I was wondering. Does bi-wiring overcome the the technical challenges? Each driver is presented as an individual load to the amplifier and impedance issues seem to be less important.
Printable View
I was wondering. Does bi-wiring overcome the the technical challenges? Each driver is presented as an individual load to the amplifier and impedance issues seem to be less important.
Nope, under normal circumstances it just halves the resistance and inductance and doubles the capacitance of the speaker cable used, and in some speaker designs takes the crossover board earth junction back to the amplifier speaker terminals. The load presented by the speaker remains identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by ursus262
Bi amping is a different matter.
Back to the drawing board then.
Not from your reply I didn't. I asked a simple question to which you responed "We had agreement to borrow anything new from a couple of existing AR dealers, or we would go and do it in the shop. I don't know of any early to mid 70's widely marketed speakers we didn't get to listen to." :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
I give up, it is just continuous attempts to find angles to diss and aggravate, I missed out a word that should have been obvious as that was the subject and what I was asked in the first place - so go play games with yourself as it seems games is all you are after.Quote:
Originally Posted by BTH K10A
Richard, I can tell you that Andy is not the type to play games.
If he misunderstood you for whatever reason, then it would've been genuine. Knowing Andy, he is most certainly NOT deliberately trying to aggravate you, so please stop over-reacting and being so defensive, cheers! :cool:
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, regarding your views of some of the BBC designs.
Marco.
Don't give up, carry on as you are. I had until now given you the benefit of the doubt but you just don't give straight answers and then cry wolf when you are misunderstood. You have lost all credibility in my eyes with your blinkered views and constant paranoia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
As a parting contribution you may want to consider these speakers that did have a mechanical crossover
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...19-8B420A1.jpg
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...19-8B420A2.jpg
And yes they sounded crap but that's probably because like the BBC, Altec did not know how to design decent speakers:rofl:
None too shabby those, I wouldn't have thought, Andy! :)
Marco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Ay, calm down!
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5944/aycalmdown.jpg
:lolsign:
Can you do the Scouse accent, Ali?
Marco.
Shouldn't that be "Och aye the noo Jimmy, calm yersel' big man, calm yersel' !Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Tait
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...09_228x411.jpg
I am sorry Marco that was quite deliberate there was no misunderstanding, he was angling for it. It is ridiculous, this could be a normal maybe informative for some thread and conversation, but there are people who want conflict for what ever reason, I presume to try and make me lose my rag. The thread has largely been about it, there is no way he couldn't have known I was referring to BBC design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
It is not some of the BBC designs, it is all of the BBC designs, it is the principle behind BBC design, which in fact wasn't applied to that many loudspeakers. Recent designs have nothing to do with it as the crossover complexity back in the 70's was due to the crap Bextrene / plastic drive units that everyone had to use. But the companies still call it BBC design because it is good marketing nothing more nothing less.
Why can't I have an opinion? why do my opinions have to be restricted, what are people scared of, surely not that someone disagrees with them. They can please themselves, they can start a thread that complex crossover are the best and say that all US paper coned simple crossover speakers in the 70's were crap, I would disagree, but I wouldn't go on their threads with personal insults and try to disrupt them, so what gives?
Aye, insert a Rab C Nesbitt pic instead, and yer away!
Marco.
That's the whole point though Richard, you seem to think anyone who may disagree with something you say has an agenda against you. Take a chill pill. T'aint so.
Richard, I hear what you're saying, but the fact is I know Andy better than you. He was not "angling" for anything, and was simply expressing his opinion, the same as you. Sometimes you don't always explain yourself clearly. No doubt you think that you do, but I can assure you that it's not always the case.Quote:
Why can't I have an opinion? why do my opinions have to be restricted, what are people scared of, surely not that someone disagrees with them. They can please themselves, they can start a thread that complex crossover are the best and say that all US paper coned simple crossover speakers in the 70's were crap, I would disagree, but I wouldn't go on their threads with personal insults and try to disrupt them, so what gives?
However, it's the aggressive and defensive/overly suspicious way you react sometimes to people's innocent queries, that they don't deserve, and the inflammatory language you're prone to using in response, which is a problem we're going to have address.
I'll give you a ring over the weekend and we'll have a chat! :cool:
Marco.
