Lol - no worries. But if Andrew's only purpose of making that remark was to wind Richard up (yet again), then I'll have finally lost my patience.
Marco.
Printable View
Lol - no worries. But if Andrew's only purpose of making that remark was to wind Richard up (yet again), then I'll have finally lost my patience.
Marco.
Chris/Paul,Quote:
Originally Posted by technobear
Yes, I have put phase plugs in mine and it was indeed a good improvement. Just seems to smooth out and extend the top.end. I feel no need for a tweeter. I used Planet10 plugs.
Paul,
Regarding the use of two bass drivers, I did not design these baffles, but as I understand it, the use of the Eminence in an OB causes a -6db drop in level at bass frequencies. Using two drivers redresses this imbalance.
Paul Ben Harper is not related to Roy
His music is a mixiture of rock soul blues folk and reggae He has a voice is nearly as good as Jeff Buckley and a good guitar player too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Harper
Paul, the line arrays look very interesting and appeal to my sense of right-ness. However, it's the power amp that has me drawing breath in amazement. What a fantastically simple and elegant circuit. Clearly it's going to be very power supply dependent, but of course that is your game. What kind of output do you get from one of these and is the output impedance low enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Hynes
Those speakers look great Paul. Could you provide more info please? PM would be fine if you'd rather keep it more private.
How accurate is speaker reproduction anyhow?
It depends on your reference. If you like classical or acoustic music, it's easy to compare. Anything electronic (jazz, rock etc.) and you're into a whole world of preferences and lack of baseline.Quote:
Originally Posted by StanleyB
Hi All,
ok, lets take this debate a little further and discuss what we are actualy doing when we use either cross-overs [be it mechanical or passive/electrical]
What are the goals we wish to acheive, and what affect might this have on the performance of the speaker/driver and cabinet as a whole ?
Anthony,TD...
I don't think I am doing any different to anyone else, expressing preferences and opinion. I listened to *all* the new speakers that appeared on the market during the early 70's when the BBC designs appeared, up to 1977 and they were all bland, undynamic and one trick ponies. Do you want me to lie to you to protect the sensitivities of some of your members! And ***IMO***!!! this was largely caused by over complex crossovers. After 1977 I was not listening on a regular basis apart from at shows or shops and what I heard just re-enforced my opinion. It was such a breath of fresh air by the mid 80's to walk into Bespoke Audio in Stockport and listen to some good US style speakers in the Allisons, to get away from either Linn speakers in some shops or BBC types in other shops. I was very much in the minority, but I probably always have and always will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I do not have absolutism or simplistic thinking, I have experience and opinion, nothing more. It is not simplistic when I worked with the design and production team at AR UK, nor was it simplistic to know how those crossovers worked, how they influenced the sound and also designed for both personal use (in the early days), and for commercial use.
How can you discuss crossovers and the influence they have without talking about the two expremes 1/ BBC design 2/ Crossoverless design, and most of the discussion has been about *OTHER* peoples crossoverless designs.
I do not accept you argument - full stop! but I respect you opinion, it is mine that is not being respected. If I feel I am locked in a room and gagged with tabboo subjects all around me and I am not allowed to talk about them because I step on a few toes, then what is the point of posting. I may step on a few toes (I always have) but I don't go around stamping on some ones feet as is my fate from these people. Mine are due to my discussion and opinion *on topic* theirs are deliberate and personal attacks.
My take on it is it's a good idea to have a wide range driver to cover top and mid and mid bass perhaps, and use woofers to fill in the bottom end. This avoids crossing over where the ear is most sensitive, which a lot of commercial boxes do. Also, to my ears a full or wide range driver just sounds more real and coherent.
Electrostatics have particular strengths in soundstaging, imaging and transient response for similar reasons, given that they are ostensibly a full range single driver with extremely light mass. Like anything else they are not perfect, but what they do well they do better than anything else.
I like arriving late in the day to a topic it means you bypass all the bullshit and interpersonal rivalry.
To answer Richards initial question.
Some loudspeaker designers, such as the previously mentioned Robin Marshall design the whole speaker, they are electrical, mechanical and acoustical engineers of the highest order and are able to design drivers, and load them correctly, acoustically, electrically and mechanically in such a way that they require no 'additional crossover parts' to allow the drivers to align in a sonically unobtrusive way at the crossover point. They do their math, calculate the correct slopes and everything works. I doubt you'd luck into this level of accuracy empirically without the help of measurement and calculations, it seems unlikely.
Robin isn't the only guy to take this approach REF 3a also make their midbass drivers this way, though they use simple slopes in their 3-ways to roll off into the bass driver. nevertheless it's the same approach on a grander scale. The point is that they make their own midbass units. Do you see the pattern yet.
