View Full Version : Valve amps - do measurements tell it all?
anthonyTD
13-10-2013, 11:03
Concerning amplifier designs, and testing, i would like to point out that most designs are tested using fixed loads [mostly resistive]
at the output, so, it is quite easy to understand why some amplifiers behave in a predictable way on test, but can perform completely different when presented with a real world speaker load and its cross-over components, so, in a perfect world, all amplifiers should be designed and tested using the type of speaker and cross-over components that will be used on it...
we all know this is impractical for the majority of equipment out there, however, some of us do indeed test their equipment on real world speaker loads, mainly for personal re-assurance that the amplifier design will be at least stable on a majority of speakers out there in the real world, of course, most of the time we have little control of what happens to it once it has left our hands...
A...
anthonyTD
13-10-2013, 11:08
Sorry Jez,
Missed that, so much has gone on in this thread over a short amount of time, its hard to keep track...
A...
Ohh yes! How I agree with that!
PNP valves (as I mentioned about 50 posts ago)... we can dream!
It was trying to find an amplifier that would drive my speakers satisfactorily that got me interested in the whole 'how it actually works' thing. The literature (i.e the magazines) are usually so facile about this as to be worthless to the serious enthusiast. I know the attitude of most AoS members is 'if it sounds good it is good' and that is a truism so impossible to contradict however it is an approach that does mean trying everything to se if it works rather than using a little knowledge to narrow things down a bit. It's not magic after all and although we have all experienced 'synergy' (and the lack of it) between components the reasons for this effect are not beyond our comprehension - or should not be anyway. That's why I like to learn as I am going so thanks to all those who are experienced and educate in this area for their contributions - it has been a worthwhile experience for me.
Short, but interesting discussion here: http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?46554-Tube-Distinctions-v-ARC-Ref2-MkII-pre-amp
It also shows how Audio Research (a supposedly respected high-end valve equipment manufacturer) gives such equipment a bad name - especially in terms of reliability. Thankfully, not all valve gear is like that...
Marco.
I get really peed off with the likes of ARC introducing 'new and better' Reference preamps every year or two (usually a new model, then an SE version with a £1500 'upgrade'). After five and a bit generations, can't they STILL get it right? I mean, a couple of properly supplied OP-AMPS can be pretty and utterly transparent to the signal fed them FFS, only needing a tiny handful of passive components around them, not in the signal path, to make 'em go properly.. I'm just not in that mindset these days :scratch:
Oldpinkman
13-10-2013, 12:44
The one way to make an SS amp sound more like a valve amp is to drive the output through a transformer. Maybe the saturation of the coils adds a valve like sound or the much lowered damping factor removes the appearance feedback correction. I have tried this and it does work.
But the pip is a preamp. Topology was the answer 25 years ago. I will keep chipping away at him, but whereas "topology" was said with authority and conviction at the time, the Norfolk beach answer stared "I'm not really sure" :(
Oldpinkman
13-10-2013, 12:47
Unlikely, as other than some newer devices Nelson has been playing with, its measurably true that most valves are more linear than any transistor. The advantage transistors have is multiple (simply put and ignoring the problems), they are available in complementary pairs, and they are small cheap and low maintenance. So you can pack many more together and produce a composite device with huge gain and then use negative feedback loop(s) to linearise the result.
I was being picky I suppose, but valves may be linear in their operating range. As a device over their entire range they have curves like a hockey stick :mental:
So a good valve design deals with the grotesque non-linearity by selecting an appropriately linear part of the performance curves to operate it in.
Arkless Electronics
13-10-2013, 12:50
Concerning amplifier designs, and testing, i would like to point out that most designs are tested using fixed loads [mostly resistive]
at the output, so, it is quite easy to understand why some amplifiers behave in a predictable way on test, but can perform completely different when presented with a real world speaker load and its cross-over components, so, in a perfect world, all amplifiers should be designed and tested using the type of speaker and cross-over components that will be used on it...
we all know this is impractical for the majority of equipment out there, however, some of us do indeed test their equipment on real world speaker loads, mainly for personal re-assurance that the amplifier design will be at least stable on a majority of speakers out there in the real world, of course, most of the time we have little control of what happens to it once it has left our hands...
A...
I even stick all sorts of capacitors across the output and then feed em a square wave.... that can tell you all sorts about the amp!
Feedback is of course a two edged sword.... it can give very low output impedance but also promote instability unless used wisely....
Arkless Electronics
13-10-2013, 12:51
Sorry Jez,
Missed that, so much has gone on in this thread over a short amount of time, its hard to keep track...
A...
No problem :)
Arkless Electronics
13-10-2013, 13:05
I was being picky I suppose, but valves may be linear in their operating range. As a device over their entire range they have curves like a hockey stick :mental:
So a good valve design deals with the grotesque non-linearity by selecting an appropriately linear part of the performance curves to operate it in.
Solid state can be just as linear as valves and sometimes more so... it all depends on how they are used... topology indeed!
Even with valves it is only triodes that have the reputation for linearity. A "real" tetrode is spectacularly non linear! In fact it is feedback (internally) that gives triodes their comparative linearity. It also limits their gain to μ (mu) though so the highest stage gain you can get with a triode is about 90 with an ECC83 which has the highest μ of all common triodes (100 with CCS loading). There's no such thing as a free lunch though so you pay for this with high ra and poor load driving ability in the case of the ECC83.
Oldpinkman
13-10-2013, 13:05
Concerning amplifier designs, and testing, i would like to point out that most designs are tested using fixed loads [mostly resistive]
at the output, so, it is quite easy to understand why some amplifiers behave in a predictable way on test, but can perform completely different when presented with a real world speaker load and its cross-over components, so, in a perfect world, all amplifiers should be designed and tested using the type of speaker and cross-over components that will be used on it...
we all know this is impractical for the majority of equipment out there, however, some of us do indeed test their equipment on real world speaker loads, mainly for personal re-assurance that the amplifier design will be at least stable on a majority of speakers out there in the real world, of course, most of the time we have little control of what happens to it once it has left our hands...
A...
Is it not also the case that a speaker will be designed and measured using a particular amplifier. So if a speaker has a flat frequency response with a SS amp, it may well not measure flat with a valve amp. Damping factor may influence bass response in particular. Or was that the wind in my ears :scratch:
Arkless Electronics
13-10-2013, 13:12
Is it not also the case that a speaker will be designed and measured using a particular amplifier. So if a speaker has a flat frequency response with a SS amp, it may well not measure flat with a valve amp. Damping factor may influence bass response in particular. Or was that the wind in my ears :scratch:
The thing with damping factor (which is the speakers impedance divided by the amps output impedance BTW) is that once you have enough (40 or so) increasing it to a vastly higher figure has only a small effect ;) Going from 40 to 400 would only improve the speaker damping and flatness of response with a given load by maybe a couple of % or so....
Why does a valve amp (good valve amp - properly designed) sound like a valve amp?
Maybe those with much deeper knowledge than I can comment but a couple of characteristics of valve are usually:
1) very high overload margin vs SS due to high voltage power supply rails
2) better immunity to main noise than SS
These are two generalisations which I'm sure won't be true all of the time. It's possible that for 1) designs with lower overload margins their own sound whereas the valves design in this respect are more pure.
Arkless Electronics
13-10-2013, 13:27
Maybe those with much deeper knowledge than I can comment but a couple of characteristics of valve are usually:
1) very high overload margin vs SS due to high voltage power supply rails
2) better immunity to main noise than SS
These are two generalisations which I'm sure won't be true all of the time. It's possible that for 1) designs with lower overload margins their own sound whereas the valves design in this respect are more pure.
SS can be designed to run from high voltages and to have just as high an overload margin as valves. Most of the time it's irrelevant though because the overload margin is vastly more than sufficient anyway. One area where high voltages are very useful for overload margin is in passively RIAA equalised phono stages.
They don't have better immunity to noise than SS. A triodes ra can help to partially attenuate noise from a power supply in conjunction with the anode load resistor but not to a huge extent. Vastly higher PSRR (power supply rejection ratio) can be achieved in SS topologies by the use of CCS loading and current mirrors.
Short, but interesting discussion here: http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?46554-Tube-Distinctions-v-ARC-Ref2-MkII-pre-amp
It also shows how Audio Research (a supposedly respected high-end valve equipment manufacturer) gives such equipment a bad name - especially in terms of reliability. Thankfully, not all valve gear is like that...
Marco.
Well , I am sorry Marco but that is one hell of a conclusion to postulate based on this singular incident involving an older generation model ,of undetermined usage and age , out of the many hundreds of such units sold worldwide . I think that you will find ARC are an Highly Respected company , within the industry , amongst reviewers and by the many thousands of contented ARC customers worldwide .
http://www.stereophile.com/content/istereophileis-products-2012-amplification-component-year
http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-5-se-line-preamplifier
SS can be designed to run from high voltages and to have just as high an overload margin as valves. Most of the time it's irrelevant though because the overload margin is vastly more than sufficient anyway. One area where high voltages are very useful for overload margin is in passively RIAA equalised phono stages.
With phono stages I've found that Deccas seem to be able to overload SS stages, probably due to the Decca absolute dislike of obstructions in the groove due to the lack of vertical compliance.
They don't have better immunity to noise than SS. A triodes ra can help to partially attenuate noise from a power supply in conjunction with the anode load resistor but not to a huge extent. Vastly higher PSRR (power supply rejection ratio) can be achieved in SS topologies by the use of CCS loading and current mirrors.
What I was in my mind is that valve amps seem to change far less than SS when a mains generator is used. It could of course be that the noise floor with some valve amps is such that internally generated noise swamps mains pollution anyway.
cloth-ears
13-10-2013, 18:55
The thing with damping factor (which is the speakers impedance divided by the amps output impedance BTW) is that once you have enough (40 or so) increasing it to a vastly higher figure has only a small effect ;) Going from 40 to 400 would only improve the speaker damping and flatness of response with a given load by maybe a couple of % or so....
Valve amps are down in the low 20's at best
Arkless Electronics
13-10-2013, 19:02
Valve amps are down in the low 20's at best
Most are less than 20 yes but I have known the odd one that could manage 30 odd....
SET's are another matter and often struggle to manage 1!
Interesting read so far, and a few comments from my good self rgarding whats been said so far
My daugher and her band where in a local recording studio last weekend recording some tracks, the sound in the recording studio was not like their normal live sound, it sounded grey, a lack of life and sparkle thats in live music,
What was that down to..i sure it was not what was on the hard drive that had just been recorded that day.
My view it was the crappy amplification on the mixing deck, it was quite obvious, even my daughter commented on how bad it sounded,
But that was the sound of the recording studio's replay system, not what will be actually be on the cd, from past experence it will very close to the live sound on the actual recording, less what ever damage will be done by the editing that will be completed over the next few weeks by the engineer.
in my view whats on many cds /recordings has the capability to sound very life like though good replay equipment, and good replay equipment can highlight poorer recordings, to the point where you can hear the many variations of damage thats been inflicted through the recording process.
I for one dont want to recreate the sound of the studio...
the noise floor in my view has little to do with qualiity of the reproduced music, yes is shows up as distortion on an any distortion tester but any decent system should be able to reproduce the sound of a little bit of hum and still still make a very good stab of amplifiing the music its asked to do.. Surely ..i'm not saying that hum does not get to some , but that different
Good qualiity output transformers dont give alot away sound wise to no output transformers, athough bad ones do, but its still not a massive amount..
Speaker distortion has shown to me to be quite something, but most speakers reproduce the type of distortion you cant hear, they just skim over the finer parts... so if you cant hear it its not objectionable.. Unlless you can hear / know whats missing from the sound your hearing.. and the truth is hardly any one does because they did not hear the music being recorded.
Overall low distortion is important to me with speakers amps and sources but there is much more to it than that, for me its all about what you cant hear.. But is actually on the recording your playing.. Whats the measure for that (whats missing) when your amp may measure perfectly by all the standard measures used today..
I was being picky I suppose, but valves may be linear in their operating range. As a device over their entire range they have curves like a hockey stick :mental:
So a good valve design deals with the grotesque non-linearity by selecting an appropriately linear part of the performance curves to operate it in.
I have been trying to decide if this is worth answering. I will have one go. Yes, outside its operating conditions, ie when shut off, a valve is not very linear, but I was assuming we were talking about the normal condition. Just about any amplifying device is only of use within its operating area. Try running a transistor at double its Vce and you will find its less than linear, and will probably remain less than linear from that point onwards.
My point was, a triode when used in its normal operating range is more linear (not linear, just closer to being linear) than just about any solid state device when used inside its operating range. As I said before you can use more devices to increase the overall linearity but I believe we were talking about a single valve and a single transistor.