Oh bollocks in that case you can't read English. Read the posts it is obvious what happened. His retort a couple of posts ago is exactly what it was leading up to, a means of tuning it personal and into conflict, the way a *small* number of member here have consistently done even though Marco has asked them to stop. This is just a continuation of the same process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Tait
One word (or 3 letters) BBC missed out but written or implied in every post before it leading up to it. That would have been obvious to anyone unless they wanted to deliberately ignore it - Pointless.
Quite a few driver manufacturers still make cones that decouple with rising frequency.
The Biflex is an extreme example. Others use pleated cones.
The movement of a whizzer cone is usually decoupled from the main cone at higher frequencies so this too is a form of mechanical crossover and is employed to good effect in my Zu's.
One very clever model uses a metal film cone of varying thickness. It's thinner in the middle. As frequency rises, the outer part of the cone progressively stops moving - a sort of continuously variable mechanical crossover. I am of course talking about the Jordan JX92S.
Any other examples?
Ah will tell ye this-Calm doon!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2670/rabg.jpg
Or ah'll scoan yur napper wi the fat end of a boattle a Bucky, ya bam that ye are! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Nope, it was completely deliberate, he knew exactly what he was doing, create a situation where he could post with personal insults. He was in this thread for no other reason. Where was anything he said constructive or thread contributing, go back and look at the thread, no just looking for an angle, and he found it because I missed out a word and thought it would be obvious that it was implied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
The whole situation is pointless Marco they wont let it go, they are creating threads about it that you have to close. I hate to let them win but there really is no point in me trying to post here.
Struth not someone who actually wants to contribute to the thread, what a surprise!Quote:
Originally Posted by technobear
I disagree, Richard. Much of it is down to the unnecessarily aggressive way you react sometimes to fairly innocuous things, which creates a bigger problem than was there in the first place. You need to learn sometimes not to react, and instead turn the other cheek.
You will gain many more friends and respect that way, which will go some way towards eradicating any problems in future.
But let's leave it there now until we have a chat - ta! :)
Marco.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Why?
Well this is a matter of opinion but to date I haven’t heard a full range driver that gives an even response throughout the audible frequency range.
So, at least for the majority of commercial designs two drivers as a minimum have been preferred.
It is possible to drive a two unit array with separate amplifiers or even by using an electronic crossover; with the later obviously there is still a crossover, it’s just not in the box.
Part of the problem is even full range drivers change impedance with heat. Granted some of the open baffle designs partially overcome this problem but they still present an amplifier with a variable load.
Once again in theory, a well designed crossover using say a zobel network, post main crossover, can ensure that any impedance changes are compensated for.
I personally still favour a 3 unit array. What components and what crossover complexity gives the best results is open to debate.
However, the 3 unit array, with a crossover gives the easiest path for ensuring that each drive unit is restricted to its optimal frequency imo.
I think you will probably be surprised at me chipping in here Richard, but walking away really isn't the answer. In the same way that Marco banning you because some people don't like you being here - isn't the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
I'm going to offer some advice, which is of course "in my opinion" so please, accept it for what it is. Were you ever in the Scouts? It matters not if you were, or not - I'm going to tell you the story anyway... :)
Traditionally, a handshake is always offered with the right hand - the theory being that in doing so, the parties no longer had access to their weapons - in those days of course, a sword.
Now the Scouts always shake hands with the left hand - the theory in this case being that it is a far braver thing to do to put down one's shield and drop your defence.
I'm not sure if that really gets my point across, but I hope so.
And really, I am not trying to be smart or clever - there is much you can offer to this forum, but always expecting to be attacked is only going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy - I really think you need to consider how best to become part of the community and using offence as the best defence is not (in my opinion) the way to go about it.
There's no reason why we can't all get along, if both sides exercise a bit more tolerance, and crucially, respect.
You obviously haven't read the posts, he expressed no opinion, he made no contribution, he asked me questions until he thought he had found an angle or mistake in my reply, that was all he was after. And that is all that a *few* of your members are after and it will just go on and on in a pointless manner, they are not listening to you, they have an agenda, they start threads you have to close trying to angle the subject into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
We have discussed it privately that I will stick with it as I don't want to let the bastards win (as in the saying), but it hasn't lessened, they are still simmering in the background waiting for an opportunity. I am far from perfect but I am who I am that will not change - so as I say it looks pointless.
Good advice, Alex! :cool:
Richard,Quote:
I am far from perfect but I am who I am that will not change....
Everyone can change (a little) if they want to, and sometimes it is necessary in order to make things better. And this is one such occasion.
