View Full Version : The biggest debate in the history of humankind -Tannoy crossovers original vs new.
Hi,
I've just finished building a pair of cabinets for my Tannoy Monitor Gold 15's. They were originally in sealed Lancaster cabinets. There's a huge, dramatic improvement in the sound quality overall with the new cabinets. I've used new crossovers. I'm not saying anything at this point about my experience between the old and new crossovers but would like to know from all the experts here :
1. Is it better to buy good new crossovers, will good new crossovers sound better than the original ? if so from where should one buy ?
2. Is it better to just clean up the old crossovers, switches etc and not change anything ?
3. Is it better to change caps, switches etc in the old crossovers ?
The idea is to get the best sound out of the MG 15's.
Looking forward to lots of feedback !
Regards,
Denzil
These are photos of my speakers, cabinets built at home.
https://i.postimg.cc/SxvkY7BG/134-E647-D-3562-4-BEA-82-B7-C7-C4-F32-F2-B63.jpg (https://postimg.cc/ZWp113K9)
https://i.postimg.cc/FRPZhzd1/BB86-F025-0-A42-4-FA1-B1-DA-8-B9-DA569-E986.jpg (https://postimg.cc/Q9T5bXqr)
https://i.postimg.cc/FHtMLrG7/7-AEBDA27-F409-4-B83-8-E46-20-A52688-DFAD.jpg (https://postimg.cc/3dBfMHsT)
https://i.postimg.cc/K8F9bRJr/75-BC231-C-F86-E-4-D7-E-BB53-6683-C77-D6017.jpg (https://postimg.cc/hfy8bPFf)
walpurgis
26-05-2020, 08:48
You'll get loads of varying opinions on that question, most of which I'll probably disagree with. I'll give my thoughts in due course.
You'll get loads of varying opinions on that question, most of which I'll probably disagree with. I'll give my thoughts in due course.
Hahaha. Looking forward to hearing from you (in due course):)
anthonyTD
26-05-2020, 09:40
They look really nice Denzil, good job :)
Hahaha. Looking forward to hearing from you (in due course):)
WESTLOWER
26-05-2020, 10:10
As already said, this will divide opinions!
I can only comment on my own experience.
Paul at RFC built my external xovers from
Scratch and compared to the unmolested originals it was chalk and cheese.
I have to state I never had the originals recapped so probably not a fair comparison in that respect but I’ve never thought about the money the xovers cost as the results were truly outstanding.
Other users of Tannoy drivers far more experienced than I have also gone on record to say they are the single biggest upgrade made to the system
Others will also say, don’t touch the original xovers as they were a good design already..
There is a lot that has been written about them on various platforms as well as here on AoS
RFC xovers have also been victim to attempted copy clone xovers. Paul is as knowledgeable as they come when it comes to understanding how to get the best from these great drivers..
I had my xovers made for my 12” Monitor Golds.
They look really nice Denzil, good job :)
Thanks Tony !
There's another thread which you may not have seen showing how they were built.
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?69238-Love-or-hate-speaker-cabinets-I-made-for-Tannoy-MG-15-s
Regards,
Denzil
As already said, this will divide opinions!
I can only comment on my own experience.
Paul at RFC built my external xovers from
Scratch and compared to the unmolested originals it was chalk and cheese.
I have to state I never had the originals recapped so probably not a fair comparison in that respect but I’ve never thought about the money the xovers cost as the results were truly outstanding.
Other users of Tannoy drivers far more experienced than I have also gone on record to say they are the single biggest upgrade made to the system
Others will also say, don’t touch the original xovers as they were a good design already..
There is a lot that has been written about them on various platforms as well as here on AoS
RFC xovers have also been victim to attempted copy clone xovers. Paul is as knowledgeable as they come when it comes to understanding how to get the best from these great drivers..
I had my xovers made for my 12” Monitor Golds.
Thanks for your feedback Adam !
Yes, I've been hearing a lot about Paul's crossovers on various forums and everyone says they are outstanding.
Regards,
Denzil
anthonyTD
26-05-2020, 12:18
:)
Thanks Tony !
There's another thread which you may not have seen showing how they were built.
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?69238-Love-or-hate-speaker-cabinets-I-made-for-Tannoy-MG-15-s
Regards,
Denzil
Lawrence001
26-05-2020, 13:34
I've got no experience with Tannoy crossovers so take what I say with a pinch of salt, but... one thing I've learned from playing with crossovers is that some of them have been voiced around the limitations of the components. One obvious example is the ESR of the caps, so putting a clarity cap instead of an Alcap for example can do more than just "improve" the resolution, it can also effect the balance of the drivers. What might seem like more detail can just be a 0.5-1db lift in treble output.
That's nothing to do with bottom up redesigns like I imagine Paul does, you pay not just for the components and the time and skill spent making the crossovers, but also years of dedication to fine tuning the components to get the best out of the speakers.
I've got no experience with Tannoy crossovers so take what I say with a pinch of salt, but... one thing I've learned from playing with crossovers is that some of them have been voiced around the limitations of the components. One obvious example is the ESR of the caps, so putting a clarity cap instead of an Alcap for example can do more than just "improve" the resolution, it can also effect the balance of the drivers. What might seem like more detail can just be a 0.5-1db lift in treble output.
That's nothing to do with bottom up redesigns like I imagine Paul does, you pay not just for the components and the time and skill spent making the crossovers, but also years of dedication to fine tuning the components to get the best out of the speakers.
That makes a lot of sense Lawrence ! Thanks for your opinion.
Denzil
anthonyTD
26-05-2020, 14:35
The main aspect to consider when deciding on replacing the original cross-over for a modified one, " Musicality" if a modified cross-over seemingly addresses shortfalls within the original cross-over design, then it has to do it while still maintaning the original Musicality of the speaker design, and not strangle the life and breath out of the speaker in the name of accuracy!
That makes a lot of sense Lawrence ! Thanks for your opinion.
Denzil
I had Tannoy 15s in Lancasters from'72 to '84, and rewired the I/P wires to the Xover. I was not that impressed with the quality of the Xover build, most of my own work, MoD trained was rather better However the basic design, choice of component values may well have been good, and others who measure them may know that.
I am surprised that you have not chosen the later HPD driver.
Wakefield Turntables
26-05-2020, 16:53
+1 for Paul @ RFC he designed my 250 litre cabs and I got him to build a reference standard pair of XO-s. He's actually quite cheap when you consider what you get.
The main aspect to consider when deciding on replacing the original cross-over for a modified one, " Musicality" if a modified cross-over seemingly addresses shortfalls within the original cross-over design, then it has to do it while still maintaning the original Musicality of the speaker design, and not strangle the life and breath out of the speaker in the name of accuracy!
I fully agree. There's no harm in improving, provided the identity of the speaker is not sacrificed. So what you say is part of the question. Can we improve on the original crossovers without losing what Tannoy set out to do in the first place ?
Regards,
Denzil
+1 for Paul @ RFC he designed my 250 litre cabs and I got him to build a reference standard pair of XO-s. He's actually quite cheap when you consider what you get.
What's the price range ? Are there any reference links ? Website ?
Denzil
I had Tannoy 15s in Lancasters from'72 to '84, and rewired the I/P wires to the Xover. I was not that impressed with the quality of the Xover build, most of my own work, MoD trained was rather better However the basic design, choice of component values may well have been good, and others who measure them may know that.
I am surprised that you have not chosen the later HPD driver.
I inherited these speakers. So they chose me:)
What's the price range ? Are there any reference links ? Website ?
Denzil
http://www.referencefidelitycomponents.co.uk/
http://www.referencefidelitycomponents.co.uk/
Thanks !
I just went through the website. It says "We can provide very accurate and top quality crossovers for all Tanoy Red, Silver, Monitor Gold and HPD Tannoy loudspeaker drivers (prices from £150 for complete re-capping and switch cleaning of existing Tannoy crossovers and from £250 upwards for new Tannoy crossovers)".
I'm wondering, since they offer both services, if they were presented with giving a candid opinion regarding a choice between refurbishment or supplying new crossovers, what would they recommend. And what would the difference be between the two options ? Would anyone have comparative graphs ?
Denzil
Thanks !
I just went through the website. It says "We can provide very accurate and top quality crossovers for all Tanoy Red, Silver, Monitor Gold and HPD Tannoy loudspeaker drivers (prices from £150 for complete re-capping and switch cleaning of existing Tannoy crossovers and from £250 upwards for new Tannoy crossovers)".
I'm wondering, since they offer both services, if they were presented with giving a candid opinion regarding a choice between refurbishment or supplying new crossovers, what would they recommend. And what would the difference be between the two options ? Would anyone have comparative graphs ?
Denzil
e-mail Paul at RFC he'll give you advice on all the options. He'll have some graphs for you too.
Wakefield Turntables
26-05-2020, 20:10
Thanks !
I just went through the website. It says "We can provide very accurate and top quality crossovers for all Tanoy Red, Silver, Monitor Gold and HPD Tannoy loudspeaker drivers (prices from £150 for complete re-capping and switch cleaning of existing Tannoy crossovers and from £250 upwards for new Tannoy crossovers)".
I'm wondering, since they offer both services, if they were presented with giving a candid opinion regarding a choice between refurbishment or supplying new crossovers, what would they recommend. And what would the difference be between the two options ? Would anyone have comparative graphs ?
Denzil
Just email him. He's very honest and straight forward.
topoxforddoc
26-05-2020, 20:33
e-mail Paul at RFC he'll give you advice on all the options. He'll have some graphs for you too.
+1 - Paul at RFC is a font of knowledge and a great craftsman - you'd appreciate the quality of his work Denzil
WESTLOWER
26-05-2020, 21:17
I had Tannoy 15s in Lancasters from'72 to '84, and rewired the I/P wires to the Xover. I was not that impressed with the quality of the Xover build, most of my own work, MoD trained was rather better However the basic design, choice of component values may well have been good, and others who measure them may know that.
I am surprised that you have not chosen the later HPD driver.
can i ask why you say that?
Yes Adam, Because in '75 with a friend, we compared his HPDs with mine, we swopped one for a month or so.
We both preferred that which we were used to, but ignoring habituation which is a big factor in listening, I think the HPD was an upgrade move, but not massively so.
Densil could of course try any which fit, and with such a big investment in the boxes it may be relatively cheap to do so; I would want to know that I had absolutely the best Tannoy driver if I were in his position. What is used in the Westminster?.
Yes Adam, Because in '75 with a friend, we compared his HPDs with mine, we swopped one for a month or so.
We both preferred that which we were used to, but ignoring habituation which is a big factor in listening, I think the HPD was an upgrade move, but not massively so.
Densil could of course try any which fit, and with such a big investment in the boxes it may be relatively cheap to do so; I would want to know that I had absolutely the best Tannoy driver if I were in his position. What is used in the Westminster?.
Hi Dennis,
As mentioned earlier, I inherited these speakers so for me the question about swapping the drivers doesn't really apply. It's more of a tribute and of course improving the sound quality with better cabinets and possibly better crossovers.
Regards,
Denzil
Yes Adam, Because in '75 with a friend, we compared his HPDs with mine, we swopped one for a month or so.
We both preferred that which we were used to, but ignoring habituation which is a big factor in listening, I think the HPD was an upgrade move, but not massively so.
Densil could of course try any which fit, and with such a big investment in the boxes it may be relatively cheap to do so; I would want to know that I had absolutely the best Tannoy driver if I were in his position. What is used in the Westminster?.
Hi Dennis,
As mentioned earlier, I inherited these speakers so for me the question about swapping the drivers doesn't really apply. It's more of a tribute and of course improving the sound quality with better cabinets and possibly better crossovers.
Regards,
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
Another +1 for Paul at RFC.
I did quite a lot of digging and listening before buying some 315 HPD drivers and std crossovers, with the intension of building something special.
Then a pair of RFC modified Cheviots with external RFC crossovers turned up for sale by a friend at a lower price than it would have cost me to build, so i jumped at the chance and i'm glad i did. I was intending to drop them to Paul on the way back from the Hifi Wigwam show in March, for his most recent revision of the crossovers, but due to the ongoing covid problems this has not yet happened, it will.
I have heard a better iteration of the 315 HPD, that was the RFC Canterbury's...
Regards,
Joolz
Hi Denzil,
Another +1 for Paul at RFC.
I did quite a lot of digging and listening before buying some 315 HPD drivers and std crossovers, with the intension of building something special.
Then a pair of RFC modified Cheviots with external RFC crossovers turned up for sale by a friend at a lower price than it would have cost me to build, so i jumped at the chance and i'm glad i did. I was intending to drop them to Paul on the way back from the Hifi Wigwam show in March, for his most recent revision of the crossovers, but due to the ongoing covid problems this has not yet happened, it will.
I have heard a better iteration of the 315 HPD, that was the RFC Canterbury's...
Regards,
Joolz
Great. Thanks Joolz !
Regards,
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
Upgrading the XO will make a huge difference. I have a pair of MG15's and 2 friends have Tannoys too. I rebuilt their XO's and they were delighted. To be clear, it was not done to alter XO point or slope but to replace old caps and resistors keeping values the same, and in doing so keep the Tannoy 'sound' but with enhanced detail and transient performance.
One member posted about capacitor ESR which presumably with modern caps will be a little lower which is a good thing. The vast majority of speakers have a resistor or two in the tweeter circuit, yours have 10 to 30 ohms switchable with probably 5% tolerance so the lower equivalent series resistance of any cap will have zero audible or measurable effect regarding altering the dB level.
It presents a very worthwhile improvement across the whole range and is money well spent. There is a lot on the net that will attest to this. Comparing graphs does not, unfortunately, tell you very much about how the speaker will sound. For example: assume a properly designed and built XO and plot the response with cheap electrolytic caps, then change the caps for the same value but use expensive film caps and plot the new response. The plots will be identical so they are no indication of how it will sound with music.
I responded to your post on speaker cables. From the link that I posted try the DCA16GA to bass/mid drivers and 20GA to tweeter. Beautiful sound to match your speakers :)
Hi Denzil,
Upgrading the XO will make a huge difference. I have a pair of MG15's and 2 friends have Tannoys too. I rebuilt their XO's and they were delighted. To be clear, it was not done to alter XO point or slope but to replace old caps and resistors keeping values the same, and in doing so keep the Tannoy 'sound' but with enhanced detail and transient performance.
One member posted about capacitor ESR which presumably with modern caps will be a little lower which is a good thing. The vast majority of speakers have a resistor or two in the tweeter circuit, yours have 10 to 30 ohms switchable with probably 5% tolerance so the lower equivalent series resistance of any cap will have zero audible or measurable effect regarding altering the dB level.
It presents a very worthwhile improvement across the whole range and is money well spent. There is a lot on the net that will attest to this. Comparing graphs does not, unfortunately, tell you very much about how the speaker will sound. For example: assume a properly designed and built XO and plot the response with cheap electrolytic caps, then change the caps for the same value but use expensive film caps and plot the new response. The plots will be identical so they are no indication of how it will sound with music.
I responded to your post on speaker cables. From the link that I posted try the DCA16GA to bass/mid drivers and 20GA to tweeter. Beautiful sound to match your speakers :)
Thank you Charles for your response with such great detail, greatly appreciated !
I do have the original crossovers and will at some point certainly start to refurbish them with new caps etc. However I'm trying to establish something which is the purposes of the discussion on this thread. In your opinion, would it be better to refurbish the old crossovers or would it be better to buy new crossovers form a reputed person. I've heard that the switches on the old crossovers are not great and some say they work well after cleaning, others say they are just not good and should be replaced because the contact area is too small and too weak. Still others say there are some other issues with the old crossovers. So given the option, refurbis or change with very good quality new crossovers ?
Thanks and regards,
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
Another +1 for Paul at RFC.
I did quite a lot of digging and listening before buying some 315 HPD drivers and std crossovers, with the intension of building something special.
Then a pair of RFC modified Cheviots with external RFC crossovers turned up for sale by a friend at a lower price than it would have cost me to build, so i jumped at the chance and i'm glad i did. I was intending to drop them to Paul on the way back from the Hifi Wigwam show in March, for his most recent revision of the crossovers, but due to the ongoing covid problems this has not yet happened, it will.
I have heard a better iteration of the 315 HPD, that was the RFC Canterbury's...
Regards,
Joolz
Do Paul's crossovers have energy and slope bridges or switches ?
Regards,
Denzil
Denzil
Been reading your posts about your cab build and most impressed. Hopefully you can get hold of a calibrated mic and run some tests and then optimise things.
In terms of crossovers, I have Berkeleys (15 inch HPDs) and had the crossovers restored by Paul C and he kindly did a walk-through of the process he followed when restoring mine. (links below). The improvement I heard was immense and totally worthwhile.
To the best of my knowledge Paul does not provide the roll-off and energy switches on his custom external crossovers. I believe there are some 3rd party crossovers available which mimic what the original Tannoy autoformers do. Not tried them myself but reviews are mixed.
Anyway - the links.
Part 1 (https://www.facebook.com/290168707702900/photos/a.291913134195124/2211773138875771/?type=3&theater)
Part 2 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213689872017431&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARBWfJliMPX6dMp5tog1cZ6MRF9pBBxreI9CA5y7kfzI8m dht9zYBcu0uJ46v7bMH4vYVeKFnwuTyqlleHwWzbd8KcQxh_I2 aZEY_VH9qunhjO04N5jtRFduxSC6KdDMtLNjHqU5Rr4JfdVUc9 MxgjS1nEhxbeZ9-gwpZAGB27aAg0oqWykUOsuXPGmc4URAL_vjoIgqvqiYj_YJzmG XoYJl-blTuZQIHwsZPCIJdzacPX-_t7k6b38j5kgTvQNztZqCNiDT865ElLTHc-O_NImWlANP-c2QlF9kbgOIANlevx5wjomxv1FmMmFFsNiznwiSMwhIltYWJW3 mltgZ1Hbl-Q&__tn__=-R)
Part 3 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213727298680355&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARDvcGUc3yS-5Yon0FU81m5H9rCFDgyfWAUigLu9OWXapR0Hm8QiC91Pt3ClEc V-oNN5rNPpTcfdbreGTogXIDGWFjVzdQV_0vWeUlYk2P_5Bp-voPAQGp0nHC8zLJA-L5fwAKbUhwFlBhOi0Mf5YVN0OXVPK6mHYeFf55gqTG1ETr_GYA zaoieTvJY3HvStNOSG1CozhhEe5y7hbWzSKeukntc9c-EgC9HE5_vpubw5U6Ptb76lk_REFFrjc8Z_JuF3qEmO9zCcnvs7 Ey-SIdqwniRJRbix8my0X8If_UBfOJt2bluSA6237q0JNaUNO6iou WwEI8c1lUjiaAXAneME9Q&__tn__=-R)
WESTLOWER
29-05-2020, 10:34
Denzil
Been reading your posts about your cab build and most impressed. Hopefully you can get hold of a calibrated mic and run some tests and then optimise things.
In terms of crossovers, I have Berkeleys (15 inch HPDs) and had the crossovers restored by Paul C and he kindly did a walk-through of the process he followed when restoring mine. (links below). The improvement I heard was immense and totally worthwhile.
To the best of my knowledge Paul does not provide the roll-off and energy switches on his custom external crossovers. I believe there are some 3rd party crossovers available which mimic what the original Tannoy autoformers do. Not tried them myself but reviews are mixed.
Anyway - the links.
Part 1 (https://www.facebook.com/290168707702900/photos/a.291913134195124/2211773138875771/?type=3&theater)
Part 2 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213689872017431&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARBWfJliMPX6dMp5tog1cZ6MRF9pBBxreI9CA5y7kfzI8m dht9zYBcu0uJ46v7bMH4vYVeKFnwuTyqlleHwWzbd8KcQxh_I2 aZEY_VH9qunhjO04N5jtRFduxSC6KdDMtLNjHqU5Rr4JfdVUc9 MxgjS1nEhxbeZ9-gwpZAGB27aAg0oqWykUOsuXPGmc4URAL_vjoIgqvqiYj_YJzmG XoYJl-blTuZQIHwsZPCIJdzacPX-_t7k6b38j5kgTvQNztZqCNiDT865ElLTHc-O_NImWlANP-c2QlF9kbgOIANlevx5wjomxv1FmMmFFsNiznwiSMwhIltYWJW3 mltgZ1Hbl-Q&__tn__=-R)
Part 3 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213727298680355&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARDvcGUc3yS-5Yon0FU81m5H9rCFDgyfWAUigLu9OWXapR0Hm8QiC91Pt3ClEc V-oNN5rNPpTcfdbreGTogXIDGWFjVzdQV_0vWeUlYk2P_5Bp-voPAQGp0nHC8zLJA-L5fwAKbUhwFlBhOi0Mf5YVN0OXVPK6mHYeFf55gqTG1ETr_GYA zaoieTvJY3HvStNOSG1CozhhEe5y7hbWzSKeukntc9c-EgC9HE5_vpubw5U6Ptb76lk_REFFrjc8Z_JuF3qEmO9zCcnvs7 Ey-SIdqwniRJRbix8my0X8If_UBfOJt2bluSA6237q0JNaUNO6iou WwEI8c1lUjiaAXAneME9Q&__tn__=-R)
Ahhh welcome back lord Lucan!!
