Why do you need a speaker crossover - discuss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

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 would agree that the engineers at the BBC certainly knew what they were doing. It is important to remember that they were designing (voicing) speakers for their own specific applications such as outside broadcast monitoring etc. I doubt that they were ever intended to be marketed as domestic speakers but the licensed companies manufacturing them saw an opportinity.

I have owned some of the BBC derived speakers such as BC1'a, Studio 1a's and LS3/5's. The Studio 1a's gave the best all round performance but the little LS3/5's albeit bass limited, had an amazing soundstage if partnered with a good amp with lots of power. The Celestion SL6 range responds in a similar way. Anyway that's enough about BBC speakers. Who was it who introduced them into the discussion. :hmm:;)

I currently use large JBLs which have more inductors than you can shake a stick at yet sound surprisingly good. :)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...0Arraypg09.jpg

If you really want to go to town with crossovers, this is one found in one of the best speakers I've ever heard.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...xoversmall.jpg

In reality good crossovers are expensive. They are not the ideal solution but better that individual drivers are correctly integrated with complementary roll off slopes and all working within their ideal parameters than something left to trial and error.

Lol - love it, Andy! That's a huge subliminal 'feck off' to the notion of any absolutes! :eyebrows: :eyebrows:

Marco.

As you and I know Marco, when it comes to proper loudspeakers, size matters. :lolsign:

Yes indeed-io, daddy-o!! :fingers: :gig:

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

.... 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. .....

---

A very good point, Martin, imo.

I've come across a few vintage speakers in my boxswapping saga that still have the baggage of criticism from when they were new models. Quacky mids, spitty treble, wallowy bass and the like.

For the life of me, I often cannot hear these faults when used with decent modern ancilliaries.

I do wonder if some of the original 'flaws' were in fact largely due to unsuitable partnering equipment of the time.

Quote:

---

For the life of me, I often cannot hear these faults when used with decent modern ancilliaries.

I do wonder if the original 'flaws' were in fact largely due to unsuitable partnering equipment of the time.

---

Nail>head >BANG!

;)

And that also applies to some other quality vintage gear......

Marco.

It has always been my belief that inexpensive speakers on the end of a top flight hi-fi system sounds better than an expensive speaker on the end of a budget system. I have heard some fairly mediocre speakers with flimsy cabinets and cheap drivers sound very nice when they were bullied into submission by a cracking good front end. Speakers with a modest power rating have produced some exceptional quality sound at high volumes, whereas all too often I have heard inefficient speakers being distorted by underpowered amps going into clipping.

I too agree that vintage speakers should be looked at again with modern electronics and probably why vintage speakers in particular are seeing increased resale prices on the secondhand market.

I absolutely agree with this, and in particular Jerry's point.

This can a bit hit & miss though, as the speakers were developed with the gear we now imply to be somehow lacking. If some vintage speakers are in fact better with decent modern ancillaries, it is partly down to quality, as Marco says, and also a large dose of luck - as the speakers will never have been heard before with the equipment we are partnering them with.

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.

OK before anyone says it again, obviously some things are essential otherwise you wouldn't have a system or music. But because everything interferes use the minimum to the maximum quality. Within a price, or price no object is the choice that creates different product and different price points, but not by adding complication.

So what is really necessary. Is a crossover part of this, my argument is that it is not as its work can be done largely mechanically without adding to the musical interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.

---

Is that an absolute or is just "common sense"?

I'd say common sense is normally just a factor of people's ingrained previous experience and not necessarily a 'truth' in the grander scheme of things. Physics is often less than common sense, quite often counter intuitive (based on common human experience anyway).

i.e. Perhaps there are possibilties where it doesn't effect the music in practice?

In my view absolutism should be challenged now and again to try and gain a more open-minded view point, even if tenuous, if just to provide less constraint to think out the box.

Can we also apply the no or minimal crossover aims over to non-cone based transducers like electrostic panels or ribbons without compromising their qualities more than an electronic cross-over would?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat8808

Is that an absolute or is just "common sense"?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurcher

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.