BTW, just about any pentode can be run as a triode, so they can be just as linear as well.
I can only assume you are arguing just for the fun of it and not because you are actually interested in the subject at hand.
Most are less than 20 yes but I have known the odd one that could manage 30 odd....
SET's are another matter and often struggle to manage 1!
But why should that be a issue as long as you know, there becomes a point in speaker quality when the driver has or close to enough enough self damping.. So with correct speaker matching, damping factor from an amp is close to worthless anyway.
Why one would want to use any speaker with low self damping is beyond me...it usually equates to low powered motors in the drivers and slow reaction to changes in the signal, although they may measure and work well on constant tones... The usual test method ... Dynamics response is something else, when do you see the acceleration factor quoted driver specs, you have to work that out for yourself...
I can only assume you are arguing just for the fun of it and not because you are actually interested in the subject at hand.
Yeah, unfortunately I also get the impression that Richard is sometimes on a bit of a wind-up and mostly here to have a little 'poke' at things that aren't part of his 'audio world'.... However, we will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt! ;)
As for valves, he needs to hear a really good valve amp in a system optimised to show exactly what tubes can do, before he can form any real opinions on the matter, and if he visits me, I'll provide him with that experience :)
Marco.
cloth-ears
13-10-2013, 20:12
But why should that be a issue as long as you know, there becomes a point in speaker quality when the driver has or close to enough enough self damping.. So with correct speaker matching, damping factor from an amp is close to worthless anyway.
Why one would want to use any speaker with low self damping is beyond me...it usually equates to low powered motors in the drivers and slow reaction to changes in the signal, although they may measure and work well on constant tones... The usual test method ... Dynamics response is something else, when do you see the acceleration factor quoted driver specs, you have to work that out for yourself...
Modern low mass, high loss speakers are more accurate but require better damping from the amp.
more accurate....i know they can give a flatter response, but with the need for more power to drive them. and dont forget low powered motors are much cheaper, but my experience has shown a flat response varies with the speakers and how they are used, where they are cut off etc
but please explain how they are more accurate, as in how they manage to reproduce a life like sound and how they reproduce the finest details they are fed... because thats not my experience so far on my hi fi journey
cloth-ears
13-10-2013, 21:20
more accurate....i know they can give a flatter response, but with the need for more power to drive them. and dont forget low powered motors are much cheaper, but my experience has shown a flat response varies with the speakers and how they are used, where they are cut off etc
but please explain how they are more accurate, as in how they manage to reproduce a life like sound and how they reproduce the finest details they are fed... because thats not my experience so far on my hi fi journey
The lower the mass with higher loss means quicker response time. It’s not rocket science. The ideal speaker would have zero mass whit infinite loss (plasma ball). Are you saying that recent speaker advances are in fact retrograde money savers? I think not.
The lower the mass with higher loss means quicker response time. It’s not rocket science. The ideal speaker would have zero mass whit infinite loss (plasma ball). Are you saying that recent speaker advances are in fact retrograde money savers? I think not.
I think it's that so often modern drivers are too small so they fit narrow cabs. That's not a step forward.
The lower the mass with higher loss means quicker response time. It’s not rocket science. The ideal speaker would have zero mass whit infinite loss (plasma ball). Are you saying that recent speaker advances are in fact retrograde money savers? I think not.
Well actually i am... from the lucky position of having owned quite a lot and still own quite a few pairs of speakers
And comparing them side by side for extended periods
Your Lower mass higher loss ... Does that mean lighter cone and low power motor?
Arkless Electronics
14-10-2013, 00:14
But why should that be a issue as long as you know, there becomes a point in speaker quality when the driver has or close to enough enough self damping.. So with correct speaker matching, damping factor from an amp is close to worthless anyway.
Why one would want to use any speaker with low self damping is beyond me...it usually equates to low powered motors in the drivers and slow reaction to changes in the signal, although they may measure and work well on constant tones... The usual test method ... Dynamics response is something else, when do you see the acceleration factor quoted driver specs, you have to work that out for yourself...
Theres rather more to it than that... unless you don't mind huge colouration. Some don't!
I am neither a valve or solid state guy both can be designed to perform really well. Unfortunately my own experience with valves was rather expensive and one I do not wish to repeat but I just might of bought a badly designed amp.
Also I heard some modern speakers that sound really good but tend not to be cheap and generally need lots of power to drive them. I also heard Marco and Steve system they both have a different approach yet achieve plenty of resolution that would put most modern speakers to shame. For me their plenty different approaches to getting the best sound you can get. I prefer to celebrate the differences
Good post, John - and one I entirely agree with.
For me, it's dead simple: find a pair of speakers you like and that work well in your room, match them (sonically and electrically) to the amplifier of your choice (thus ensuring that both play to each other's strengths), and Bob's yer aunty!
Unless you're a box-swapper/equipment fetishist/perpetual DIY builder, or prone to flitting house frequently - the job's a good 'un. Then worry not and just enjoy listening to fabulous sounding music! *That* is where I'm at now :exactly:
Marco.
Theres rather more to it than that... unless you don't mind huge colouration. Some don't!
Well again thats not my experience, drivers on their own can have coloration, but that usually when they are used outside their ideal operating range, ie a large cone asked to go too high for example, most colourations i hear are from the cabinet...
Why should higher efficiency drivers cause more colouration than low, especially when most sensibly implemented high efficiency speakers provide less distortion and generally produce a higher level of reproduction. a quick look at one of briggs books from the fifties and sixties highlights the differences, basic driver design has not changed much since
Now i'm not saying you should like any type of speaker, thats your preference, but size is not too much limit for me, and in my quest for quality i have found the higher efficiency speakers more difficult to produce a level response with, but the end results have been beneficial, the Beyma amt's i use now, have produced some fantastic results easily. Much easier than the vitavox and lowther speakers i've used and own
So please explain these huge colourations...i 'm quite technical so it wont go over my head too much.
High efficiency drivers will roll of in the bass at a higher frequency. Not really a colouration I grant you but it is a drawback of high efficiency.
Well again thats not my experience, drivers on their own can have coloration, but that usually when they are used outside their ideal operating range, ie a large cone asked to go too high for example, most colourations i hear are from the cabinet...
Why should higher efficiency drivers cause more colouration than low, especially when most sensibly implemented high efficiency speakers provide less distortion and generally produce a higher level of reproduction. a quick look at one of briggs books from the fifties and sixties highlights the differences, basic driver design has not changed much since
Now i'm not saying you should like any type of speaker, thats your preference, but size is not too much limit for me, and in my quest for quality i have found the higher efficiency speakers more difficult to produce a level response with, but the end results have been beneficial, the Beyma amt's i use now, have produced some fantastic results easily. Much easier than the vitavox and lowther speakers i've used and own
So please explain these huge colourations...i 'm quite technical so it wont go over my head too much.
You're looking at this from a DIY perspective Steve. The vast majority of commercial 'speakers are designed expecting the amplifier to have a zero or near zero o/p impedance, yes, there are some designed with good mechanical damping but I would say they are a v.small minority. IMHO its lazy design practice but completely understandable given how small the valve amp market is; if 99% of your customers partnering kit are SS amplifiers with a high damping factor why spend development £££ catering for 1% of the market?
Sure, Neal, but that doesn't make it 'good practice', in terms of design; merely common practice, in terms of the commercial reality.
I'm guessing that Steve's argument is based around a purist's approach, which of course on a forum such as this, populated by discerning audio enthusiasts, I suspect is what would be important to most people... :)
Marco.
You do have a point Neil, but as a diyer i m also like your self with an understanding of how things are done, and how things work. shop bought hi fi in the main is a compromise, my diy is less of a compromise to me ,but its just as valid an approach to reproducing recorded music as any other piece of kit.
Its all being made by somebody, usually for a price, just like my kit.
as a diy'r i look more more to terms 'what is possible' rather than what kit i can afford to buy, that is the difference really. And every diy'r has a different viewpoint too... The what is possible has led me to where i'm at with my present set ups, simple low powered valves and 102 db speakers,
cloth-ears
14-10-2013, 18:03
You're looking at this from a DIY perspective Steve. The vast majority of commercial 'speakers are designed expecting the amplifier to have a zero or near zero o/p impedance, yes, there are some designed with good mechanical damping but I would say they are a v.small minority. IMHO its lazy design practice but completely understandable given how small the valve amp market is; if 99% of your customers partnering kit are SS amplifiers with a high damping factor why spend development £££ catering for 1% of the market?
I’m sorry but that is totally wrong. The speakers are not designed expecting the amplifier to cover their faults. They are designed to exploit the advantages of high damping factors. Low mass high compliant speakers are vastly superior to their vintage paper counterparts. True they are not designed to work with valve amps simply because valve amps have such a poor damping factor.
Low mass high loss cones react quicker than heavy paper cones and are thus more accurate.
Speaker technology should not be held back just because of valve amplifiers.
I think you just agreed with me! Where did I say 'speakers where designed expecting the amplifier to cover their faults' :scratch:
Low mass high compliant speakers are vastly superior to their vintage paper counterparts...
"Vastly superior" in what way? In terms of measurements or how they sound in the real world? In any case, what you've stated is certainly NOT what my ears tell me... :nono:
Quite simply, there are NO modern speakers I've heard (and I've listened to plenty, at various price points), which sonically outperform my 15" Tannoy Monitor Golds - and the same applies to a few other vintage speakers I can think of ;)
Have you actually carried out any relevant listening comparisons, Bob, or have your opinions been formed purely on measurements and technical info?
Marco.
Oldpinkman
14-10-2013, 19:54
So what do you think of the kef blade and tad reference 1 then? Are they worth a listen?:cool:
cloth-ears
14-10-2013, 19:55
I think you just agreed with me! Where did I say 'speakers where designed expecting the amplifier to cover their faults' :scratch:
Yes, and wet pavements make it rain. It’s not a fault. It’s an improvement using modern engineering. If heavy paper rocks your boat then so be it.
cloth-ears
14-10-2013, 20:01
"Vastly superior" in what way? In terms of measurements or how they sound in the real world? In any case, what you've stated is certainly NOT what my ears tell me... :nono:
Quite simply, there are NO modern speakers I've heard (and I've listened to plenty, at various price points), which sonically outperform my 15" Tannoy Monitor Golds - and the same applies to a few other vintage speakers I can think of ;)
Have you actually carried out any relevant listening comparisons, Bob, or have your opinions been formed purely on measurements and technical info?
Marco.
Well, as far as I am aware the speaker is supposed to react quickly to electrical stimulation from the amplifier. The lighter and more compliant the cone the better and quicker the response. Try adding mass to a cone and see how quickly things go bad, now imagine shedding mass. The opposite applies. As I said before it’s not rocket science.
I can’t make you believe that lighter high loss cones react faster that heavily damped cones. You either accept it or you don’t
Tad Reference 1 is very good loads of resolution I reckon with the latest tweaks I made I am pretty close to them. Not bad considering how expensive they are
Oldpinkman
14-10-2013, 20:10
Well, as far as I am aware the speaker is supposed to react quickly to electrical stimulation from the amplifier. The lighter and more compliant the cone the better and quicker the response. Try adding mass to a cone and see how quickly things go bad, now imagine shedding mass. The opposite applies. As I said before it’s not rocket science.
I can’t make you believe that lighter high loss cones react faster that heavily damped cones. You either accept it or you don’t
Just don't sniff the ozone ! :)
Kef blade. Tad reference 1. Any direct comparisons against the legendary tannoy?
I heard TAD 1 and I heard a customised Tannoy Westminster based system, hard to say which I liked best I could of happily lived with either
Oldpinkman
14-10-2013, 20:18
I know the man who designed the tad1 and he had the tannoys at 1 time. They are very different beasts. I haven't heard the reference 1 yet but hope to soon. Just an example of IMPROVEMENT in modern drive units :doh:
I not saying their not different beasts I saying I could live with both
The TAD 1 major on resolution but the modified Westminsters were pretty special too
I guess I ultimately these days I judge my system against the TAD 1 and seek that as my own personal reference point but the Westminsters could seduce
SteveTheShadow
14-10-2013, 20:57
Every speaker with any pretensions to high quality, will have an amplifier, it will work best with, somewhere on the planet.
It's all about systems, synergistic relationships between the component parts. It's not a question of "my speaker's better than yours" or old speakers are better than new ones. "It's the system stupid" it ain't a competition. We like what we like and that's all there is to it. No rocket science involved.
cloth-ears
14-10-2013, 21:02
Just don't sniff the ozone ! :)
Kef blade. Tad reference 1. Any direct comparisons against the legendary tannoy?