Denzil
Been reading your posts about your cab build and most impressed. Hopefully you can get hold of a calibrated mic and run some tests and then optimise things.
In terms of crossovers, I have Berkeleys (15 inch HPDs) and had the crossovers restored by Paul C and he kindly did a walk-through of the process he followed when restoring mine. (links below). The improvement I heard was immense and totally worthwhile.
To the best of my knowledge Paul does not provide the roll-off and energy switches on his custom external crossovers. I believe there are some 3rd party crossovers available which mimic what the original Tannoy autoformers do. Not tried them myself but reviews are mixed.
Anyway - the links.
Part 1 (https://www.facebook.com/290168707702900/photos/a.291913134195124/2211773138875771/?type=3&theater)
Part 2 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213689872017431&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARBWfJliMPX6dMp5tog1cZ6MRF9pBBxreI9CA5y7kfzI8m dht9zYBcu0uJ46v7bMH4vYVeKFnwuTyqlleHwWzbd8KcQxh_I2 aZEY_VH9qunhjO04N5jtRFduxSC6KdDMtLNjHqU5Rr4JfdVUc9 MxgjS1nEhxbeZ9-gwpZAGB27aAg0oqWykUOsuXPGmc4URAL_vjoIgqvqiYj_YJzmG XoYJl-blTuZQIHwsZPCIJdzacPX-_t7k6b38j5kgTvQNztZqCNiDT865ElLTHc-O_NImWlANP-c2QlF9kbgOIANlevx5wjomxv1FmMmFFsNiznwiSMwhIltYWJW3 mltgZ1Hbl-Q&__tn__=-R)
Part 3 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213727298680355&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARDvcGUc3yS-5Yon0FU81m5H9rCFDgyfWAUigLu9OWXapR0Hm8QiC91Pt3ClEc V-oNN5rNPpTcfdbreGTogXIDGWFjVzdQV_0vWeUlYk2P_5Bp-voPAQGp0nHC8zLJA-L5fwAKbUhwFlBhOi0Mf5YVN0OXVPK6mHYeFf55gqTG1ETr_GYA zaoieTvJY3HvStNOSG1CozhhEe5y7hbWzSKeukntc9c-EgC9HE5_vpubw5U6Ptb76lk_REFFrjc8Z_JuF3qEmO9zCcnvs7 Ey-SIdqwniRJRbix8my0X8If_UBfOJt2bluSA6237q0JNaUNO6iou WwEI8c1lUjiaAXAneME9Q&__tn__=-R)
Thanks so much Edward !!!
This is extremely helpful information.
Regards,
Denzil
fatmarley
29-05-2020, 11:19
Just had a quick look at the Monitor Gold circuit diagram. If the shunt capacitors (16uf and 3.3uf) are electrolytic then replacing them with film will change the frequency response because of the difference in ESR. The capacitors in series with the tweeter will most likely be ok to replace with film (maybe they are already?) because of the treble adjustment controls.
Does anyone know what caps are electrolytic?
http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/images/MonitorGold12_15xO1.gif
Denzil
Been reading your posts about your cab build and most impressed. Hopefully you can get hold of a calibrated mic and run some tests and then optimise things.
In terms of crossovers, I have Berkeleys (15 inch HPDs) and had the crossovers restored by Paul C and he kindly did a walk-through of the process he followed when restoring mine. (links below). The improvement I heard was immense and totally worthwhile.
To the best of my knowledge Paul does not provide the roll-off and energy switches on his custom external crossovers. I believe there are some 3rd party crossovers available which mimic what the original Tannoy autoformers do. Not tried them myself but reviews are mixed.
Anyway - the links.
Part 1 (https://www.facebook.com/290168707702900/photos/a.291913134195124/2211773138875771/?type=3&theater)
Part 2 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213689872017431&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARBWfJliMPX6dMp5tog1cZ6MRF9pBBxreI9CA5y7kfzI8m dht9zYBcu0uJ46v7bMH4vYVeKFnwuTyqlleHwWzbd8KcQxh_I2 aZEY_VH9qunhjO04N5jtRFduxSC6KdDMtLNjHqU5Rr4JfdVUc9 MxgjS1nEhxbeZ9-gwpZAGB27aAg0oqWykUOsuXPGmc4URAL_vjoIgqvqiYj_YJzmG XoYJl-blTuZQIHwsZPCIJdzacPX-_t7k6b38j5kgTvQNztZqCNiDT865ElLTHc-O_NImWlANP-c2QlF9kbgOIANlevx5wjomxv1FmMmFFsNiznwiSMwhIltYWJW3 mltgZ1Hbl-Q&__tn__=-R)
Part 3 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2213727298680355&id=290168707702900&__xts__[0]=68.ARDvcGUc3yS-5Yon0FU81m5H9rCFDgyfWAUigLu9OWXapR0Hm8QiC91Pt3ClEc V-oNN5rNPpTcfdbreGTogXIDGWFjVzdQV_0vWeUlYk2P_5Bp-voPAQGp0nHC8zLJA-L5fwAKbUhwFlBhOi0Mf5YVN0OXVPK6mHYeFf55gqTG1ETr_GYA zaoieTvJY3HvStNOSG1CozhhEe5y7hbWzSKeukntc9c-EgC9HE5_vpubw5U6Ptb76lk_REFFrjc8Z_JuF3qEmO9zCcnvs7 Ey-SIdqwniRJRbix8my0X8If_UBfOJt2bluSA6237q0JNaUNO6iou WwEI8c1lUjiaAXAneME9Q&__tn__=-R)
Thanks again Edward !
I'm sorry I somehow missed your message earlier.
My cabinet design was more a labor of love than some audio project although I'm getting more and more interested in audio now.
I've gone through everything properly now and Paul's work looks amazing ! Hopefully I will get a mic and do some tests post Covid 19. Did Paul suggest restoring your crossovers ? Or was that your decision ? Did you discuss with him the pros and cons of new vs restored crossovers ?
Regards,
Denzil
Ahhh welcome back lord Lucan!!
Thanks !
Missed this earlier !
Regards,
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
To answer your question : to refurbish or replace with new, is simple, it depends :)
It depends on who will do the refurbishing and which new XO you would be considering.
One thing is for sure, they definitely need upgrading. If you refurbish you need some considerable experience with the different components and the effect they individually have on the sound. You do of course get to choose.
Having designed and built many speakers I know the time and effort you have invested in the impressive ones you have built and were it me, I would not hesitate to spend generously. The Tannoys deserve it.
If you buy you may get what the seller considers 'good enough'. I see Paul from RFC has been mentioned a few times and though I know nothing about this gentleman am sure he could advise you and use any component of your choice, should you have some specific item in mind.
I looked at the links you provided and at his board layout and it would not be too difficult for him to adapt it to accommodate a huge cap to the tweeter for example.
I see another poster is warning you about a cap's ESR :scratch:
He claims replacing an electrolytic with the same value film cap will change the frequency response. This is simply not true.
A different value cap will alter the response but we are not considering doing that. The formula for Capacitive Reactance Xc = 1/2Pi.fc There is no value for R in the equation, so it is apparent that resistance can be ignored. Also consider that were this not true then every time you selected a different tweeter setting you would be changing the XO frequency.
Here is a link to a thread that I think will interest you. I have some pics showing an XO I built using a 6.8uf Jantzen Superior capacitor which is the same value used in the Tannoy gold. Its the big fat red one. The units I built for myself and friends used a mixture of Clarity Cap, Mundorf Supreme and Jupiter wax caps. I could not afford the very expensive Jupiters but maybe you can. They are delicious. The wire connecting to the speakers is the same Duelund I recommended you consider in your current speaker cable thread.
In my post 117 on page 12 there is a link that will take you to an excellent, almost a dissertation, on the sound of different caps and has been recently updated.
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?21979-B-amp-W-DM2A-refurb-s/page12
If you read on a few more pages you will find more pertinent info.
The link I provided on your speaker wire thread is a review by Jeff Day on the Duelund wire that he uses on his Altec VOTT and Tannoy Westminsters, I think. You can find a detailed discussion on his crossovers for both designs where he uses the eye-wateringly expensive Duelund caps. An entertaining read.
Thanks again Edward !
I'm sorry I somehow missed your message earlier.
My cabinet design was more a labor of love than some audio project although I'm getting more and more interested in audio now.
I've gone through everything properly now and Paul's work looks amazing ! Hopefully I will get a mic and do some tests post Covid 19. Did Paul suggest restoring your crossovers ? Or was that your decision ? Did you discuss with him the pros and cons of new vs restored crossovers ?
Regards,
Denzil
Yes Paul and I did discuss this but I decided mainly for cost reasons for now just to go for a restore of the original xovers. Paul said that a restore would get me mostly there. I do have experience (friend's systems) of Paul's external xovers (driving resp. 12 inch HPDs and 12 inch Golds) and they make nice sounds. But of course their systems are different to mine as well as their room acoustics so can't compare like for like.
I have in mind (probably more a dream) of commissioning cabs for my HPD385s and Paul's external crossovers would be part of that plan (dream) hence my interest in your cabs. BTW which design did you use? Was it one from hilberink?
atb
Edward
fatmarley
29-05-2020, 22:36
I see another poster is warning you about a cap's ESR :scratch:
He claims replacing an electrolytic with the same value film cap will change the frequency response. This is simply not true.
Well, I'm sat here now in front of LspCAD 6 pro, changing the ESR values of the shunt capacitors and the frequency response is changing (these are my current diy speakers). I could go one step further and get my measurement microphone out to measure the actual frequency response, but I don't see the point because my model is accurate.
Of course changing the ESR value will change the frequency response. Just do the maths: changing the ESR will change the Q-value for the capacitor, and of the circuit, just as changing the self resistance of the inductors will change the circuit Q. The roll-over frequency of the filter is affected by the Q-value, though the effect is relatively small.
Article here about changing standard capacitors in the crossover for fancy expensive ones, with measurements. Upshot is - it makes no difference at all (providing the existing caps were working to spec) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/capacitor-upgrade-in-crossover-is-it-audible.12287/
fatmarley
30-05-2020, 07:55
Article here about changing standard capacitors in the crossover for fancy expensive ones, with measurements. Upshot is - it makes no difference at all (providing the existing caps were working to spec) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/capacitor-upgrade-in-crossover-is-it-audible.12287/
Well I can't prove it obviously, but my ears tell me that Ansar Supersound, Jantzen Z-superior, Audyn True Copper Max and Mundorf Supreme all sound different. What's going to surprise most people is that I'd rate the Jantzen Z-superior last out of that lot.
Well I can't prove it obviously, but my ears tell me that Ansar Supersound, Jantzen Z-superior, Audyn True Copper Max and Mundorf Supreme all sound different. What's going to surprise most people is that I'd rate the Jantzen Z-superior last out of that lot.
I know, I've also heard differences too, but thought I'd include something from the measurement perspective, it's all valuable information.
fatmarley
30-05-2020, 08:52
I know, I've also heard differences too, but thought I'd include something from the measurement perspective, it's all valuable information.
Oh, I see. Yes it's interesting that they all measure the same (On-Axis frequency response at least...)
I'm happy to accept that 90% of all perceived differences are differences in frequency response. It's no mystery. It's the other 10 percent that is interesting.
Article here about changing standard capacitors in the crossover for fancy expensive ones, with measurements. Upshot is - it makes no difference at all (providing the existing caps were working to spec) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/capacitor-upgrade-in-crossover-is-it-audible.12287/
Yes, and which is bollox, because as you know I've 'been there and done that' with both my Tannoys and Celestions - and the notion that it makes no difference [given what was heard when comparisons were made] is simply laughable!!:lol:
So..... Yet another valid example of 'measurements don't always tell the full story', so ultimately trust your ears!:)
I'll comment on this thread properly later, as this just happened to pop up. Lovely Tannoys, Denzil! Chat later:cool:
Marco.
Did you determine of the old ones were out of spec though? If they were then a difference is unsurprising.
The whole of this post mirrors my (extensive) experience in this area, particularly the bits in bold:
Upgrading the XO will make a huge difference. I have a pair of MG15's and 2 friends have Tannoys too. I rebuilt their XO's and they were delighted. To be clear, it was not done to alter XO point or slope but to replace old caps and resistors keeping values the same, and in doing so keep the Tannoy 'sound' but with enhanced detail and transient performance.
One member posted about capacitor ESR which presumably with modern caps will be a little lower which is a good thing. The vast majority of speakers have a resistor or two in the tweeter circuit, yours have 10 to 30 ohms switchable with probably 5% tolerance so the lower equivalent series resistance of any cap will have zero audible or measurable effect regarding altering the dB level.
It presents a very worthwhile improvement across the whole range and is money well spent. There is a lot on the net that will attest to this. Comparing graphs does not, unfortunately, tell you very much about how the speaker will sound. For example: assume a properly designed and built XO and plot the response with cheap electrolytic caps, then change the caps for the same value but use expensive film caps and plot the new response. The plots will be identical so they are no indication of how it will sound with music.
Spot ON, Charles!:thumbsup:
Marco.
Did you determine of the old ones were out of spec though? If they were then a difference is unsurprising.
They may well have been out of spec, as 50+ year old electrolytic capacitors almost certainly will be (that's actually the MAIN reason for rebuilding the original crossovers in the first place), and why simply replacing the old caps with *any modern half-decent polypropylene cap* of the same electrical value as the original, will almost certainly result in a notable sonic improvement. That was the first thing I did.
However, that doesn't explain the (very easily heard) results, i.e. BIG sonic improvements I subsequently obtained when upgrading the above for Clarity Cap SRs (and other high-quality cap types in critical parts of the crossover circuit), including upgrading the resistors to Duelands, etc, whilst retaining the correct electrical values for the circuit I'd chosen to use. Ditto when I did the same with my Celestion 15XRs, upgrading the original 40+ year old caps with Jantzen Silver Z-caps, of the same electrical value.
Trust me, I know what I'm listening for with these things (I'm extremely critical), and there were NO sonic or musicality downsides to upgrading any of those components, for far superior modern equivalents. It's one area where technology has produced some genuine sonic advancements!:)
Now, if you were to talk about inductors, that's a slightly more grey area, and some of the older varieties can actually be very good! Plus, many will (as mentioned) have been designed to match the drive units, not only electrically, but sonically, so in that area one must tread a little more carefully.
Marco.
Here are pics of the crossovers used in my 15" MGs:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/576/tannoycrossovers2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/803/tannoycrossovers.jpg
Clarity Cap capacitors and Duelund CAST graphite resistors used throughout, along with air-core copper foil-coil inductors, all point-to-point wired with VDH CS-14 Hybrid internal speaker cable.
Anyone who's heard my Tannoys (in Lockwood Major cabs) knows how fabulous they sound, and in no small part due to the improved crossovers!:cool:
Marco.
Here are pics of the crossovers used in my 15" MGs:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/576/tannoycrossovers2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/803/tannoycrossovers.jpg
Clarity Cap Capacitors and Duelund CAST graphite resistors used throughout, along with air-core copper foil-coil inductors, all point-to-point wired with VDH CS-14 Hybrid internal speaker cable.
Anyone who's heard my Tannoys (in Lockwood Major cabs) knows how fabulous they sound, and in no small part due to the improved crossovers!:cool:
Marco.
These must sound amazing Marco !
So there are no switches for slope and energy ? And you don't miss them ?
Regards,
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
To answer your question : to refurbish or replace with new, is simple, it depends :)
It depends on who will do the refurbishing and which new XO you would be considering.
One thing is for sure, they definitely need upgrading. If you refurbish you need some considerable experience with the different components and the effect they individually have on the sound. You do of course get to choose.
Having designed and built many speakers I know the time and effort you have invested in the impressive ones you have built and were it me, I would not hesitate to spend generously. The Tannoys deserve it.
If you buy you may get what the seller considers 'good enough'. I see Paul from RFC has been mentioned a few times and though I know nothing about this gentleman am sure he could advise you and use any component of your choice, should you have some specific item in mind.
I looked at the links you provided and at his board layout and it would not be too difficult for him to adapt it to accommodate a huge cap to the tweeter for example.
I see another poster is warning you about a cap's ESR :scratch:
He claims replacing an electrolytic with the same value film cap will change the frequency response. This is simply not true.
A different value cap will alter the response but we are not considering doing that. The formula for Capacitive Reactance Xc = 1/2Pi.fc There is no value for R in the equation, so it is apparent that resistance can be ignored. Also consider that were this not true then every time you selected a different tweeter setting you would be changing the XO frequency.
Here is a link to a thread that I think will interest you. I have some pics showing an XO I built using a 6.8uf Jantzen Superior capacitor which is the same value used in the Tannoy gold. Its the big fat red one. The units I built for myself and friends used a mixture of Clarity Cap, Mundorf Supreme and Jupiter wax caps. I could not afford the very expensive Jupiters but maybe you can. They are delicious. The wire connecting to the speakers is the same Duelund I recommended you consider in your current speaker cable thread.
In my post 117 on page 12 there is a link that will take you to an excellent, almost a dissertation, on the sound of different caps and has been recently updated.
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?21979-B-amp-W-DM2A-refurb-s/page12
If you read on a few more pages you will find more pertinent info.
The link I provided on your speaker wire thread is a review by Jeff Day on the Duelund wire that he uses on his Altec VOTT and Tannoy Westminsters, I think. You can find a detailed discussion on his crossovers for both designs where he uses the eye-wateringly expensive Duelund caps. An entertaining read.
Thanks !
Yes, I get what you are saying about it being more or less mandatory to ether change or refurbish the crossovers. I also went to the link you sent in the speaker wire thread and those crossovers and caps look absolutely edible :cool:
Thanks and regards,
Denzil
These must sound amazing Marco !
So there are no switches for slope and energy ? And you don't miss them ?
Regards,
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
Cheers, they do. Nope, hard-wired sounded MUCH better! All the switched did was add unnecessary complication and distortion to the signal. The slope and energy controls aren't really needed, outside of use in a studio, if the circuit and system is right (and of course room):cool:
Marco.
Yes Paul and I did discuss this but I decided mainly for cost reasons for now just to go for a restore of the original xovers. Paul said that a restore would get me mostly there. I do have experience (friend's systems) of Paul's external xovers (driving resp. 12 inch HPDs and 12 inch Golds) and they make nice sounds. But of course their systems are different to mine as well as their room acoustics so can't compare like for like.
I have in mind (probably more a dream) of commissioning cabs for my HPD385s and Paul's external crossovers would be part of that plan (dream) hence my interest in your cabs. BTW which design did you use? Was it one from hilberink?
atb
Edward
Thanks Edward,
Regarding your questions about my cabinet design, I went through all the designs in hilberink in great detail. And it was hilberink that was hugely inspirational and pointed me in the right direction (as a complet novice). But it was mainly the internals and the technical bits about speaker cabinet design, internal bracing, cabinet volume, dimensions etc., which I picked up from there. In particular these :
https://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy30.htm (2 pages)
https://www.hilberink.nl/codehans/tannoy107.htm
http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/mods.html
Then I had to take whatever I learned from there and modify it to suit my constraints, mainly in terms of size. To complicate matters, I was not sure if I wanted to opt for a Aperiodic shelf (Lockwood inspired)
https://i.postimg.cc/k43LrqDS/745-B59-DC-15-E2-4818-B184-E1-E88-BC34-CA4.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
or simple ported (as Tannoy engeneers and drawings suggest). So I did both:lol: !!!put in an Aperiodic shelf and ALSO 3 ports, 4 inches x 10.5 inches, tuned to 29 Hz. I thought I would first hear what they sounded like with the Aperiodic shelf + the tuned ports (which I know is not usually done). Then I would experiment with taking the tubes off the ports so that they turned into simple Aperiodic cabinets. And then also experiment with taking the felt off the Aperiodic shelf and check what they sounded like as simple ported cabnet tuned to 29 Hz. However, Covid 19 and social distancing has put everything on hold. At the moment I have the shelf and the ports. And they actually sound very good, much, much better that the Lancaster cabinets they were originally in. I will experiment further without the shelf and just tuned ports and later without the tubes and just the Aperiodic shelf without the 19.5 inch tubes.
So that was as far as the technical aspect goes. But when I came to aesthetics, nothing which I saw on the net (D.I.Y projects) really appealed to me. But I did like the aesthetics of some some of the modern Tannoy speakers. Especially the TANNOY CANTERBURY
https://i.postimg.cc/wvm4FPVB/399-FBCED-9-ACC-4-C3-C-8292-DBD62-C6-EECFE.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
And the TANNOY GRF
https://i.postimg.cc/hv4xhQfq/0-F989-A46-5-EEE-43-EE-9-FBD-02-CEB39-EC77-F.jpg (https://postimg.cc/zbM3cBCd)upload pics online without account (https://postimages.org/)
https://i.postimg.cc/3wMvmcd1/540-A9-C93-6125-4-F68-BF1-A-01201-AD60-E1-A.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
But one looked too boxy and one looked too modern to me. So I tried to use elements from both to make my cabinets which to me look not too modern and have some character and look like Tannoy's.
https://i.postimg.cc/T3xyPWSN/9-DEF8-CA9-EC0-B-4387-A1-E4-0074-D93-CF465.jpg (https://postimg.cc/tYrRS79F)
https://i.postimg.cc/8PR5xz5R/AE8-B77-F8-5346-42-E4-836-D-C781-F3824101.jpg (https://postimg.cc/HVLdyHbn)large image upload (https://postimages.org/)
https://i.postimg.cc/nr8FwyfS/CFE3-E712-9-EA6-4-DD4-B4-E9-533-C74-B12308.jpg (https://postimg.cc/njkfXwzq)
https://i.postimg.cc/GpHb3LcS/EE6-CA1-D3-2-AB9-4031-BFA4-B753-F04609-B2.jpg (https://postimg.cc/jW0pZrnz)
And I'm happy with the results. But it wouldn't have been possible without the wonderful craftsmanship of the simple village carpenters who I worked with, who I have the greatest respect for.