---

I do mean specifically effecting "the music" and not just whether it effects anything or just the energy flow (physics energy not musical energy).

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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 either

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

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.

---

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..

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat8808

......... 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lurcher

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 either

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandl100

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.

---

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 nat8808

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.

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.

---

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:

"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.

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.

The only problem is I would have to build the first one again as it no longer exists. But seeing as I have proved it to myself (who is the only person that really matters to me) I can't be buggered to bother.

So as far as I am concerned the lateral thought has been applied, as it has also been by Paul Hynes who came up with even more elegant and lateral solution that he talked about in another thread. The difference is mine is potentially commercial his is a real classic over the top nerd-dom jobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stereonow

Well Nat, I find myself in agreement with you on this point.

---

Goodness! :) Not really a surprise - I see similarities in the way we think about certain things.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

---

Even just how people think in terms of cones when talking about speakers shows how much repetative exposure blinkers thought processes - you have to get away from it all to think clearly or, as in your case, come from the outside.

Work environments too are the worse places for any kind of innovation - just a massive positive feedback loop reinforcing opinions and cultures and that then influences business practices. That feeds into the bigger positive feedback loop of the industry as a whole and that in turns feeds back to the work environment..

Richard out of many is in a much better position in the indstry to come up with something new and innovative than many others in the industry so of course I would encourage him to go down his current route of innovation.

Where did Mr Beveridge come from? Another outsider?

Talking of Beveridge.. time to make some tea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat8808

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.

---

So are you dismissing subjective opinions of available commercial designs by an experienced listener as irrelevant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.

The only problem is I would have to build the first one again as it no longer exists. But seeing as I have proved it to myself (who is the only person that really matters to me) I can't be buggered to bother.

So as far as I am concerned the lateral thought has been applied, as it has also been by Paul Hynes who came up with even more elegant and lateral solution that he talked about in another thread. The difference is mine is potentially commercial his is a real classic over the top nerd-dom jobby.

---

I'll have to go over to his thread and take a peak at his nerdom jobby - they're my kind of speaker! Just look at Wilson's (don't know his first name) first design, Wilson of Wilson Audio - the esl panels with some B139 box etc - was it the MAXX Mk1?

I think that prooving it to yourself is all that matters in terms of getting on and doing things - hard to progress by committee, especially if they are stuck in an old way of thinking.

Just wanted to quietly disolve the idea that there are real absolutes as that can hamper creative thinking. They're good to use temporarily though to aid a certain concentration or movement in a direction..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandl100

So are you dismissing subjective opinions of available commercial designs by an experienced listener as irrelevant?

---

Err... had to read that twice.

What I wrote can read the wrong way.. :)

I meant that people do dismiss it unfairly under the guise that that person doesn't know what they're talking about and they're not part of the club.

Whereas those opinions should be listened to.

Well I certainly don't know what I'm talking about technically, but I used to play in a band and I know what 'live' sounds like!
IMO there are certain qualities such as presence and dynamics that are definative, but an even frequency balance is usually the last thing on offer :lol:

What I look for is this definative character as a priority and I would probably accept a cruder version of high fidelity than many. For example, for me a basic is that the sound reaches out into the room, the same way even a quiet note on a real instrument in your room would, so I play at the volume that 'locks' onto the room. Without this, the illusion and everything else falls apart for me. And it sets the scene for movies as well as music - hell, I want all the music in films to sound good as well :eek:

I don't claim any innovation, I just look, learn, listen and apply. I'm not there yet but my current 2.1 route is filling me with the most optimism for a system development path so far in 30 years:

- Big double backloaded Horns

- Treated single driver cones

- Seperate Sub bass augmentation

http://theartofsound.net/forum/pictu...&pictureid=384

OMG - a whizzer! The bane of so many "full range" drivers! Yuk.

YMMV :)

Just shows that it's all subjective! Opinions vary, as ever. It's all down to the compromises that you find acceptable and the very different audio tastes that we have.