You told me that you thought AoS and I had changed MASSIVELY, compared to how things were a few years back, and that this was the reason why you rejoined, so if I can change, why can't you?
Intelligent human beings adapt in order to survive successfully in different environments.
Please read again (and digest thoroughly) what I wrote to you last night:
Quote:
Much of it is down to the unnecessarily aggressive way you react sometimes to fairly innocuous things, which creates a bigger problem than was there in the first place. You need to learn sometimes not to react, and instead turn the other cheek.
You will gain many more friends and respect that way, which will go some way towards eradicating any problems in future.
Think about that *very* carefully (especially the bit in bold), and we'll discuss it later :)
Now, this time I'm insisting that EVERYONE leaves it there (and that means you too, Richard), as far as this subject is concerned, so only on-topic posts, regarding speaker crossovers, will be allowed to remain. ANYTHING ELSE will be deleted instantly, and if necessary, the thread locked.
I trust that I've made myself clear, folks!!
Marco.
I've been itching to contribute to this thread for pages and pages now, but didn't feel qualified before to make an opinion before for fear of being slaughtered online. Still.....
I personally like the idea of a well designed drive unit needing as little "correction" as possible and I personally think that this is being done quite well these days and from unlikely "BBC derived" sources too, judging by the anti-BBC speaker design views by a couple of posters on this thread IMO (how out of date you guys are, the main offenders were discontinued twenty five to thirty years ago now and it was only with sluggish vinyl sources that these products really suffered).
The thing is, as I understand it, is that mounting a drive unit onto a baffle is going to modify its response, isn't it? Shoving a modified driver on top of a cubic box may be one way of doing it, but doesn't that just transfer the problems into room reflections? I had enough of this with Isobariks where no two 'Brik systems ever sounded the same due to room differences, even though Linn tried very hard later on to get them all as similar as possible. Get it right and its stunning, get it wrong and you'd suffer. The other thing is that dispersion can be an issue as a cone speaker of say 6 to 8" goes up in frequency and a blocking capacitor on a tweeter a la Epos 14 is going to mean the tweeter is working down into the upper mid and significantly overlapping with the bass unit giving all sorts of possible phase issues? and apparently their acoustic output alone is enough to even set the bass unit ringing in the case of many metal-cone drivers, which take off big-time when they finally let go at 5khz or so, right in the lower treble and this despite steep crossovers being used on some -
Again, as I understand it, a conventional driver-in-a-box setup as most of us use can be very good indeed, the designer-trick being to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts I think.
Rather than adding yet more gunk to a speaker to slug its treble response, shouldn't the diaphragm and motor assembly be ideally made light in weight to increase efficiency? I understand there are modern cone materials out there now which have a fantastically wide and smooth response and with great clarity. This is where my lack of knowledge comes to bear, but it's an honest question - I'm afraid I had enough with heavy cones/coils with my ATC's, the coil assemblies of the 20's being massively heavy for what they were and really needing those massive magnets to get them to work at all ;)
By the way, speech is a wonderful thing to use as a reference because our ears are set up to be most sensitive to this apparently - same thing should be considered when setting up our living-listening rooms IMO. Get our voices to sound reasably ok in a room and the rest can often fit in well. I found in my time that one man's bass is another's boom and another man's clarity, detail and sonic-excitement is another's harshness. Just my thoughts, but often repeated in dems I found.
Great observations, Dave. The BBC Radio 3 presenter's voice test is a mandatory one for getting things sounding neutral.
I wonder whether some speakers of old, vilified for their old-tech drivers, would actually sound very good on the end of current highly capable sources and amps. I used to have a lovely pair of Cambridge R40 transmission line speakers using the classic KEF B139, B110 and T27 trio and a Falcon crossover. I loved those speakers and they remained with me for some years. I'll bet that they would sound quite reasonable driven by quality modern electronics.
I am mindful of Marco's Celestion Ditton 66s, which he and others have been most impressed by. Perhaps the source-first system hierarchy prevails and many older speakers could surprise us today.
I believe that Dave is using and enjoying a pair of BBC inspired Spendor BC2's, both with modern and vintage amps.