Please start working on your cabinets now:)
Denzil
They look absolutely stunning, Denzil - and no doubt sound it, too!:wow::respect:
Now for my (rather shabbier) mid-1960s, rosewood coloured, formica-covered 'wardrobes', equipped with castors and side-handles...
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/v2RCs9.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/SVefX7.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/2A4i7P.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/7XvMDu.jpg
Well, they were mainly used in studios!:D Sound bloody good though, on the end of the valve amp in my avatar. Yes, with simply the standard Lockwood Aperiodic shelf, they sound best (in my smallish room), right into the corners and up against the back wall, then heavily toed-in towards the listening position):)
Mana Acoustics 'Soundbases' are used, originally intended to support huge Krell amps.
*Some* of my physical music collection on CD and vinyl):
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/TRwvGi.jpg
Card table and computer belong to my wife, as during lockdown she's currently using the room to conduct ZOOM meetings for work, and likes having that backdrop of vinyl!
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/Vo2H5E.jpg
I have a separate movies/streaming system downstairs, with 3 x 3TB hard-drives full of choons!:cool:
Marco.
@fatmarley: Hi matt, interesting. To get these changes, just how much did you alter the ESR values? When you say the frequency response is changing, what is it you see? Is it the amplitude, the slope of the roll off or the knee?
Barry, yes the different ESR will change the Q but how significant is it and can you hear it? Sure in a feedback circuit it can be important but we are talking about speaker crossovers not RF.
I have gained most of my theory on XO and speaker design by studying articles from the JAES and books and papers by Vance Dickerson, Joseph D'Appolito and other luminaries like Sigfried Linkwitz and never have any of them brought the capacitor's Q nor ESR into the discussion.
I use Omnimic V2 to measure, and notice a small difference by drawing the curtains in the frequency response and CSD yet see no difference at all when replacing caps. Hence my prior comment about ESR being a non-issue.
Barry you seem more interested in disagreeing with me than addressing the original posters question.
I was agreeing with Matt (fatmarley). The theory is just as applicable at audio frequencies as it is to, say, RF. I did say the effect on frequency might be small; it all depends on the Q values achieved.
I cannot address the OP's question as I have no knowledge of Tannoy speakers, or of their crossovers.
Hi Marco,
Interesting to see you employing Duelund resistors. I have not yet got around to trying them and really would like to. May I ask you if you compared them to others and what your findings were?
In the pics I posted of a recent XO rebuild there is a Powertron resistor which is a Vishay foil. I find it extremely clean and detailed but not tolerant of poor recordings. But if there is something better?
They look absolutely stunning, Denzil - and no doubt sound it, too!:wow::respect:
Now for my (rather shabbier) mid-1960s, rosewood coloured, formica-covered 'wardrobes', equipped with castors and side-handles...
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/v2RCs9.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/SVefX7.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/2A4i7P.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/7XvMDu.jpg
Well, they were mainly used in studios!:D Sound bloody good though, on the end of the valve amp in my avatar. Yes, with simply the standard Lockwood Aperiodic shelf, they sound best (in my smallish room), right into the corners of the room and up against the back wall, then heavily toed-in towards the listening position):)
Mana Acoustics 'Soundbases' are used, originally intended to support huge Krell amps.
Some of my physical music collection on CD and vinyl):
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/TRwvGi.jpg
Card table and computer are Del's, as she's currently using the room to conduct ZOOM meetings for work, and likes having the backdrop of vinyl!
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/Vo2H5E.jpg
I have a separate movies/streaming system downstairs, with 3 x 3TB hard-drives full of choons!:cool:
Marco.
That's amazing ! They must sound superb ! And they look huge ! What are the dimensions ? Volume in ltrs ? And your incredible vinyl and CD collection:stalks:
Denzil
Cheers, guys. I'll get to these posts properly later. Bit busy just now.
However, Denzil, I believe that they're 220 litres. I'll get the dimensions for you later. Yes, you could say that they're 'chunky':eyebrows: One of the reasons I think the Lockwood Major cabs sound so good with 15" Tannoy DCs is their wide-baffle approach.
Not exactly 'room friendly' in size for your average UK lounge (but then they were never meant to be), but to my ears, their wide-baffles seem to allow the internal 15" drivers to 'breathe' better, and this manifests itself in the sheer scale and power of the bass delivery - it's palpable and really quite something when reproducing the right material, such as the sheer gravitas or 'swell' of an orchestra in full flow, or the kick-ass impact of dub-reggae bass or hip-hop!
It can be a truly 'visceral' experience, somewhat like being at a gig or live concert - or at least a convincing snapshot of such.
Anyway, more later, including I promise, Charles, some resistor chat!:cool:
Marco.
Cheers, guys. I'll get to these posts properly later. Bit busy just now.
However, Denzil, I believe that they're 220 litres. I'll get the dimensions for you later. Yes, you could say that they're 'rather chunky':eyebrows: One of the reasons I think the Lockwood Major cabs sound so good with 15" Tannoy DCs is their wide-baffle approach.
Not exactly 'room friendly' in size for your average UK lounge (but then they were never meant to be), but to my ears, their wide-baffles seem to allow the internal 15" drivers to 'breathe' more, and this manifests itself in the sheer scale and power of the bass delivery - o.
It's a result of baffle step response. The wider the baffle the lower the frequency of cancellation at the edges.
Yeah, could be. You've heard them, so you know what I mean:)
In that respect, if I were designing cabs for 15" DCs, from scratch, and 'room imposition', as it were, wasn't an issue, I'd always go with fat-assed baffles. As I always tell her, never mind the length, feel the width;)
Marco.
Yeah, could be. You've heard them, so you know what I mean:)
In that respect, if I were designing cabs for 15" DCs, from scratch, and 'room imposition', as it were, wasn't an issue, I'd always go with fat-assed baffles. As I always tell her, never mind the length, feel the width;)
Marco.
As for me, I definitely had width restrictions because of where my speakers are placed in the room. It's a fairly large room (20 x 30 ft) but the only place where my system could go is in a alcove of the room as you will see in the photos. However, while building the cabinets I was seeing various debates about Tannoy's needing wide baffles. However, there's something which really baffles me (pun intended:lol:). If Tannoy's actually do need wide baffles, why are the "TANNOY KINGDOM ROYAL'S" so narrow ? There's obviously no economic consideration when it comes to that level and it's their flagship speaker.
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
Baffle Step Compensation is catered for in the XO design and it robs a few dB of sensitivity. For the low output single ended triode fans, a wide baffle is preferred as less or no BSC is necessary.
Loosing 3 dB's to BSC is equivalent to halving you amps power.
Forgot to mention that the trade off for the manufacturer is to sacrifice a few dB's of sensitivity for a smaller footprint speaker and ultimately more attractive design from a marketing point of view.
Seems its the wives who mostly wear the trousers :scratch:
My good friend says he definitely wears the trousers in the house, only that he has to ask her which ones to wear :)
Yeah, could be. You've heard them, so you know what I mean:)
In that respect, if I were designing cabs for 15" DCs, from scratch, and 'room imposition', as it were, wasn't an issue, I'd always go with fat-assed baffles. As I always tell her, never mind the length, feel the width;)
Marco.
:lol:
Hi Denzil,
Baffle Step Compensation is catered for in the XO design and it robs a few dB of sensitivity. For the low output single ended triode fans, a wide baffle is preferred as less or no BSC is necessary.
Loosing 3 dB's to BSC is equivalent to halving you amps power.
So is it just a matter of loosing a few DBs ? Just power or does it translate into some areas of quality ? If you had an amp with adequate power, would it not matter ?
Forgot to mention that the trade off for the manufacturer is to sacrifice a few dB's of sensitivity for a smaller footprint speaker and ultimately more attractive design from a marketing point of view.
Seems its the wives who mostly wear the trousers :scratch:
My good friend says he definitely wears the trousers in the house, only that he has to ask her which ones to wear :)
Hahaha:lol:
What about husbands who can afford speakers like the "FOCAL GRANDE UTOPIA EM EVO LOUDSPEAKER" which cost $ 260000 a pair. I'm sure they can afford many wives with many trousers and many different speakers in various different homes but even these speakers have very narrow baffles.
Also, the link which I posted earlier, this one
http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/mods.html
This is a design recommended by Tannoy and the footprint is large. Yet it appears to have a narrow baffle and is much deeper than it is wide. So I'm still confused:rolleyes:
Regards,
Denzil
PS. I've read somewhere about narrow and deep (rather than wide) speaker cabinets having better imaging. Not sure if there's any substance to that.
So is it just a matter of loosing a few DBs ? Just power or does it translate into some areas of quality ? If you had an amp with adequate power, would it not matter ?
No it wouldn't matter. But when Tannoy designed the original cabs watts were very expensive. As Charlie mentioned to get that 3dB back you need double the power. No big deal now but back in the days before transistors, and for a while after transistor amps appeared, it was.
PS. I've read somewhere about narrow and deep (rather than wide) speaker cabinets having better imaging. Not sure if there's any substance to that.
Yes there is. Which is why you have some designs (e.g some KEFs & B&Ws) where the bass cab is big and wide but mid- range and tweeter are mounted on a much smaller unit above. Every speaker design is a trade off of compromises. Tannoy make up for it by being dual concentric point source so what you lose on the swings you make up on the roundabout.
No it wouldn't matter. But when Tannoy designed the original cabs watts were very expensive. As Charlie mentioned to get that 3dB back you need double the power. No big deal now but back in the days before transistors, and for a while after transistor amps appeared, it was.
Okay, good to know that narrower width of the baffle does result in drop of DBs but does not effect "quality" of sound. So, from what I now understand, the belief that Tannoy's, especially MG 15's need wide baffles in order to breethe, etc., etc., is indeed a myth.
Regards,
Denzil
Yes there is. Which is why you have some designs (e.g some KEFs & B&Ws) where the bass cab is big and wide but mid- range and tweeter are mounted on a much smaller unit above. Every speaker design is a trade off of compromises. Tannoy make up for it by being dual concentric point source so what you lose on the swings you make up on the roundabout.
Okay, I understand now. Thanks so much Martin !
Extremely grateful to you and everyone here who have been so helpful with answering all my questions.
Kind regards,
Denzil
Just a quick one before I comment on some of the most recent posts here and answer the question Sailor asked me about resistors [which I'll come back to soon, I promise!]...
I bought the book below the other day on Amazon (only a few copies left), which if you don't already have, you may wish to buy....
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/0lbapQ.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/3HUjN2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/dZd0VV.jpg
Note the comments above (in the highlighted text) about the Lockwood's "huge low end" - something I've already mentioned and can wholly relate to...:D
It's a fascinating read, full of all sorts of stuff that would be right up the street of anyone interested in such material, and as such comes highly recommended!:cool:
Available here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/145842197X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
More later!:cool:
Marco.
The Black Adder
02-06-2020, 10:21
It's certainly a book to have. Very interesting.
I will be publishing a new post on my blog soon about my Lockwood Majors. Also included is a post about my Tannoyista crossovers for the Monitor Golds amongst other things. :)
It's certainly a book to have. Very interesting.
I will be publishing a new post on my blog soon about my Lockwood Majors. Also included is a post about my Tannoyista crossovers for the Monitor Golds amongst other things. :)
That's great !
Looking forward !!!
Denzil
Just a quick one before I comment on some of the most recent posts here and answer the question Sailor asked me about resistors [which I'll come back to soon, I promise!]...
I bought the book below the other day on Amazon (only a few copies left), which if you don't already have, you may wish to buy....
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/0lbapQ.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/3HUjN2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/dZd0VV.jpg
Note the comments above (in the highlighted text) about the Lockwood's "huge low end" - something I've already mentioned and can wholly relate to...:D
It's a fascinating read, full of all sorts of stuff that would be right up the street of anyone interested in such material, and as such comes highly recommended!:cool:
Available here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/145842197X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
More later!:cool:
Marco.
Wonderful, I must try and get the book. Sadly, no international couriers due to Covid 19.
There are some interesting photos in the Lockwood Instagram account. And also in the Tannoy website, history page.
They apparently later switched (in the studios) from Tannoy to JBL because they found them to be more accurate. I'll find the link and respond with it.
Denzil
"Accurate" to *what*, though?;)
Personally, my benchmark will always be to the MUSIC itself (and therefore in allowing it to 'breathe'), not strangling it, as a slave to achieving some notionally 'perfect' measurements. Therefore, for me, the goal ABOVE ALL ELSE, whether in the audio recording or playback chain, is to strive to create as LIFELIKE a sound as possible, ultimately using (good) ears as the arbiter.
That's what creates REALISM, so that voices sound like REAL voices, and acoustic instruments like REAL instruments.
*THAT* is true accuracy (and also ultimately the only "accuracy" in audio that matters), as opposed to often a processed, diluted, cardboard cut-out of such, when measurements/readouts on test equipment matter most. In terms of measurements, therefore, 'accuracy' should simply be used as a process to achieve the former, and never an end in itself, because in the final analysis, only the human ear can determine what sounds REAL, not a machine!
:exactly:
Marco.
P.S I also love JBLs, but they have a rather different sound, plus their own, equally passionate, cult following!
"Accurate" to *what*, though?;)
Personally, my benchmark will always be to the MUSIC itself (and therefore in allowing it to 'breathe'), not strangling it, as a slave to achieving some notionally 'perfect' measurements. Therefore, for me, the goal ABOVE ALL ELSE, whether in the audio recording or playback chain, is to strive to create as LIFELIKE a sound as possible, ultimately using (good) ears as the arbiter.
*THAT* is true accuracy (and also ultimately the only "accuracy" in audio that matters), as opposed to often a processed, diluted, cardboard cut-out of such, when measurements/readouts on test equipment matter most. In terms of measurements, therefore, 'accuracy' should simply be used as a process to achieve the former, and never an end in itself, because in the final analysis, only the human ear can determine what sounds REAL, not a machine!
:exactly:
Marco.
P.S I also love JBLs, but they have a rather different sound, plus their own, equally passionate, cult following!
I fully agree with everything you say. I made my cabinets with no measuring equipment and only use my ears. And I just realised, what I was talking about - Tannoy's being replaced by JBL's in the studios, that paragraph is from the same book your just bought, I was reading it online some months ago. Here's the link.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_British_Recording_Studios.html?id=ERqbCw AAQBAJ
I fully agree with everything you say. I made my cabinets with no measuring equipment and only use my ears. And I just realised, what I was talking about - Tannoy's being replaced by JBL's in the studios, that paragraph is from the same book your just bought, I was reading it online some months ago. Here's the link.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_British_Recording_Studios.html?id=ERqbCw AAQBAJ
BTW, I just read the areas of interist in your profile, similar to mine. What cars have you been working on of late ? Here's a photo of my Triumph Spitfire in her dehumidified glass box.
https://i.postimg.cc/cJH7JRM5/DF02-F9-F7-9675-4-E1-A-951-B-36-DFBD8-ADCC0.jpg (https://postimg.cc/LJcgCZWz)uploading pictures online (https://postimages.org/)
I love the Spitfire, you not considered getting the proper chrome bumpers for it instead of those American things?
Hahaha. I do have proper chrome and not those "American things". It does look like the "American things" in that photo. Only the front overrides are black but the original British, small ones, not the huge black ones which the American cars had on the front and back bumbers. Look here.
https://i.postimg.cc/zfJGnNdy/4050-EB22-BFD2-4-A47-80-EE-331-FB3-C2-E237.jpg (https://postimg.cc/QFyD32ZD)
https://i.postimg.cc/fWt54Ssf/23-DFD6-B0-B3-A5-4769-8219-8-E53274-F4887.jpg (https://postimg.cc/Z0m6pRCW)
https://i.postimg.cc/DyqwM6Mk/4-C142595-C63-C-4116-AE87-DEB9930-B4920.jpg (https://postimg.cc/3dxhyXhn)
https://i.postimg.cc/ZKj1ny9v/BF02-ED32-BA36-49-E0-ACAE-9-B6995-FBD54-E.jpg (https://postimg.cc/MvMsrHmz)
Ah, must be a trick of the light. That looks outstanding.
BTW, I just read the areas of interist in your profile, similar to mine. What cars have you been working on of late ? Here's a photo of my Triumph Spitfire in her dehumidified glass box.
https://i.postimg.cc/cJH7JRM5/DF02-F9-F7-9675-4-E1-A-951-B-36-DFBD8-ADCC0.jpg (https://postimg.cc/LJcgCZWz)uploading pictures online (https://postimages.org/)
I agree with Martin, your Spitfire looks simply stunning, as indeed does your home and its grounds!:)
I love (interesting, quality examples) of classic cars. However, the car I drive is modern (not brand new, though), and although 'interesting' and different in its own right, is nothing quite as exotic as your Triumph. It's a Brabus modified Mercedes C350 CDI, which has had a specialist remap and various other upgrades from standard (to the engine and otherwise), and which has also been fitted with a bespoke sound system.
It's a fun thing to drive, goes like shit off a shovel (and the stereo is a RIOT:D), but it isn't as classy as your chosen wheels, so RESPECT man, and enjoy!:cool:
Marco.
P.S if I was to go down the vintage route, and money was no object, after much deliberation, I'd probably go for a silver Aston Martin DB5, or a red 1963 Alfa Romeo Spider, or maybe a black Corvette Stingray, from the same year - or perhaps all three!!:lol:
Unfortunately cars just aren't that sexy anymore... Blame computers!
Hi Charles,
Sorry for the rather late reply!:)
Interesting to see you employing Duelund resistors. I have not yet got around to trying them and really would like to. May I ask you if you compared them to others and what your findings were?
In the pics I posted of a recent XO rebuild there is a Powertron resistor which is a Vishay foil. I find it extremely clean and detailed but not tolerant of poor recordings. But if there is something better?
Firstly, yes I tried a few different types of resistors in that position, from Mills (which were good, and a notable step up from the Tannoy originals) to the likes of Mundorfs and Pathaudio, which were vastly superior, especially the latter. However, the Duelund Graphite silvers raised the game considerably, by simply adding (or rather revealing an already existing, but previously masked by distortion) dimension to proceedings, and in turn making music sound much more REAL: warmer, more detailed and organic, but not euphonically coloured, and therefore less like 'hi-fi' (in a bad sense).
In particular, the Duelunds possessed an uncanny knack of subjectively sounding of 'nothing', other than the signal that they were given, as they exhibited almost no overt inherent sonic signature, and instead simply allowed the music-signal full reign, almost as if I'd managed to hard-wire the circuit without resistors, such was their 'wide-open window' onto the music, therefore making anything else I'd tried up until that point sound markedly more 'contrived', and distinctly like introducing a bottleneck.
The Duelunds essentially just got out of the way and allowed the rest of the circuit to do its thing, and subsequently the music to 'flow' unhindered, if that makes sense?
It's the best way I can describe what I heard, and as such I'd wholeheartedly recommend them for use in any high-quality loudspeaker crossovers - not cheap but definitely very effective! This is where I obtained them, and who are a very efficient and reliable supplier of any electronic components for use in audio applications:https://www.hificollective.co.uk/catalog/-c-61_62.html
At some point, however, in terms of capacitors in the X-overs, I'd like to play around with some quality paper-in-oils, particularly on the mid and high-frequencies, as if you get the balance right, they can add a magic all of their own! Plus, I'd also like to try some of Duelund's superb CAST copper and silver inductors (for low-frequencies), which I'm told are stunning, although also eye-wateringly expensive!
See here: https://jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com/the-duelund-cast-sn-cu-air-core-inductor-a-breath-of-fresh-air-for-low-frequencies/
Marco.
"Accurate" to *what*, though?;)
Personally, my benchmark will always be to the MUSIC itself (and therefore in allowing it to 'breathe'), not strangling it, as a slave to achieving some notionally 'perfect' measurements. Therefore, for me, the goal ABOVE ALL ELSE, whether in the audio recording or playback chain, is to strive to create as LIFELIKE a sound as possible, ultimately using (good) ears as the arbiter.
That's what creates REALISM, so that voices sound like REAL voices, and acoustic instruments like REAL instruments.
*THAT* is true accuracy (and also ultimately the only "accuracy" in audio that matters), as opposed to often a processed, diluted, cardboard cut-out of such, when measurements/readouts on test equipment matter most. In terms of measurements, therefore, 'accuracy' should simply be used as a process to achieve the former, and never an end in itself, because in the final analysis, only the human ear can determine what sounds REAL, not a machine!
:exactly:
Marco.
P.S I also love JBLs, but they have a rather different sound, plus their own, equally passionate, cult following!
Surely those are the aims of the recorders and mixers; the aim of a Hi-Fi system is to reproduce accurately what is recorded.
"In particular, the Duelunds possessed an uncanny knack of subjectively sounding of 'nothing', other than the signal that they were given, as they exhibited almost no overt inherent sonic signature, and instead simply allowed the music-signal full reign, almost as if I'd managed to hard-wire the circuit without resistors, such was their 'wide-open window' onto the music, therefore making anything else I'd tried up until that point sound markedly more 'contrived', and distinctly like introducing a bottleneck."
Isn't that a bit of an acknowledgement to objectivity Marco?
I agree with Martin, your Spitfire looks simply stunning, as indeed does your home and its grounds!:)
I love (interesting, quality examples) of classic cars. However, the car I drive is modern (not brand new, though), and although 'interesting' and different in its own right, is nothing quite as exotic as your Triumph. It's a Brabus modified Mercedes C350 CDI, which has had a specialist remap and various other upgrades from standard (to the engine and otherwise), and which has also been fitted with a bespoke sound system.
It's a fun thing to drive, goes like shit off a shovel (and the stereo is a RIOT:D), but it isn't as classy as your chosen wheels, so RESPECT man, and enjoy!:cool:
Marco.
P.S if I was to go down the vintage route, and money was no object, after much deliberation, I'd probably go for a silver Aston Martin DB5, or a red 1963 Alfa Romeo Spider, or maybe a black Corvette Stingray, from the same year - or perhaps all three!!:lol:
Unfortunately cars just aren't that sexy anymore... Blame computers!
Thanks.
My favourites are the 1980 Aston Martin V8 Vantage, Ford GT 40 and of the new lot the Aston Martin One-77. Your Brabus C350 CDI must be great to drive. Nice solid build too. Brabus do some very exciting work.
I'll get back to Tannoy crossovers in a couple of hours now:lol:
Surely those are the aims of the recorders and mixers; the aim of a Hi-Fi system is to reproduce accurately what is recorded.
Indeed, but how you go about genuinely achieving the latter, and the importance of the role of measurements in the process, is what's debatable.
My view, based on the results of my experience to date of buying the subsequent products, is that when designing loudspeakers or electronics, the ultimate arbiter for how good the finished product is, MUST a good pair of ears, not the readout on test equipment, because not everything we can genuinely hear, in relation to accurately reproducing musical information (the content of a recording), is measurable.
Also, in my experience, the best audio designers only use measurements to ensure that their designs meet some basic electrical parameters for sound quality and safety, but the important work is carried out when equipment leaves the test bench and the circuit is fine-tuned by ear, or 'voiced' (as the process is commonly referred to), by the designer in question, using music on a familiar test system, before being declared ready to sell to customers.
That is ultimately what turns a merely adequate or competent piece of equipment (and especially loudspeakers) into something genuinely excellent, and which is capable of a producing a realistic, LIFELIKE sound - if of course the recording allows!
Often now, in today's hi-fi industry, equipment and speakers are designed by computer, based on adhering to some notional set of 'ideal measurements' or parameters - and it SOUNDS like it... Or even if a human is involved in the process, very rarely is anything actually LISTENED to, in order to ascertain if it sounds right first, in the context of a known benchmark (i.e. a familiar test system, playing music) before being put into production. Rather if it measures ok, and it's safe, it's 'good enough to go'!:doh:
In my experience, the truly best hi-fi equipment or speakers in existence (based on the criteria I outlined earlier) simply isn't born that way.
Marco.
"In particular, the Duelunds possessed an uncanny knack of subjectively sounding of 'nothing', other than the signal that they were given, as they exhibited almost no overt inherent sonic signature, and instead simply allowed the music-signal full reign, almost as if I'd managed to hard-wire the circuit without resistors, such was their 'wide-open window' onto the music, therefore making anything else I'd tried up until that point sound markedly more 'contrived', and distinctly like introducing a bottleneck."
Isn't that a bit of an acknowledgement to objectivity Marco?
I guess so, but a subjective process was what was used to acknowledge it!;)
Marco.
I think the objectivity hurdles are a prerequisite for equipment, but they do not define everything.
I do not believe for one moment that either my ATC SCA2 and SPA2, or my friend's Benchmark amps and DAC were not listened to by the manufacturers before release. To my ears all are superb, as well as measuring very well.
Peter Walker is pretty well known for saying that the 303 amplifier was not listened to before being put into production. He didn't see the need to 'voice' it. Although I grant you that's an isolated example.
Hi Marco,
Thanks for taking the time to provide that very informative info on the resistors. It does not surprise me, it only encourages me.
Everything in this game matters. The best fuse is no fuse. The best connector is no connector. On the amp I recently built and am using now, I brought the speaker wires outside the amp to a large pair of binding posts. These posts serve only to act as a clamp and are not in the signal path as such. They are cheap 8mm gold plated brass which should be avoided but in this case play no part in ruining the sound as even the most expensive will do, though to a lesser extent. The difference was heard as an increase in detail and spaciousness that a lowering of the noise floor brings. I would not like to attach a % improvement to it as many do as to me its a vague and nebulous quantity but the inexpensive mod was unmistakably audible and worth the time it took.
I have read many of Jeff Day's reviews including the one you linked to. It was his effusive report on the Duelund oil impregnated cotton covered DCA16GA wire that finally convinced me to try it. I was not expecting to hear what I did. At about $8/m it's amazingly good.
A friend I helped with a Tannoy XO insisted on Jupiter caps 100V series for the 6.8 uf and Mundorf MCap silver/Oil and Mills resistors. The inductors were unchanged. This combo sounded simply gorgeous and when I rebuild my XO's (again) I am tempted to use the same but replace the Mills resistors with Duelunds.
I see that the prices of the Duelund RS Speaker Film Capacitors - 100VAC are close to the Jupiters. So Marco, how would you like to try both so we can pick a winner :eyebrows:
The pics show the back end of an ancient GAS Son of Ampzilla from the 70's that now is home to modules from Neurochrome and connected to unterminated DCA12GA. This mod is obviously not for owners of beautiful new kit but could be considered for older units or DIY builds.
Measurements can't display what I'm hearing
https://i.imgur.com/P81Hal2.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GmGDKYP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VmfvxFD.jpg
Peter Walker is pretty well known for saying that the 303 amplifier was not listened to before being put into production. He didn't see the need to 'voice' it. Although I grant you that's an isolated example.
Lol... I think you'd be surprised how many other designers (and companies) have the same attitude, especially these days when so much is built by computers!;)
Marco.
I think the objectivity hurdles are a prerequisite for equipment, but they do not define everything.
No, but some people obsess too much over measurements and treat them as a 'be all and end all', which I believe is a big mistake. For me, it's no 'happy accident' that the best equipment (or speakers) I've ever heard has all been, not only bespoke built to the highest standard but, let's call it, 'bespoke voiced'...
Quite simply, measurements only take you so far when building a piece of audio equipment (or speakers), *if* when it's ready for sale, you want it to represent something that's more than merely 'adequate'.
The real deal, therefore, is done when it leaves the test bench and is listened to by a pair of experienced ears and fine-tuned to excel at accurately reproducing recorded music, not simply conforming to test signal parameters. The two are quite different. That's why certain equipment is considered by listeners as sounding 'more musical' to their ears than others, as it's very true and also no accident.
It's not that the equipment in question possesses some 'magical power' to achieve such, but rather that, during the listening process, the designer will have succeeded in fine-tuning the circuit (subtly altering the value of certain components, adding new ones, removing others and shortening the signal path, or whatever) to sound 'right', to his or her ears, using recorded MUSIC as the arbiter, the subsequent effect of which on what's heard from the recording, and therefore ultimately on how the equipment performs/sounds, is unlikely to be measurable.
The fact is, after those adjustments have been made, equipment can still test the same [and frequently does], using the same electrical parameters as before, on the same test equipment, but SOUND different!;)
And that's genuine evidence for how we can successfully hear things in audio, which currently we are unable to measure. The word "currently", however, is key. That will change when, in that respect, we know *exactly* WHAT to measure and HOW to measure it.
I do not believe for one moment that either my ATC SCA2 and SPA2, or my friend's Benchmark amps and DAC were not listened to by the manufacturers before release. To my ears all are superb, as well as measuring very well.
Who knows? Neither of us were there, but you might be surprised.
Marco.
Charles, that's really interesting! I'll reply later:cool:
Marco.
Just a quick one before I comment on some of the most recent posts here and answer the question Sailor asked me about resistors [which I'll come back to soon, I promise!]...
I bought the book below the other day on Amazon (only a few copies left), which if you don't already have, you may wish to buy....
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/0lbapQ.jpg https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/3HUjN2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/dZd0VV.jpg
Note the comments above (in the highlighted text) about the Lockwood's "huge low end" - something I've already mentioned and can wholly relate to...:D
It's a fascinating read, full of all sorts of stuff that would be right up the street of anyone interested in such material, and as such comes highly recommended!:cool:
Available here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/145842197X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
More later!:cool:
Marco.
Though this might be of interest to you Marco.
https://www.tannoyista.com/2020/05/my-lockwood-universal-cabinets-history.html?m=1
"Who knows? Neither of us were there, but you might be surprised."
I'd put a lot of money on them having listened extensively, and with trained ears.
Yes, you'd like to think so:)
Marco.
Though this might be of interest to you Marco.
https://www.tannoyista.com/2020/05/my-lockwood-universal-cabinets-history.html?m=1
Cheers, Denzil. I know Jo well though, and her website, as she's a member of our moderator team!:)
We also share some of the same choices of equipment.
Marco.
Cheers, Denzil. I know Jo well though, and her website, as she's a member of our moderator team!:)
We also share some of the same choices of equipment.
Marco.
Oh. I better be careful and not chat about cars anymore or she may chuck me out of the forum:rolleyes:
"Who knows? Neither of us were there, but you might be surprised."
I'd put a lot of money on them having listened extensively, and with trained ears.
NEAT speakers are supposedly designed partly/mostly 'by ear'. Unfortunately to my ears they sound awful. I guess in the 'by ear' context much depends on whether your ears work the same way as the designers' ears.
If that is true Joe, to me it's ridiculous; the ear can be quite easily deceived.
If that is true Joe, to me it's ridiculous; the ear can be quite easily deceived.
It's what Neat say themselves:
http://neatacoustics.com/overview/
'Neat’s unusual take on the art of loudspeaker design involves the process of listening to many different types of music and allowing the music to govern the tuning and voicing of the loudspeaker – to the exclusion of almost all other criteria. In a world where most hifi equipment is designed to conform to a set of widely accepted parameters, Neat’s approach is very refreshing.'
So !!!
This thread has gone all over the place and covered various topics (which is wonderful). But let me get back to where we started in the first place. Refurbished original Tannoy crossovers vs new crossovers.
From what I've gathered here. Most seem to think it's best to ether get new crossovers from a reputed source or recap the old ones and bypass the switches. That's interesting because it's not what I've seen with others on other forums who are also passionate about Tannoy's and think it's best to use the original crossovers and at most clean the switches or if absolutely necessary, recap the originals.
However, without much knowledge and experience and also due to the fact that I live in a back of beyond location (fortunately), where it's extremely difficult to have access to components (unfortunately), I took what I thought was a simple way out and got these crossovers.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/152776541889
https://i.postimg.cc/VLLhCNhy/73715-D4-A-5-DC9-4045-B7-AF-37663219-F3-D6.jpg (https://postimg.cc/4nqwCXZw)
With the original crossovers, there was a fair amount of distortion and musshyness/fuzzyness at mid-highs and highs. And there was a dramatic improvement across the whole spectrum with the new crossovers. The problem with the mid highs and highs went away and the overall sound quality improved. How they would compare with the originals, if the originals were cleaned and recapped I have no idea and I'm not sure when I will be able to work on the original crossovers.
These crossovers have three settings for "energy" but they unfortunately don't have any "slope" control which I miss. My speakers sound wonderful but I do believe that the energy and slope settings on the original Tannoy's helps making minor adjustments to suit room acustics.
I would appreciate all your feedback on the crossovers I'm using. And would it be possible or necessary to change any components to improve them in any way ?
Looking forward to hearing from you all !
Regards,
Denzil
fatmarley
05-06-2020, 13:01
So !!!
This thread has gone all over the place and covered various topics (which is wonderful). But let me get back to where we started in the first place. Refurbished original Tannoy crossovers vs new crossovers.
From what I've gathered here. Most seem to think it's best to ether get new crossovers from a reputed source or recap the old ones and bypass the switches. That's interesting because it's not what I've seen with others on other forums who are also passionate about Tannoy's and think it's best to use the original crossovers and at most clean the switches or if absolutely necessary, recap the originals.
However, without much knowledge and experience and also due to the fact that I live in a back of beyond location (fortunately), where it's extremely difficult to have access to components (unfortunately), I took what I thought was a simple way out and got these crossovers.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/152776541889
https://i.postimg.cc/VLLhCNhy/73715-D4-A-5-DC9-4045-B7-AF-37663219-F3-D6.jpg (https://postimg.cc/4nqwCXZw)
With the original crossovers, there was a fair amount of distortion and musshyness/fuzzyness at mid-highs and highs. And there was a dramatic improvement across the whole spectrum with the new crossovers. The problem with the mid highs and highs went away and the overall sound quality improved. How they would compare with the originals, if the originals were cleaned and recapped I have no idea and I'm not sure when I will be able to work on the original crossovers.
These crossovers have three settings for "energy" but they unfortunately don't have any "slope" control which I miss. My speakers sound wonderful but I do believe that the energy and slope settings on the original Tannoy's helps making minor adjustments to suit room acustics.
I would appreciate all your feedback on the crossovers I'm using. And would it be possible or necessary to change any components to improve them in any way ?
Looking forward to hearing from you all !
Regards,
Denzil
If you compare the capacitor values of your new crossover to the published circuit diagrams online, you will see that your new crossover uses different values. I don't know why this is exactly, but I do know that when replacing electrolytics with film, you would need to change the circuit (or add some resistance) to allow for the lower ESR (assuming you want to keep the same frequency response).
If you want to compare your new crossovers to refurbished originals, I'd just replace the 16uf electrolytics with something like the Alcap bipolar (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bipolar-Capacitor-Alcap-50v-150v-1uf-470uf-Sold-In-Pairs-Speaker-Crossover-Caps/261803815766?hash=item3cf4b93356:m:mxgNKPtsdBbyjrf SbH0-1Tg) and clean the switches. Looking over at Troels Gravesen (http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/tannoyMG15.htm), it looks like all the other caps are film and won't degrade (but it may well be possible to upgrade them).
If I were going to have a go at upgrading the crossovers myself, I'd take measurements first, reverse engineer the original crossover, and then design one without the electrolytic cap or switches. By just upgrading the components and keeping the same values, you may well be taking two steps forward - but also possibly, one step back (it's impossible to know without measuring first).
If that is true Joe, to me it's ridiculous; the ear can be quite easily deceived.
...and test equipment in some ways is just as fallible (if you can't measure all of what needs measured), as outlined in my previous post.
Furthermore, you appear to hope that your ATCs were listened to "by trained ears", as well as measured. Therefore, which is it more important to you: having speakers made by "ears that can quite easily be deceived", 'trained' or otherwise, or measurements that don't tell the full story?;)
Unfortunately, there's no 'free lunch'!
Marco.
NEAT speakers are supposedly designed partly/mostly 'by ear'. Unfortunately to my ears they sound awful. I guess in the 'by ear' context much depends on whether your ears work the same way as the designers' ears.
And that was in the context of which system (and room) that caused you to conclude conclusively that the fault lay entirely with the speakers?;)
The point is, when you're buying equipment from a small, 'specialist' manufacturer (no matter who - often a one-man band), you're buying into their design ethos and how their equipment has *ultimately* (the key word) been 'voiced' by them, as well as of course it being measured by test equipment, in order to be safe and conform to certain basic established electrical parameters.
However, at the end of the day, unless the designer in question is an outright objectivist, who doesn't believe in relying on anything else other than readouts on measurement equipment, to create his or her designs, then you're effectively always going to be listening to the 'house sound' of the kit in question, largely arrived at through final voicing by ear - the 'ear' of the person who built it!
It's similar to a chef, who's running a small restaurant, catering for a specific clientele: you either like the style (and taste) of his cuisine or you don't - and if you don't, you steer clear of his restaurant...
Creating a highly accomplished dish of food involves successfully following a recipe with many different high-quality ingredients - each imparting its own unique flavour on proceedings - and the principle around building audio equipment, or loudspeakers, which can faithfully reproduce recorded music, is largely the same.
Marco.
And that was in the context of which system (and room) that caused you to conclude conclusively that the fault lay entirely with the speakers?;).
Well, it was at a dealers, using my own source and amp. I had intended to listen to a few pairs, then borrow the pair I liked best for a home demonstration. Sadly, none of the four pairs I heard grabbed me in any way. From memory these were from B&W, Kef and Kudos as well as the Neats, but the Neats were easily the worst. Then at the Bristol hifi show a year or so later I heard the Spendor D7s I currently use, and they ticked all the boxes.
Well, it was at a dealers, using my own source and amp. I had intended to listen to a few pairs, then borrow the pair I liked best for a home demonstration. Sadly, none of the four pairs I heard grabbed me in any way. From memory these were from B&W, Kef and Kudos as well as the Neats, but the Neats were easily the worst. Then at the Bristol hifi show a year or so later I heard the Spendor D7s I currently use, and they ticked all the boxes.
Well your hearing must be faulty because NEAT also say 'These loudspeakers are widely considered to offer the very best in High-End audio reproduction, regardless of size or price.'
Personally I wouldn't touch a loudspeaker designed solely by listening, a total recipe for disaster if ever there was one. Just that one sentence in their marketing would stop me even bothering to listen to them, it's an outrageous claim.
But it's a USP in a crowded market I suppose.
Still, it's good to know that a chef can design speakers. I wonder if speaker designers are good chefs? Somehow I visualise them eating baked beans cold from the tin.
...and test equipment in some ways is just as fallible (if you can't measure all of what needs measured), as outlined in my previous post.
Test equipment may be fallible, but if working correctly does enable establishment of certain measurable and valid criteria for sound quality. These well know parameters which it measures are not a fully definitive treatise on all that affects sound quality, but are a preliminary, and I argue pre-requisite to any design aspiring to high quality.
To depict them as all encompassing is as utterly wrong as saying that any given scientific knowledge defines everything; it is limited and in the case of science, a moving and changing understanding. I have no doubt that audio engineering will similarly improve in understanding, and new universal valid criteria will be arrived at.
Furthermore, you appear to hope that your ATCs were listened to "by trained ears", as well as measured. Therefore, which is it more important to you: having speakers made by "ears that can quite easily be deceived", 'trained' or otherwise, or measurements that don't tell the full story?;)
Yes I do hope as you say, but to follow as you have done feels slightly disingenuous. It is important to me that equipment passes the formentioned criteria, and then that it passes hearing tests. Despite these processes the ear is still capable of being deceived.
Unfortunately, there's no 'free lunch'!
?????????? Sorry, I don't follow this.
Marco.
I have responded to your post above Marco, and it has become embedded and non differentiated form your original post.
The food analogy does not hold IMO because whilst with food there is the question of its functionality - nutritional value, and the question of subjective taste, there is with the latter no reference with which to compare the end result, it is entirely a subjective response to the food, and based on the subject's experience and acquired preferences.
IMO to design speakers with a preference for the perceived sound quality as a priority over any measurements is pure folly.
Hi Denzil,
"I would appreciate all your feedback on the crossovers I'm using. And would it be possible or necessary to change any components to improve them in any way ?"
It's certainly possible to change the components but 'necessary' depends on you.
Fact: Those ubiquitous white box-shaped resistors are the cheapest you can buy, as far as I know, and it can be heard. I can hear them degrade the sound . Those who can't hear it are lucky. These horrid things have no place in power supplies either.
Now for the onslaught of: But if the resistance measures the same then it must sound the same, ad nauseum.
For the measurementalists here: You are trying to measure something that you respond to at an emotional level!
Fact: The coils are not optimised in their relation to each other. This phenomenon can be heard and measured as I explained earlier.
Your XO shown has a different cap setup. The standard MG15 has, in the HP section, a 6.8uf, then a 1.5uf as part of a shaping circuit and then a 3.3uf + inductor as a notch filter. What they appear to have done, looking at the board and following logically from input for sensible layout is to use a 4.7uf as start of the HP filter. The caps after that are correct. Then, and as I can't see the traces, would imagine that the 2X6.8uf are in parallel giving 13.6uf, for the LP section where 15 or 16uf is usually used.
These different values will alter the response. The biggest change will be the 4.7uf where it should be 6.8uf. This will shift the HP upwards to a higher fequency causing an underlap at the intended XO point resulting in a dip.
Also, what are the coil values? Looking at what has been done with the caps, who knows? :scratch:
I would unsolder the smaller of the 2 coils with slugs and lie it on its side so it will be like a wheel, able to roll around. The slug must lie parallel to the 4.7uf cap pictured above it.