Well now colleagues. I have heard first hand what I believe is the ultimate full-range crossover-less speaker. Not a contradiction in terms I assure you. I did however prior to the exposure feel it was indeed a contradiction in terms.

It’s a long story and I know that some people here get seriously pissed off re long stories here. They complain to the moderators and it seems they value superficiality over a lack of ambiguity. I’m uninterested in getting involved in dumb-arse debates about ideal word-counts and so on. And Marco and his crew don’t need the hassle either. So I’m wondering.

I had thought of posting this on my blog. But then there are a vocal few that don't like me doing that either!

Additionally, and I’ll need guidance on this, I’m not sure that my experiences would fit properly and/or neatly into this thread. So ……… should I start a new thread? Is there any interest?

What I will tell you that this speaker is literally potentially lethal and according to the designer will never be sold outside of South Africa. So, over to you gang.

Howard.

Potentially lethal - well in that case it might have already been discussed as someone here is building one. A valve amp without an output transformer (not an OTL circuit) directly powering the plates of an electrostatic loudspeaker.

Potentially musically exceptional as it gets rid of unnecessary gumph! (stones in the river) The only reason it could never be produced commercially is it carries lethal voltage on it speaker lines, which is the only thing that makes those particular stones necessary.

Oh go on, go on Howard!

I go to South Africa, I can buy one there and bring it back to kill meself in the comfort of my own home :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electric beach

Oh go on, go on Howard!

I go to South Africa, I can buy one there and bring it back to kill meself in the comfort of my own home :eyebrows:

---

You'd need (a) a forklift, (b) very deep pockets (c) a power amp unconditionally stable into 0.5 ohms and .......... (d) no heart pacemaker.

Let's first see what the consensus is here. Also, and if you'll forgive the question - where to stick the text ? remains unresolved.

Howard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

Well there is one absolute - anything that sits in the signal path or earth path or power supply feed interferes with the music.

So what is really necessary. Is a crossover part of this, my argument is that it is not as its work can be done largely mechanically without adding to the musical interference.

---

Point 1, anything in the signal path may interfer with the "music," but is as NOTHING compared to the huge distortions introduced by speaker drive units and cabinets generally, so son't worry about it ;)...

Point 2, in your Cubes, you're simply seeming to transfer the job of a crossover to the room interaction, by firstly dosing the driver with loads of gloop (can you guarantee consistency here?) and by placing it on top of the cube, thus making it very sensitive - perhaps - to room and ceiling reflections to do the crossing out for you?

All things in reproduced music is a compromise. You have yours Richard - not perfection by any means - and most other manufacturers have theirs, which you wouldn't be willing to accept, but many others do.

Me? For a very fair price I'd look at Rega speakers today. Simple designs, efficient and yet with a refinement way beyond what they were doing ten years ago. They're really good and I'd happily give 'em house room :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

It makes good rope but not good drive units ;)

Anyway it has all been tried before, that one by Mana according to rumour.

---

Tell that to Peter Qavortrup of Audio Note UK.

A user of hemp. in speaker cones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.

---

To do it "correctly," it wouldn't be a cube would it, as the very shape introduces issues I believe ;)

No absolutes in speaker design, just the compromises one is prepared to live with :)

http://www.sound.westhost.com/bafflestep.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

Point 1, anything in the signal path may interfer with the "music," but is as NOTHING compared to the huge distortions introduced by speaker drive units and cabinets generally, so son't worry about it ;)...

Point 2, in your Cubes, you're simply seeming to transfer the job of a crossover to the room interaction, by firstly dosing the driver with loads of gloop (can you guarantee consistency here?) and by placing it on top of the cube, thus making it very sensitive - perhaps - to room and ceiling reflections to do the crossing out for you?

All things in reproduced music is a compromise. You have yours Richard - not perfection by any means - and most other manufacturers have theirs, which you wouldn't be willing to accept, but many others do.