Tad reference 1, but only on a good SS amp. The Tannoy’s could be improved with investment into new cone materials but unfortunately they would not then work very well with a valve amp
SteveTheShadow
14-10-2013, 21:09
The Tannoy’s could be improved with investment into new cone materials but unfortunately they would not then work very well with a valve amp
My arse
Oldpinkman
14-10-2013, 21:22
Interesting isnt it. Effectively unlimited budget, targeting wealthy money no object japanese and usa market and th
Tad missed a trick and developed ss amps to power their speakers. My arse. If they only knew what a pint of tetleys could do ..
Every speaker with any pretensions to high quality, will have an amplifier, it will work best with, somewhere on the planet. It's all about systems, synergistic relationships between the component parts.
Quite. However, there aren't many modern speakers I like the sound of, even when 'optimally partnered'.
For starters, having gotten used to the huge, effortless scale I get with my Tannoys, I couldn't live with anything that uses less than 15" drivers or was housed in smaller cabinets than the Lockwood Majors I currently have.
If I was ever to change from my current speakers, I'd go bigger again to probably something like JBL Everest DD66000s (twin 15" drivers, positioned side-by side is my type of speaker), but I'd need a bigger room first.
Baffle width (as discussed elsewhere) is important to me, as I believe that it is fundamental in creating the scale, presence and 'physicality' I demand from my system and enjoy with the appropriate music. Aside from how good some may be, I just don't 'dig' tall floor-standing types of speakers with multiple arrrays of drive units, which is the modern high-end norm.
Marco.
walpurgis
14-10-2013, 21:26
At the end of the day amplifiers are as up to date as we really need, but unfortunately speakers are not, being predominantly of moving coil design and that is an outmoded blind alley. I know there are other types, but none of the other design principles have really proved suitable for general use and they remain niche products. What will the future bring?
SteveTheShadow
14-10-2013, 21:31
Interesting isnt it. Effectively unlimited budget, targeting wealthy money no object japanese and usa market and th
Tad missed a trick and developed ss amps to power their speakers. My arse. If they only knew what a pint of tetleys could do ..
Aye we're all as thick as pigshit up North
Well, as far as I am aware the speaker is supposed to react quickly to electrical stimulation from the amplifier. The lighter and more compliant the cone the better and quicker the response. Try adding mass to a cone and see how quickly things go bad, now imagine shedding mass. The opposite applies. As I said before it’s not rocket science.
I can’t make you believe that lighter high loss cones react faster that heavily damped cones. You either accept it or you don’t
Either my brain is fuddled after a long day, or you're arguing precisely FOR the type of speakers I like.... :scratch: Tannoy MGs, as far as I'm aware, use lightweight paper cones and aren't heavily damped (quite the opposite). However, please excuse me if I'm reading you incorrectly.
One of the reasons why I prefer vintage Tannoys DCs to their current production counterparts, is because the cones are lighter and feature less heavy magnets, simply because they were designed during the valve era when high power handling wasn't required (and so sound 'faster' as a result), which on the end of a 'peppy' push-pull valve amp, creates a stunningly good sonic combination - and one which I have yet to hear equalled by any 'high damping factor' SS behemoth amp, driving something 'shiny and new' with modern cone materials.
Marco.
If I was ever to change from my current speakers, I'd go bigger again to probably something like JBL Everest DD66000s (twin 15" drivers, positioned side-by side is my type of speaker), but I'd need a bigger room first.
Baffle width (as discussed elsewhere) is important to me, as I believe that it is fundamental in creating the scale, presence and 'physicality' I demand from my system and enjoy with the appropriate music. Aside from how good some may be, I just don't 'dig' tall floor-standing types of speakers, which is the modern high-end norm.
Marco.
I believe it was Boothroyd Stuart Meridian, IIRC, who first mooted the idea that narrower speaker baffles lead to improved imaging and they went on to produce a series of active speakers based around this concept. Other manufacturers ran with the idea as well which is probably why so many speaker systems adhere to this format of tall, narrow and deep enclosures. From an aesthetic point of view this design works for me. My old Mission 773's certainly imaged very well but lacked in other departments. I believe I have hit on a good compromise with the DM2's and I've never been able to live comfortably with a speaker system which is wider than it is deep. I have never listened to a pair of Tannoys though so they may buck the trend for all I know. Just my preference btw ;)
walpurgis
14-10-2013, 22:26
I have never listened to a pair of Tannoys
Wow, sounds like you're in for a bit of a culture shock if you hear a pair of good ones set up right. Character wise they are different in just about every way compared to the DM2s.
Wow, sounds like you're in for a bit of a culture shock if you hear a pair of good ones set up right. Character wise they are different in just about every way compared to the DM2s.
Well, if I were ever able to afford a pair it would have to wait until I've moved house as you could probably fit my current listening room into one of Marco's speaker cabs... :lol:
walpurgis
14-10-2013, 22:39
Well my Cheviots work fine in my 11ft by 10ft den!
Oh? That's interesting. Still couldn't afford a pair though ;)
PaulStewart
14-10-2013, 23:37
One of the reasons why I prefer vintage Tannoys DCs to their current production counterparts, is because the cones are lighter and feature less heavy magnets, simply because they were designed during the valve era when high power handling wasn't required (and so sound 'faster' as a result), which on the end of a 'peppy' push-pull valve amp, creates a stunningly good sonic combination - and one which I have yet to hear equalled by any 'high damping factor' SS behemoth amp, driving something 'shiny and new' with modern cone materials.
Marco.
Hear, hear! My only disagreement with this, is I find the 12" MGs in big Lockwoods a bit faster, but of course not as deep. - that is a question of horses for courses. I drive mine with push pull EL34s in triode mode, which I find the best output combination I've ever heard there is no lack of attack or fullness and the midrange is lucid in a way that only good valves can be. This is ideal for reproduction of music, especially in a domestic setting. In both our edit suites we use Tannoy Reveal bi-amped active nearfields as the work horse monitors with one suite having old JVC SM3's and the other having Minimus 7s (same speaker different badge) driven by Yamahas as "lo-fi" reference. Our big speakers for the edit suites... A pair of BBC derived Spendor BC1s driven with a Quad 405-2, very accurate, but would I listen to them for enjoyment..... Gimme my Tannoys and the bottles please.
I have to say this thread has brought to a head something that irks me. A lot of AoS in my opinion, now seems to be Richard taking the Pi err sorry mick, out of things he doesn't agree with and/or stirring people up and plugging everything PT as if it's the holy grail. There are also, endless post that are again in my opinion spam, by manufactures of kit who should advertise if the want to sell stuff. This is particularly annoying, as when I post a link to a review on Musicosis, I get flamed for it. One of the reasons I no longer post items about the site here.
Just for the OPs benefit as some one who has been either directly involved or on the close periphery of the hi-fi and pro audio industry since the 70s, in my opinion the Da Capo is not a bad unit, there are better these days, The Pip was good in it's day but there a loads better now, Longdog Audio, Art Audio Vinyl One and Sim Audio to name three and the original PT was just another bouncy TT and that approach is fundamentally flawed
Best regards to all
Paul S
I am with Steve on this. Their is no ultimate speaker or amp, its about people preferences as for the TAD 1 that's going be out of most people's reach
The Tannoy's are capable of producing great sounds and again something like the Westminster's are going to be out of most peoples reach.
Oldpinkman
15-10-2013, 05:30
I am with Steve on this. Their is no ultimate speaker or amp, its about people preferences as for the TAD 1 that's going be out of most people's reach
The Tannoy's are capable of producing great sounds and again something like the Westminster's are going to be out of most peoples reach.
The tad 1 is. Its design philosophies don't need to be. But pointless andrew trying anything. God has perfected hifi for all time, and marco and paul as controllers of the throne of st peter and the apostolic succession can define the worth of other mortals by their proximity to the real truth. Apart from a few mains cables, rolling the tubes before they get a chance to burn out, and fitting better block paving in the garden, its just a question of sitting back and feeling smug. 15" :doh:
I seem to do this every time this best drive unit debate arises. :scratch:
Driver design has moved on a bit and this company makes some of the best.
http://www.voltloudspeakers.co.uk/
Of course John is right; matching the speakers to suitable electronics is important. But, it doesn’t matter much what combination you coble together if you don’t take the room the system operates into account.
My system moved from a modern bouncing box in Bristol to stone and tile built room in Catalonia. I believe I could have changed every component in the audio reproduction chain and not got such a marked difference in sound as I have by changing the environment the system operates in.
I have no doubt that large diameter drivers can sound great correctly set up, but accurate? Well I have my doubts, particularly with some of the older efficient paper cone designs.
My system moved from a modern bouncing box in Bristol to stone and tile built room in Catalonia. I believe I could have changed every component in the audio reproduction chain and not got such a marked difference in sound as I have by changing the environment the system operates in.
I experienced a similar transformation, without even moving house. Just clearing a lot of clutter from the top room where my second system lives really opened up the sound of the system.
Still on the subject of speakers, my daughter uses a valve amp into a large speaker containing 2x celestion greenbacks, it a good sound for what she does lead vocals & rhythm guitar, we also have a marshall 50watt acoustic combo at home thats much easier to manage , but the sound quality is not so good, a little grey and soft sounding, a few months ago i remembered i had a pair of very heavy as in very efficient 10 drivers
I removed the cheap lightweight drivers and fitted these, went open backed, as these drivers have more than enough self damping, well there is still that grey tone, but the speed and the amount of detail has transformed it, you can really hear the guitar strings vibrating , now I'm not bothered about a totally flat response, but the speakers have good curves anyway, so my daughter is more than happy, its now the equivalent volume of more than 200 watts with the old drivers, and the sound has improved dramatically.
The only down side is the weight .. Those speakers have big magnets,
My next job is to make a small valve combo using these speakers. And a trolly to move it..
Now what my point is many of the same things apply to hifi, probably more so as you dont want to miss too much of the recording, flat response is the extra, Possibly the kit to look more homely too....
I found this a good read.
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/HES.htm
I have no doubt that large diameter drivers can sound great correctly set up, but accurate? Well I have my doubts, particularly with some of the older efficient paper cone designs.
Bass or mid-range? OB or box? The answers may not be the same for all options.
On the subject of magnets, I have 15" bass drivers with neodymium magnets. These bring the weight of the drivers down along with the magnet size but still do a great job. Modern tech has help here but I expect the performance is the same as a bigger normal magnet.
Hi Paul,
Hear, hear! My only disagreement with this, is I find the 12" MGs in big Lockwoods a bit faster, but of course not as deep. - that is a question of horses for courses.
Horses for courses indeed. I've not heard 12" MGs inside big Lockwoods, so can't comment. However, I have heard the current 10" Tannoy DCs in both the Turnberry and Kensington models (the latter with the Alnico magnets and pepperpots being in a different league, sonically) and whilst both models produce excellent sound, I was never aware of any greater 'speed' being available than with my 15" MGs, or indeed of any other aspect of their sonic or musical reproduction being superior to what I'm used to listening to at home with my Lockwood Majors.
The Kensingtons, in fact, sound almost identical to my LMs (with 15" MGs), although (as one would expect) minus the visceral bass impact and frightening sense of scale. Essentially, however, the 'voicing' and overall 'musicality' are very similar, as such one could call my LMs (with 15" MGs) Kensingtons, but with much 'bigger balls'! :eyebrows:
Perhaps I would notice a difference in 'speed' if I were to compare my LMs with some other big Lockwoods, fitted with 12 MGs, side-by-side in the same system, however, with the Copper amp at the helm and 4 x KT120s, producing 50W Class A, into the 95db 15"MGs, I can detect no lack of speed or any flabby bass, as the 'kick-ass' nature of the Copper amp really GRIPS those big cones!! You should really pop up sometime for a listen, as I'd value your opinion :)
I have to say this thread has brought to a head something that irks me. A lot of AoS in my opinion, now seems to be Richard taking the Pi err sorry mick, out of things he doesn't agree with and/or stirring people up and plugging everything PT as if it's the holy grail. There are also, endless post that are again in my opinion spam, by manufactures of kit who should advertise if the want to sell stuff. This is particularly annoying, as when I post a link to a review on Musicosis, I get flamed for it. One of the reasons I no longer post items about the site here.
You have a point there, Paul, and trust me the situation is being monitored, so hopefully Richard will take the hint and act appropriately! ;)
As for the spam thing, that always concerns me, so please PM me with what you're referring to and I'll take the appropriate action.
Marco.
I found this a good read.
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/HES.htm
Yep, very interesting indeed.
walpurgis
15-10-2013, 11:01
I think a direct comparison with the 12" Monitor Gold and the 15" unit will show that the larger driver has no lack of speed. The magnet on the 15" is huge and significantly more powerful than the 12" jobbie, The 12" Gold uses a similar magnet to the 10" HPD and it does a good job. But if anything I'd say to my ears at least, the 15" Gold has a bit more attack and tightness (as does the 15" HPD).