Yep, have done for a few years now. They're not perfect by any means, but they don't boom like the BC1 could if used incorrectly and have come into their own with more modern setup and sources - and I knew these boxes when I sold them to a mate back in 1974.. The thing is, I can hear the family resemblance to current exponents of these old ideals and readily accept that the modern versions improve on mine in practically every aspect :)
I think I said it several posts back, but it is all about implementation. I too use a pair of Spendors - SP1's - which were the domestic development of the BC1 - and I really like them - so I am obviously going to support the BBC "legacy" from which they were born. But that doesn't mean I would endorse anything just based on the technology or history behind it - or conversely turn my nose up at it.
We of all forums will (I hope!) agree that it makes not a jot of difference whether the drivers are punched out from old Coke cans and the crossovers need a fork lift truck to move them - if they sound good to you, then really, that is all that matters.
Alex, the SP1mk1 which you have was a development and improvement on both the BC1 AND BC2, as the need was to retain the midrange clarity of the "1" yet with the power handling of the "2." This yours do in spades and, unlike mine, the SP1 will compare properly with ANY modern speaker of quality and IMO will give very little away.
I don't think I mentioned this, but when I spent some very enjoyable hours in great company and audio gear, I was able to listen to some £800 Rega speakers, a three way I believe, and I thought they sounded wonderful. All that gave me cause for concern was a remaining touch of spit-n-sparkle in the treble, which a typical vinyl source would largely mask in any case. In all the FE parameters of pr@t and tunes, these were excellent. What appealed to me was that the timbres of acoustic instruments were good as well, making for an endearing package way beyond the now totally outclassed ELA's of old - IMO...
Quite true Ali... Just calm down Richard ol fella. Nobody is here to mock you. I'm not sure if you understand how much people actually respect your judgement and a lot of your skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Tait
Exactly, though I do object to paying premium prices for 'Coke cans'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex_UK
I've delved inside some very expensive speakers (as I enjoy doing), to find some very disappointing components. Often, there are impressive looking surrounds, which once unbolted, show thin, press steel chassis drivers, held in palce with quick-drive screws into the thin front baffle. Quite often inside there is bell wire, push on tags and cheap x-over components but all this goes unseen by the customer. If it looks impressive, the manufacturer can charge accordingly and get away with it.:(
Quite so. Best to DIY!
Its a shame some manufactures do this I think ots one of the reason we become more cynical
Not gone, just completely pissed off, with a desire to kick a small number of you in the balls.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Adder
I will stew in my juices for a while, as if I try to post and contribute the stalkers and dissers will just join in every thread I start or post in and ruin it - so what is the point. If I feel strongly motivated by something posted in the future or if I am asked questions I will contribute, but that is all. I tried to be part of the community but some of you don't want me and have made the whole process a challenge for Marco who in this case just doesn't deserve it, so I am sodding off into mainly lurk mode.
But thanks for the sentiments.
Dare I say if anyone wants more intimate contact they can always post at Subjectivist, because at the moment it is like wandering through an open field with one man and his dog somewhere on the other side. There ad hominem is banned so this sort of crap doesn't happen. Though there is freedom of speech so *other forums and their members can be discussed or even criticised* :ner:
You were once very kind on there about me though, so thank you :kiss: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
I've given this thread some thought over the weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
I ask a simple question to clarify and ambiguous statement, get a reply that reinforces my "wrong" assumption and then find myself subjected to accusations and insults.
I had decided to carry on and avoid or drop out of any threads where he posted but, the implications of, and the sheer hypocracy of his last sentence have done it for me. This is crap that I don't need.
Hi Andy,
I think you've misinterpreted the bit you've highlighted... Richard wasn't referring to you personally, but rather anyone or everyone, when he feels it necessary. It's a very different type of forum to AoS.
Although, TBH, his whole post was meant to be tongue in cheek, but that has obviously backfired due to the somewhat 'fractious' nature of the recent dialogue between you.
On his site, there is no censorship regarding the discussion or criticising of other forums or their members (probably one of the reasons why it's dead as Dodo, Richard - ahem, but anyway...;))
So that statement wasn't aimed at you personally. If you look at Richard's site, you see what I'm referring to http://thehifisubjectivist.noadforum...wforum.php?f=4
Therefore, I suggest (and indeed would be much obliged) if you stuck to your original plan of carrying on and avoiding or dropping out of any threads where he has posted (if you feel that this is necessary) rather than give up, as you know that you're a valued member here :)
And we've still got our forthcoming sesh to do at your place, which I'm very much looking forward to :gig:
So let's get back to where we were, dude!
Marco.