Me? For a very fair price I'd look at Rega speakers today. Simple designs, efficient and yet with a refinement way beyond what they were doing ten years ago. They're really good and I'd happily give 'em house room :)

---

You original point is fatuous, if speaker distortion masked everything else you wouldn't hear cable changes or anything else of subtle nature. Speaker distortion is frequency based and has nothing to do with clarity or information retrieval unless it happens to be a BBC design, even a pair of Mk1 Kans will show you cable differences and they distort more than any UK speaker I have ever heard, yet when you ignore it they play music. Rocks in the river largely block musical information.

You understand precisely *nothing* about the Cube design. Who told you I use loads of gloop, no one, you just want to make it up and diss. In fact if you were capable of reading you would see that I stated many posts ago the it added less than 5% to the cone mass which was a light mass cone in the first place. So gloop is not a problem #1. # 2 you obviously know nothing about acoustics and room coupling, do you know anything about omni or semi omni speakers, have you ever owned or had long time experience of them, I doubt it, yet you spout like you know everything. The speaker is *easier* to fit into a room acoustic than any other speaker, because the Cube is designed to acoustic couple. Again if you had read previous post the tuning process has been explained in detail, so another heap of crap. So what is left - oh yes your desire to create conflict :rolleyes:

My compromise is my design and I will compare to *anything*. John heard them at the weekend ask him.

Really you wonder why I show you no respect, well at least try to earn it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

To do it "correctly," it wouldn't be a cube would it, as the very shape introduces issues I believe ;)

No absolutes in speaker design, just the compromises one is prepared to live with :)

http://www.sound.westhost.com/bafflestep.htm

---

Again complete lack of knowledge, let me talk you through it slowly. A speaker cabinet that is a cube, used in conjunction with a conical drive unit. I will leave you to apply a little intelligence. Some hints, where does the speaker emit sound waves from and on what part of the cone does that vary with frequency. Where is that emission point relative to the sides of the cabinet. If you are capable of working it out you will see that the only structure that can guarantee not to have a standing wave problem is a cube with a cone inserted in it. Now if it was a planar driver then you would have an argument, but sadly for you it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goraman

Tell that to Peter Qavortrup of Audio Note UK.

A user of hemp. in speaker cones...

---

Peter Qavortrup had nothing to do with it, all he did was copy the Snell designs.

But yes you can make paper out of hemp.

Hi Richard,

Quote:

---

Again if you had read previous post the tuning process has been explained in detail, so another heap of crap. So what is left - oh yes your desire to create conflict...

---

You're posting really well, mate, but just watch the language. I suspect you're misinterpreting Dave's tendency to be somewhat 'opinionated' (and he's far from alone in that respect) as a desire to cause conflict.

I can assure you it isn't. Relax, Dave is not your ememy :)

As an aside, how do you think the Cubes would react to (quality) valve amplification?

Marco.

I rest my case Richard :)

Speaker drive units are the lossy things, generating loads of distortion way above any intrusive effects of a well designed crossover. Any suggestion otherwise is arrogance which flies in the face of accepted and provable (not by me, but by all the reasearch that's been done in the last few decades) fact. That's not to say that one can't hear differences in cables and partnering equipment, but that the driver is the main generator of distortion.

By the way, you admitted to doping your drive units to aid their rolloff. Gloop, doping, call it what you will..

Does the link I posted to tell you nothing of any value, or is the author misguided as well?

I've been the way of letting the room interact too much with a speaker ('Briks, Bose and Sonab to name three from memory) and didn't care overmuch for any of them. At least with my inductor laden two cubic foot oblongs with gunged up quacky cones, well damped multi-ply boxes and a port (admittedly now tuned), I can listen to hours of music OF ALL KINDS and thoroughly enjoy the experience. May not be HiFi to your ears, but once again I'm not comparing as I don't need to :) Far better for me than relentless "rhythm-kings" anyway...

Perhaps others well able to do their own research and maths can jump in and contribute here. The rest can go to sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz :lolsign:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Hi Richard,

You're posting really well, mate, but just watch the language. I suspect you're misinterpreting Dave's tendency to be somewhat 'opinionated' (and he's far from alone in that respect) as a desire to cause conflict.