Bass or mid-range? OB or box? The answers may not be the same for all options.
On the subject of magnets, I have 15" bass drivers with neodymium magnets. These bring the weight of the drivers down along with the magnet size but still do a great job. Modern tech has help here but I expect the performance is the same as a bigger normal magnet.
Ello Clive.
I’m sure you’re right different mounting/enclosure configurations will make a difference to how a particular drive unit will sound. As I understand it though, these aren’t the technical problems to overcome with large diameter efficient drivers. The problem is cone flex, particularly with the paper pulp based cones. Apparently there is an “ideal” max diameter for any particular surround to spider slope for a given material. I am told that twelve inches is about it for paper pulp designs.
Of course, with composite materials under development this may well change but for older units, well, paper and dope was about it.
I’ve seen some of the development work in attempting to make lightweight cones “perfectly” stiff and in general they all add mass to the cone.
Sooo, very roughly you’re left with stiffer higher mass cones requiring more watts or flexi light cones that are easily driven.
Got to go because my favorite hen (Mini Minx) was last seen with her few day old chicks heading for the duck house!:eek:
Yep, very interesting indeed.
There where a couple of points in that article that stood out to me; one was the interview with Joachim Gerhard and the talk about high mechanical damped (Qms) driver based 'speaker sounding more open than one with low damping. I recall Andy Grove & Noel Keywood mentioning this before and also in a conversation I had with Peter Comeau years ago at one of the AT DIY meets....subjectively I've heard some very good OB 'speakers at a number of the AT meets so I think there's something in this.
http://www.speakerbuilding.com/content/1039/
The second point was the number of crossover schematics in the article that show a series resistor in line with the amplifier output. This would make any issue over too low a damping factor a moot point as the resistor will be a magnitude greater than the amp o/p resistance....
Actually i have found 12 drivers give a more detailed sound,but at the expense of bass weight, i use 2 pairs of open baffles, the pair with the twin 12" drivers are better from about 150 hz up, and improve on the 15' at around 800hz to their slow cutoff at around 1300 hz
In saying that, its more about the drivers, the drivers i use are in the main are vintage types around the 100 db mark so have very large magnets, I then double them up to get the efficiency in line with the beyma, which works well for me as I detest ported bass nowadays..a few years ago i would have struggled to tell the difference....how times change...
Before I went down the OB route a designer told me they would not work in my room and I best go for some active ATC. I had a demo with the ATC and I have no regrets around my choices.
As for 15" paper cones being to big I remember having Howard P around to listen a few years ago to my speakers and he was blown away with the speed and accuracy.
As usual we get some of comments based on some theory without hearing what 15" drivers done well can do.
I have also been impressed what a small Fugal 3 is capable off; no speaker that size should be capable of what that does.
Tannoys done right have a effortless and scale that makes music sound good but also heard a few that been real pipe and slippers
Agree with John about rooms this has a big effect on sound
Alan Sircom
15-10-2013, 13:01
As I have noted, I expect Dacapo to be bettered after 25 years, so it will cause me no pain to discover the better dacs. I just haven't yet. Likewise the Pip was surely not the last word in amplifier design.
I'll pop my 2 in the skip a bit later, and get MCRU to send me a Longdog.
If you are popping your Pip in the skip, please give me first refusal.
I've tested a lot of amplifiers at all sorts of prices and all kinds of technologies under the hood. The Pip remains the best I have ever heard. For all its faults (locking you out being the big one) it remains the unassailable standard that I only heard for the briefest period and, as it was out of production by the time I arrived on the scene, it will probably stay that way.
Beobloke
15-10-2013, 13:17
I’ve seen some of the development work in attempting to make lightweight cones “perfectly” stiff and in general they all add mass to the cone.
They also lower the cone's breakup frequency and make its behaviour when it does break up much more alarming! Not such a problem in a multi-way system with judiciously applied crossover points but in a "full range" setup, the results can ear-wounding.
Spectral Morn
15-10-2013, 13:57
Really no need Richard to express yourself in such a way - not nice at all, and pretty rude.
Regards Neil
Luckily i'm not a musician so that had gone over my head, but i have been enjoying this thread, i must say a thread is not going to change anyone who is hardened to their viewpoint or opinion, but i'm sure there are a lot reading and wondering if there must be something in those high efficiency speakers, thats why i post. Because i know there is...
Hopefully my kit will be at the wigwam show again next year, and its easy to compare rooms .. Trouble is most visitors don't think of heading to a room to hear kit you cant buy, my room in the past is usually full though...
Richard please stop the personal attacks and keep to the thread which is a interesting read
Guys, I've tidied up the thread and removed some unaccpetable remarks. Play nice, folks - and that means EVERYONE!
Marco.
Firebottle
15-10-2013, 19:27
Thanks Marco; It's been an interesting thread with some insightful posting from knowledgeable participants.
Plus some good humour thown in as well :eyebrows:
:cool: Alan
cloth-ears
15-10-2013, 19:58
They also lower the cone's breakup frequency and make its behaviour when it does break up much more alarming! Not such a problem in a multi-way system with judiciously applied crossover points but in a "full range" setup, the results can ear-wounding.
Monitor Audio C-Cam drive units, excellent.
Having read far too much of this thread (crapping) all I can say is so what! Some people like wardrobes and tubes and others like shoeboxes and solid state. Regardless of taste there is no way a good 12" or 15" can have the transient response of a good 5" unit, and there's no way the 5" can have the gravitas or force of a 12"+ unit. We pick what we like and there is no magic device that does it all.
Everyone picks their poison! Am sure lots of people on this forum accept that their HiFi is about minimising the compromises that they don't like, and maximising the elements that they themselves enjoy.
measurements tell nothing of how emotive a component can make music feel to us, but do provide good information with regard to component matching.
Arkless Electronics
15-10-2013, 23:11
Guys, I've tidied up the thread and removed some unaccpetable remarks. Play nice, folks - and that means EVERYONE!
Marco.
But only the ones from other people I see..... your prerogative I guess. Just saying.
Yours the "rhino thick skulled" one :eek:
Jez, don't push it. Your earlier behaviour would've tested the patience of a saint (inconsiderately dismissing my valid experience as 'wrong', amongst other things, which prompted me making that remark). However, I apologise for it.
Now let's leave it there and get the thread back on track :)
Marco.
Having read far too much of this thread (crapping) all I can say is so what! Some people like wardrobes and tubes and others like shoeboxes and solid state. Regardless of taste there is no way a good 12" or 15" can have the transient response of a good 5" unit, and there's no way the 5" can have the gravitas or force of a 12"+ unit. We pick what we like and there is no magic device that does it all.
Everyone picks their poison! Am sure lots of people on this forum accept that their HiFi is about minimising the compromises that they don't like, and maximising the elements that they themselves enjoy.
measurements tell nothing of how emotive a component can make music feel to us, but do provide good information with regard to component matching.
:clapclapclap:
Mr Kipling
16-10-2013, 11:51
Jez, don't push it. Your earlier behaviour would've tested the patience of a saint (inconsiderately dismissing my valid experience as 'wrong', amongst other things, which prompted me making that remark). However, I apologise for it.
Now let's leave it there and get the thread back on track :)
Marco.
It's that Richard's fault!
He wants eithet muzzling - or possiblly neutering.
Having read far too much of this thread (crapping) all I can say is so what! Some people like wardrobes and tubes and others like shoeboxes and solid state. Regardless of taste there is no way a good 12" or 15" can have the transient response of a good 5" unit, and there's no way the 5" can have the gravitas or force of a 12"+ unit. We pick what we like and there is no magic device that does it all.
Everyone picks their poison! Am sure lots of people on this forum accept that their HiFi is about minimising the compromises that they don't like, and maximising the elements that they themselves enjoy.
measurements tell nothing of how emotive a component can make music feel to us, but do provide good information with regard to component matching.
Some fair points there Neil, the 5" speaker bit depends far more on the particular driver and what your asking of it, the average quality 5" bass driver usually lags behind the signal and has anything but a fast transient response... But there are exceptions..
my lad has a pair of b& w cdm1 se, they are good speakers, but are still very much examples of my point. I have close to wardrobes in the music room but the system in the lounge is quite compact..one of the lounge speakers below...
Arkless Electronics
16-10-2013, 13:42
It's that Richard's fault!
He wants eithet muzzling - or possiblly neutering.
I even received a PM from Richard trying to get a rise from me... (addressed to "rhino") which I have not replied to. Play the game old boy, not cricket 'n all that ;)
I did extensive direct comparison tests with the 12" and 15" MG drivers in Lockwood cabinets using a Tube Distinctions PP KT88 amp and croft 25 pre. Both using my uber crossovers.
In my experience (although limited to the last 3 years with using valve stuff) so long as the valves are not designed 'in circuit' to be driven too hard then the valves themselves (1950's -60's NOS) should last an awful long time if they haven't lasted over 50 years already.
About lasting longer than solid state? - Is there an answer?... Just choose thy weapon my lord, and go forth.
An interesting article about valve technology being re-introduced in to military equipment here:
Return of the Vacuum Tube
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2012/05/return-vacuum-tube
When used in audio amplifiers, it is best if the power output valves, of whatever type, are replaced every 3,000 hours. That's about a year if the amp is used 8 hours a day. Some American enthusiasts will change the valves every six months.
It's a bit like replacing stylii. Most people are happy to replace their stylus after say 5,000 hours - however operators in record manufacturer's quality control suites, will report discernable and audible wear after only 200 hours with grain-orientated diamond stylii. (They do listen using headphones.)
So the thought of running the same set of valves for 15 years, suggests the amplifier is not used much, or the degradation in SQ is so gentle and gradual with time, the listener has not noticed it.
Apropos the New Scientist article - for a short time I was involved in research on these "field emission valves". They do not use a heater, so there is no warm-up time, and because the electrode distances are very small (that is why they are sometimes referred to as "nano-valves"), they are fast. This was back in the early '90s, the technology was new and much was expected. However the company I worked for abandoned the research in the late '90s, and as far as I am aware there has been little progress made elsewhere. Certainly the technology is nowhere near mature enough to be used in military equipment.
Arkless Electronics
16-10-2013, 13:51
Jez, don't push it. Your earlier behaviour would've tested the patience of a saint (inconsiderately dismissing my valid experience as 'wrong', amongst other things, which prompted me making that remark). However, I apologise for it.
Now let's leave it there and get the thread back on track :)
Marco.
I think there was basically a misunderstanding in that my comments on valve/SS amps as a whole were taken as pooh-poohing your own personal experience, which was never intended. I apologise for my part in the ensuing disagreement and hope no permanent damage to our "forum friendship" has been caused :)
Jez.
anthonyTD
16-10-2013, 14:32
Hi Barry,
Thats interesting, if they didn't have heaters, how did they work, did they actually have a conventional cathode structure or...
A...
Apropos the New Scientist article - for a short time I was involved in research on these "field emission valves". They do not use a heater, so there is no warm-up time, and because the electrode distances are very small (that is why they are sometimes referred to as "nano-valves"), they are fast. This was back in the early '90s, the technology was new and much was expected. However the company I worked for abandoned the research in the late '90s, and as far as I am aware there has been little progress made elsewhere. Certainly the technology is nowhere near mature enough to be used in military equipment.
Hi Barry,
Thats interesting, if they didn't have heaters, how did they work, did they actually have a conventional cathode structure or...
A...
A simple answer is that if the field strength is sufficiently high, electrons will be stripped away from the atoms and become free. It is well known that charge tends to concentrate at the points of sharp conductors (that is why lightning conductors are pointed at their tip), so these field emission 'cathodes' are made from silicon surface that has been chemically etched to produce an array of tips: the greater the number of tips, the greater the current density. When I was working on the project we achieved a (then) record for the greatest current density achieved to date.
However I don't think they will ever be of much use for analogue audio as they are highly non-linear: more so than conventional vacuum thermionic valves, where the current/voltage follows Child's 4/3 power law, or that of junction semiconductors, where the current/voltage relationship is exponential. The relation between the applied voltage and the current for field emission devices is described by the Fowler-Nordheim equation. Should you be interested, the following discusses field emission in more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission
Regardless of taste there is no way a good 12" or 15" can have the transient response of a good 5" unit, and there's no way the 5" can have the gravitas or force of a 12"+ unit. We pick what we like and there is no magic device that does it all.
I don't wish to challenge anyone, but please bear in mind that a large driver hardly has to move at all to generate the air movement when compared to a tiddler of 5" or so. Very tiny main drivers usually have little to no deep bass at all, so sound 'faster' because of this. Couple this with an upper midrange peak in some designs, and 'superior transient response' is an inevitable opinion.