Solder a 2.2uf cap across the same 4.7uf giving 6.9uf. With allowable tolerances it will be close enough. If you like what you hear then the next step is to replace the parallel pair with a single higher quality 6.8uf.
This of course is based on the presupposition that their configuration is as I mentioned. You need to flip the board over and trace out the circuit. If it is as I think then go ahead, if not still change the orientation of the 1 coil and replace noisy resistors with at a minimum, Mills 12W
The unknown coil values are a problem. With this in mind, do this first: correctly reposition the coil and replace all resistors and report back. The least expensive option is finding the tweeter level you prefer and ignoring the ones not being used.
Tannoy allows selection of 2 resistors to provide 3 settings. Better is what I will do with my next rebuild is to use a 50 ohm L-pad to finely vary the level and then measure the series and parallel legs and then replace the L-pad with fixed resistors of those values.
In a previous response I linked to a different thread about much the same thing as discussed here. It is all valuable info concerning your quest. Here it is again. Please read it again even if you have as the information may make more sense now and there is a pic of how to position the coil. Read on a few pages. I explain why fine harmonic retrieval is so vitally important to realistic timbre and soundstage.
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?21979-B-amp-W-DM2A-refurb-s/page12
Now it's all about the music, right? As I see you are from Goa. Listen to Ottmar Liebert's, The Complete Sante Fe Sessions, the last track: Morning Arrival in Goa.
Well, it was at a dealers, using my own source and amp. I had intended to listen to a few pairs, then borrow the pair I liked best for a home demonstration. Sadly, none of the four pairs I heard grabbed me in any way. From memory these were from B&W, Kef and Kudos as well as the Neats, but the Neats were easily the worst. Then at the Bristol hifi show a year or so later I heard the Spendor D7s I currently use, and they ticked all the boxes.
Fair enough, at least there was some proper thought put into the decision you reached, as I've often seen folk dismissing speakers, simply because they'd heard them at a show, in a completely unfamiliar system and room, which is ridiculous!
However, the NEAT speakers in question simply might not have suited your amp. Amp/speaker relationships of course are crucial, so that doesn't necessarily make the speakers bad, just not to your tastes and/or perhaps because of an amplifier mismatch .
Did you ever get to hear the NEATs with another amp, or in the context of a different system?
Marco.
Fact: Those ubiquitous white box-shaped resistors are the cheapest you can buy, as far as I know, and it can be heard. I can hear them degrade the sound . Those who can't hear it are lucky. These horrid things have no place in power supplies either.
Now for the onslaught of: But if the resistance measures the same then it must sound the same, ad nauseum.
For the measurementalists here: You are trying to measure something that you respond to at an emotional level!
.
Just as an aside - I (for one) am not saying it cannot be heard. I would like to see you, or anyone else, be able to identify whether it is the cheap or expensive resistors in place without knowing beforehand which type were in circuit. Note I am not saying that you couldn't do it, just that I would like to see it demonstrated. I very much doubt that I could do it, but maybe I would be surprised.
There's a difference between being dogmatic about such claims and being sceptical about them.
Anyway, as you were.
Personally I wouldn't touch a loudspeaker designed solely by listening, a total recipe for disaster if ever there was one. Just that one sentence in their marketing would stop me even bothering to listen to them, it's an outrageous claim.
Lol... Well you see that's the difference between you and me, and your rather 'absolutest' approach to things, and my rather less so one! Personally, I'd listen to anything *if* I had good reason to believe that it might be worth listening to, such as for example if a friend who's ears I trusted had recommended something to me. In that respect, I'd certainly listen to it, whether it had been measured or not.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that loudspeakers or electronics should definitely be measured, as well as listened to, in the way I've described, as personally I wouldn't buy either if that wasn't the case, as I *know* the limitations of test equipment, in terms of 'telling the full story'. However, if you're a professional loudspeaker manufacturer then you should certainly be availing of test equipment that will help you produce a better product - no question - just the same as using a good pair of ears to 'voice' the final result will the do the same.
As usual, what annoys me is EXTREMES. Why does it always have to be black of white? What's wrong with choosing GREY? And by that I mean, occupying the MIDDLE GROUND and believing that BOTH measurements and EARS are necessary to produce the best loudspeakers or electronics. In my experience, those who practice extremes usually always miss something important!
Now, let's return to you not entertaining listening to a pair of speakers that haven't been measured.... You do realise that outside of the drive units themselves in the factory, all those years ago, my Tannoys haven't been measured? I bought the Lockwood Majors originally with 15" Monitor Reds inside, with their original crossovers, but that's not what's inside them now, is it?
What's inside them now is a pair of 15" Golds, with completely new crossovers, neither of which was measured! The new crossover was built using a well-regarded circuit published online (I forget which one), and which had been used with great success by Tannoy DC aficionados, so I got someone to do that for me, and I simply chose the components to use, based on the list I was given and their relevant electrical values, then he came round and soldered the crossovers in place.
Then (the three of us, him, me, plus another friend - all with very good ears) sat back and LISTENED.... We put all sorts of different music through the speakers and made subtle adjustments to the crossover circuit and changed some components, until we all agreed (obviously I had the final say), that they sounded 'right' - and in the end we were all pretty much in agreement about what that was, and were astounded at the sonic results!
You've also heard my speakers, and rightly raved about them, so how does that square with your idea that you can't create a great sounding pair of speakers without using measurements?;)
Marco.
anthonyTD
06-06-2020, 09:42
Before changing anything in the new cross-over, see if you can aquire the test specifications, and or measurement graphs for it, as it is quite posible that even though on first glance; there are diffrences in component values to the original Tannoy cross-overs, it may just be that the sum of the whole parts still conform to the original desired cross-over points.
Hi Denzil,
"I would appreciate all your feedback on the crossovers I'm using. And would it be possible or necessary to change any components to improve them in any way ?"
It's certainly possible to change the components but 'necessary' depends on you.
Fact: Those ubiquitous white box-shaped resistors are the cheapest you can buy, as far as I know, and it can be heard. I can hear them degrade the sound . Those who can't hear it are lucky. These horrid things have no place in power supplies either.
Now for the onslaught of: But if the resistance measures the same then it must sound the same, ad nauseum.
For the measurementalists here: You are trying to measure something that you respond to at an emotional level!
Fact: The coils are not optimised in their relation to each other. This phenomenon can be heard and measured as I explained earlier.
Your XO shown has a different cap setup. The standard MG15 has, in the HP section, a 6.8uf, then a 1.5uf as part of a shaping circuit and then a 3.3uf + inductor as a notch filter. What they appear to have done, looking at the board and following logically from input for sensible layout is to use a 4.7uf as start of the HP filter. The caps after that are correct. Then, and as I can't see the traces, would imagine that the 2X6.8uf are in parallel giving 13.6uf, for the LP section where 15 or 16uf is usually used.
These different values will alter the response. The biggest change will be the 4.7uf where it should be 6.8uf. This will shift the HP upwards to a higher fequency causing an underlap at the intended XO point resulting in a dip.
Also, what are the coil values? Looking at what has been done with the caps, who knows? :scratch:
I would unsolder the smaller of the 2 coils with slugs and lie it on its side so it will be like a wheel, able to roll around. The slug must lie parallel to the 4.7uf cap pictured above it.
Solder a 2.2uf cap across the same 4.7uf giving 6.9uf. With allowable tolerances it will be close enough. If you like what you hear then the next step is to replace the parallel pair with a single higher quality 6.8uf.
This of course is based on the presupposition that their configuration is as I mentioned. You need to flip the board over and trace out the circuit. If it is as I think then go ahead, if not still change the orientation of the 1 coil and replace noisy resistors with at a minimum, Mills 12W
The unknown coil values are a problem. With this in mind, do this first: correctly reposition the coil and replace all resistors and report back. The least expensive option is finding the tweeter level you prefer and ignoring the ones not being used.
Tannoy allows selection of 2 resistors to provide 3 settings. Better is what I will do with my next rebuild is to use a 50 ohm L-pad to finely vary the level and then measure the series and parallel legs and then replace the L-pad with fixed resistors of those values.
In a previous response I linked to a different thread about much the same thing as discussed here. It is all valuable info concerning your quest. Here it is again. Please read it again even if you have as the information may make more sense now and there is a pic of how to position the coil. Read on a few pages. I explain why fine harmonic retrieval is so vitally important to realistic timbre and soundstage.
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?21979-B-amp-W-DM2A-refurb-s/page12
Now it's all about the music, right? As I see you are from Goa. Listen to Ottmar Liebert's, The Complete Sante Fe Sessions, the last track: Morning Arrival in Goa.
Tannoy didn't design the drivers without measuring them and Lockwood didn't design the cabinets without measuring them. Although you may have tweaked the crossovers, the basic crossover you have used is, as you say, an established design. It will not have been designed without measuring the results with it in place.
I agree that a speaker design must be measured and listened to in order to optimise it. I never said otherwise. NEAT claim they design solely by listening, I stick by my assertion that this is a silly thing to do and will lead to dissatisfaction in the long run.
It's for this sort of 'All you need to do is listen' reason that people blame recording quality when some recordings sound like crap on their systems and they end up with the system dictating what music they can enjoy. And if they have spent a lot of money badly then you get the absurd claim that 'The better the system is, the more recordings become unlistenable.'
I've designed loudspeakers, I have practical experience of trying to do it solely by ear. It's a mistake.
Fair enough, at least there was some proper thought put into the decision you reached, as I've often seen folk dismissing speakers, simply because they'd heard them at a show, in a completely unfamiliar system and room, which is ridiculous!
However, the NEAT speakers in question simply might not have suited your amp. Amp/speaker relationships of course are crucial, so that doesn't necessarily make the speakers bad, just not to your tastes and/or perhaps because of an amplifier mismatch .
As always, any opinion I express about whether component A is good, bad or indifferent comes with the caveat 'to my ears', or 'to my taste'. The only absolute 'bad' judgement call I would make would be if a component failed because of poor workmanship.
Did you ever get to hear the NEATs with another amp, or in the context of a different system?
Marco.
No. Once I'd bought the Spendors, I stopped looking. The Neats were on the audition list because I'd read a favourable review of them in HiFi Plus (same with the B&Ws). I felt a bit guilty because the bloke in the dealers spent quite a lot of time moving speakers around, and I left without buying any.
Tannoy didn't design the drivers without measuring them and Lockwood didn't design the cabinets without measuring them. Although you may have tweaked the crossovers, the basic crossover you have used is, as you say, an established design. It will not have been designed without measuring the results with it in place.
Yes, but the point is, the COMBINATION of what i'm using now (based on all of the above), in order to produce the sound I'm hearing, hasn't been measured!
By your logic, when alterations were being made to the crossover circuit, during the fine-tuning process outlined, measurements would have been mandatory, in order for it to have worked, but clearly they weren't... We (using nothing but our ears) successfully created a bloody amazing sound, without the use of ONE IOTA of measurements during that process - *that* is my point!:)
Furthermore, and notably, the circuit itself accordingly was subtly altered (when said adjustments were made), from that taken from the *established one* on the website, and the results of that weren't measured either, simply listened to.
Marco.
I have responded to your post above Marco, and it has become embedded and non differentiated form your original post.
The food analogy does not hold IMO because whilst with food there is the question of its functionality - nutritional value, and the question of subjective taste, there is with the latter no reference with which to compare the end result, it is entirely a subjective response to the food, and based on the subject's experience and acquired preferences.
Sure, Dennis, but you're missing the point. I meant simply in terms of both the design of loudspeakers or electronics following a 'recipe', using various 'ingredients'. Capacitors, resistors, inductors, diodes, transistors, etc, are essentially 'ingredients' of a recipe to make loudspeaker crossovers or amplifiers, just as much as, say, the ingredients that make up a cake.
And all impart their own unique flavour, or in the case of electrical components, produced by different manufacturers, 'sonic signature' on the circuit in question, and which rather importantly, considering what we're discussing, can't be measured.
Therefore, for that *very* reason you need EARS (good ones) to successfully 'marry' those ingredients (along with the various sonic signatures), in order to allow the speakers or electronics in question to produce a lifelike and realistic sound [one that can do proper justice to recorded music], which experience tells me measurements ALONE can't.
IMO to design speakers with a preference for the perceived sound quality as a priority over any measurements is pure folly.
Ok that's fine, but how do you square these two earlier comments:
I'd put a lot of money on them [ATC] having listened extensively, and with trained ears.
And:
If that is true Joe, to me it's ridiculous; the ear can be quite easily deceived.
So... If the ear can be quite easily deceived (which to an extent I agree with), then what value is there in employing "trained" ones to voice your loudspeakers, which you clearly hope ATC have done? "Trained" or otherwise, they still have the propensity for being deceived.
Therefore, just use measurements alone and be done with it, surely?
Marco.
fatmarley
06-06-2020, 10:56
We (using nothing but our ears) successfully created a bloody amazing sound, without the use of ONE IOTA of measurements during that process - *that* is my point!:)
And there's a good chance they could be even better with the same quality of components, but with measurements. That 'two steps forward, one step back' thing I mentioned earlier.
And there's a good chance they could be even better with the same quality of components, but with measurements. That 'two steps forward, one step back' thing I mentioned earlier.
Yes it's certainly possible, and I wouldn't have been averse to it either. However, it doesn't negate the fact (as demonstrated) that it's not mandatory to make measurements to get a fantastic sound, such as anyone who's heard my speakers would attest to.
Marco.
Yes, but the point is, the COMBINATION of what i'm using now (based on all of the above), in order to produce the sound I'm hearing, hasn't been measured!
By your logic, when alterations were being made to the crossover circuit, during the fine-tuning process outlined, measurements would have been mandatory, in order for it to have worked, but clearly they weren't..
o.
No that's not my position. My position is that you have to start from a measurement persepective to at least get in the ballpark, then you can fine tune 'by ear'. Which I'm pretty sure is what you are saying too. You can't just pull inductors and capacitors at random out of a bag and use that as a starting point.
No that's not my position. My position is that you have to start from a measurement persepective to at least get in the ballpark, then you can fine tune 'by ear'. Which I'm pretty sure is what you are saying too. You can't just pull indictors and capacitors at random out of a bag and use that as a starting point.
i'd agree
No that's not my position.
I wasn't talking about your 'position' though; I was talking about the point *I* was making, which you were missing;)
My position is that you have to start from a measurement persepective to at least get in the ballpark, then you can fine tune 'by ear'. Which I'm pretty sure is what you are saying too. You can't just pull indictors and capacitors at random out of a bag and use that as a starting point.
Yes indeed, if you're starting from scratch.
However, in the circumstances I described, and simply fine-tuning/voicing an existing crossover circuit, measurements aren't mandatory. And going back to the POINT I was making before, based on the results I achieved with that fine-tuning/voicing, you don't always need to make measurements, in order to create a great sound. *THAT* is my point:)
However, as Matt says, they can help improve matters, and often do!
Marco.
I wasn't talking about your 'position' though; I was talking about the point *I* was making, which you were missing;)
Yes indeed, if you're starting from scratch.
However, in the circumstances I described, simply fine-tuning an existing crossover circuit, measurements aren't mandatory. And going back to the POINT I was making before, based on the results I achieved with that fine-tuning/'voicing', you don't always need to make measurements to create a great sound. *THAT* is my point:)
Completely agree, never said otherwise. I was talking about designing the speaker from scratch just by listening to music, as NEAT claim they do. Not tweaking an already existing crossover design in speakers already designed (at least mostly) by measurements. Although I agree with Matt that measuring can help with that too. But it isn't essential as the thing will be mostly right already.
Yes, we're on the same page:)
I repeat though, for absolute clarity, that the *main point* I was making was to dispel the myth, created by staunch objectivists, that making love to your test equipment is a mandatory procedure before you can achieve any genuine improvement, when applying some change/tweak to the circuit of either electronics or loudspeakers.
Quite simply, that's closed-minded, arrogant bollox, and patently untrue. GOOD EARS are just as important. And what pisses me off, is the former view [often portrayed by so-called 'experts'] discourages people with perfectly good ones from USING them!
Marco.
Yes, we're on the same page:)
I repeat though, for absolute clarity, that the *main point* I was making was to dispel the myth, created by staunch objectivists, that making love to your test equipment is a mandatory procedure before you can achieve any genuine improvement, when applying some change/tweak to the circuit of either electronics or loudspeakers.
Quite simply, that's closed-minded, arrogant bollox, and patently untrue. GOOD EARS are just as important. And what pisses me off, is the former view [often portrayed by so-called 'experts'] discourages people with perfectly good ones from USING them!
Marco.
Well I don't think anyone who was actually an expert - or at least experienced with - speaker design would ever claim that. But you get extremists in all areas and they are usually the people who know the least about whatever it is.
But anyone who claims something like 'These loudspeakers are widely considered to offer the very best in High-End audio reproduction, regardless of size or price.' is a bullshitter and to be avoided.
Missed this earlier...
Just as an aside - I (for one) am not saying it cannot be heard. I would like to see you, or anyone else, be able to identify whether it is the cheap or expensive resistors in place without knowing beforehand which type were in circuit. Note I am not saying that you couldn't do it, just that I would like to see it demonstrated. I very much doubt that I could do it, but maybe I would be surprised.
Well, we know each other pretty well, and have been together many times when listening to stuff, and comparisons have been made between equipment, both at homes and shows. Trust me, given the nature of the improvement I'm talking about (I can't speak for Charles, as I don't know him or his speakers), I can confidently predict you'd hear it with a pair of your favourite Y-fronts wrapped around your peepers, and two turnips stuck in your ears!:D;)
Remember the significant improvements I made to the set up of your turntable that time I was down? Well, think along those lines x 5... That's about the difference I heard between the original Tannoy crossovers and the ones I'm using now.
And remember I'm not exactly new to modifying or upgrading equipment. I've heard the same level of improvement when modifying the Croft, my Copper amp (which Anthony also heard, with mods he'd approved, PSU caps, etc), and also to my Sony CDP and DAC, when it came back from Audiocom, and where mainly what had been changed was caps and resistors, just like in a loudspeaker crossover.
In that respect, I can assure you, beyond any doubt, that there was NO COMPARISON, in the level of sound quality/sonic performance, between ANY of the above items, pre and post modification. The Croft, in particular, simply by upgrading the coupling capacitors and moving from a carbon-pot volume control, to a high-quality stepped attenuator, was literally 'night and day' - and I don't use that term lightly!
So muchacho, sighted or not, I'm very confident you'd have heard the difference upgrading the crossovers made to the subsequent sound that was heard - 'expectation bias' it wasn't!:)
Marco.
Well I don't think anyone who was actually an expert - or at least experienced with - speaker design would ever claim that.
Come on, there are plenty of such folk all over the forums, and who claim to be such experts! Jez Arkless, Serge, PC, among many others I could mention!;)
They're all (fatally) married to their measurement apparatus, the former so much so that he even features it, rather lovingly, as the picture on his avatar!:doh:
But anyone who claims something like 'These loudspeakers are widely considered to offer the very best in High-End audio reproduction, regardless of size or price.' is a bullshitter and to be avoided.
Still wouldn't stop me from listening to them though, out of curiosity if nothing else! That's another key difference between you and me: I don't dismiss stuff out of hand simply because it doesn't suit my sensibilities...:ner:
Maco.
Come on, there are plenty of such folk all over the forums! Jez, Serge, among many others I could mention!;)
They're all (fatally) married to their measurement apparatus.
Still wouldn't stop me from listening to them though, out of curiosity if nothing else! That's another key difference between you and me: I don't dismiss stuff out of hand simply because it doesn't suit my sensibilities...:ner:
Maco.
Well I don't know about that, Jez has certainly said more than once that there is something undefined separating really good amplifiers from the herd and even he doesn't know what that is.
Anyway we were talking about loudspeakers which will always be the biggest 'grey area' in hi-fi.
And as far as speakers designed solely by listening that's one of those situations where I don't need to jump off the roof of my house to know that I'm going to break both my legs ;)
Well I don't know about that, Jez has certainly said more than once that there is something undefined separating really good amplifiers from the herd and even he doesn't know what that is.
Yes, and that's one area where he contradicts his usual, staunchly objectivist approach to audio! Just a pity he subsequently refuses to entertain any notion that can't *currently* be measured as being a valid theory to explain the "something undefined";)
Marco.
Why has this thread taken 13 pages to be debated?
Tannoys<>fit for firewood no how much the Japanese spend on them, purely wrong at a fundamental level will never be anything else, however nostalgia reigns here so it seems Tannoy's have a following similar to Naim :rolleyes:
Really never understood why cold emotionless disjointed dross of the first order yes these are my own feelings with Tannoy speakers, and I have heard more than my fair share over the EON's including much raved about exalted uber specials with quisi ultra exotic Japanese unique manger (:lol:) valves that only UK guys can dream about
A 250Kiloton hydrogen bomb would not change my mind on this subject so please do not tell I have not heard x and y as believe me I really have.
Please do continue with this highly amusing if misguided thread, I still can not quite grasp the adoration this wooden boxes from sonic hell garner, the anality of the subject matter is on par with with flat earth V's real music reproduction or why performing colonic irrigation on virtual reality stars is the new 'black'
A few questions if i may:-
How many Tannoy owners have a dedicated listening rooms?