Now Joe Bloggs speaker 'manufacturer' might not have the all round engineering prowess to design and make his own drive units. He's pretty much stuck with what he can get from the off-the-peg shelf at Tymphany etc, or what he can have slightly modded from the next shelf down. (Or more likely the case these days from the shelf marked 'custom' which is actually the off-the-peg shelf for liars.)
He's kinda screwed, he has to do something to make his driver choice meet in the middle, assuming he's not picked two drivers that were designed to work together by the manufacturer into a specific volume. So he has to build an ugly electrical crossover to tailor the X-O point and the slopes either side of this point.
That's the rub. You either use the drivers you can get, and stick them in a different box to everyone else and then cobble together a X-O to make them work as best as you can, or you design everything from scratch.
The third way would be to take two drive units that you like the look/sound off. Stick them in a box and then shape their responses by ear by acoustic or physical loading. I assume this is Richard's preferred approach to avoiding the evils of the crossover and it's as valid as any other approach.
I would add female vocal and especially piano and I will completely agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
The taste for only rock and pop has spawned the home PA system approach that was the flat earth.
Yes and we respect your opinions and experience, Richard (it is precisely why you are here), but there are only a finite amount of times you can mention the same things before they become stale.Quote:
I do not have absolutism or simplistic thinking, I have experience and opinion, nothing more.
And that is the issue here, not that we don't rate your opinions or consider them valid.
So, moving on now, I'd appreciate your views on the question Anthony has just posed? :)
Marco.
Sometimes simplistic thinking beats experience and opinions. I have used that principle many times, and with great results.
How long have you been designing valve amps - it seems you have loads of experience. Without that experience would you produce what you do now, I doubt it, to actually "luck" onto something good is like winning the lottery.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyTD
Well for me it is exactly the same, you try things, you have ideas, some work some don't, you listen and you choose. It is that ability (or not) that you rise or fall on. That is the empirical approach to design. My pet hate is the white coat brigade, who see the white coat as a qualification and no one else is in their club. They are brainwashed into thinking that you can create something by purely applying objective criteria, they don't listen. They calculate objectively, they make prototype, they put them in an anechoic chamber and play test tones through them, and read off B&K graphs and say that's it and sign off the design to production. The outcome is more often than not a pigs ear.
Or you get the approach where you limit the design and aim for a specific set of criteria. The opposites in this approach I see as Linn speakers at one end and BBC at the other. They listen, but they have fixed criteria and narrow the potential. It was entirely because it was the BBC design that held the market when Linn first appeared that they took an opposite approach. It was perceived in the early 70's that BBC design was not good at rock and pop. PA systems were making an impact at live concerts (to the extent that you are no longer listening to the band you listen to the PA). Linn persuaded a PA amp manufacturer to join them in the marketing take over they entered into, and the home PA system was born. I personally don't like either approach, but given the choice I would prefer the Linn approach. Yet there were bloody good all round speakers being produced on the east coast of the USA at the time by Allison and Snell that were virtually ignored because of this nationalistic *EGO* thing that the Brits get involved in.
So going into specifics of this cabinet this, this driver that, just applies to that specific product / compromise. The real real question is conceptual.
Richard,
I understand and agree with a lot of what has been written in your posts.
However, What i was trying to get at was, what are we physicaly or electricaly doing to a specific driver and cabinet combination to get the desired affect we require. then once we have established that, we can then descuss why one method might be more desireable than another, i think this may have been what was on your mind when you started this thread, please excuse my ramblings if that is not the case.
Anthony,TD...
It’s nice to see such interest in the line arrays, however, I do not wish to take Richard’s thread off topic with further discussion about them, so I am going to start another line array specific thread, either later today or tomorrow when I get a little spare time. I hope those who have shown interest here will also monitor the new thread and join in with their own ideas. I will answer all your line array posts, since my last post in this thread, on the new thread and restrict any further comments regarding this thread topic to the thread theme.
Paul
Well when I started the thread I was thinking conceptually not specifically. But of course specific is important. All I can do is talk about my specific design. I see two ways to approach speaker design, first would be to start with the basic drivers and cab and then add thing as in mechanical damping and electronic filters to either get what reads flat anechoically or sounds the way you want. I use the listening approach, but once I get to that point I reverse it and start removing things or substituting to fine tune. I have a agenda to remove anything and everything I can from the signal path and still work. I don't see mechanical or acoustical properties as in the signal path. Signal path for me is an electrical term, mechanical things sit *on* the musical path, if that makes any sense. And very often especially if primarily having a damping effect they actually sit on the music and cover it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyTD
Anything that interrupts the connection between the amplifier output stage and the speaker voice coil is decoupling the two from each other, and that can *only* interfere with the music by changing it. It is the compromise of what is needed to remove the imperfection of the object and getting too much of it which then sits on the music. It is just another yin - yang dichotomy. The one with too much is dynamically flat and bland but can be said to be accurate tonally, the other can make you wince but can't stop you wanting to bop or wag you feet :lolsign: I want both but you have to make some compromises, you just constantly try to find ways to remove those compromises.