As you say, difficult things to design, speakers.............. The LS5/9's I have custody of have sounded totally different in three environments. Mid-bass heavy in the compromised 'office' setup, delightful on a summer's day at hifi dave's place, the Harbeth 30.1's being similar but slightly (but importantly in a 'musical' sense) 'better all round,' and lean, thin and 'clinical' in a friend's system - hmmm.....
A simple answer is that if the field strength is sufficiently high, electrons will be stripped away from the atoms and become free. It is well known that charge tends to concentrate at the points of sharp conductors (that is why lightning conductors are pointed at their tip), so these field emission 'cathodes' are made from silicon surface that has been chemically etched to produce an array of tips: the greater the number of tips, the greater the current density. When I was working on the project we achieved a (then) record for the greatest current density achieved to date.
However I don't think they will ever be of much use for analogue audio as they are highly non-linear: more so than conventional vacuum thermionic valves, where the current/voltage follows Child's 4/3 power law, or that of junction semiconductors, where the current/voltage relationship is exponential. The relation between the applied voltage and the current for field emission devices is described by the Fowler-Nordheim equation. Should you be interested, the following discusses field emission in more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission
I think the tragedy was the closure of the Tekton valve company. The Mullard group had perfected CRT TV tubes to have very long life indeed (CRT's are specialised valves after all) and reverse engineering the main parts made interesting modern'take on valve classics. Who knows what could have been taken further had the firm had the finances to continue?
walpurgis
16-10-2013, 20:22
Not a lot of point comparing a 5" driver to a big'n. Large bass speakers are normally crossed over at low frequencies anyway and a five inch unit may be used up to over 5kHz, in other words though the whole midband. Whereas a 12" or 15" driver will cross over at maybe 500Hz or 1kHz for instance, possibly to a compression driver and there's no way a five inch speaker can match one of those for transient response. As for transient response at bass frequencies, it does not have to be fast. I don't have figures in front of me, but I'd bet a good 15" bass unit will provide a fast enough response up to at least 1kHz.
Mr Kipling
16-10-2013, 20:35
Did you buy any drive units when you were on holiday, Geoff?
walpurgis
16-10-2013, 20:54
Did you buy any drive units when you were on holiday, Geoff?
Nope. To be honest, Hi-Fi was the last thing on my mind while I was away!
Mr Kipling
16-10-2013, 21:13
Sorry Geoff. I was being a tad (just a tad!) facetious!
Just wondering if you've ever done any experimenting with a reflector (Cannon) to get an omni-directional effect?
cloth-ears
16-10-2013, 21:28
A well designed 6 inch driver has an excellent transient response as the lower mass reacts quicker. Mutable small drivers will also have good bass response as they could match the displacement value of a much larger driver. The B&O penta range is a good example. It has to be said that the penta range of speakers do not have the most up to date drive units available but the design is so good that it doesn’t really matter, they do just enough. The Swans 2.3BF on the other hand take this configuration to a whole new level. Small speakers can make good noises.
Rare Bird
16-10-2013, 21:51
:clapclapclap:
Nice pair of Class 20's {English electric Type 1's} in your avatar Dave
walpurgis
16-10-2013, 22:50
Sorry Geoff. I was being a tad (just a tad!) facetious!
Just wondering if you've ever done any experimenting with a reflector (Cannon) to get an omni-directional effect?
Yes, I built several omnidirectional speakers years ago. They generally seemed to sound nice, but that may just have been down to my using full range drivers firing upwards onto a deflector. I did experiment with forward facing tweeters to give directional information and assist imaging, it certainly helped but allowed the speakers to retain their diffuse character.
I have also built a number of reflector style omni-directional speakers. none of them were SOTA but, although reasonably effective, they all suffered from quite clear colourations and created the diffuse sound field described. I also well remember the rep demoing the Cannon omni to me. He proudly announced that they gave you stereo no matter where you sat. Unfortunately, the reality was that they gave you very poor stereo no matter where you sat - a very poor design IMO (though it did look quite fun).
I recently made myself some super-tweeters and have been experimenting with them. I've found that even quite small adjustments to their position and alignment can make quite a big difference to image height, focus and sense of acoustic.
With regard to the actual question postulated as the premise of this thread; I don’t think measurements necessarily tell us everything, but they do tell us some things. One thing they tell us about (a lot of) valve amps is that people genuinely like the sound of 2nd order harmonic distortion and that output is modulated by speaker impedance – though neither of these are sonic revelations.
anthonyTD
17-10-2013, 08:55
Hi Barry,
Thanks for that, yes, very interesting, i will have a read of the link later when i get chance.:)
A...
A simple answer is that if the field strength is sufficiently high, electrons will be stripped away from the atoms and become free. It is well known that charge tends to concentrate at the points of sharp conductors (that is why lightning conductors are pointed at their tip), so these field emission 'cathodes' are made from silicon surface that has been chemically etched to produce an array of tips: the greater the number of tips, the greater the current density. When I was working on the project we achieved a (then) record for the greatest current density achieved to date.
However I don't think they will ever be of much use for analogue audio as they are highly non-linear: more so than conventional vacuum thermionic valves, where the current/voltage follows Child's 4/3 power law, or that of junction semiconductors, where the current/voltage relationship is exponential. The relation between the applied voltage and the current for field emission devices is described by the Fowler-Nordheim equation. Should you be interested, the following discusses field emission in more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission
I think there was basically a misunderstanding in that my comments on valve/SS amps as a whole were taken as pooh-poohing your own personal experience, which was never intended. I apologise for my part in the ensuing disagreement and hope no permanent damage to our "forum friendship" has been caused :)
Jez.
Hi Jez,
No worries, mate. Apology accepted. TBH, It's all water under the bridge, as far as I'm concerned. We move onwards and upwards! :cool:
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
17-10-2013, 23:06
Hi Jez,
No worries, mate. Apology accepted. TBH, It's all water under the bridge, as far as I'm concerned. We move onwards and upwards! :cool:
Marco.
Amen to that :thumbsup:
sq225917
18-10-2013, 08:42
I wonder what it is about lighter, larger cones and more efficient speakers that people equate to sounding 'faster'. It's not the speed that the cone moves, after all if they were genuinely slower then the pitch would simply be off, and that's not the case. Could it be perhaps the very leading edge coming off the first movement of the cone is sharper and a more accurate representation of the music signal, maybe something akin to slew rate but in respect to initial driver acceleration. or could it be that large lightweight paper cones simply aren't as stiff, and weren't designed with the benefits of laser inteferometry and finite element analysis, so what people equate to speed is simply overtones from the breakup mode of the cone as it accelerates at high velocity?
Given the availability of 'super' materials thee days, I'm surprised only one manufacturer since Yamaha has really bothered making a high tech 12" cone. I'm sure it would be trivial for one of the big boys to make a mega bass cone that's as light as paper but with better controlled break up modes and greater self damping. Maybe there technical superiority of the stiffer better damped cone isn't matched by a commensurate improvement in sound quality.
cloth-ears
18-10-2013, 09:26
I wonder what it is about lighter, larger cones and more efficient speakers that people equate to sounding 'faster'. It's not the speed that the cone moves, after all if they were genuinely slower then the pitch would simply be off, and that's not the case. Could it be perhaps the very leading edge coming off the first movement of the cone is sharper and a more accurate representation of the music signal, maybe something akin to slew rate but in respect to initial driver acceleration. or could it be that large lightweight paper cones simply aren't as stiff, and weren't designed with the benefits of laser inteferometry and finite element analysis, so what people equate to speed is simply overtones from the breakup mode of the cone as it accelerates at high velocity?
Given the availability of 'super' materials thee days, I'm surprised only one manufacturer since Yamaha has really bothered making a high tech 12" cone. I'm sure it would be trivial for one of the big boys to make a mega bass cone that's as light as paper but with better controlled break up modes and greater self damping. Maybe there technical superiority of the stiffer better damped cone isn't matched by a commensurate improvement in sound quality.
A 12 inch cone has problems with flexing that is hard to overcome. The voice coil is attached to the cone and both should move together. Unfortunately larger cones tend to flex at the centre sending ripples along the surface. This flexing can be overcome but that means increasing mass. Subwoofers for example use larger higher mass cones but also a larger amp to drive them. The energy used is disproportionate to the output of the main stereo amp. A fifty watt amp could have a 200 watt subwoofer to support it.
As modern smaller cones can have the same displacement as larger cones building larger cones is an answer to a nonexistent problem. Also, colouration within the cabinet will try to escape. The thinnest wall of any speaker cabinet is the cone itself. Keeping the cone size small reduces the amount of internal colouration escaping.
Don't forget that any cone driver is not operating in a piston-like fashion throughout it's passband. As the frequency rises, the effective size of the driver reduces as the cone bends at a smaller and smaller radial distance - the outer portions becoming almost stationary relative to the inner portions of the cone.
This isn't a bad thing, provided that the cone breakup is controlled and that the surround allows the movement of the outer portion to be controlled.
I think the problem is that most drive unit development is purely engineering led (as is most hi-fi in general - unless it is just the marketing led stuff) rather than genuine design/innovation led. As a result you end up with continual refinements on existing patterns and very little (hardly any) attempt to genuinely innovate or design from first principles.
In the same way as a dome mid driver is just a giant tweeter, it is possible (well, feasible at least) to make a bass driver in the same manner, or to have more than one voice coil (one inside the other) etc.
The biggest difference with making a driver bigger is the stiffness to mass ratio f the cone material alters and the required excursion increases which leads to non linearity. Paper cones actually have a good stiffness to mass ratio but are not as well damped as some plastics (hence some drivers are doped - heavily doped in the case of drivers like ATC use (though this adds significant mass)).
Nice pair of Class 20's {English electric Type 1's} in your avatar Dave
Lovely things ain't they? My most memorable experience of the 20's was on a trip to Derbyshire with a few mates. We were camping close to Riber Castle (sometime in the early 90's I think) and we decided to catch a train into Matlock from Matlock Bath. Imagine our delight when a pair of these rolled into the station pulling our train. As a southerner and being more familiar with the ubiquitous but rather boring looking Class 33 BoBo locos, I took to the bonneted Class 20's like a Duck to water. Oh, and then there was that rather special soundtrack which accompanies them, delightful sound that. IIRC there are still a few sets in service tasked with hauling nuclear flasks around the country. Says a lot for the integrity of the design that they are still going strong after all these years, they made 'em to last in those days, eh? ;)
cloth-ears
18-10-2013, 11:27
I think the problem is that most drive unit development is purely engineering led (as is most hi-fi in general - unless it is just the marketing led stuff) rather than genuine design/innovation led. As a result you end up with continual refinements on existing patterns and very little (hardly any) attempt to genuinely innovate or design from first principles.
In the same way as a dome mid driver is just a giant tweeter, it is possible (well, feasible at least) to make a bass driver in the same manner, or to have more than one voice coil (one inside the other) etc.
The biggest difference with making a driver bigger is the stiffness to mass ratio f the cone material alters and the required excursion increases which leads to non linearity. Paper cones actually have a good stiffness to mass ratio but are not as well damped as some plastics (hence some drivers are doped - heavily doped in the case of drivers like ATC use (though this adds significant mass)).
I believe in the “if it aint broke don’t fix it philosophy” though many have tried over the years. I remember SONY had at one time a flat speaker with four voice coils whilst Jordan tried out a twin voice coil configuration, one in front of the other around an extra long pole tip. The basic idea being to pull as well as push the cone. Neither design came to much. The basic cone speaker appears to work well so why change it?
anthonyTD
18-10-2013, 12:25
The leak sandwich speakers were the closest i have seen to true piston action drivers.
A...
Don't forget that any cone driver is not operating in a piston-like fashion throughout it's passband. As the frequency rises, the effective size of the driver reduces as the cone bends at a smaller and smaller radial distance - the outer portions becoming almost stationary relative to the inner portions of the cone.
This isn't a bad thing, provided that the cone breakup is controlled and that the surround allows the movement of the outer portion to be controlled.
Some of the very best loudspeakers I've heard still used doped paper cones. For all of the advances in materials technology, no-one yet seems to have bettered doped paper by any significant margin although there are very successful plastic designs such as Harbeth's RADIAL material which addresses the linearity issues very successfully. At the end of the day, the purpose of a speaker is to vibrate the air...it's a transducer, and with the wide frequency range that it's asked to deliver, there are only so many ways of skinning that particular cat. Innovation is often simply the making better of something that already exists, so one could argue that there is steady innovation on cone design, but that is not the same thing as saying it's any better than what went before it. Evolution of design tends to end up at something fundamentally suited for purpose. Despite the many drawbacks of cone woofers (paper, plastic or whatever) they dominate for a very good reason...they work. Electrostatics are really the only significant departure in the way a transducer is implemented as far as I am aware, along with some niche designs such as the Leak Sandwich mentioned above ( a great loudspeaker imho).