How many Tannoy owners listen to vinyl?
How many Tannoy owners are over 45 y.o.
How many Tannoy owners smoke a pipe?
Do you discuss the 'Hoppiness' of Hook Norton or similar real or craft ales?
How many Tannoy owners have a beard? (Not openly a hipster)
How many Tannoy owners use a Tower of Iron Wil to defend their obsession with poor constructed wardrobes.
And as far as speakers designed solely by listening that's one of those situations where I don't need to jump off the roof of my house to know that I'm going to break both my legs ;)
I'll take the crutches, then!:D
Marco's Motto: listen to EVERYTHING. Dismiss NOTHING that has any credibility whatsoever, no matter what 'text books' say to the contrary, as that's how you often learn something new.
:exactly:
Marco.
Why has this thread taken 13 pages to be debated?
Tannoys<>fit for firewood no how much the Japanese spend on them, purely wrong at a fundamental level will never be anything else, however nostalgia reigns here so it seems Tannoy's have a following similar to Naim :rolleyes:
Really never understood why cold emotionless disjointed dross of the first order yes these are my own feelings with Tannoy speakers, and I have heard more than my fair share over the EON's including much raved about exalted uber specials with quisi ultra exotic Japanese unique manger (:lol:) valves that only UK guys can dream about
A 250Kiloton hydrogen bomb would not change my mind on this subject so please do not tell I have not heard x and y as believe me I really have.
Please do continue with this highly amusing if misguided thread, I still can not quite grasp the adoration this wooden boxes from sonic hell garner, the anality of the subject matter is on par with with flat earth V's real music reproduction or why performing colonic irrigation on virtual reality stars is the new 'black'
A few questions if i may:-
How many Tannoy owners have a dedicated listening rooms?
How many Tannoy owners listen to vinyl?
How many Tannoy owners are over 45 y.o.
How many Tannoy owners smoke a pipe?
Do you discuss the 'Hoppiness' of Hook Norton or similar real or craft ales?
How many Tannoy owners have a beard? (Not openly a hipster)
How many Tannoy owners use a Tower of Iron Wil to defend their obsession with poor constructed wardrobes.
:lolsign:
Hi Tony, nice to see you popping in:wave:
Hope you're well. Btw, I feel exactly the same about those obscenely expensive a-musical snooze-boxes you used to sell and demonstrate at shows! The name escapes me... High five-figures though for a pair of standmounts. Could you refresh my memory? I note they're no longer in your product range.
Marco.
Ah, I think I've remembered now, Magico, wasn't it? Man, those things could suck the fun out of even the happiest of tunes!!:D
...and charging you for it, too!
Marco.
Marco's Motto: listen to EVERYTHING. Dismiss NOTHING that has any credibility whatsoever, no matter what 'text books' say to the contrary, as that's how you often learn something new.
Life is brief; too brief to listen to everything, certainly. And who defines what has 'credibility'? Many of the tweaks so beloved of forums (fancy fuses for example) seem to have no basis whatsoever other than someone's wish to make a quick buck.
I've been to a few hifi shows in recent years, having previously avoided them, and many of the systems there I've found unlistenable for more than a few minutes. That's proved quite useful as a means of crossing items off an otherwise unmanageable long-list: if the manufacturer/distributor can't make them sound halfway decent in the admittedly challenging context of a hifi show, I'm not inclined to waste any time giving them a second chance. By contrast, equipment that sounds good in such a context may well be worth a second listen or home demonstration.
DiveDeepDog
06-06-2020, 14:35
This thread is a little distracted :lol:
Back to the op , anyone bought and stayed with the MainlyTannoy crossovers? I’ve just got gold Chatsworth’s, would like to keep original, but the idea of upgrade is strong. Torn between refreshed original or his v3 board with original inductors??
walpurgis
06-06-2020, 14:47
This thread is a little distracted :lol:
Back to the op , anyone bought and stayed with the MainlyTannoy crossovers? I’ve just got gold Chatsworth’s, would like to keep original, but the idea of upgrade is strong. Torn between refreshed original or his v3 board with original inductors??
Just don't assume that an alternative crossover is necessarily an upgrade. Remember, Tannoy spent thirty or so years on crossover development with the alnico magnet models from Red and Gold to HPD, they are likely to have got the design well enough sorted.
That's not to say that a good control clean and capacitor replacement would do any harm though.
Also, hang onto the original crossovers. The drivers are likely to be worth significantly more if these are present.
Life is brief; too brief to listen to everything, certainly. And who defines what has 'credibility'?
YOU - based on YOUR own judgement criteria. Ultimately, I care not a jot about anything else! I don't need an 'expert' to tell me what's 'credible'. Btw, by "everything" I meant, anything you consider is worth spending the time listening to.
I've been to a few hifi shows in recent years, having previously avoided them, and many of the systems there I've found unlistenable for more than a few minutes. That's proved quite useful as a means of crossing items off an otherwise unmanageable long-list: if the manufacturer/distributor can't make them sound halfway decent in the admittedly challenging context of a hifi show, I'm not inclined to waste any time giving them a second chance. By contrast, equipment that sounds good in such a context may well be worth a second listen or home demonstration.
Yes I can see the logic in that, and have often done the same myself. Btw, it's my view (based on experience of demonstrating systems at shows on numerous occasions) that there is no excuse whatsoever for producing a really shite sound at a hi-fi show, no matter how bad the room is or polluted the mains!
Quite simply that's down to sheer laziness, in terms of not spending enough time setting up the system properly [usually too keen to get to the bar], bringing room treatments or mains conditioners along if necessary, etc, or in choosing the wrong speakers for the room you've been allocated. Given that NOT being the case, and if the gear or speakers are any good in the first place, then you should be able to make a half-decent (if far from perfect) noise!
Marco.
Just don't assume that an alternative crossover is necessarily an upgrade. Remember, Tannoy spent thirty or so years on crossover development with the alnico magnet models from Red and Gold to HPD, they are likely to have got the design well enough sorted.
That's not to say that a good control clean and capacitor replacement would do any harm though.
Also, hang onto the original crossovers. The drivers are likely to be worth significantly more if these are present.
All good advice, Geoff. I'm sure that the main reason for the poor quality of sound I heard, not only from my original crossovers, but others I've heard belonging to various Tannoy DC users, in comparison with well-sorted modern ones, is due to 50+ year old caps being long since out of spec.
However, I do think that a little reworking of the original crossovers also benefits, as in some areas things have moved on, and so if properly implemented, even the best vintage speakers or equipment can usually be improved either by new thinking/approaches to design, or with the best modern components.
That's precisely why my system has been built around successfully marrying the best of OLD and NEW technology! IME, it's a good approach to getting a great sound, without spending 'silly money':cool:
Marco.
Tannoy didn't design the drivers without measuring them and Lockwood didn't design the cabinets without measuring them. Although you may have tweaked the crossovers, the basic crossover you have used is, as you say, an established design. It will not have been designed without measuring the results with it in place.
I agree that a speaker design must be measured and listened to in order to optimise it. I never said otherwise. NEAT claim they design solely by listening, I stick by my assertion that this is a silly thing to do and will lead to dissatisfaction in the long run.
It's for this sort of 'All you need to do is listen' reason that people blame recording quality when some recordings sound like crap on their systems and they end up with the system dictating what music they can enjoy. And if they have spent a lot of money badly then you get the absurd claim that 'The better the system is, the more recordings become unlistenable.'
I've designed loudspeakers, I have practical experience of trying to do it solely by ear. It's a mistake.
I agree with your assertion here about the ineptitude of designing completely by ear, and the potential results can often be as you describe. A weird response can result in only a few recordings sounding good, and the designer then because of his investment in time and effort, believing that his speakers are so good that he is the only one hearing how poor so many recordings are.
I have done this and ended up with an odd response, and this with time I have habituated to, and thus my hearing become adapted and 'corrupted'.
From Marco;
"You've also heard my speakers, and rightly raved about them, so how does that square with your idea that you can't create a great sounding pair of speakers without using measurements?"
Potentially for the reasons above.
Yes, but the point is, the COMBINATION of what i'm using now (based on all of the above), in order to produce the sound I'm hearing, hasn't been measured!
By your logic, when alterations were being made to the crossover circuit, during the fine-tuning process outlined, measurements would have been mandatory, in order for it to have worked, but clearly they weren't... We (using nothing but our ears) successfully created a bloody amazing sound, without the use of ONE IOTA of measurements during that process - *that* is my point!:)
Furthermore, and notably, the circuit itself accordingly was subtly altered (when said adjustments were made), from that taken from the *established one* on the website, and the results of that weren't measured either, simply listened to.
Marco.
And that methodology is what can lead to becoming embroiled in the "circle of confusion".
You also say:
"Sure, Dennis, but you're missing the point. I meant simply in terms of both the design of loudspeakers or electronics following a 'recipe', using various 'ingredients'. Capacitors, resistors, inductors, diodes, transistors, etc, are essentially 'ingredients' of a recipe to make loudspeaker crossovers or amplifiers, just as much as, say, the ingredients that make up a cake."
Many constructions in life are made from components.
DiveDeepDog
06-06-2020, 15:30
I’d always keep originals, and have cleaned the switches, just curiosity and the audio nervosa disease:-)
Over at the pink place opinion is very much to keep original.
RFC has good rep, however at a cost.
The Lockwood’s currently on eBay have interesting crossover...
I remember listening to some £14K speakers at a show, playing some plinky plonk of course and it sounded okay, good even. A visitor asked for a particular tune, some sort of AOR track, nothing especially challenging, and it sounded terrible. They quickly reverted back to the plinky-plonk. The excuse was 'Oh yes you really need the subwoofer for that sort of thing.' The subwoofer was an additional eight grand.
walpurgis
06-06-2020, 15:33
The Lockwood’s currently on eBay have interesting crossover...
I have bought from them in the past. I had the last pair of SRM 10B cones they offered. Very handy!
I remember listening to some £14K speakers at a show, playing some plinky plonk of course and it sounded okay, good even. A visitor asked for a particular tune, some sort of AOR track, nothing especially challenging, and it sounded terrible. They quickly reverted back to the plinky-plonk. The excuse was 'Oh yes you really need the subwoofer for that sort of thing.' The subwoofer was an additional eight grand.
so they were shoite then;)
Sure, Dennis, but you're missing the point. I meant simply in terms of both the design of loudspeakers or electronics following a 'recipe', using various 'ingredients'. Capacitors, resistors, inductors, diodes, transistors, etc, are essentially 'ingredients' of a recipe to make loudspeaker crossovers or amplifiers, just as much as, say, the ingredients that make up a cake.
And all impart their own unique flavour, or in the case of electrical components, produced by different manufacturers, 'sonic signature' on the circuit in question, and which rather importantly, considering what we're discussing, can't be measured.
Therefore, for that *very* reason you need EARS (good ones) to successfully 'marry' those ingredients (along with the various sonic signatures), in order to allow the speakers or electronics in question to produce a lifelike and realistic sound [one that can do proper justice to recorded music], which experience tells me measurements ALONE can't.
Ok that's fine, but how do you square these two earlier comments:
And:
So... If the ear can be quite easily deceived (which to an extent I agree with), then what value is there in employing "trained" ones to voice your loudspeakers, which you clearly hope ATC have done? "Trained" or otherwise, they still have the propensity for being deceived.
Therefore, just use measurements alone and be done with it, surely?
Marco.
I see no contradiction in the two comments you refer to above.
The ear can be deceived, and the purpose of training to try to eliminate or at least reduce that possibility.
I have never said that design of speakers can be undertaken without listening to the result, but I would rather take a pair on trust which were designed by accomplished designers purely on numbers, than a pair designed entirely with the ear.
I agree with your assertion here about the ineptitude of designing completely by ear, and the potential results can often be as you describe. A weird response can result in only a few recordings sounding good, and the designer then because of his investment in time and effort, believing that his speakers are so good that he is the only one hearing how poor so many recordings are.
I have done this and ended up with an odd response, and this with time I have habituated to, and thus my hearing become adapted and 'corrupted'.
From Marco;
"You've also heard my speakers, and rightly raved about them, so how does that square with your idea that you can't create a great sounding pair of speakers without using measurements?"
Potentially for the reasons above.
Sure, but that's fundamentally NOT what's happened in my case, and I think Martin would tell you that, too. I've only ever had good results with anything I've 'voiced' myself or had professionally modified or upgraded by others.
One thing that helps in that area is having confidence in the efficacy of your senses, when making judgements, and not believing that 'experts' will *always* know better!;)
Marco.
No that's not my position. My position is that you have to start from a measurement persepective to at least get in the ballpark, then you can fine tune 'by ear'. Which I'm pretty sure is what you are saying too. You can't just pull inductors and capacitors at random out of a bag and use that as a starting point.
Yes Macca.
I see no contradiction in the two comments you refer to above.
The ear can be deceived, and the purpose of training to try to eliminate or at least reduce that possibility.
I have never said that design of speakers can be undertaken without listening to the result, but I would rather take a pair on trust which were designed by accomplished designers purely on numbers, than a pair designed entirely with the ear.
I wouldn't take any form of audio equipment 'on trust' from anyone, least of all a pair of speakers, no matter how 'well-endorsed' by a so-called 'expert'! I would ALWAYS need to hear them FIRST, in the context of my system and room, and crucially, with my own MUSIC.
In terms of the bit in bold, yes I agree, but the point is for someone with such a (seemingly) measurement-based, objectivist outlook as you to hi-fi, how can you rely on someone else's ears, no matter how "well trained", if they're still fallible? And those at ATC won't necessarily be any more "well trained" than yours or mine.
Marco.
Yes, we're on the same page:)
I repeat though, for absolute clarity, that the *main point* I was making was to dispel the myth, created by staunch objectivists, that making love to your test equipment is a mandatory procedure before you can achieve any genuine improvement, when applying some change/tweak to the circuit of either electronics or loudspeakers.
Quite simply, that's closed-minded, arrogant bollox, and patently untrue. GOOD EARS are just as important. And what pisses me off, is the former view [often portrayed by so-called 'experts'] discourages people with perfectly good ones from USING them!
Marco.
The use of test equipment is IMO a pre-requisite in the process of design in order to verify and validate, and avoid error.
The equipment is not a 'God' but a tool which helps to avoid obvious errors by validating steps towards a completion.
And that methodology is what can lead to becoming embroiled in the "circle of confusion".
No "confusion" here, only 100% satisfaction:)
Marco.
The use of test equipment is IMO a pre-requisite in the process of design in order to verify and validate, and avoid error.
I agree, but it's not the be-all-and-end all either. That's my point. Test equipment isn't infallible either, nor being used by someone to measure the wrong thing.
Ultimately, good ears are also needed to make any proper judgement on the role played by a hi-fi system, in the accurate reproduction of recorded music.
Marco.
"Why has this thread taken 13 pages to be debated?"
Because people tend to be lazy and not be thorough and diligent in ensuring that their thought processes are objectively verifiable, and once embedded they defend an entrenched but often erroneous thought process.
The use of test equipment is IMO a pre-requisite in the process of design in order to verify and validate, and avoid error.
The equipment is not a 'God' but a tool which helps to avoid obvious errors by validating steps towards a completion.
You'll never convince the staunch subjectivist that hi-fi is 99 percent engineering and science and just a little bit of what you fancy. They just don't see it that way.
Regards Neat and the 'design by ear approach' even What Hi*Fi struggled https://www.whathifi.com/neat/momentum-sx5i/review:
'take the best part of a week to settle' - (balls, it took a week for you to get used to how wrong they were).
'Without the feet, the Momentum SX5is are likeable but fairly middling four-grand floorstanders. With them, the speakers become more serious contenders with enough ability to warrant a place on the shortlist. ' ( the optional feet cost the thick end of £600 and just as if they make that much difference).
'though a hint of excess bite at higher frequencies suggests careful partnering is needed to keep things civil.' (they sound harsh)
'they have a tendency to overlook subtle nuances somewhat.' ( the frequency response is all over the shop)
'They impose their enthusiastic character on the music a little too strongly to achieve that'. (i.e to get a recommendation)
'The company tunes its speakers by listening rather than measuring. It might seem an obvious thing to do, (Nope) but most of the industry tends to prioritise things the other way around.' (I wonder why?)
"Why has this thread taken 13 pages to be debated?"
Because people tend to be lazy and not be thorough and diligent in ensuring that their thought processes are objectively verifiable, and once embedded they defend an entrenched but often erroneous thought process.
Just like you then;)
"...Ensuring that their thought processes are objectively verifiable".
Bloody hell.... Are you a human being, capable of rational self-thought, or a computer, programmed to obey a predetermined form of logic? So who decides what's "erroneous"?
I think we live on different planets, Dennis.
Marco.
"One thing that helps in that area is having confidence in the efficacy of your senses, when making judgements, and not believing that 'experts' will *always* know better!"
But Marco, we must constantly question what we are doing.
You'll never convince the staunch subjectivist that hi-fi is 99 percent engineering and science and just a little bit of what you fancy. They just don't see it that way.
And you'll never convince the staunch objectivist that EARS are much more important than they think! 99%.. Lol, that's laughable! If only test equipment were that accurate!!:lol:
So how much more 'tit for tat' would you like to indulge in?;)
Marco.
I wouldn't take any form of audio equipment 'on trust' from anyone, least of all a pair of speakers, no matter how 'well-endorsed' by a so-called 'expert'! I would ALWAYS need to hear them FIRST, in the context of my system and room, and crucially, with my own MUSIC.
In terms of the bit in bold, yes I agree, but the point is for someone with such a (seemingly) measurement-based, objectivist outlook as you to hi-fi, how can you rely on someone else's ears, no matter how "well trained", if they're still fallible? And those at ATC won't necessarily be any more "well trained" than yours or mine.
Marco.
The first point about choice was 'If I had to'.
I can reply on the ears of manufacturers like KEF, ATC, and Revel, because, especially with the latter they have gone to great lengths to use groups of people with trained and untrained ears to validate designs with the ear.
Revel has found a very good correlation between a good measured forward and power response to subjective preference.
"One thing that helps in that area is having confidence in the efficacy of your senses, when making judgements, and not believing that 'experts' will *always* know better!"
But Marco, we must constantly question what we are doing.
Why? That's the fastest way to madness!! Would you like the key to your padded cell now?;)
You question things to an EXTENT, then simply trust the God-given senses and level of judgement that you were born with, whilst accepting that they (and you) are part of an imperfect world. At least that's what normal people do.
Unfortunately, 'cravers of certainly' are destined to a life, not only of great discomfort, but gross disappointment!
Marco.
And you'll never convince the staunch objectivist that EARS are much more important than they think! 99%.. Lol, that's laughable! If only test equipment were that accurate!!:lol:
So how much more 'tit for tat' would you like to indulge in?;)
Marco.
About another 5% ;)
The first point about choice was 'If I had to'.
I can reply on the ears of manufacturers like KEF, ATC, and Revel, because, especially with the latter they have gone to great lengths to use groups of people with trained and untrained ears to validate designs with the ear.
Revel has found a very good correlation between a good measured forward and power response to subjective preference.
Dennis, we're simply going to have to agree to disagree, as our respective mindsets in this matter will never be compatible. So I'll let you have the last word, as no offence, I've had mine, in terms of replying to you on this thread:)
Marco.
About another 5% ;)
:lolsign:
Marco.
:lolsign:
Marco.
Seriously though, see that review I posted of the 'designed by ears' speakers. They have all the issues you'd expect a speaker that was designed by ear to have. Listening is important, of course it is, but rely too much on it to design equipment and you're in for a disappointment. Or at best a very inconsistent experience.
Yes, I completely agree. As ever, neither life, nor hi-fi is best served by absolutes!
Marco.
The use of test equipment is IMO a pre-requisite in the process of design in order to verify and validate, and avoid error.
I would agree in principle here Dennis, however a guideline for making progressive measurements thought the design process helps though you, though you could end up with products like Devialet, the Hypex modules (which ever amplifier make their are in and what ever op amp you wish to put in front of the Ncore module), most class 'a' solid state from the 90's onwards their are few exceptions but not many and pretty much 85% of ALL speakers on the market could also fall into the vanilla category including many expensive brands as well.
A lot of really well measuring equipment is just soulless, emotionless and 'nice' sounding staple that emanates from many so called high end manufacturers as well as the run of the mill brands.
Looking at just the usual 20hz-20Khz band is all very well, however you really need to further up the frequency ranges as these high Fq's can influence a lot of the surrounding i/c's counters/clocks/regulators/functions controllers with FPGA arrays really throwing out boat loads of RF all over and inside the case work.
Easy to measure and put in place temporary counter measures, the rerun a tight spectrum analysis plot to check you are achieving the desired results, then retest on a AP 555 or R&S UPV.
For example the current ASR gushing best measuring latest dac's the SMSL and Topping D90 et al, while they do sound good, so much more actually been suppressed in side and its true potential no where near released.
Just because careful use of EMC control, circuit board layout, and filtration etc was negated for banging it out there, CE anyone?
Perhaps that is something that Hifi magazines should really state at the beginning of the review that the product(s) is fully certified to the correct EU directives if we leave with no deal there is a UK equivalent in place.
Back when Tannoy designed the distortion induced, phase incoherent fugly boxes of world class inner ear wax removal this side of Chord 1400E power amps and Wilson Benesch speakers. Pretty sure having all of the boxes ticked in relation to the modelling of the x/overs was possibly not top of their list of priorities. If it was then.................F__K a duck sideways with a can of Swarfega orange :stalks:
These days we can actually measure the full impedance pathway from the amplifier through the cabling, the x/cover and back the amplifier via TDR.
De-embedding the cable, x/over and amplifier are all integral to finalising the true end result. This is also possible up to 40m in total length, also remember the circuit board also acts as an interconnect, this is also measured and removed form the equation for individual study.
Ok TDR is not everyday ASR staple due the constraints of the owners front room and the equipment his does not own yet unless he receives a wonderful acquisition price from the producers of said equipment :rolleyes: The rest of us manufacturers had to purchase our test gear :violin:
Measurements enable you to see which way not to proceed if you like, they help a lot, but the end result is a mixture of first principles, measurements and experience of the designer and what type/style of sound they are wishing to produce.
Though they are one of two pieces of exceptional audio that never saw anything other than a multi meter during their construction yet sound blissfully musical and engaging.
Just like you then;)
"...Ensuring that their thought processes are objectively verifiable".
Bloody hell.... Are you a human being, capable of rational self-thought, or a computer, programmed to obey a predetermined form of logic? So who decides what's "erroneous"?
I think we live on different planets, Dennis.
Marco.
Firstly I welcome any criticism of my thinking processes, scrutiny is very useful for growth.
I think we decide what is erroneous by constant self scrutiny, that is if we are prepared to take responsibility for the work involved in doing so. We can find inconsistencies in our thought processes, and ignore them, rationalise them, (by this I refer to the psychological meaning of rationalise - a lie to oneself which is an attempt at 'justification').
You infer that we live in different worlds, and I assume you mean that we view the world very differently, at least in regard to perception of reality.
I have a friend of some 45 years who when I met him had Berkleys with HPDs, I had Lancs with Golds, both were 15".
Over the years he and I have gone through numerous iterations of equipment, particularly speakers.
He went through loads of BBC originations, Rogers, Spendor, Harbeth Kans, ATC 100s and 20s, JBLs, eventually having a high end JBL costing about £30k.
I have ahd Lowther, Tannoys, ESSs, four sets of ATCs, the last, 100ASLs I spent a month rebuilding, and then submitted a write-up to Bill Woodman. I then back To ESSs with my own design work, and finally on to my ADAM Tensor betas.
In discussion with him I asked whether he thought we had moved on from the hazy days of the 70s with Tannoys, and his response was that I would be shocked at the massive improvement in sound quality over that time.
I was young then, enjoying hedonism and loud music, (10+10 amp) and the music was great and refreshingly informative during an exciting period. Now my life is much more forensic, and less hedonistic
Why? That's the fastest way to madness!! Would you like the key to your padded cell now?;)
You question things to an EXTENT, then simply trust the God-given senses and level of judgement that you were born with, whilst accepting that they (and you) are part of an imperfect world. At least that's what normal people do.
Unfortunately, 'cravers of certainly' are destined to a life, not only of great discomfort, but gross disappointment!
Marco.
It is impossible to separate what we are born with from subsequent formative and developmental years.
I have never alluded to wanting, or expecting certainly; there is very little.
In discussion with him I asked whether he thought we had moved on from the hazy days of the 70s with Tannoys, and his response was that I would be shocked at the massive improvement in sound quality over that time.
Don't assume rather ignorantly, and without proper evidence (i.e. without having heard them), that the sound I've achieved with my Tannoys (using modern crossovers), in the context of my system, remotely resembles what you or he heard in the 70s from yours!;)
Active ATCs use high-quality drive units, but unfortunately will always be governed by the limitations of their on-board amp packs, which contain mediocre components, therefore are built to a price and limit the potential of the drive units. I've heard plenty, and they're not my cuppa.
That's my last reply to you on this thread, as clearly we'll never agree.
Marco.
You seem to be giving me an instruction and assuming my ignorance, whilst I have made no assumptions, and would think it very stupid and arrogant so to do.
I do not have active ATCs, and my having owned four pairs, and rebuilt the latter 100ASLs would give an indication of my dissatisfaction with them, this extending beyond my own two months work and £1k expenditure in so doing and then returning to ESSs.
I think that the amp packs are probably better than the speakers, and I retain my ATC amps for that reason despite not using the SPA2.
I think that we probably would agree on a great deal, and fail to see any disagreement between us; why should there be any agreement or disagreement in any way other than on opinions of equipment?
It is OK to disagree, and in discussion light may be shown one way or another, this producing better understandings.
Regarding things having to be one way or another, I think everyone should see this. So much wisdom.
https://youtu.be/JZyiJk7U05Y
The whole event of a couple of weeks ago is just another in a whole series of similar ones in my lifetime, and time after time over the last 50 years I have wondered how soon it would all change, but it hasn't.
Racism is just one, but a major and very visible one, of many human rights issues which include women's rights, gay rights, and many others, but looking at the problems of prejudice in a more macro way, group behaviour is the real root of the problem.
Discrimination occurs over many less evident and non visible characteristics because of the insecurity of a large majority of our species, and it results in very irrational behaviour designed to support the group by subconscious mutual 'consent' to ostracise a minority which may produce discomfort in that majority.
Whilst at school we are taught that life is implicitly meritocratic, we do not live in a meritocratic society, in fact one very far from it, and though often there are semblances of meritocracy, very often hidden agendas work very much more powerfully against these.
Discrimination can be based on numerous disparate characteristics quite other than physically evident ones, this often making detectability nearly impossible to prove.
I have in my life fought for human rights throughout my career, this causing me a great deal of disadvantage and ridicule, and massively compromising my progress and recognition, and resulting in an economically lower standard of living.
I am devoting my life now to attempting to write blues expressing these problems in recognition of all the forms of abuse by the more powerful over those less so.
Whilst at school we are taught that life is implicitly meritocratic, we do not live in a meritocratic society, in fact one very far from it, and though often there are semblances of meritocracy, very often hidden agendas work very much more powerfully against these.
.
Were we? I know I wasn't, maybe things have changed. We were taught that life isn't fair, that it never will be, and that we should get used to it and learn to live, work and achieve our objectives within that framework. Whereas the modern 'everyone gets a prize and all views are valid' creates a sense of entitlement and self-righteousness within people that ends up being harmful to them and society as a whole when things don't work out for them as they do in fairy tales.
Getting used to (at least) occasionally failing and not getting everything one wants used to be seen as a path to maturity and wisdom, now it seems to be seen as an evil which must be combatted at all costs.
The term 'Meritocracy' was coined by Malcolm Dunlop Young and he did not regard it as a 'good thing'.
This is in contrast to the original, condemnatory use of the term in 1958 by Michael Dunlop Young in his work "The Rise of the Meritocracy", who was satirizing the ostensibly merit-based Tripartite System of education practiced in the United Kingdom at the time; he claimed that, in the Tripartite System, "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
Obviously murdering people (of any ethnic background) is unacceptable but I don't see that as intrinsically linked to the 'unfairness' of the world in general.
I've just stumbled along through life, trying to do as little harm as possible. I frequently have cause to remember the words of Horace Walpole:
'Life is a comedy for those who think; a tragedy for those who feel'.
But certainly I remember my parents often saying to me, and me saying to my children, in response to the complaint that 'It's not fair', 'Well, life's not fair, so you'd better get used to it.'
fatmarley
07-06-2020, 12:21
But certainly I remember my parents often saying to me, and me saying to my children, in response to the complaint that 'It's not fair', 'Well, life's not fair, so you'd better get used to it.'
My old mate once said that when he complained of life not being fair to his gran, she replied "Who said life was supposed to be fair?". That's one of those little things that's always stuck with me.
Martin, I was referring to what is implied by the way that teaching operates; doing well and getting a gold star, top of cla etc.
Of course life is not fair and I fully acknowledge that, but it should have been made clear at school that the meritocratic system which operated there was anomalous.
When you say;
" Whereas the modern 'everyone gets a prize and all views are valid' creates a sense of entitlement and self-righteousness within people that ends up being harmful to them and society as a whole when things don't work out for them as they do in fairy tales. "
I am inclined to agree with most of that, and it is ridiculous to say;
"Didn't Brian do well in maths getting 3% and coming 33rd in a class of 33?"
No he didn't, and it is a shame, let's help him do better. Above all it is counter the meritocratic principle to praise a poor performance. (unless there are extenuating circumstances of course). Your reference to "the modern view" is surely counter the principles of meritocracy.
What is wrong with praise and recognition for a well executed task? I certainly admire the massive co-ordinated efforts of the moon landing project.
"Obviously murdering people (of any ethnic background) is unacceptable but I don't see that as intrinsically linked to the 'unfairness' of the world in general. "
It is if it occurs non proportionally to a subsect of society, that reflects inequality.
I am inclined to agree with most of that, and it is ridiculous to say;
"Didn't Brian do well in maths getting 3% and coming 33rd in a class of 33?"
That sounds like me! (though obviously my name isn't Brian). I was a whiz at arithmetic in junior school, then in the second year at grammar school along came algebra, which is where maths and I went our separate ways.
It is if it occurs non proportionally to a subsect of society, that reflects inequality.
Yes, that's a fair point.
Joe, both internal and external events can stunt/hinder our growth. Aged 12, and as a result of family 'machinations', I was moved to another area and school, and plonked into the 4rth stream of eight. After one term I came second in maths with 76.5%, and was then moved the following year into stream 1. The new maths master was Greek, and nobody could understand him, and eventually at mock 'O' level all but one got 8%. The teacher was a disgrace and it was obvious that he was sub-standard.
This has been a recurrent theme in my life, in that same earlier year I was taught that high frequency energy arrived at earth and changed to a lower frequency, and was then trapped. I was concerned and exclaimed that the result would be the earth warming. The chemistry teacher dismissed my concern, (1962).
In the first year of my apprenticeship, at Woolwich Arsenal, we had a gas flame welding test, two 3" by 1.5" pieces of 1/16" mild steel to be but welded. When I finished the instructor said "You've done this before haven't you, it is very good, in fact the best?"
I replied "No, I have always been scared of the blue neutral flame at 3000 degrees C, but that I had used a brazing torch".
The group all laughed and called me a liar, ridiculing me.
In the BT canteen shortly after the events of Lockerby, I said in the canteen at lunch to colleagues, that the events showed that an aircraft could be used as bomb, and I was met with universal derision. Then 9/11.
These events have contributed to my loathing of democracy which assumes we are all equal.
And it has gone on, but generally it seems that people are less ready to ridicule ideas now.
In the BT canteen shortly after the events of Lockerby, I said in the canteen at lunch to colleagues, that the events showed that an aircraft could be used as bomb, and I was met with universal derision. Then 9/11.
.
What? None of them had ever heard of the kamikaze attacks in the Pacific theatre, World War 2?
What? None of them had ever heard of the kamikaze attacks in the Pacific theatre, World War 2?
My thoughts exactly.
What? None of them had ever heard of the kamikaze attacks in the Pacific theatre, World War 2?
That is a different kind of scenario, more like a missile.
Joe, both internal and external events can stunt/hinder our growth. Aged 12, and as a result of family 'machinations', I was moved to another area and school, and plonked into the 4rth stream of eight. After one term I came second in maths with 76.5%, and was then moved the following year into stream 1. The new maths master was Greek, and nobody could understand him, and eventually at mock 'O' level all but one got 8%. The teacher was a disgrace and it was obvious that he was sub-standard.
For Chemistry, we had, at the start of the O level teaching, a mad Irish Christian Brother, who lasted a couple of terms. His replacement asked us how far we'd got in the syllabus. It turned out that the first teacher had been teaching us organic chemistry, which was not part of the syllabus, so we had to start all over again. Somehow I scraped a pass.
Other than that, the problem with science for me was that, although I thought I understood what was being taught, none of it actually penetrated my thick skull. What I really wanted to be, above anything else, was an astronomer. We had a lovely Physics teacher, extremely patient, who'd got previous pupils (and one of my classmates) into Oxbridge. When the mock O level results came out he told me, with deep regret, that there was no point my sitting the actual exam, as I'd recorded the lowest marks he could remember in 20 years teaching the subject. So I bowed to the inevitable, and did arts subjects (plus Economics) for A level.
walpurgis
08-06-2020, 06:48
:hijack:
vinrouge
08-06-2020, 07:34
Hi Denzil, Its Mark who made your crossovers. I feel these simple points needs to be made as some of the above comments might mis-guide you. Just a few points. We have made 700 pairs, I think we do know something. The i/p cap should be 4.7uF for many reasons, not 6.8uF, both are OK, 4.7uF is best, as I discuss with Tannoy directly. Many Tannoy circuits have errors & mistakes. We have corrected them. There is a reason they used 6.8uF in MG, later decided better to be 4.7uF. We use those white resistors because they are very good, not so expensive but out performed many "posh & over priced" versions, we tested loads. People often use over priced parts because they think they are good, when just expensive. Inductors do not need moving. Finally, when you get new crossovers or upgrade your old ones you must listen for 50 to 100 hours as new sounds will be heard and it takes time for one to adjust to new improved frequencies. If you need any support, please contact me directly, and we will solve.
Hi Denzil, Its Mark who made your crossovers. I feel these simple points needs to be made as some of the above comments might mis-guide you. Just a few points. We have made 700 pairs, I think we do know something. The i/p cap should be 4.7uF for many reasons, not 6.8uF, both are OK, 4.7uF is best, as I discuss with Tannoy directly. Many Tannoy circuits have errors & mistakes. We have corrected them. There is a reason they used 6.8uF in MG, later decided better to be 4.7uF. We use those white resistors because they are very good, not so expensive but out performed many "posh & over priced" versions, we tested loads. People often use over priced parts because they think they are good, when just expensive. Inductors do not need moving. Finally, when you get new crossovers or upgrade your old ones you must listen for 50 to 100 hours as new sounds will be heard and it takes time for one to adjust to new improved frequencies. If you need any support, please contact me directly, and we will solve.
I'm really interested to know what tests you have subjected resistors to, especially other than measuring values and adherence to tolerance, and ability to dissipate the specified wattage without distress or failure.
Hi Denzil, Its Mark who made your crossovers. I feel these simple points needs to be made as some of the above comments might mis-guide you. Just a few points. We have made 700 pairs, I think we do know something. The i/p cap should be 4.7uF for many reasons, not 6.8uF, both are OK, 4.7uF is best, as I discuss with Tannoy directly. Many Tannoy circuits have errors & mistakes. We have corrected them. There is a reason they used 6.8uF in MG, later decided better to be 4.7uF. We use those white resistors because they are very good, not so expensive but out performed many "posh & over priced" versions, we tested loads. People often use over priced parts because they think they are good, when just expensive. Inductors do not need moving. Finally, when you get new crossovers or upgrade your old ones you must listen for 50 to 100 hours as new sounds will be heard and it takes time for one to adjust to new improved frequencies. If you need any support, please contact me directly, and we will solve.
Hi Mark,
This is quite amazing, that you found me through this thread !!! Thanks so much for your message and guidance. First of all, as already mentioned by me earlier, I am extremely happy with your crossovers. And as I've also said before, I haven't got down to refurbishing the original crossovers to compare (which haven't even been cleaned for around 30 years, so unfair to discard them as no good). But when I switched from the originals to yours, I did find a dramatic improvement in overall sound, especially the highs and mid highs. The only thing I miss, is the slope switch (to adjust to room acustics). But other than that, I'm very happy with your crossovers. If you get down to making crossovers with BOTH slope and energy controls, that would be wonderful !
Also, I must thank you because you went out of your way to send the crossovers to my friends in London, who were bringing them to Goa for me. And there was some mix up with the courier service and you very kindly sent over a second pair of crossovers so that they got to them in time for the flight, before even receiving the misplaced ones by courier !!!
Thanks again,
Denzil
Apologies, folks, but I'll get back to the main thrust of this thread soon, and in that respect reply to some of the posts I've missed. However, until then, for Denzil and others who may be interested, here are some rear and internal views of my 15" MGs in Lockwood Major cabs with bespoke crossovers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/hi24s2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/zOEZca.jpg
As you can see, some nice dusty, 1960s damping wool with 'bits in', which of course is crucial to the sound...:D
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/6X0adq.jpg
Nicely point-to-point hardwired crossovers [in the 'flat' tonal adjustment position], facilitating the shortest signal path, also showing the ported aperiodic bass-loading below:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/yafOqN.jpg
Solid-copper binding posts (and spades), for accurate signal-transfer.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/2v4RLX.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/SZFRgh.jpg
The back off of one of the speakers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/vvhKuN.jpg
The ported 'bottom plinths', on castors (hidden), supported by spiked Mana Acoustics 'Soundbases':
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/t7xS9F.jpg
I also wanted to put them 'out there', to facilitate Google searches, as there aren't many such pics of Lockwood Majors around!:cool:
Marco.
Lawrence001
19-06-2020, 13:22
If you weren't the forum owner someone would have chipped in by now and tell you to start your own thread if you want to show off your Tannoys [emoji38]
Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk
Lol - why? It's perfectly relevant to the thread and what was being discussed earlier:)
Marco.
One aspect of showing one's pride and joy is that it leaves one open to scrutiny.
Apologies, folks, but I'll get back to the main thrust of this thread soon, and in that respect reply to some of the posts I've missed. However, until then, for Denzil and others who may be interested, here are some rear and internal views of my 15" MGs in Lockwood Major cabs with bespoke crossovers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/hi24s2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/zOEZca.jpg
As you can see, some nice dusty, 1960s damping wool with 'bits in', which of course is crucial to the sound...:D
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/6X0adq.jpg
Nicely point-to-point hardwired crossovers [in the 'flat' tonal adjustment position], facilitating the shortest signal path, also showing the ported aperiodic bass-loading below:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/yafOqN.jpg
Solid-copper binding posts (and spades), for accurate signal-transfer.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/2v4RLX.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/SZFRgh.jpg
The back off of one of the speakers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/vvhKuN.jpg
The ported 'bottom plinths', on castors (hidden), supported by spiked Mana Acoustics 'Soundbases':
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/t7xS9F.jpg
I also wanted to put them 'out there', to facilitate Google searches, as there aren't many such pics of Lockwood Majors around!:cool:
Marco.
These are wonderful Marco. And great photos of the inside of Lockwoods. I'm sure they sound amazing ! The one thing I miss on new crossovers is the slope switch, which I know is not relevant with a perfect set up in a perfect environment but I believe helps to compensate for odd rooms (like mine) and set ups which are not perfectly matched with the speakers.
Thanks for sharing !
Denzil
One aspect of showing one's pride and joy is that it leaves one open to scrutiny.
That's fine, Dennis. I'm cool with that - I've never been the uptight/defensive or 'precious' type:)
The reason I posted the pics was for the Tannoy aficionados here, such as Denzil, who may have been interested, and in particular anyone who may have wished to build Lockwood Major cabinets for their Tannoy 15" DCs, as pics of the interiors are rare.
Marco.
These are wonderful Marco. And great photos of the inside of Lockwoods. I'm sure they sound amazing ! The one thing I miss on new crossovers is the slope switch, which I know is not relevant with a perfect set up in a perfect environment but I believe helps to compensate for odd rooms (like mine) and set ups which are not perfectly matched with the speakers.
Thanks for sharing !
Cheers, Denzil, and you're welcome. I can honestly say I've never missed the effect of the slope switch, and I have far from a perfect environment, although my amp certainly matches the speakers well:)
Marco.
Lawrence001
19-06-2020, 19:07
Lol - why? It's perfectly relevant to the thread and what was being discussed earlier:)
Marco.Just thought I'd wind you up a bit as I'm sure you really wanted to show is your Tannoys. [emoji38]
And who wouldn't [emoji3]
Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk
Apologies, folks, but I'll get back to the main thrust of this thread soon, and in that respect reply to some of the posts I've missed. However, until then, for Denzil and others who may be interested, here are some rear and internal views of my 15" MGs in Lockwood Major cabs with bespoke crossovers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/hi24s2.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/zOEZca.jpg
As you can see, some nice dusty, 1960s damping wool with 'bits in', which of course is crucial to the sound...:D
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/6X0adq.jpg
Nicely point-to-point hardwired crossovers [in the 'flat' tonal adjustment position], facilitating the shortest signal path, also showing the ported aperiodic bass-loading below:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/yafOqN.jpg
Solid-copper binding posts (and spades), for accurate signal-transfer.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/2v4RLX.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/SZFRgh.jpg
The back off of one of the speakers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/vvhKuN.jpg
The ported 'bottom plinths', on castors (hidden), supported by spiked Mana Acoustics 'Soundbases':
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/t7xS9F.jpg
I also wanted to put them 'out there', to facilitate Google searches, as there aren't many such pics of Lockwood Majors around!:cool:
Marco.
Excellent Marco, Vented Aperiodic isn't a design that crops up up very often and there are some details I'll get to the bottom of eventually such as the sizes of the shelf cut outs, upper and lower chamber dimensions , the vent sizes and also how they vary across the Lockwoods range.
No it wouldn't matter. But when Tannoy designed the original cabs watts were very expensive. As Charlie mentioned to get that 3dB back you need double the power. No big deal now but back in the days before transistors, and for a while after transistor amps appeared, it was.
Here's a thing, and I may be missing something but I doubt it, open up a 12" Lancaster then compare its crossover with a 12" Chatsworth, the crossovers are exactly the same, look at an Arden and Berkeley again same crossover, look at a Mansfield vs an Amesbury etc etc .... so where does that leave the Baffle step compensation?
PS, for the OP's question I'm of the opinion Tannoy engineers knew/know what they are doing. To these ears at least the biggest improvement is in hard wiring-all other things being within spec, speaking of which it isn't just components that age, the drivers do too and the bespoke crossovers that include the driver in the design will always be better than some off the shelf clone-sh one.
DiveDeepDog
20-06-2020, 13:02
In the spirit of sharing information, and archiving development of Lockwood cabs, some internal shots here;
https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/lockwood-academy-tannoy-385-hpd.240904/
The Black Adder
20-06-2020, 13:32
Hey guys.
Great thead.
Just wanted to share some of my detective work and research together with my own experiences with Lockwood Majors and Tannoys on my blog:
http://www.tannoyista.com
Hey guys.
Great thead.
Just wanted to share some of my detective work and research together with my own experiences with Lockwood Majors and Tannoys on my blog:
http://www.tannoyista.com
Yes, that's wonderful. I believe it belongs to a moderator of this forum.
Denzil
Lawrence001
20-06-2020, 20:19
Yes, that's wonderful. I believe it belongs to a moderator of this forum.
DenzilYes that'll be Josie :)
Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk
Lawrence001
20-06-2020, 20:21
Hey guys.
Great thead.
Just wanted to share some of my detective work and research together with my own experiences with Lockwood Majors and Tannoys on my blog:
http://www.tannoyista.comThat's a lovely website Josie I've just read your last review of the pre and I really like the way you go into the detail of the components and the build, very few reviews do that and I really prefer to know these facts before I buy. The photography is very high quality as well. 10/10 :)
Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk
Apologies, folks, but I'll get back to the main thrust of this thread soon, and in that respect reply to some of the posts I've missed. However, until then, for Denzil and others who may be interested, here are some rear and internal views of my 15" MGs in Lockwood Major cabs with bespoke crossovers:
Marco.
Hi Marco,
I have a question re Lockwood cabinets to which I've found no answer anywhere on the planet.
The felt on the aperiodic shelf, can you please describe it. It it dense ? Is it very porous and soft ? Is it like the felt used to line car subwoofers ? How thick is it. And is the felt in your Lockwoods the original felt ?
Regards,
Denzil
fatmarley
21-06-2020, 11:54
The felt looks very similar to wool carpet underlay.
Google image search (https://www.google.com/search?q=wool+carpet+underlay&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk03Sg02mzDwyOGzbadAQpoyHufBd5g:159274030 4468&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiotsSA7JLqAhWmTBUIHS3ZAc4Q_AUoAnoECA4QB A&biw=1707&bih=819)
The felt looks very similar to wool carpet underlay.
Google image search (https://www.google.com/search?q=wool+carpet+underlay&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk03Sg02mzDwyOGzbadAQpoyHufBd5g:159274030 4468&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiotsSA7JLqAhWmTBUIHS3ZAc4Q_AUoAnoECA4QB A&biw=1707&bih=819)
Thanks Matt !
So I guess it would be something like this ?
https://i.postimg.cc/pdHnNbfq/8823-E075-4349-44-BC-BBCB-6-E14-FB9654-D7.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/cabinet-damping.htm
Regards,
Denzil
fatmarley
21-06-2020, 13:19
Thanks Matt !
So I guess it would be something like this ?
https://i.postimg.cc/pdHnNbfq/8823-E075-4349-44-BC-BBCB-6-E14-FB9654-D7.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/cabinet-damping.htm
Regards,
Denzil
That looks like the stuff, but I can't see if it has any wool content. Wool is supposed to be better than polyester for speaker stuffing.
That looks like the stuff, but I can't see if it has any wool content. Wool is supposed to be better than polyester for speaker stuffing.
So the felt in the Lockwoods is wool ?
That looks like the stuff, but I can't see if it has any wool content. Wool is supposed to be better than polyester for speaker stuffing.
I'm not looking for stuffing/damping. I'm looking for the appropriate material for the aperiodic shelf, as close to the original felt in the Lockwoods.
fatmarley
21-06-2020, 22:23
I'm not looking for stuffing/damping. I'm looking for the appropriate material for the aperiodic shelf, as close to the original felt in the Lockwoods.
Scanspeak aperiodic vents have tightly packed fibreglass inside. I'm sure it would be a lot easier/safer for them to use some kind of fabric, so I can only think that Scanspeak believe fibreglass works well in this application. We know fibreglass works very well at converting sound into heat (so does wool).
An aperiodic shelf is usually there to add some resistance to air movement for high Q speakers to reduce the hump in the bass (Tannoy are VERY low Q so shouldn't need the resistance), but it's also going to help filter away high frequencies (you don't want high frequencies coming out your ports). Obviously If you use something too dense, it's not going to allow low frequencies to pass, but if you use a material like wool, that filters high frequencies by converting sound into heat, your aperiodic shelf will work even more efficiently at filtering high frequencies, and won't need to be as dense as it would if you used an inferior material.
Scanspeak aperiodic vents have tightly packed fibreglass inside. I'm sure it would be a lot easier/safer for them to use some kind of fabric, so I can only think that Scanspeak believe fibreglass works well in this application. We know fibreglass works very well at converting sound into heat (so does wool).
An aperiodic shelf is usually there to add some resistance to air movement for high Q speakers to reduce the hump in the bass (Tannoy are VERY low Q so shouldn't need the resistance), but it's also going to help filter away high frequencies (you don't want high frequencies coming out your ports). Obviously If you use something too dense, it's not going to allow low frequencies to pass, but if you use a material like wool, that filters high frequencies by converting sound into heat, your aperiodic shelf will work even more efficiently at filtering high frequencies, and won't need to be as dense as it would if you used an inferior material.
Thank you Matt !
I've been reading about Aperiodic vents :
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/forum/tech-talk-forum/43692-aperiodic-vents
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/124508-tuning-aperiodic-vents-2.html
...and also about Scanspeak vents. I believe what they use is glass wool (not fiberglass, which is slightly different). I'm in the process of trying to figure out the correct resistance for the Aperiodic shelf (material will be glasswool or rock wool). I do believe the resistance of the shelf I was using earlier was way too much. I'm in the process of making a shelf with less resistance now using the right material. It appears there isn't really any formula (unlike port tuning which has a formula) for Aperiodic vent resistance. Tuning is to be done with varying the resistance and then using measuring equipment to check results.
I'll give you a full report about my observations without the shelf (just ported bass reflex) and (hopefully) corrected resistance Aperiodic shelf, once I'm done.
Thanks again !!!
Denzil
fatmarley
22-06-2020, 07:12
In my earlier post I should have said the aperiodic vent is there to add leakage to a sealed enclosure, to reduce the bass hump. In the Tannoy it's adding a bit of resistance. I realised my mistake when I got in to bed, but couldn't be bothered to get up to edit my post.
fatmarley
22-06-2020, 07:35
Tuning is to be done with varying the resistance and then using measuring equipment to check results.
I noticed in the diyaudio thread that you linked to that they measure for the flattest impedance peak (I only read the page you linked too). I wouldn't do that. All I'd care about is what it does to the low frequency response (how much of the peak I'd want to reduce). So if it were me, I'd measure Qtc.
In my earlier post I should have said the aperiodic vent is there to add leakage to a sealed enclosure, to reduce the bass hump. In the Tannoy it's adding a bit of resistance. I realised my mistake when I got in to bed, but couldn't be bothered to get up to edit my post.
Okay, understood Matt.
I've found at the moment (with the aperiodic shelf removed), the tightness of bass has reduced which is probably due to lack of back pressure as you have just mentioned. Some other changes in the sound too which I'll talk about later as things evolve.
Denzil
I noticed in the diyaudio thread that you linked to that they measure for the flattest impedance peak (I only read the page you linked too). I wouldn't do that. All I'd care about is what it does to the low frequency response (how much of the peak I'd want to reduce). So if it were me, I'd measure Qtc.
Yes, I agree Matt.
Thanks,
Denzil
fatmarley
22-06-2020, 08:05
I'll give you a full report about my observations without the shelf (just ported bass reflex) and (hopefully) corrected resistance Aperiodic shelf, once I'm done.
Thanks again !!!
Denzil
Please do. I'm expecting the ported version to have a nasty peak at the tuning frequency. As I said previously, introducing a leak (loosening the back panel) should remove the peak. If you feel they lack midbass punch, shorten the ports. I usually keep a selection of ports at various lengths because modelling doesn't always match reality, and it's very easy to swap port in and out of the cabinets (assuming the port hole isn't too tight).
I think that study of Richard Small's analysis, and synthesis of ported enclosures could help.
Digging around there are a few of these or similar designs. Briggs did some in th'olden days.
Dual chamber vented aperiodic. Fostex do a ported one for the FE83E, they call it a double bass reflex where the upper chamber is ported into the larger 2/3 section....
There seems to be a 1/3;2/3 ratio where the upper chamber behaves more like leaky sealed and everything below Fb is 'vented' into the lower ported chamber which is tuned to the full enclosure volume.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50033184102_9a4c9d6e62_c.jpg
Hi Marco,
I have a question re Lockwood cabinets to which I've found no answer anywhere on the planet.
The felt on the aperiodic shelf, can you please describe it. It it dense ? Is it very porous and soft ? Is it like the felt used to line car subwoofers ? How thick is it. And is the felt in your Lockwoods the original felt ?
Regards,
Denzil
Hi Denzil,
Just popping in quickly, as I'm busy. It's a thick woollen felt, like this: https://hardy-hanson.co.uk/industrial-wool-felt/
That's what you need, but filled with wool wadding, to bulk it out:)
And yes, there's no doubt in my mind that the employing of an aperiodic shelf and vent is a major factor [no pun intended;)] as to why, to my ears, Lockwood Major cabinets make Tannoy 15 MGs (or Reds, as I believe were originally used) 'sing' like no other. No loudspeaker enclosure is perfect of course, but for me they just sound so 'right' in those cabs.
I'll come back to answer some posts [Hi Frank:wave:] as soon as I can.
Marco.
fatmarley
22-06-2020, 11:35
Digging around there are a few of these or similar designs. Briggs did some in th'olden days.
Dual chamber vented aperiodic. Fostex do a ported one for the FE83E, they call it a double bass reflex where the upper chamber is ported into the larger 2/3 section....
There seems to be a 1/3;2/3 ratio where the upper chamber behaves more like leaky sealed and everything below Fb is 'vented' into the lower ported chamber which is tuned to the full enclosure volume.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50033184102_9a4c9d6e62_c.jpg
Good find! - It's interesting what you can learn from old books. Although some information is clearly wrong, you do find the odd nugget of gold.
The Double-chamber reflex is mentioned in the Great Sound Stereo Speaker Manual and also in one of my other book IIRC, but I don't think I've seen the Dual-chamber vented aperiodic mentioned anywhere.
Here's another shot of the wool felt and the overall thickness of the material:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/A5gGbB.jpg
Defo WOOL - do not use anything else if you want it to have the same acoustic properties.
Marco.
Digging around there are a few of these or similar designs. Briggs did some in th'olden days.
Dual chamber vented aperiodic. Fostex do a ported one for the FE83E, they call it a double bass reflex where the upper chamber is ported into the larger 2/3 section....
There seems to be a 1/3;2/3 ratio where the upper chamber behaves more like leaky sealed and everything below Fb is 'vented' into the lower ported chamber which is tuned to the full enclosure volume.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50033184102_9a4c9d6e62_c.jpg
This is a great find. Thanks so much. I wonder why this kind of design has been more or less abandoned in today's world ?
Denzil
Here's another shot of the wool felt and the overall thickness of the material:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/A5gGbB.jpg
Defo WOOL - do not use anything else if you want it to have the same acoustic properties.
Marco.
This is excellent information, exactly what I was looking for !
Thanks Marco.
Denzil
I think I have cracked the aperiodic code (at least for my speaker cabinets)
https://i.postimg.cc/rFPQBxKn/2-B720-CDF-4503-4-CC2-9-E47-F172-D407-FC8-C.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
I will listen to them for another day before I put down all my observations.
All this wouldn't have been possible without all your help !!!
Denzil
theabbot
06-07-2020, 20:31
Any update?
Yeah, the suspense is killing us!!:eek::eek::eyebrows:
Marco.
Yeah, the suspense is killing us!!:eek::eek::eyebrows:
Marco.
I've just applied for a patent. And as soon as that comes through, I'll publish a paper here Marco (I'm open to businesses partnership).
But on a more serious note, I've been preoccupied with several matters. And therefore the delay. However, I did have the time to open the cabinets three times to fine tune them.
I will publish all details here as soon as I have the time. It's all very interesting !
Regards,
Denzil
No worries, but I was thinking purely in terms of the sound. What difference has the change you've implemented made in that respect?:)
Marco.
Very briefly, after taking off the aperiodic shelf (and effectively turning them into straightforward bass reflex ported enclosures), the quality of sound changed completely. They sounded as though they were being played in a hollow room with lots of reflections etc. (I'll give more details in my full report later). So I put the aperiodic shelf back but this time with half the thickness of rock wool (using your photo as a guide). It was better but still not great. I then added half a layer more of rock wool. Now they sound better than your Lockwood cabinets:lol:
I really will do a full report in a couple of days but it's clear to me that aperiodic, if done properly, with trial and error (there's no other way) is far better than ported for Monitor Gold 15's.
Denzil
fatmarley
09-07-2020, 06:42
but it's clear to me that aperiodic, if done properly, with trial and error (there's no other way) is far better than ported for Monitor Gold 15's.
Denzil
There's a chance you could be right, but I think It's an unfair comparison because ported speakers are very difficult to get right. Enclosure size, port diameter and length, port position, and stuffing can all 'make or break' a speaker (especially enclosure size). I'm confident I could make Monitor Gold 15s sound great in a ported enclosure, as I have with my own diy speakers (tight, deep and no boom). Obviously, I'd use measuring gear and simulations to model the low frequencies, build the enclosure, and then design the crossover (as all speakers should be designed).
I'm not saying to keep trying - I'm just saying, don't dismiss ported for the Monitor Gold, just because you couldn't get it to work. Without measuring gear and modelling, you're just guessing and there are so many variables, that the chances of getting it right are slim.
Anyway, glad to hear you've got them sounding nice and looking forward to the full report.
There's a chance you could be right, but I think It's an unfair comparison because ported speakers are very difficult to get right. Enclosure size, port diameter and length, port position, and stuffing can all 'make or break' a speaker (especially enclosure size). I'm confident I could make Monitor Gold 15s sound great in a ported enclosure, as I have with my own diy speakers (tight, deep and no boom). Obviously, I'd use measuring gear and simulations to model the low frequencies, build the enclosure, and then design the crossover (as all speakers should be designed).
I'm not saying to keep trying - I'm just saying, don't dismiss ported for the Monitor Gold, just because you couldn't get it to work. Without measuring gear and modelling, you're just guessing and there are so many variables, that the chances of getting it right are slim.
Anyway, glad to hear you've got them sounding nice and looking forward to the full report.
Yes Matt, I fully agree. But what really gets me thinking and confused, why did all the big recording studios of the time use Lockwood aperiodic cabinets ?
Regards,
Denzil
fatmarley
09-07-2020, 12:43
Yes Matt, I fully agree. But what really gets me thinking and confused, why did all the big recording studios of the time use Lockwood aperiodic cabinets ?
Regards,
Denzil
You could reverse the question and ask - Why did Tannoy bother to make ported if aperiodic is supposed to sound better? Tannoy still produce ported speakers to this day.
I'm sure I read a thread recently where people couldn't understand why recording studios had replaced Tannoys with something inferior.
Yes, apparently some or one studio later switched to JBL's because, from what I understand they were "more accurate".
Tannoy were providing designs for ported and for aperiodic in those early days. They still make ported, horned and aperiodic even today. Not sure why three different designs.
From the Lockwood website :
"Lockwood monitors took their place in musical history, being used during the recording of some of the greatest albums of all time. Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who all recorded with Lockwood monitors. The Rolling Stones even installed them in their innovative mobile recording studio".
What to make of this I'm not sure. It amounts to all these great musicians and their sound engineers using Lockwoods on a whim. That seems odd to me.
Regards,
Denzil
fatmarley
09-07-2020, 16:50
I didn't know Tannoy make aperiodic. Had a quick look through their speaker catalogue but could only find horn and ported.
You could reverse the question and ask - Why did Tannoy bother to make ported if aperiodic is supposed to sound better? Tannoy still produce ported speakers to this day.
I'm sure I read a thread recently where people couldn't understand why recording studios had replaced Tannoys with something inferior.
Yup, but remember that "sound better" is entirely subjective [I reckon it does, as I've yet to hear 15" MGs sound better in any other cabinets, Tannoy's own or bespoke/DIY builds, and I've heard plenty]. Plus even more importantly, what's touted by Tannoy, or anyone else, as 'better' or an 'improvement' isn't necessarily always the case, as is the notion of the 'latest and greatest' new loudspeaker design automatically always being better than that which preceded it...;)
Marketing and fashion/costs often dictate the decisions of any company, in terms of what they promote as 'better', not necessarily sound quality. In that respect, for me, the ported approach is a case in point. That's not to say though that the results aren't good, just that the aperiodic way may not have been superseded solely for reasons of inferior sound quality. Other factors, such as mentioned, may have been responsible for that decision:)
In the end, always let your own ears decide, as there is no 'perfect' way to make anything!
Marco.
Yes, apparently some or one studio later switched to JBL's because, from what I understand they were "more accurate".
Ha!:D
"More accurate" based on what exactly?:hmm:
Tannoy were providing designs for ported and for aperiodic in those early days. They still make ported, horned and aperiodic even today. Not sure why three different designs.
From the Lockwood website :
"Lockwood monitors took their place in musical history, being used during the recording of some of the greatest albums of all time. Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who all recorded with Lockwood monitors. The Rolling Stones even installed them in their innovative mobile recording studio".
What to make of this I'm not sure. It amounts to all these great musicians and their sound engineers using Lockwoods on a whim. That seems odd to me.
Indeed... Not only odd, but I'd contend also rather unlikely! I think they were a little more discerning than that;)
Marco.
fatmarley
10-07-2020, 06:43
I reckon it does, as I've yet to hear 15" MGs sound better in any other cabinets, Tannoy's own or bespoke/DIY builds, and I've heard plenty
In the end, always let your own ears decide, as there is no 'perfect' way to make anything!
Marco.
I honestly think it's because even Tannoy don't, or at least didn't know how to do ported. I used to own Tannoy system 10 DMT studio monitors - The cabinets were a work of art, large rounded edges to reduce diffraction, super strong but with a lot of attention to removing cabinet vibrations by using visco elastic substances in selected places. They'd obviously put a lot of thought and effort into those speakers, and yet they had the dreaded ported sound.
I agree about letting your ears decide. Obviously choose what sounds best to you, just don't assume you've heard the best.
Could well be, Matt. No-one really knows. I think the important distinction, and thing to remember here, is that if we're talking about the aperiodic design of Lockwood Major cabinets [housing Tannoy DC drivers], and what makes them sound great, then we're talking about Lockwood, not Tannoy!;)
In terms of this discussion, it's easy to mix up the two... Therefore, it's Lockwood who deserve accrediting for the aperiodic approach to cabinet design, not Tannoy. As I said, I've heard big Tannoy DCs, of various descriptions, from modern HPDs, to Monitor Golds and Reds, housed in various types of cabinet, and nothing to my ears sounds as 'right', musically, as 15" Reds or Golds, housed inside LM cabs.
Although not 'technically perfect' (nothing is), it really is a marriage made in heaven for anyone who simply wants to fill their room with a convincing and big musical sound, and not fret over 'hifi-isms'... For loudspeakers, in that respect, they're about as close to 'fit and forget' as you can get! :cool:
Marco.
The rectangular York had the aperiodic option.
Lockwoods pre date the use of Theile & Small small signal parameters by a decade or so and their adoption can be seen in the changes to the Tannoy range of enclosures around early '70's. What is interesting is the use of formica laminated panels-I don't know if they just got lucky using a covering that was designed to be durable in the pro space that had significant positive effect sonically. Personally a pure reflex box as large as the Major just doesn't work for me but the Dual chamber aperiodic loading as used in the LM sounds lovely.
Someone please run an impedance sweep.....
fatmarley
11-07-2020, 07:33
Someone please run an impedance sweep.....
If someone want's to send me some 15" monitor golds, I'd be more than happy :) (I'd probably end up spending more time listening than measuring)
If someone want's to send me some 15" monitor golds, I'd be more than happy :) (I'd probably end up spending more time listening than measuring)
Haha, I meant of Marco's Lockwoods!
Shweety, you can shweep my big boxsh anytime:lol::eek::eyebrows:
Marco.
fatmarley
11-07-2020, 08:45
:nocomment:
:lolsign:
Marco.
Damn, the press will all over this ;-)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.