That's great, Paul, and much appreciated. It's that sort of professional, unselfish, attitude which epitomises what AoS is all about. You are a credit to this community, mate! :)Quote:
It’s nice to see such interest in the line arrays, however, I do not wish to take Richard’s thread off topic with further discussion about them, so I am going to start another line array specific thread, either later today or tomorrow when I get a little spare time. I hope those who have shown interest here will also monitor the new thread and join in with their own ideas. I will answer all your line array posts, since my last post in this thread, on the new thread and restrict any further comments regarding this thread topic to the thread theme.
Marco.
But stay here as well Paul as I for one would welcome your input on the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Hynes
My techncal knowledge on speaker design is pretty minimal: I can read specs without knowing how relevant they are - ultimately I'm just a punter who buys what he likes the sound of. I understand where Richard is coming from simply because the speakers with the simplest crossovers seem to be the ones I like to listen to, past and present (Royd, Allison, early Snells, etc).
However, my other bug bear is the box itself: no matter how you damp it (or indeed, don't damp it, allowing it to become a musical instrument in itself), I'm aware of the "box" characteristics in so many designs. My own speakers are very good (Neat Ultimatum MF7s), but even with these you cannot escape the point source effect, no matter how good the dynamic impact. It's why I love the ESL 57s: they don't do all things well, but they can do fabulous imagery, soundstaging, and the sense that music is not coming from a fixed source, but all around you.
The only modern production version I've heard recently that give me that lack of boxiness is the Jamo R909 dipolar speaker. These are simply astonishing in the soundstage and dynamics they portray, with the bass impact so needed for rock/jazz music, and a total freedom of box effects. I absolutely love them, and when I next rob a bank, I'm going to buy some. I've no idea what the crossover is doing, but I don't really care - these speakers work - IMHO :)
http://www.jamo.com/eu-en/products/r-909-description/
Blimey Jamo producing an acceptable hi-fi speaker :eek: if this goes on Bose will produce one next :lolsign:Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo
Seriously Theo, I would never have looked at them as I remember what Jamo were like in the past, cheap boom boxes. So congrats on finding these.
Theo a lot of us have moved away from boxed speakers because of the issues of colouration that can be associated with this approach and whist I think the Jamo are good the drivers are not the most friendly to drive so consider other options as will give you a bit more freedom over amp choice in the future
Hi John
Yes, I'm aware they really need some muscle to get the best out of them - I think my four Exposure XVI monos can cope :D
The speakers in your avatar look, er, interesting. I assume they are dipolar - are they DIY?
It is possible to design a box that doesn't behave or sound like a box. Material and driver orientation has a lot to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Yes but will generally weigh a ton and cost a small fortune
Theo Yes Dipole DIY and not so hard to make either
OK I will give another of my opinions, but please remember it is my opinion and does not deny or destroy any other members opinion :ner:Quote:
Originally Posted by John
To stop a box being a box. well number one use a material that doesn't *sound* original versions had HDF boxes and they had a sound. The current version uses 20mm black acrylic and it simply doesn't sound. Now lets look at acoustic influence. Well LF is omni directional where as HF beams from the transducer and in between them it slowly progresses from one to the other as the frequency increases. Convention says that drive unit should face you, but as you see with some sub woofers for LF the driver orientation is meaning less. So by putting the bass mid physically 90 degrees out of phase with the listener you have a acoustic filter removing HF from your perception from that driver unless you stand up and walk over to it. All the HF from the top does is provide omni directional in fill to the sound stage. Then all you have to do is gently roll off the tweeter at approx the same rate as the acoustic rolls off the bass / mid oppositely. The doping is purely to control nodes and in fill nulls.
The added advantage is that now the bass mid is in phase with its coupling to the environment (the speaker stand). So there is no potential for even minute rocking vibration that disturbs the HF phase characteristic of conventional loudspeakers. Also bass notes being coupled direct to the environment means that the bass goes down lower and into the feeling as well as heard band as it drives the floor in phase with the music. This gives superb bass definition compared with conventionally positioned drivers of similar size.
Disadvantages, well they need setting up in the acoustic and this is more fiddly than with normal speakers. Frequency balance is adjusted by the distance from the back wall. In large rooms back to six inches or less, in smaller rooms further away. Toe in acts as a camera lens adjusting the focus of the image. When set correctly you create a cinemascope sound effect with a very large out of box image both pasted across the back wall and in the third dimension (this adjusted by toe in).