The other area where there has been steady progress is in the improvement of coil materials quality and insulation to deliver higher power handling and in magnet strength. There is some argument that the type of magnet can influence sound quality (eg AlNiCo was mourned after its initial departure from Tannoy who later reintroduced it) but there are other reasons for this (magnet depth and position of compression tweeter meant that no time alignment filter was needed with AlNiCo magnet equipped MGs and HPDs but was for the shallower stronger magnets which followed). It seems to be one step forwards and two steps back. There are very few truly innovative speakers on the market and I suspect that development and marketing overheads play quite a role in that. Styling, reviews and profitability seem to come first with many modern loudspeakers.
hifi_dave
18-10-2013, 13:10
The leak sandwich speakers were the closest i have seen to true piston action drivers.
A...
The ads featured Harold Leak standing on an upturned cone to prove how stiff they were.
Oh how I lusted after a pair of Leak Sandwich but had to make do with the Mini Sandwich.
Well, because it only works up to a point - speakers are one of the least linear components in the audio chain.
Innovation is often simply the making better of something that already exists,..
I disagree with that point; you are describing refinement and development, not innovation.
The leak sandwich cone was a great idea, but limited by the technology available at the time - since then a number of manufacturers have built similar cone configurations (often replacing the polystyrene core with Nomex).
anthonyTD
18-10-2013, 13:41
Great post,
Unfortunately, until the day when there are no mechanical involvements needed to reproduce recorded music,i fear we will have to rely on good old cone technology for the majority of speakers to come, at least for the near future...
A..
Some of the very best loudspeakers I've heard still used doped paper cones. For all of the advances in materials technology, no-one yet seems to have bettered doped paper by any significant margin although there are very successful plastic designs such as Harbeth's RADIAL material which addresses the linearity issues very successfully. At the end of the day, the purpose of a speaker is to vibrate the air...it's a transducer, and with the wide frequency range that it's asked to deliver, there are only so many ways of skinning that particular cat. Innovation is often simply the making better of something that already exists, so one could argue that there is steady innovation on cone design, but that is not the same thing as saying it's any better than what went before it. Evolution of design tends to end up at something fundamentally suited for purpose. Despite the many drawbacks of cone woofers (paper, plastic or whatever) they dominate for a very good reason...they work. Electrostatics are really the only significant departure in the way a transducer is implemented as far as I am aware, along with some niche designs such as the Leak Sandwich mentioned above ( a great loudspeaker imho).
The other area where there has been steady progress is in the improvement of coil materials quality and insulation to deliver higher power handling and in magnet strength. There is some argument that the type of magnet can influence sound quality (eg AlNiCo was mourned after its initial departure from Tannoy who later reintroduced it) but there are other reasons for this (magnet depth and position of compression tweeter meant that no time alignment filter was needed with AlNiCo magnet equipped MGs and HPDs but was for the shallower stronger magnets which followed). It seems to be one step forwards and two steps back. There are very few truly innovative speakers on the market and I suspect that development and marketing overheads play quite a role in that. Styling, reviews and profitability seem to come first with many modern loudspeakers.
Arkless Electronics
18-10-2013, 13:43
I've got a set of the mini sandwich speakers (OK as an everyday classic for background listening etc) but I can't say I was in the least bit impressed with the bigger version.... I've heard several sets at different times and always found them bass light, forward and hard sounding. YMMV and no doubt will :D
I disagree with that point; you are describing refinement and development, not innovation.
The leak sandwich cone was a great idea, but limited by the technology available at the time - since then a number of manufacturers have built similar cone configurations (often replacing the polystyrene core with Nomex).
Ok...I'll re-phrase...innovation is quite often the taking of an existing idea and doing something better with it, not necessarily developing something completely new. You can innovate with materials technology, efficiency, manufacturing process, and in certain aspects of a design which elevate it from previous incarnations. That in some respects is more than mere refinement. Refinements don't always bring improvements. Development it may be but development I take to include areas of innovation. Semantics really as the point you're making I guess is that there are few designs which do it completely differently and that's true.
anthonyTD
18-10-2013, 13:47
Ahh but thats probably because you were listening to them connected to one of those horrible new fangled Transistor thingies..;)
Just Kidding, :)The sandwich was limited to frequency response due mainly i feel to the high frequency units cone being too heavy...
But i always found the bass very tuneful, and effortless.
A...
I've got a set of the mini sandwich speakers (OK as an everyday classic for background listening etc) but I can't say I was in the least bit impressed with the bigger version.... I've heard several sets at different times and always found them bass light, forward and hard sounding. YMMV and no doubt will :D
I have a pair of leak 2060's they are nice speakers, but i' ve only ever used them with a low output amp,
They are clean sounding. Considering the cone of the bass driver..
One of the reasons i like vintage drivers is the cone tends to break up nicely, I've had some bad experences with reconed speakers so i wont go there, the cone has to flex depending on high you go with them, and by just the right amount.
The reason i like big cones for bass is that i like the difference in sound i get from them, yes small cones may work... But the sound is not the same for me.
Arkless Electronics
18-10-2013, 14:37
Ahh but thats probably because you were listening to them connected to one of those horrible new fangled Transistor thingies..;)
Just Kidding, :)The sandwich was limited to frequency response due mainly i feel to the high frequency units cone being too heavy...
But i always found the bass very tuneful, and effortless.
A...
Valve and SS! I reckon they were just asking too much from only two drive units... when one of them was 13"..... and the other a tweeter!
The bass was certainly tight but in my experience not very extended.
Arkless Electronics
18-10-2013, 14:43
I have a pair of leak 2060's they are nice speakers, but i' ve only ever used them with a low output amp,
They are clean sounding. Considering the cone of the bass driver..
One of the reasons i like vintage drivers is the cone tends to break up nicely, I've had some bad experences with reconed speakers so i wont go there, the cone has to flex depending on high you go with them, and by just the right amount.
The reason i like big cones for bass is that i like the difference in sound i get from them, yes small cones may work... But the sound is not the same for me.
I had a set of those as well! Much better than the earlier sandwich as it also had a midrange driver (the white Wharfdale one with the radial holes). The tweeter was the not very good Wharfdale purple plastic one....
Not a bad speaker but not a particularly good one neither was my impression. I got rid after a year or so.
anthonyTD
18-10-2013, 15:10
I tend to agree...
Valve and SS!
I reckon they were just asking too much from only two drive units... when one of them was 13"..... and the other a tweeter!
The bass was certainly tight but in my experience not very extended.
cloth-ears
18-10-2013, 16:11
The more the merrier, drive units that is. On day I would love to build a pyramid speaker. Starting at the bottom with a 15 inch and ascending with 12, 10, 8, 6, 4 and finally a 1 inch tweeter at the top. Anybody ever tried this?
Lol - that's so NOT the approach I favour... :nono:
Give me a ONE nice big 15", horn-loaded, dual-concentric driver (per side) any day! Having gotten used to the 'point source' effect (and superb imaging qualities, amongst other attributes) of the latter, I simply couldn't return to speakers using multiple arrays of different drive units, which to my ears lack musical cohesion (and sound rather 'hi-fi') in comparison.
Marco.
cloth-ears
18-10-2013, 17:49
Lol - that's so NOT the approach I favour... :nono:
Give me a ONE nice big 15", horn-loaded, dual-concentric driver (per side) any day! Having gotten used to the 'point source' effect (and superb imaging qualities, amongst other attributes) of the latter, I simply couldn't return to speakers using multiple arrays of different drive units, which to my ears lack musical cohesion (and sound rather 'hi-fi') in comparison.
Marco.
I understand what you say, I really do. But doesn’t live music come from multiple sources and not just from a single point. I think both have a place but that may be another thread.:ner:
brian2957
18-10-2013, 21:27
I bought a set of speakers locally a couple of years ago and the seller had a set of home made (6ft tall) pyramid speakers . They pinned you to the back wall . Just too many drivers and too much to deal with .
walpurgis
18-10-2013, 21:41
Lol - that's so NOT the approach I favour... :nono:
Give me a ONE nice big 15", horn-loaded, dual-concentric driver (per side) any day! Having gotten used to the 'point source' effect (and superb imaging qualities, amongst other attributes) of the latter, I simply couldn't return to speakers using multiple arrays of different drive units, which to my ears lack musical cohesion (and sound rather 'hi-fi') in comparison.
Marco.
I thought you were rather fond of your "multiple array" Ditton 66's Marco. :)
Yup, very much so, simply because they offer a rather different 'flavour' of musical presentation to the Tannoys, which can often aid in giving one a 'reality check', as it were.
However, they're not really what I would consider as 'multiple array', such as what Clothy was referring to earlier! :eek:
Also, the Celestions use 'proper-sized' drive units: 12" bass bad-boys with an ABR... The 'multiple array' speakers I hate are the really tall and skinny monstrosities, with copious quantities of diddy-sized 6 or 8 inch drivers and more tweeters than you'll find at a Myna bird convention - worra lorra SHITE! :D
Marco.
walpurgis
18-10-2013, 22:30
The 'multiple array' speakers I hate are the really tall and skinny monstrosities, with copious quantities of diddy-sized 6 or 8 inch drivers and more tweeters than you'll find at a Myna bird convention - worra lorra SHITE! :D Marco.
I know what you mean. Those types of speakers can seem to go deep enough, but always lack impact to my ears. The only speakers with smaller drivers I've heard that do bass well have been transmission lines and the odd rare horn.
You guys do realise that Tannoy dual-concentric a are just like any two way speaker, with separate tweeter and mid drivers and a crossover - it's just that the tweeter is mounted in the centre of the bass driver. They aren't free from a crossover in any way that a normal speaker isn't.
jandl100
19-10-2013, 07:41
I reckon they were just asking too much from only two drive units... when one of them was 13"..... and the other a tweeter!
:lol: Spot on - it does sound a bit ridiculous when talking about the Leak speakers; of course it won't work properly! - but therein lies a major part of the shortcomings of Tannoy dual concentrics, imho. It's just asking too much from two wildly differently sized drivers to integrate properly, and it shows in the compromised sonic presentation.
Yeah, they can shift lots of air, but there's more to music than that. ;)
OK OK - I'll go now. :door: :D
You guys do realise that Tannoy dual-concentric a are just like any two way speaker, with separate tweeter and mid drivers and a crossover - it's just that the tweeter is mounted in the centre of the bass driver. They aren't free from a crossover in any way that a normal speaker isn't.
Of course, Mark.
However, to my ears, Tannoy DCs, due to their 'point source' presentation of music, image better than any other box speakers I've heard and also because there aren't multiple arrays of drivers 'firing sound at you' from different positions, such that one is aware of a 'tweeter sound' (from the tweeter), a 'midrange sound' (from the midrange unit), etc, everything sounds much more 'cohesive'.
The net result of this is that music, for me, sounds less 'forced', more coherent, and thus more natural and believable. It's a difficult effect to explain in words, and only fully appreciated when you've lived with a pair of big DCs for a while and then go and listen to some conventional 'separate driver' loudspeakers :)
Marco.
:lol: Spot on - it does sound a bit ridiculous when talking about the Leak speakers; of course it won't work properly! - but therein lies a major part of the shortcomings of Tannoy dual concentrics, imho. It's just asking too much from two wildly differently sized drivers to integrate properly, and it shows in the compromised sonic presentation.
Yeah, they can shift lots of air, but there's more to music than that. ;)
OK OK - I'll go now. :door: :D
LOL!!
Sure, but as we all know, ALL speakers are compromised (in some way), so it's simply a matter of choosing your compromises :)
To my ears, the sonic compromises of 'separate driver' speakers outweigh those of Tannoy DCs, but of course for others it may be very different, and so there is no 'perfect choice'.
Marco.
Audioman
19-10-2013, 08:21
The more the merrier, drive units that is. On day I would love to build a pyramid speaker. Starting at the bottom with a 15 inch and ascending with 12, 10, 8, 6, 4 and finally a 1 inch tweeter at the top. Anybody ever tried this?
No because it wouldn't work. You would need a very complex crossover as well. Have heard a few expensive designs that use a column of drivers the same size and they almost universaly disappoint.
cloth-ears
19-10-2013, 08:28
No because it wouldn't work. You would need a very complex crossover as well. Have heard a few expensive designs that use a column of drivers the same size and they almost universaly disappoint.
What about these?
http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-the-Mini-Line-Array/
Some interesting comments. Some misunderstanding too. Tannoys are not like two separate units with a quick transition from a bass to a diddy little tweeter at 3 or 4KHz. Anyone who considers them to be no different clearly doesn't understand how they work.
The woofers are shaped so that they become an extension of the horn tweeter to handle part of the mid range (which isn't the same thing at all as a conventional dome tweeter). They cross over quite low, between 1250 and 1500 Hz, and this limits woofer break-up and distortion. As the compression driver kicks in for the mid range, it operates like a time-aligned horn, then as frequency rises, the dispersion is more directional. Its nothing at all like a 12 inch and a dome tweeter on different parts of a baffle board. Any large driver matched with a tweeter and no mid range unit never sounds right because two different drivers aligned that way can't hope to taken on the duties asked of them and do it without significant cone break-up which requireds compromises in design to dampen the woofer response. Very few companies have ever managed to get a dual concentric right. Tannoy are one of them. Most of the colourations heard with big Tannoys is often associated with poor cabinet design, poor crossovers, or both. Modern units using powerful magnets Non-AlNico versions) tend to have shallower magnets than older MGs and HPDs and as a result, the compression driver is further forward in the horn meaning that time delay is required to get correct phase alignment. These never sound as clean to my ears as something like the HPDs.
Bottom line is that they are not comparable to a baffle with one little dome tweeter and one large woofer.
Thanks for outlining that, Paul, which makes sense. Do you think it partly explains what I've heard, as outlined in post #385? :)
Marco.
What about these?
http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-the-Mini-Line-Array/
HIDEOUS!! :D :eek: :no:
Marco.
jandl100
19-10-2013, 08:52
OK.
It certainly seems true that careful design of cabinet and crossover can substantially reduce the "Tannoy Tizz" of the DC drivers - like in Paul's own Fidelio speakers - it's always still there, though, to my ears. It sounds like cone breakup might sound to me - a "ch" (as in Scottish loch) sound overlaying the upper mids.
Drives me crazy, often enough :facepull: but possibly liveable with in a very few implementations I have heard.
I think that part of the huge problems I often hear with Tannoy DC implementations is in the cabinet and crossover designs, though.
jandl100
19-10-2013, 09:10
What about these?
http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-the-Mini-Line-Array/
Is a line array driver like that much different in principle to an extended source like a ribbon or electrostatic driver? They can sound mighty fine.
http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FX2/4DMI/GP7IGBFY/FX24DMIGP7IGBFY.LARGE.jpg http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue33/images/Apogee.jpg
cloth-ears
19-10-2013, 09:11
Some interesting comments. Some misunderstanding too. Tannoys are not like two separate units with a quick transition from a bass to a diddy little tweeter at 3 or 4KHz. Anyone who considers them to be no different clearly doesn't understand how they work.
The woofers are shaped so that they become an extension of the horn tweeter to handle part of the mid range (which isn't the same thing at all as a conventional dome tweeter). They cross over quite low, between 1250 and 1500 Hz, and this limits woofer break-up and distortion. As the compression driver kicks in for the mid range, it operates like a time-aligned horn, then as frequency rises, the dispersion is more directional. Its nothing at all like a 12 inch and a dome tweeter on different parts of a baffle board. Any large driver matched with a tweeter and no mid range unit never sounds right because two different drivers aligned that way can't hope to taken on the duties asked of them and do it without significant cone break-up which requireds compromises in design to dampen the woofer response. Very few companies have ever managed to get a dual concentric right. Tannoy are one of them. Most of the colourations heard with big Tannoys is often associated with poor cabinet design, poor crossovers, or both. Modern units using powerful magnets Non-AlNico versions) tend to have shallower magnets than older MGs and HPDs and as a result, the compression driver is further forward in the horn meaning that time delay is required to get correct phase alignment. These never sound as clean to my ears as something like the HPDs.
Bottom line is that they are not comparable to a baffle with one little dome tweeter and one large woofer.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t tweeter time alignment to correct the distance in voice coils. Both voice coils should be in plump with each other. The voice coil on the DC is behind that of the bass/mid so some phase correction should still be needed. The Leak 3050 speaker had all the voice coils in plumb by sitting the tweeter further back but in perfect line to that of the bass mid.
cloth-ears
19-10-2013, 09:14
Is a line array driver like that much different in principle to an extended source like a ribbon or electrostatic driver? They can sound mighty fine.
http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FX2/4DMI/GP7IGBFY/FX24DMIGP7IGBFY.LARGE.jpg http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue33/images/Apogee.jpg
They do look good. I may build some just to see what they sound like :eek:
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t tweeter time alignment to correct the distance in voice coils. Both voice coils should be in plump with each other. The voice coil on the DC is behind that of the bass/mid so some phase correction should still be needed. The Leak 3050 speaker had all the voice coils in plumb by sitting the tweeter further back but in perfect line to that of the bass mid.
In later DC's the voice coil moved forward as the magnet was shallower. This means that time alignment (delay) was needed as the compression tweeter sat too far forward. It was never used much on MGs or HPDs and the few later HPD derived x-overs I've heard with it included sounded horrible...it never worked properly imho. The advantage with the vintage Tannoys (AFAIK) was that the magnets were deeper allowing the positioning of the compression driver further back somewhat alleviating the problem. Having owned new and old, the older drive units sound more natural to my ears. What Jerry describes is more obvious on the newer tulip waveguide units especially.
anthonyTD
19-10-2013, 09:45
Linear array speakers can perform exceptionally well when done right, [i experienced this while working briefly with Doreen Bance in the late 1990's]
However, i still prefer what a decent Dual concentric design has to offer in most cases, and on that subject, anyone who describes the dual concentric s from Tannoy as just another big driver with a small Tweeter' has i fear a very limited understanding of how they work!!!
Anthony,TD...
Thanks for outlining that, Paul, which makes sense. Do you think it partly explains what I've heard, as outlined in post #385? :)
Marco.
The coherency Marco is due to to the point source design. Our ears are particularly sensitive to this issue and if you've ever sat close up and personal to some multi-driver designs, they can sound quite disjointed from a few metres due to this effect. Its easily explained as for each crossover point, duty shifts from one driver to the next and there are some phase issues there as well as baffle design/driver positioning issues to overcome. This shouldn't be confused with line array which can sound very coherent.
As much as I loved the sound that my Lumley Lampros 300AB floor standers made, their multi driver approach with attendant 3-way 2nd order x-over resulted in phasing issues close up (as duties shift from one driver to another, axial FR chages slightly (either lifts or drops) due to dispersion behaviour changes between drivers so you could have a voice singing a tune spanning an octave or two and if this spans a crossover point, they appear to shift right or left on the stereo image which is quite noticeable and disconcerting. Tannoy overcome this as they have a reasonably wide dispersion and use a point source design, so are pretty phase-accurate. Big Tannoys tend to image better than other large multi-driver units I've heard but small narrow enclosure, like little stand mounters, with their narrow baffle widths, image better.
anthonyTD
19-10-2013, 09:50
Hear hear,
The Glenairs i owned drove me nuts, in this particular case, there was indeed [i felt] a mismatch between the high frequency units integration with the large 15" unit, and it was pretty obvious, on the smaller 10" drive units as found in the Turnbury's the problem isn't anywhere near as obvious.Both have the Tulip waveguide system.
A...
In later DC's the voice coil moved forward as the magnet was shallower. This means that time alignment (delay) was needed as the compression tweeter sat too far forward. It was never used much on MGs or HPDs and the few later HPD derived x-overs I've heard with it included sounded horrible...it never worked properly imho. The advantage with the vintage Tannoys (AFAIK) was that the magnets were deeper allowing the positioning of the compression driver further back somewhat alleviating the problem.
Having owned new and old, the older drive units sound more natural to my ears. What Jerry describes is more obvious on the newer tulip waveguide units especially.
Hear hear,
The Glenairs i owned drove me nuts, in this particular case, there was indeed [i felt] a mismatch between the high frequency units integration with the large 15" unit, and it was pretty obvious, on the smaller 10" drive units as found in the Turnbury's the problem isn't anywhere near as obvious.
A...
I'd agree with that Anthony although they both use the same driver technology, the 10 inch Tulip waveguide is more coherent than the larger unit. Both suffer from some cost cutting imho. The crossovers use a single cap in the HF range rather than the more "ideal" multi-cap approach (more linear with F/rise) and still use iron cored inductors (cheaper and more compact) which imho are too closely spaced. An improvement could be had by some subtle re-working of the crossovers and preferably, taking them out of the cabinet altogether.
walpurgis
19-10-2013, 10:12
The net result of this is that music, for me, sounds less 'forced', more coherent, and thus more natural and believable. It's a difficult effect to explain in words, and only fully appreciated when you've lived with a pair of big DCs for a while and then go and listen to some conventional 'separate driver' loudspeakers :) Marco.
Yeah, my experience too. Once you've 'tuned into' a proper pair of Tannoy DCs and then go back to using something else, it just doesn't sound quite right, almost as if there's something missing. It's not about colourations, bass performance or maybe even phase characteristics, to me it's just the sheer transparency and depth through the mid, along with the incredible imaging that gets me.
walpurgis
19-10-2013, 10:18
Modern units using powerful magnets Non-AlNico versions) tend to have shallower magnets than older MGs and HPDs and as a result, the compression driver is further forward in the horn meaning that time delay is required to get correct phase alignment. These never sound as clean to my ears as something like the HPDs.
My current Tannoys use the 12" 3128 driver with shallower ceramic magnets and the truncated 'pepperpot' horn and I have to say they are the most lucid and clear Tannoys I've ever used. Definitely superior to the 12" Golds and HPDs I've had.
My current Tannoys use the 12" 3128 driver with shallower ceramic magnets and the truncated 'pepperpot' horn and I have to say they are the most lucid and clear Tannoys I've ever used. Definitely superior to the 12" Golds and HPDs I've had.
I much prefer the newer pepperpot drivers to the tulip waveguides too. They overcome some of the phase issues of the tulip waveguide system more successfully. I don't however find them any better than a well implemented HPD but power handling is much higher. I can't stress enough how important the implementation is to get the best from the older DC units.
anthonyTD
19-10-2013, 10:53
:)The pepper pot waveguide and alnico magnet system in my Kensington's are a great match, and the power handling isn't too shabby either, As others have said, when you have lived with a good dual concentric,and really gotten to grips with what they do well, its very hard to go back to listening to conventional multi-drive unit speakers for many reasons.
A...
I'd agree with that Anthony although they both use the same driver technology, the 10 inch Tulip waveguide is more coherent than the larger unit. Both suffer from some cost cutting imho. The crossovers use a single cap in the HF range rather than the more "ideal" multi-cap approach (more linear with F/rise) and still use iron cored inductors (cheaper and more compact) which imho are too closely spaced. An improvement could be had by some subtle re-working of the crossovers and preferably, taking them out of the cabinet altogether.
:)The pepper pot waveguide and alnico magnet system in my Kensington's are a great match, and the power handling isn't too shabby either, As others have said, when you have lived with a good dual concentric,and really gotten to grips with what they do well, its very hard to go back to listening to conventional multi-drive unit speakers for many reasons.
A...
I'm with you there Anthony. I couldn't go back to listening to anything else and for what it's worth, I consider the Kensingtons to be the best of the prestige range...more convincing and room friendly than the larger models and more coherent than the non pepperpot waveguide driver versions. Better imho than the Definition series too which appear to be more of a nod to fashion than anything else. I had the Turnberrys for a while..impressive on first audition but I couldn't live with the mid distortion/honk.
Some interesting comments. Some misunderstanding too. Tannoys are not like two separate units with a quick transition from a bass to a diddy little tweeter at 3 or 4KHz. Anyone who considers them to be no different clearly doesn't understand how they work.
The woofers are shaped so that they become an extension of the horn tweeter to handle part of the mid range (which isn't the same thing at all as a conventional dome tweeter). They cross over quite low, between 1250 and 1500 Hz, and this limits woofer break-up and distortion. As the compression driver kicks in for the mid range, it operates like a time-aligned horn, then as frequency rises, the dispersion is more directional. Its nothing at all like a 12 inch and a dome tweeter on different parts of a baffle board. Any large driver matched with a tweeter and no mid range unit never sounds right because two different drivers aligned that way can't hope to taken on the duties asked of them and do it without significant cone break-up which requireds compromises in design to dampen the woofer response. Very few companies have ever managed to get a dual concentric right. Tannoy are one of them. Most of the colourations heard with big Tannoys is often associated with poor cabinet design, poor crossovers, or both. Modern units using powerful magnets Non-AlNico versions) tend to have shallower magnets than older MGs and HPDs and as a result, the compression driver is further forward in the horn meaning that time delay is required to get correct phase alignment. These never sound as clean to my ears as something like the HPDs.
