Printable View
I would say its about one of the few absolutes in this area. However what isn't absolute is if the amount of interference is significant or if the effect of "its" absense does not cause more interference than "its" presense. Thats where common sense and judgement has to be applied. But as a absolute starting point I agree with Dr BH, it all matters, but to paraphrase, all things make a difference, but some things make more of a difference than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
No it is an absolute, the same as a rock in a stream will influence the flow of a stream in one way or another, it is an absolute. Or you standing in a storm will interfere with the flow or air which is why it tries to push you out of the way.
And before I am started on again this is obviously IMO!
For me the confusion is created by people replacing those rocks with better rocks that don't influence so much, without realising that just removing the rock takes away its influence completely. A large percentage of this industry is founded on people trying to sell you better (and more expensive) rocks. And so you will see the vested interests at work.
I do mean specifically effecting "the music" and not just whether it effects anything or just the energy flow (physics energy not musical energy).Quote:
Originally Posted by lurcher
Will a human ALWAYS be aware of the electronics being there or are there ways of designing cross-overs whereby a human will not notice?
Unfortuantely there's no way of doing an A/B kind of test.. so you have to rely on it being a thought experiment or only basing it on past experience.
Taking that stance precludes experiments to design cross-overs that can't 'be heard' so to speak - you abandon the attempt and go off in the mechanical cross-over direction..
It's like saying, "that's the best I can do so I'll give up" while nirvana awaits around the corner.
Swings & roundabouts as far as I am concerrned.
Forcing a drive unit to play only within its low-resonance zone without messing around with its mechanical properties would appear to have substantial advantages to me.
I've heard and owned quite a few single driver or minimal x-over designs (apart from ribbons/stats which are a different kettle of swimmy things), and for the most part while I can hear the extra speed and dynamic freedom imparted I would not choose to listen to them due to colouration effects and obvious weaknesses at the frequency extremes.
My fave was the Epos 30 - I assume that was minimal x-over in line with Epos' usual philosphy? Others have been received far less favourably at Jerry Mansions.
I am prepared to lose a little in dynamic freedom for the sake of low colouration and extended bandwidth.
After trying all sorts I can honestly say ... Give me a full range speaker with multiple drive units and well designed crossovers any time! :) I'm happy to live with that particular balance of compromises.
Not at all, if you remove the electronic xover, then you may find the result is worst that if the xofer is used. So the choice at that point is eitherQuote:
Taking that stance precludes experiments to design cross-overs that can't 'be heard' so to speak - you abandon the attempt and go off in the mechanical cross-over direction..
It's like saying, "that's the best I can do so I'll give up" while nirvana awaits around the corner.
1. replace the xover and assume thats as good as it gets
2. replace the xover with a mechanical version and see how that compaires
3. replace the xover with another electronic one and see if that can be improved
4. replace the xover and also employ mechanical methods to achive a better result than any of the either or methods.
What I have found often when trying the remove a part and see how it sounds is that while there is a cost that means that it can't be just used with the part removed, often in the resultant sound there is some quality that was not heard before, so the goal becomes to get that new quality while suffereing from the lack of the part. If you see what I mean.
As a non loudspeaker example I know more about, SET amps have many wonderful qualities, but they also suffer from many problems. As do PP valve and solid state amps. So having heard all the plus and minus points, the goal becomes trying to have the best of each type without their attached drawbacks.
You probably do see vested interests at work so it is definately hard to phathom from a consumer point of view and certainly profits and sales often preclude advances in technology..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
And yes, simplification of something almost devalues it! So people will tend toward complication for a perception of extra value and progress.
Still, that doesn't mean that there aren't ways of making electronic cross-overs that effect the sound less so than even mechanical cross-overs. Certainly a rock and stream is not the same as electromagnetic fields and compents and electrical flows of energy - I would say that thinking about them in the same way would lead one to possibly incorrect conclusions, the mismatch between analogy and reality could hide the very key to solving the problem!
It could just be that no-one has got there yet, possibly because there's no commercial incentive to go any further or perhaps just the right minds havent applied themselves to the problems - normally innovation comes from the outside or fringes of a discipline (the very word discipline implies some required rigidity in thinking) , from people with less in-depth knowledge and therefore fewer beliefs in concrete absolutes i.e. they break the 'rules', have no absolutes.
Well Nat, I find myself in agreement with you on this point. A software patent I was awarded was the outcome of the above, in part. Frankly my invention wasn't very clever at all. The patent attorneys made it look that way to the point that I barely recognised it. The truth is, I just saw a logic-pattern that no one had (apparently) previously done. Serendipity and nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
The point being that the next step-change in speaker refinement might occur in a similar way.
Personally, I thought the 6' line electrostatic driver driving a narrow but 6' vertical horn was the answer. The Beveridge speaker. Without exception, all of my designer and importer pals felt it was the finest evolution of speaker technology. But ....... other matters go it in the way.
Regards
Howard
PS: Neil Bachelor and my son David contributed greatly to the research that led to the patent - as indeed did quite a few of Ian's friends from Latymer.
That seems to back up that nothing is really absolute, things are only absolute in opinion, which is another way of saying you've given up on a particular area or it's a matter of taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by lurcher
Instead it appears you end up only balancing variables, some mutually exclusive, and there's no path that leads to a truer "truth" than another path.
And that's the empirical evidence that gets dismissed and it can be dismissed easily because you're not an engineer and not talking the right language and nor are you able to suggest a better way of doing things by way of proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by jandl100
Yes, I would agree with that, in that, in this domain at least, there is no available objective truth that seems to have any lasting value. But I don't see how that leads to:Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
"That seems to back up that nothing is really absolute, things are only absolute in opinion" => "you've given up on a particular area or it's a matter of taste"
Just because we seem to be without absolute, that doesn't prevent us from agreeing on a (or more than one) dimension of change that we ascribe better and worst characteristics to.