Anyway that is the basis of the idea, and using the drivers conventionally did not show the lack of crossover potential that this configuration gives you.
Richard could you give a simpler explination of what you wrote, sorry a lot of this went over my head
I don't think Marco was arguing or making an argument.. at least not in the terms that I would call an argument. Just an observation that is out there for others to pick up on too - lots of people love BBC style speakers and even in LOVE with them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Not a fact that can be ignored really - it all comes down to subjectivism and people simply enjoying what they hear rather than worrying about how they are constructed or their design specs..
Someone who doesn't like the "BBC sound" could say that those that do were deaf or idiots or have been brainwashed.. but that would smack of arrogance or fighting talk and really doesn't go down well at all in an open forum like this!
Better to realise instead that people have differing tastes and accept that calmly.
As someone who doesn't know that much about electronics I have to go on what I hear too and have become (and enjoy being) a box swapper and make my choices via my ears. I did study physics for many years and realise how complex interactions can become from a small number of variables and so, especially when it comes to human reactions to sound and music which we don't fully understand, it's all far too complex to have absolutes.
Even if I did know a lot about it I'd still rely on my ears at the end of the day.
I'm surprised really as I thought Richard was the ultimate advocator of subjectivism - it's all in the ears etc
That is why I originally argued that you had to listen, and tried not to describe it, it was this that got me into the spat yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
I really cannot make it simpler than it is, I could make it more detailed and theoretical, but that would probably confuse you more.
What the F*** is this again, you don't give up do you. Why are you so focused on me and not my opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
In a simple way, the B&W Matrix series were the first speakers I'd heard that no longer sounded like a box - to be honest, I didn't realise I was hearing the box until I'd heard them! I'd just sold my house mate my old speakers a day before I played him the 805 Matrix's - he wished I hadn't!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Extensive bracing inside but I'm sure there are much more inovative ways of avoiding the box sound, perhaps one being to use a material that behaves differently. SL700s you can't hear the boxyness either, probably because the bo sound it does no doubt produce is slightly unnatural and so less easy for the ear to pick out.
Probably similar case for acrylic cases - acrylic is crazily expensive Richard, what were you thinking? :lol: Was helping someone set up for a small art show and the acrylic shelves were £60 each alone, just straight cuts.
I hope one day I can listen then
They are in Epping if you want to make the journey.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Pm sent
???Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
I'm not - calm down and please try not to read into things in that way. I never have been focused on you. Surprised, confused and frustrated by some of your reactions perhaps, but certainly not focused on you yourself.
I am surprised that you don't appear to relate to the fact that some people love the BBC 'sound' (if there is an overall sound?). That in itself is only my opinion - my opinion that I'm surprised, surprise of course because I don't know you and gradually picking up on your expressed opinions so as to understand where you're coming from..
Anyway.. Please let's move on!
I was really talking about BBC speakers and how despite the complex crossovers (instinctively I also baulk at the massive amount of metal in there - the Rogers Studio Monitor cross over for the Coles is a tranny bigger than most power transformers!) they do have certain aspects to the sound they produce that I too find appealing.
They don't do everything I'd want so have often moved on, but certainly very enjoyable speakers.
Proclaim Audio has a bit of a different approach to the speaker design and crossover:
http://www.proclaimaudioworks.com/proclaim.htm
This also goes for the Acapella Speakers:
http://www.acapella.de/de/hornlautsprecher/sphaeron.php
Avantgarde:
http://www.avantgarde-acoustic.de/ho...peaker-en.html
Studio Electric:
http://www.studio-electric.com/loudspekers3.html
SW Speakers:
http://www.swspeakers.com/
You need a crossover to allow individual drivers to work within their optimal frequency range :)
Has anyone ever taken a bowling ball and hollowed it out?? Next time I see a couple at a car boot, I may pick them up!Quote:
Originally Posted by jostber
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
Back in the 70's someone produced a speaker with a full range driver (Eagle I think) fixed in the top of a goldfish bowl. They sold it commercially and it was relatively successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
Nice to see you back John:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
Excellent :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
I used Bandor units in a very similar way, a long time ago now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Anthony,TD...
Yo, mate - a very warm welcome back :) Hope it's not just a fleeting visit! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
Marco.
Fixt! :whistle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
Is this statement pertaining to all or just BBC influenced speakers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
We had agreement to borrow anything new from a couple of existing AR dealers, or we would go and do it in the shop. I don't know of any early to mid 70's widely marketed speakers we didn't get to listen to.Quote:
Originally Posted by BTH K10A
Your experience is obviously different to mine. I thought speakers like the JBL L100, L200 and especially the L300 were anything but "bland, undynamic and one trick ponies". ;)
Sigh! you know perfectly well I was talking about the BBC design speakers amongst them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BTH K10A