Bottom line is that they are not comparable to a baffle with one little dome tweeter and one large woofer.
This is presumably a dig at me - but I can assure you I do understand how they work (at least as anybody else here any way). Obviously the mid/bass cone is behaving as a horn, but it is far from being an ideal horn and if it were dedicated to that purpose nobody would make it out of paper or make it vibrate! There is no free lunch and Kef (for example) have sought to overcome these issues for many years.
Mounting the tweeter in the centre of the woofer does not, in any way, cause it to transcend the requirements of mid range production (which seems to be what is being suggested).
Most of the systems I have heard that have genuinely exhibited excellent imaging have not used dual concentric design - the only exception being the Kef Blade.
The idea that the radiating cone area of the mid/bass progressively decreases as frequency rises is not an idea unique to Tannoy in any way and is used by many drivers (not those seeking truly pistonic motion though).
This is presumably a dig at me - but I can assure you I do understand how they work (at least as anybody else here any way). Obviously the mid/bass cone is behaving as a horn, but it is far from being an ideal horn and if it were dedicated to that purpose nobody would make it out of paper or make it vibrate! There is no free lunch and Kef (for example) have sought to overcome these issues for many years.
Most of the systems I have heard that have genuinely exhibited excellent imaging have not used dual concentric design - the only exception being the Kef Blade.
The idea that the radiating cone area of the mid/bass progressively decreases as frequency rises is not an idea unique to Tannoy in any way and is used by many drivers (not those seeking truly pistonic motion though).
:scratch: No..it's not a dig at you at all.
cloth-ears
19-10-2013, 11:32
So, single speaker or multiple speaker. Single, multiple; single, multiple…………..Tannoy Dreadnought, best of both worlds. SORTED :lol:
Mounting the tweeter in the centre of the woofer does not, in any way, cause it to transcend the requirements of mid range production (which seems to be what is being suggested).
Certainly not by me.
It does, however, for some listeners (myself included), improve musical coherence/cohesion significantly, as a result of midrange information (particularly voices) integrating more seamlessly with the rest of the frequency range, instead of (in comparison with conventional multi-driver designs) emitting somewhat disparately from within an isolated acoustic space, which makes many types of recorded music sound more lifelike when reproduced by a quality, well-sorted, dual-concentric loudspeaker.
Marco.
Any decent multi-driver speaker will not sound like disparate elements unless you are listening too close - with a big multi-way you need to be some distance from the loudspeaker for the sound to cohere. It really isn't an issue at all, although the fad for listening across the width of the room instead of down it's length will not help with this - unless you have a very wide room.
Any decent multi-driver speaker will not sound like disparate elements unless you are listening too close - with a big multi-way you need to be some distance from the loudspeaker for the sound to cohere.
Sure, however the key words here are 'in comparison with'.
To my ears, in comparison with the best DCs, most multi-driver speakers *do* sound 'disparate', whether listened to up close or otherwise. That is simply to say it only occurs like that because the former excel in that particular aspect of music reproduction, not because, under normal circumstances, the latter are lacking at all in that area.
Furthermore, the advantage of large DCs is that you don't need a huge room for them to perform optimally. There's simply no way I could use such large speakers as I do (to stunning effect) in my small room if they were the multi-driver type that need to 'breathe'. All I'd get would be BOOM BOOM BOOM [instead of sphincter-tight, 'earthquake extended' low frequencies!!] ;)
Marco.
cloth-ears
19-10-2013, 12:40
Any decent multi-driver speaker will not sound like disparate elements unless you are listening too close - with a big multi-way you need to be some distance from the loudspeaker for the sound to cohere. It really isn't an issue at all, although the fad for listening across the width of the room instead of down it's length will not help with this - unless you have a very wide room.
I agree, live music has the symbols in one place, the drums and singer in another; in fact all over the place. As you walk past the band different frequencies can be heard in a disjointed way but as you stand back it all comes together. Having multiple drive units in a single cabinet may sound odd if you stand only a few inches away but just like a real band they all come together as you stand back.
I agree, live music has the symbols in one place, the drums and singer in another; in fact all over the place. As you walk past the band different frequencies can be heard in a disjointed way but as you stand back it all comes together. Having multiple drive units in a single cabinet may sound odd if you stand only a few inches away but just like a real band they all come together as you stand back.
+1 :clap:
Yes, the theory is great. However, the reality is that so few designs like that get it right! ;)
Marco.
Furthermore, the advantage of large DCs is that you don't need a huge room for them to perform optimally. There's simply no way I could use such large speakers as I do (to stunning effect) in my small room if they were the multi-driver type that need to 'breathe'. All I'd get would be BOOM BOOM BOOM [instead of sphincter-tight, 'earthquake extended' low frequencies!!] ;)
Marco.
Very true. Big Tannoys do work well in small rooms. Heard that a few times now. Although I still think that a small listening room is a compromise too far whatever the loudspeakers.
I agree, but you have to compare 'like for like'. A good (as in acoustically sound) small room is always going to be better than a bad, big one. However a good, big room is probably going to be better than a good, small one - although there are a multitude of variables to consider.
The main reason why I get the quality of sound that I do in my room, or rather an amazingly good sound in there considering the size, is not because of anything to do with the size itself (14.5 X 11 ft), but everything to do with the shape of the room (which is very irregular, thus cancelling-out standing waves) and the sheer solidity of the walls and floor, with it being an old property, compared with the big, square, flimsy (acoustically horrid) boxes, passed off as rooms, contained now inside your average 'new build'.
Furthermore, the importance of the influence of how well isolated the kit (and speakers) are from the effects of the surrounding environment, and how simply and directly the system receives power from the mains supply, with the minimal amount of 'bottlenecks', is also fundamental. It is why I always harp on about 'system infrastructure' and how, in my experience, it is essential to optimise that FIRST before spending big on the boxes!! ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
19-10-2013, 13:16
So, single speaker or multiple speaker. Single, multiple; single, multiple…………..Tannoy Dreadnought, best of both worlds. SORTED :lol:
There's a lot to be said for a single good full range driver. They can sound wonderful, although there are some horrors about!
Paul Hynes
19-10-2013, 14:13
Line source arrays can sound very musically coherent. I built a pair as a personal project before moving to the Western Isles. I still have them, love them and have no urge to change them. To get a good musical performance it requires good full range drivers, which removes the need for crossovers and the sonic damage they can inflict. Also, to maintain coherency, it requires that all the drive units, in each channel, are wired in parallel, so that they all receive the same drive signal.
All of the commercial and DIY line arrays that I have seen wire the drive units in series/parallel to give an easy load, which in my view ruins the coherency that is possible with parallel wired drive units. Driving reactive drive units through other reactive drive units loses control of all the drive units causing inter-modulation and considerable confusion of the sound field. This, and multi-way crossover artefacts, is likely why Marco finds typical domestic line arrays so objectionable when he is used to the coherency of the MGs.
My line arrays can easily be connected to allow either wiring arrangement, as I specifically wanted to prove this for myself. With the drivers in parallel it is so easy to understand how the music is played and there is a stable three-dimensional sound field that remains stable even with large dynamic events (my line array has an efficiency of 105 dB per watt at 1 metre, needs very little power to recreate a full concert orchestra, and generates little distortion at the cone excursion levels required for this). With the drive units wired in series/parallel everything just becomes confusing and it is hard to listen for any length of time.
cloth-ears
19-10-2013, 15:47
Line source arrays can sound very musically coherent. I built a pair as a personal project before moving to the Western Isles. I still have them, love them and have no urge to change them. To get a good musical performance it requires good full range drivers, which removes the need for crossovers and the sonic damage they can inflict. Also, to maintain coherency, it requires that all the drive units, in each channel, are wired in parallel, so that they all receive the same drive signal.
All of the commercial and DIY line arrays that I have seen wire the drive units in series/parallel to give an easy load, which in my view ruins the coherency that is possible with parallel wired drive units. Driving reactive drive units through other reactive drive units loses control of all the drive units causing inter-modulation and considerable confusion of the sound field. This, and multi-way crossover artefacts, is likely why Marco finds typical domestic line arrays so objectionable when he is used to the coherency of the MGs.
My line arrays can easily be connected to allow either wiring arrangement, as I specifically wanted to prove this for myself. With the drivers in parallel it is so easy to understand how the music is played and there is a stable three-dimensional sound field that remains stable even with large dynamic events (my line array has an efficiency of 105 dB per watt at 1 metre, needs very little power to recreate a full concert orchestra, and generates little distortion at the cone excursion levels required for this). With the drive units wired in series/parallel everything just becomes confusing and it is hard to listen for any length of time.
Flipping eck! “Parallel” what the f~*%$ was the impedance? A single 8 ohm driver dips to about 3 ohms at some frequencies. They must have been close to dead short. Either you or your amp must have serious balls :scratch:
If you look back on AOS you can find that Paul designed his own amp for this
anthonyTD
19-10-2013, 17:05
I was just thinking the same John,
Yes, Paul described his amp, and the impedances of the speakers, which i think was about an ohm, or even less...
perhaps he will link to the page when he gets chance.
A...
If you look back on AOS you can find that Paul designed his own amp for this
Thoughts on the original question - don't valve amps have very low distortion at very low volumes, which only climbs when they're pushed harder and the transformers get near to their saturation-ceiling? The little T-Amp seems the same - phenominal clarity at low volumes but getting rather nasty if welly is involved into less sensitive speakers..
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?12196-Why-do-you-need-a-speaker-crossover-discuss/page19&highlight=paul+hynes+line+array Paul starts to discuss the approach
Thoughts on the original question - don't valve amps have very low distortion at very low volumes, which only climbs when they're pushed harder and the transformers get near to their saturation-ceiling? The little T-Amp seems the same - phenominal clarity at low volumes but getting rather nasty if welly is involved into less sensitive speakers..
Certainly true with SET's, thst the main point of them (IMHO) and why you need loads of headroom. Push Pull, maybe, depends on the op point and if they are A or B, or where between.
jandl100
19-10-2013, 17:33
This is presumably a dig at me.
Nah, I'm pretty sure they were putting me to rights, Mark. ;)
There sure are a lot of Tannoy DC fanboyz around here! :lol:
Paul Hynes
19-10-2013, 17:37
Bob,
The drive units are 8 x Visaton B200 6 ohm units per line giving a nominal 0.75 ohm load. It is easy enough to design an amplifier with enough balls to drive this (I have had no complaints about my balls either) but most audio amplifiers are designed to drive higher impedance and therefore would struggle with this load.
There are actually some benefits driving such a low impedance load that allow me to get rid of a lot of distortion generating clutter in the signal path. The required voltage swing for a given power delivery is much lower than with an amplifier required to drive 8 ohms. In practice I need no voltage gain in either the power amplifier or the line preamplifier. That is two or more stages of electronics out of the way of the music, as I only need current gain. The power amp is effectively a high current DC coupled buffer amplifier with just one high power depletion mosfet in the signal path running in single ended class A on split rail supplies. This is only one active device in the signal path from the input of the line preamp to the output of the power amp, and very nicely musically transparent it is too.
The overall concept or the system design is to remove or reduce as many frequency dependant phase shifts in the audio spectrum as possible and to remove unnecessary distortion from electronics in the signal path and from room interaction. I do like the physics of the line array as it helps reduce room interaction and reinforce the bass response (eight 8” drive units per side can easily move enough air to reproduce a large drum in my lounge). As this is an open baffle design there is no cabinet honk to consider so there is another quite large distortion in conventional loudspeaker designs that is removed from the system. The rear wall reflection has to be considered and optimised by careful positioning but there is very little in the way of floor or ceiling reflection and little side wall reflection due to cancellation of front and rear wave fronts at the edge of the open baffle.
I had no requirements to follow accepted convention with this system design, so I allowed my mind to roam free, and this is the result.
cloth-ears
19-10-2013, 18:17
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?12196-Why-do-you-need-a-speaker-crossover-discuss/page19&highlight=paul+hynes+line+array Paul starts to discuss the approach
Thanks for putting that thread up. Beautifully simple MOSFET design, I love it. I think I’ll have a go myself one day
Nah, I'm pretty sure they were putting me to rights, Mark. ;)
There sure are a lot of Tannoy DC fanboyz around here! :lol:
Not having a dig at anyone in particular Jerry...you know me! :) Just trying to point out that the design isn't like a 2-way with a large woofer trying to stretch to high and a small tweeter trying to stretch too low. The design uses the shape of the woofer as an extension to the horn tweeter so that mid frequencies are essentially handled by a "third" driver made from the tweeter horn firing into the larger woofer area. It's a clever design and as Ynwan points out, it's nothing new and others have used the same principle. It's just that as a DC design, it works wonderfully well as many recording and broadcast studios know.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.