I don't want to be the cause of yet another member throwing a tantrum and leaving, as Marco says none of this post was about you. You just happened to be the final straw. But ask yourself, what is the title of this thread, why couldn't you post on subject, why do you have to make the subject the poster, me. It always has the potential to lead to conflict, especially if that was the purpose of the intervention *which I am not saying is correct in this case*. It really was frustration with all that had gone before, but really when it had been said so many times that it was referring to early BBC speakers it should have been obvious, So you suddenly bringing in JBL just made me pop!Quote:
Originally Posted by BTH K10A
For me it just looked as though you were deliberately questioning to find an angle and excuse or a missed or mistaken word in error in order to pounce with ad hominem, as so many others had done before. *I* was not the subject of the thread, so why talk about me, why try to draw me into conflict. For me there can only be only one reason, to try to make me lose my rag and get me removed. It is not as though it is something new, I have been stalked across the forums by certain individuals for at least a couple of years with the one aim to get me off all the forums.
Now you refer to my paranoia, well I do have one because I am coming to the conclusion that my opinions tread on too many industry toes, and at least some of these stalker are industry shills.
So don't be silly unpack your bags, go into lurk for a while, and as I have been told "chill".
Back to lurk.
Well this thread created a lot of curfuffle and the BBC thing was brought up again even though I didn't initiate it. So anyway some new information that I think is important to copy here.
I have a customer with NVA pre and power amps using Spendor S6es speakers and he has been singing the praises of the combination on subjectivist, so I decided to investigate them and I find *a more un BBC like design it would be hard to find*
I quote my post on Subjectivist:-
"Well I have just investigated those Spendors Blue Nile uses. Simple well made ported 2 way floor stander with minimum load impedance of 6.2ohms and reasonably simple crossover. THIS IS NOT A BBC TYPE DESIGN!!! they obviously are capable of making good loudspeakers and these are so far removed from their early designs to make it like they were made by a different company."
So as I said before that I thought the old BBC type companies now only paid lip service to the design principles for marketing purposes turns out to be true for this speaker from this company at least.
Spendor today aren't the Spendor of the 70's, for good and bad IMO :)
I re-wired my BC2's the other week. HiFi Dave had been on at me for a couple of years to do it and Alex having a go at his 401 really got me going (summat better had :lol:) You know, I don't think the crossover in the BC1 and 2 is hugely complicated by some that I've seen and, without looking again at the scematics over on the Yahoo Spendor group, I don't think there's that much in the signal path. For me, what makes it look complex is the bit for the little Coles super-tweeter, which looks a bit ridiculous for a 10-12kHz region crossover. Not being a speaker designer, just an enthusiastic amateur, I dare not comment further. The one Spendor which has a frightening crossover (to me at any rate) is the BC3. I'll try to find some pics when I get home and post them...
By the way Richard, I was once told that the radio transformer type of inductors were "better" than those conventionally used, although I'm sure you can tear this statement to pieces, certainly for power handling, which none of the domesticated BBC have..
TTFN
It is the principle that is the problem Dave. Normal principle (used by all UK manufacturers pre BBC design and all US loudspeaker), do it physically if you can and only do it electrically as last resort. BBC design principles, do it electrically and only do physically what you can't do electrically. Their other principle is voicing to the spoken voice, normal companies voice to music.
Re inductors, I hate them (as with all coils) and will only use them as last resort, and then large and air cored - no ferrite!
I really do see where you're coming vfrom, but I ought to suggest (please) that the human voice is precisely what our ears are most used to hearing???????
I should also like to correct, or at least modify the view that the BBC tried to solve all the problems in the crossover. I'm not sure that's entirely true and although I haven't studied their research papers in depth, I'd respectfully suggest that the engineers of Harwood's time and before, really DID know exactly what they were doing, cared passionately about the end result but were hampered by the technology available at the time.