I can assure you it isn't. Relax, Dave is not your ememy :)

As an aside, how do you think the Cubes would react to (quality) valve amplification?

Marco.

---

Its just more of the same Marco, why should he suddenly out of the blue attack the design of a speaker he hasn't heard, has no knowledge of, and with fatuous statements that bare nor resemblance to reality. I am not an employee these are the equivalent of my babies, at the very least you should try to have experience before you pass such trite judgement as this. I wont quote John from Saturday as if he wants he can quote himself. He was encouraging me to put them into production even though they will cost more than I want because of the acrylic cabs.

Do valve amps create different electrons to solid state amps :eyebrows: They are very easy to drive, my amps don't even get warm on them and an AP10p at under 20w drives them with no problem, but they really show up an amps capability to pass information and they show up recordings to be what they are. They are not forgiving speakers.

If you want to have a listen in your system you can take them home with you after the bake-off - if you are coming. BUT you have to undertake to get them back to me and I have no boxes suitable for them.

Who says I haven't heard them??????? I do have a memory you know and remember the dem well ;) Furthermore, I was trying to defend the traditional way of doing speakers. Serves most of us here alright although there's plenty of room for unusual designs FFS...

I dunno, some people :D

Night night :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

Who says I haven't heard them??????? I do have a memory you know and remember the dem well ;) Furthermore, I was trying to defend the traditional way of doing speakers. Serves most of us here alright although there's plenty of room for unusual designs FFS...

I dunno, some people :D

Night night :)

---

Now you completely confuse me, to my knowledge I have never met you let alone demed you my speakers. Is there some sort of parallel universe attached to this forum.

Yep, my multiverse crosses many timelines and realities - and you think I'm joking :)

I'm a founder member of the TeeDee Barmy Army to boot - so there!!!!! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

Yep, my multiverse crosses many timelines and realities - and you think I'm joking :)

I'm a founder member of the TeeDee Barmy Army to boot - so there!!!!! :D

---

So what this crap about hearing my speakers then or have you been at the funny baccy tonight.

There were wooden NVA speakers called Cubes in the early 90's, but apart from the shape they bare no resemblance to what I have made now, they were just the starting point with a nearly 20 year gap in between. They had good points but are just not in the same league as these, so they could be the only thing you could have heard as these have only been shown to half a dozen people. The earlier prototypes were used at Scalford and Whittlebury last year, but they are not the same beasts either.

And anyway those got stolen when my car was broken into after the London Bake-Off Show. Perhaps you have heard them and know where they are.

Quote:

---

Do valve amps create different electrons to solid state amps :eyebrows: They are very easy to drive, my amps don't even get warm on them and an AP10p at under 20w drives them with no problem, but they really show up an amps capability to pass information and they show up recordings to be what they are. They are not forgiving speakers.

If you want to have a listen in your system you can take them home with you after the bake-off - if you are coming. BUT you have to undertake to get them back to me and I have no boxes suitable for them.

---

That's a very generous offer, Richard, and one I will seriously consider. I might bring my valve amp with me to your bake-off (if it's ready after being re-capped at Anthony's), and base my decision on taking the Cubes home or not, on how well they gel with my amp, chez-toi :cool:

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Bunsen Honeydew

There were wooden NVA speakers called Cubes in the early 90's, but apart from the shape they bare no resemblance to what I have made now, they were just the starting point with a nearly 20 year gap in between. They had good points but are just not in the same league as these, so they could be the only thing you could have heard as these have only been shown to half a dozen people. The earlier prototypes were used at Scalford and Whittlebury last year, but they are not the same beasts either.

And anyway those got stolen when my car was broken into after the London Bake-Off Show. Perhaps you have heard them and know where they are.

---

No, I have never been an addict to anything other than alcohol and can't afford to indulge that these days as some do (£120 per week on wine I ask you.... ;))

If the ones I heard aren't in the same league to the ones last year and these aren't the same as the ones this year, then fair enough. I'll get a listen to current production at some point no doubt and I'll bring Alex as body-guard :lol: