leads to a truer "truth" than another path.

[nat8808]

Swings & roundabouts as far as I am concerrned.

Forcing a drive unit to play only within its low-resonance zone without messing around with its mechanical properties would appear to have substantial advantages to me.

I've heard and owned quite a few single driver or minimal x-over designs (apart from ribbons/stats which are a different kettle of swimmy things), and for the most part while I can hear the extra speed and dynamic freedom imparted I would not choose to listen to them due to colouration effects and obvious weaknesses at the frequency extremes.

My fave was the Epos 30 - I assume that was minimal x-over in line with Epos' usual philosphy? Others have been received far less favourably at Jerry Mansions.

I am prepared to lose a little in dynamic freedom for the sake of low colouration and extended bandwidth.

After trying all sorts I can honestly say ... Give me a full range speaker with multiple drive units and well designed crossovers any time! :) I'm happy to live with that particular balance of compromises.

And that's the empirical evidence that gets dismissed and it can be dismissed easily because you're not an engineer and not talking the right language and nor are you able to suggest a better way of doing things by way of proof.

[lurcher]

That seems to back up that nothing is really absolute, things are only absolute in opinion, which is another way of saying you've given up on a particular area or it's a matter of taste.

Instead it appears you end up only balancing variables, some mutually exclusive, and there's no path that leads to a truer "truth" than another path.

Yes, I would agree with that, in that, in this domain at least, there is no available objective truth that seems to have any lasting value. But I don't see how that leads to:

"That seems to back up that nothing is really absolute, things are only absolute in opinion" => "you've given up on a particular area or it's a matter of taste"

Just because we seem to be without absolute, that doesn't prevent us from agreeing on a (or more than one) dimension of change that we ascribe better and worst characteristics to.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.

The only problem is I would have to build the first one again as it no longer exists. But seeing as I have proved it to myself (who is the only person that really matters to me) I can't be buggered to bother.

So as far as I am concerned the lateral thought has been applied, as it has also been by Paul Hynes who came up with even more elegant and lateral solution that he talked about in another thread. The difference is mine is potentially commercial his is a real classic over the top nerd-dom jobby.

[nat8808]

Well Nat, I find myself in agreement with you on this point.

Goodness! :) Not really a surprise - I see similarities in the way we think about certain things.



A software patent I was awarded was the outcome of the above, in part. Frankly my invention wasn't very clever at all. The patent attorneys made it look that way to the point that I barely recognised it. The truth is, I just saw a logic-pattern that no one had (apparently) previously done. Serendipity and nothing more.

The point being that the next step-change in speaker refinement might occur in a similar way.

Personally, I thought the 6' line electrostatic driver driving a narrow but 6' vertical horn was the answer. The Beveridge speaker. Without exception, all of my designer and importer pals felt it was the finest evolution of speaker technology. But ....... other matters go it in the way.

Regards

Howard

PS: Neil Bachelor and my son David contributed greatly to the research that led to the patent - as indeed did quite a few of Ian's friends from Latymer.

Even just how people think in terms of cones when talking about speakers shows how much repetative exposure blinkers thought processes - you have to get away from it all to think clearly or, as in your case, come from the outside.

Work environments too are the worse places for any kind of innovation - just a massive positive feedback loop reinforcing opinions and cultures and that then influences business practices. That feeds into the bigger positive feedback loop of the industry as a whole and that in turns feeds back to the work environment..

Richard out of many is in a much better position in the indstry to come up with something new and innovative than many others in the industry so of course I would encourage him to go down his current route of innovation.

Where did Mr Beveridge come from? Another outsider?

Talking of Beveridge.. time to make some tea!

[jandl100]

And that's the empirical evidence that gets dismissed and it can be dismissed easily because you're not an engineer and not talking the right language and nor are you able to suggest a better way of doing things by way of proof.

So are you dismissing subjective opinions of available commercial designs by an experienced listener as irrelevant?

[nat8808]

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.

The only problem is I would have to build the first one again as it no longer exists. But seeing as I have proved it to myself (who is the only person that really matters to me) I can't be buggered to bother.

So as far as I am concerned the lateral thought has been applied, as it has also been by Paul Hynes who came up with even more elegant and lateral solution that he talked about in another thread. The difference is mine is potentially commercial his is a real classic over the top nerd-dom jobby.

I'll have to go over to his thread and take a peak at his nerdom jobby - they're my kind of speaker! Just look at Wilson's (don't know his first name) first design, Wilson of Wilson Audio - the esl panels with some B139 box etc - was it the MAXX Mk1?

I think that prooving it to yourself is all that matters in terms of getting on and doing things - hard to progress by committee, especially if they are stuck in an old way of thinking.

Just wanted to quietly disolve the idea that there are real absolutes as that can hamper creative thinking. They're good to use temporarily though to aid a certain concentration or movement in a direction..

[nat8808]

So are you dismissing subjective opinions of available commercial designs by an experienced listener as irrelevant?

Err... had to read that twice.

What I wrote can read the wrong way.. :)

I meant that people do dismiss it unfairly under the guise that that person doesn't know what they're talking about and they're not part of the club.

Whereas those opinions should be listened to.

[electric beach]

Well I certainly don't know what I'm talking about technically, but I used to play in a band and I know what 'live' sounds like!
IMO there are certain qualities such as presence and dynamics that are definative, but an even frequency balance is usually the last thing on offer :lol:

What I look for is this definative character as a priority and I would probably accept a cruder version of high fidelity than many. For example, for me a basic is that the sound reaches out into the room, the same way even a quiet note on a real instrument in your room would, so I play at the volume that 'locks' onto the room. Without this, the illusion and everything else falls apart for me. And it sets the scene for movies as well as music - hell, I want all the music in films to sound good as well :eek:

I don't claim any innovation, I just look, learn, listen and apply. I'm not there yet but my current 2.1 route is filling me with the most optimism for a system development path so far in 30 years:

- Big double backloaded Horns

- Treated single driver cones

- Seperate Sub bass augmentation

http://theartofsound.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=65&pictureid=384

[jandl100]

OMG - a whizzer! The bane of so many "full range" drivers! Yuk.

YMMV :)

Just shows that it's all subjective! Opinions vary, as ever. It's all down to the compromises that you find acceptable and the very different audio tastes that we have.

[Neil McCauley]

Well now colleagues. I have heard first hand what I believe is the ultimate full-range crossover-less speaker. Not a contradiction in terms I assure you. I did however prior to the exposure feel it was indeed a contradiction in terms.

It’s a long story and I know that some people here get seriously pissed off re long stories here. They complain to the moderators and it seems they value superficiality over a lack of ambiguity. I’m uninterested in getting involved in dumb-arse debates about ideal word-counts and so on. And Marco and his crew don’t need the hassle either. So I’m wondering.

I had thought of posting this on my blog. But then there are a vocal few that don't like me doing that either!

Additionally, and I’ll need guidance on this, I’m not sure that my experiences would fit properly and/or neatly into this thread. So ……… should I start a new thread? Is there any interest?

What I will tell you that this speaker is literally potentially lethal and according to the designer will never be sold outside of South Africa. So, over to you gang.

Howard.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Potentially lethal - well in that case it might have already been discussed as someone here is building one. A valve amp without an output transformer (not an OTL circuit) directly powering the plates of an electrostatic loudspeaker.

Potentially musically exceptional as it gets rid of unnecessary gumph! (stones in the river) The only reason it could never be produced commercially is it carries lethal voltage on it speaker lines, which is the only thing that makes those particular stones necessary.

[electric beach]

Oh go on, go on Howard!

I go to South Africa, I can buy one there and bring it back to kill meself in the comfort of my own home :eyebrows:

[Neil McCauley]

Oh go on, go on Howard!

I go to South Africa, I can buy one there and bring it back to kill meself in the comfort of my own home :eyebrows:

You'd need (a) a forklift, (b) very deep pockets (c) a power amp unconditionally stable into 0.5 ohms and .......... (d) no heart pacemaker.

Let's first see what the consensus is here. Also, and if you'll forgive the question - where to stick the text ? remains unresolved.

Howard

[DSJR]

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.

So what is really necessary. Is a crossover part of this, my argument is that it is not as its work can be done largely mechanically without adding to the musical interference.

Point 1, anything in the signal path may interfer with the "music," but is as NOTHING compared to the huge distortions introduced by speaker drive units and cabinets generally, so son't worry about it ;)...

Point 2, in your Cubes, you're simply seeming to transfer the job of a crossover to the room interaction, by firstly dosing the driver with loads of gloop (can you guarantee consistency here?) and by placing it on top of the cube, thus making it very sensitive - perhaps - to room and ceiling reflections to do the crossing out for you?

All things in reproduced music is a compromise. You have yours Richard - not perfection by any means - and most other manufacturers have theirs, which you wouldn't be willing to accept, but many others do.

Me? For a very fair price I'd look at Rega speakers today. Simple designs, efficient and yet with a refinement way beyond what they were doing ten years ago. They're really good and I'd happily give 'em house room :)

[goraman]

It makes good rope but not good drive units ;)

Anyway it has all been tried before, that one by Mana according to rumour.

Tell that to Peter Qavortrup of Audio Note UK.

A user of hemp. in speaker cones...

[DSJR]

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.



To do it "correctly," it wouldn't be a cube would it, as the very shape introduces issues I believe ;)

No absolutes in speaker design, just the compromises one is prepared to live with :)

http://www.sound.westhost.com/bafflestep.htm

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Point 1, anything in the signal path may interfer with the "music," but is as NOTHING compared to the huge distortions introduced by speaker drive units and cabinets generally, so son't worry about it ;)...

Point 2, in your Cubes, you're simply seeming to transfer the job of a crossover to the room interaction, by firstly dosing the driver with loads of gloop (can you guarantee consistency here?) and by placing it on top of the cube, thus making it very sensitive - perhaps - to room and ceiling reflections to do the crossing out for you?

All things in reproduced music is a compromise. You have yours Richard - not perfection by any means - and most other manufacturers have theirs, which you wouldn't be willing to accept, but many others do.

Me? For a very fair price I'd look at Rega speakers today. Simple designs, efficient and yet with a refinement way beyond what they were doing ten years ago. They're really good and I'd happily give 'em house room :)

You original point is fatuous, if speaker distortion masked everything else you wouldn't hear cable changes or anything else of subtle nature. Speaker distortion is frequency based and has nothing to do with clarity or information retrieval unless it happens to be a BBC design, even a pair of Mk1 Kans will show you cable differences and they distort more than any UK speaker I have ever heard, yet when you ignore it they play music. Rocks in the river largely block musical information.

You understand precisely *nothing* about the Cube design. Who told you I use loads of gloop, no one, you just want to make it up and diss. In fact if you were capable of reading you would see that I stated many posts ago the it added less than 5% to the cone mass which was a light mass cone in the first place. So gloop is not a problem #1. # 2 you obviously know nothing about acoustics and room coupling, do you know anything about omni or semi omni speakers, have you ever owned or had long time experience of them, I doubt it, yet you spout like you know everything. The speaker is *easier* to fit into a room acoustic than any other speaker, because the Cube is designed to acoustic couple. Again if you had read previous post the tuning process has been explained in detail, so another heap of crap. So what is left - oh yes your desire to create conflict :rolleyes:

My compromise is my design and I will compare to *anything*. John heard them at the weekend ask him.

Really you wonder why I show you no respect, well at least try to earn it!

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

To do it "correctly," it wouldn't be a cube would it, as the very shape introduces issues I believe ;)

No absolutes in speaker design, just the compromises one is prepared to live with :)

http://www.sound.westhost.com/bafflestep.htm

Again complete lack of knowledge, let me talk you through it slowly. A speaker cabinet that is a cube, used in conjunction with a conical drive unit. I will leave you to apply a little intelligence. Some hints, where does the speaker emit sound waves from and on what part of the cone does that vary with frequency. Where is that emission point relative to the sides of the cabinet. If you are capable of working it out you will see that the only structure that can guarantee not to have a standing wave problem is a cube with a cone inserted in it. Now if it was a planar driver then you would have an argument, but sadly for you it isn't.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Tell that to Peter Qavortrup of Audio Note UK.

A user of hemp. in speaker cones...
Peter Qavortrup had nothing to do with it, all he did was copy the Snell designs.

But yes you can make paper out of hemp.

[Marco]

Hi Richard,


Again if you had read previous post the tuning process has been explained in detail, so another heap of crap. So what is left - oh yes your desire to create conflict...


You're posting really well, mate, but just watch the language. I suspect you're misinterpreting Dave's tendency to be somewhat 'opinionated' (and he's far from alone in that respect) as a desire to cause conflict.

I can assure you it isn't. Relax, Dave is not your ememy :)

As an aside, how do you think the Cubes would react to (quality) valve amplification?

Marco.

[DSJR]

I rest my case Richard :)

Speaker drive units are the lossy things, generating loads of distortion way above any intrusive effects of a well designed crossover. Any suggestion otherwise is arrogance which flies in the face of accepted and provable (not by me, but by all the reasearch that's been done in the last few decades) fact. That's not to say that one can't hear differences in cables and partnering equipment, but that the driver is the main generator of distortion.

By the way, you admitted to doping your drive units to aid their rolloff. Gloop, doping, call it what you will..

Does the link I posted to tell you nothing of any value, or is the author misguided as well?