I've heard from a few engineers now that paper cones could be a nightmare way back then. maybe AR got utter consistency, but the pulp "mix" could apparently vary if you weren't absolutely careful. The same with the gloop Tannoy use(d) to dope the corrugated surrounds of their DC cones. OK, I know you'll argue that the transition to bextrene was fraught with other dangers, and I think any of the "BBC Legacy" designers will agree with you. Polypropylene ain't any better either apparently, as the "BBC Crossover "smile"" was put there to hide things going on in the drivers - and my gawd, I live with an exaggerated version of this every day :lol:
What all the rubbish above is trying to say, I hope, is that these days, the BBC derivative manufacturers (the two main ones and ONE in particular) have designed FAR better drive units which do the job with the absolute minimum of messing around. I'm glad you didn't dislike the Spendor S6? and if you think they were tolerable, you'd hopefully be very impressed with harbeth's current models. OK, the tonal balance may not be to your taste, but the way they engage the listener and the detail at domestically-necessary low volume levels is remarkable I think myself. Other well rated "hifi" speakers, like Zu Druids for example, needed the a*se thrashing off them to even begin to give any bass weight or power and at low volumes sounded very unrealistic when I heard them. In comparison, the Tannoy Turnberry was a revelation - a tragedy that they cost so much and noone in the UK will pay the price asked - even half price is difficult to achieve for mint used ones, sadly. people don't know what they're missing, but I digress.
Apologies, I was trying to defend the BBC engineer's way of doing things in the 60's at any rate. It would appear that later BBC models were designed more by commitee once "the gentleman" Dudley Harwood retired, ending an era, and started Harbeth going in 1977. The LS5/8, 5/9 and especially the truly dire LS5/12A, were anything but neutral apparently, although the 5/9's I have coming (when I can get to collect them) may suit my room better in the bass.....
Well I will just have to disagree with you. I was around at the time and was intimate with what was going on. To voice to the human voice is OK but they had a fixed idea of the human voice and that is the BBC announcer using the BBC approved accent, I don't think you realise how fixed and finicky the beeb were in those days, they even taught there announcers how to speak.
Everything I said in my post is correct and as all of them were about 20 years older than me at the time then they are all highly likely to be dead. So take it or leave it - I lived it!
I haven't heard the Spendors *I investigated them as to how they were designed* and what the constituents are. So they could still sound crap IMO I just don't know, but we are onto a good start as one of my customers loves them.
Regarding modern versions and your reference to bass performance, well if you seriously think a port can ever give you real bass then you are sadly deluded. It will make you think you have bass, but it doesn't time, and is often a one note fart. There are only two ways to get correctly timing bass they are infinite baffle, or open baffle, preferably line array. Every form or port or line makes the bass not time.
I agree about ports, but you know as well as I do (better!) that it's to do with port tuning. The ATC 100A's I had were well ported, but nowt ever came out of it as it wasn't tuned to increase bass per se. Having said that, most smaller modern speakers these days depend on the one note fart to give any bass at all IMO. As for my own speakers, the port hole has been better tuned along modern thinking recommended lines and I can live with the results. It certainly doesn't honk like old BC1's did, but all I'd graciously ask is that you don't tar all BBC derivatives with the BC1 or Rogers Export brush, as things have moved along quite noticeably. Not sure about Spendor's current "Classic" series as they refused to allow us to try them once the take-over was completed and the "S" series came along. I believe they've tinkered with wiring and cap changes, but the rest is similar to their late 80's output I believe, along with the rapidly ageing and hardening rubber cone surrounds which lose all the bass after several years. I believe this has been looked at in current models, but some of the stuff from the 90's seems to suffer I'm told, including some ex-video editing suite SP2/3's a mate now owns.
It is *very* simple, things have moved along because those companies (including Harbeth) do *not* design to BBC principles, they pay it lip service for marketing reasons.
I really don't care how well you tune a port it still does not time to the music, and if it is there then music *has* to come out of it. The best thing you can ever do with a port is put a sock, or preferably a few socks, in it.
Hi Richard, or anyone else, would bi-amping, or tri-amping for that matter, with gain/power matched amps into sensitivity matched driver units invalidate the requirement for a crossover?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Or am I being too simplistic :scratch:
By splitting the legs of the crossover then you simplify the load conditions on the amplifiers being used, but you still need the crossover. Or you need to move the crossover to be at line level as in active crossovers so involving power supplies unity gain amps hung around filters etc etc, even more gumf.
The answer to all this is to go back to basics, complication never solves anything. Select drivers and cabinets (in shape size and material) and if need be alter the physical characteristics of the drivers so they don't need all this electronic gumf hung around them.
Or do as Paul Hynes has done, as that seems the best application of full range drivers as I have seen - then no crossover, no doping, in reality not even a cabinet. But it is a solution for real hi-fi nerds and tweakers.
One rule, simplicity with excellence (both design and material), problem solved.