I've been the way of letting the room interact too much with a speaker ('Briks, Bose and Sonab to name three from memory) and didn't care overmuch for any of them. At least with my inductor laden two cubic foot oblongs with gunged up quacky cones, well damped multi-ply boxes and a port (admittedly now tuned), I can listen to hours of music OF ALL KINDS and thoroughly enjoy the experience. May not be HiFi to your ears, but once again I'm not comparing as I don't need to :) Far better for me than relentless "rhythm-kings" anyway...

Perhaps others well able to do their own research and maths can jump in and contribute here. The rest can go to sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz :lolsign:

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Hi Richard,

You're posting really well, mate, but just watch the language. I suspect you're misinterpreting Dave's tendency to be somewhat 'opinionated' (and he's far from alone in that respect) as a desire to cause conflict.

I can assure you it isn't. Relax, Dave is not your ememy :)

As an aside, how do you think the Cubes would react to (quality) valve amplification?

Marco.

Its just more of the same Marco, why should he suddenly out of the blue attack the design of a speaker he hasn't heard, has no knowledge of, and with fatuous statements that bare nor resemblance to reality. I am not an employee these are the equivalent of my babies, at the very least you should try to have experience before you pass such trite judgement as this. I wont quote John from Saturday as if he wants he can quote himself. He was encouraging me to put them into production even though they will cost more than I want because of the acrylic cabs.

Do valve amps create different electrons to solid state amps :eyebrows: They are very easy to drive, my amps don't even get warm on them and an AP10p at under 20w drives them with no problem, but they really show up an amps capability to pass information and they show up recordings to be what they are. They are not forgiving speakers.

If you want to have a listen in your system you can take them home with you after the bake-off - if you are coming. BUT you have to undertake to get them back to me and I have no boxes suitable for them.

[DSJR]

Who says I haven't heard them??????? I do have a memory you know and remember the dem well ;) Furthermore, I was trying to defend the traditional way of doing speakers. Serves most of us here alright although there's plenty of room for unusual designs FFS...

I dunno, some people :D

Night night :)

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Who says I haven't heard them??????? I do have a memory you know and remember the dem well ;) Furthermore, I was trying to defend the traditional way of doing speakers. Serves most of us here alright although there's plenty of room for unusual designs FFS...

I dunno, some people :D

Night night :)

Now you completely confuse me, to my knowledge I have never met you let alone demed you my speakers. Is there some sort of parallel universe attached to this forum.

[DSJR]

Yep, my multiverse crosses many timelines and realities - and you think I'm joking :)

I'm a founder member of the TeeDee Barmy Army to boot - so there!!!!! :D

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Yep, my multiverse crosses many timelines and realities - and you think I'm joking :)

I'm a founder member of the TeeDee Barmy Army to boot - so there!!!!! :D

So what this crap about hearing my speakers then or have you been at the funny baccy tonight.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

There were wooden NVA speakers called Cubes in the early 90's, but apart from the shape they bare no resemblance to what I have made now, they were just the starting point with a nearly 20 year gap in between. They had good points but are just not in the same league as these, so they could be the only thing you could have heard as these have only been shown to half a dozen people. The earlier prototypes were used at Scalford and Whittlebury last year, but they are not the same beasts either.

And anyway those got stolen when my car was broken into after the London Bake-Off Show. Perhaps you have heard them and know where they are.

[Marco]

Do valve amps create different electrons to solid state amps :eyebrows: They are very easy to drive, my amps don't even get warm on them and an AP10p at under 20w drives them with no problem, but they really show up an amps capability to pass information and they show up recordings to be what they are. They are not forgiving speakers.

If you want to have a listen in your system you can take them home with you after the bake-off - if you are coming. BUT you have to undertake to get them back to me and I have no boxes suitable for them.

That's a very generous offer, Richard, and one I will seriously consider. I might bring my valve amp with me to your bake-off (if it's ready after being re-capped at Anthony's), and base my decision on taking the Cubes home or not, on how well they gel with my amp, chez-toi :cool:

Marco.

[DSJR]

There were wooden NVA speakers called Cubes in the early 90's, but apart from the shape they bare no resemblance to what I have made now, they were just the starting point with a nearly 20 year gap in between. They had good points but are just not in the same league as these, so they could be the only thing you could have heard as these have only been shown to half a dozen people. The earlier prototypes were used at Scalford and Whittlebury last year, but they are not the same beasts either.

And anyway those got stolen when my car was broken into after the London Bake-Off Show. Perhaps you have heard them and know where they are.

No, I have never been an addict to anything other than alcohol and can't afford to indulge that these days as some do (£120 per week on wine I ask you.... ;))

If the ones I heard aren't in the same league to the ones last year and these aren't the same as the ones this year, then fair enough. I'll get a listen to current production at some point no doubt and I'll bring Alex as body-guard :lol: