Yep, nice post Bear.
It is crazy... How can a Quad 57 be relevant today? Is it because those who like it are anti-progress? Haven't read Toole? Are literally tone deaf?
Or is it because progress is not linear (building incrementally upon the past) but dynamic (having peaks and troughs - like the share market, say)?
If it's the former than other than purely capitalistic concerns I can't see why someone hasn't built the perfect transducer for $1000.00. Surely with the amassed knowledge of all the guys Speaker Dave mentions above, with CNC machining, with finite element analysis, nanotechnology and mass production we must have arrived at the Holy Grail by now? Hell, even if it cost 10 (or 100) times as much, isn't there something out there like that?
But I'm arguing it's not the former. Progress is not linear. It's dynamic. Which is why a compression-driven horn speaker system produced in 1928 and a PET film electrostat introduced in 1957 are still venerated designs. They're the peaks - few and far between. But the troughs - oh so very long and often, so very deep.
The trouble I have with all this posturing about the WE is that some of you who get defensive when some of us ask for measurements don't really WANT to know WHY the WE sounds as "good" as it does. Do you? Do you really want to know the physics and objective reasons as to why the driver does what it does or do you just want to go on and on arguing with those who want to know the "WHY"?. In over 800 posts now there was a grand total of ONE frequency response posted from an unknown source other than it being probably from Japan.You argue that progress comes with the past knowledge being forgotten along the way but at the same time don't care to find out about that knowledge, you just want to listen to the ancient driver and marvel at it instead. Honestly, what is the point if you don't care to discover perhaps how to bring back that "magic" through discovery by measuring and building?
I hope you are not including me in that - I definitely would like to know the "why" and think I've made that clear. I'm tired of saying "it sounds great", because I know it does. Knowing more about why it sounds great interests me. I think the horn has as much to do with it as the driver. Still, what's wrong with liking how it sounds? I don't have to know why a singer sounds great to enjoy the fact that she does, or why a Stradivarius sounds good, to hear that it does and enjoy it. How many people actually care "why?"
FWIW, I did find a FR posted somewhere on the Web yesterday, but it didn't seem reliable, so I didn't post it. Could find it again, if wanted.
FWIW, I did find a FR posted somewhere on the Web yesterday, but it didn't seem reliable, so I didn't post it. Could find it again, if wanted.
Nice to know that in addition to the speaker geniuses of the mid 20’s that there was one other competent designer in ’57.
This debate is identical to one that raged over on Classic Speakers, the Acoustic Research web site. There it was over the AR3 and 3a. One side felt the speakers were the best of all time, that any progress since was in areas of no importance. That is was sacrilege to say anything the least bit critical of Vilchur’s masterpiece. Others stated that it was good for its time but handily surpassed in the decades that followed (I’ll let you guess which side of the debate I was on).
The truth is that the AR3 and 3a were quite good for their time. The drivers had good response on and off axis and the acoustic suspension woofer/box system went lower with less distortion than most competitors. On the other hand the understanding of crossover design at that time was, to be charitable, basic. The three crossover sections were designed as isolated sections and didn’t blend at all. (Many DIYers here could do a much better crossover with today’s tools.) Tweeter sensitivity was inadequate and the cabinet design had huge edge reflection problems. Both contemporary and modern measurements show all these faults.
"No matter", the fans said. "Forget about direct response and measure it in a reverberant room and it is perfect enough." To justify their belief that the system was the best ever, they had to ignore the body of science that shows the importance of the direct sound and downplay modern crossover theory. The AR3a sounds dull and midrangey, but that is just because we’ve been ruined by modern balances that ignore the far field balance of an orchestra.
I think “good for their time” is the key to this. There have been systems that stood out as clearly superior to their peers, the 57 ELS, the AR3, maybe the B&W 801 and, yes, the early WE designs. They represent a big step forward and it takes time for competitors to catch up with (and surpass) them. For that reason they deserve all the acclaim and reverence we can muster, with a proper perspective. The problem comes when the AR fans make the leap from “great in their day” to “never bettered” and then have to deny all technical progress after that date as irrelevant. It becomes a pretty silly argument when you step back and look at it.
As to the 57 ELS, we (KEF engineering) used to have dinner with Peter Walker once a month and you would have a hard time convincing him that his “63” wasn’t head and shoulders better than the previous design. He constantly grumbled about the difficulty of building the older drive units with any consistency, the archaic tooling used for replacement drivers (tin cans filled with rocks on strings), the power handling issues, an inability to get good diaphragm material, etc. He, silly engineer that he was, would point out that the new design was smoother and flatter on and off axis and played lower with less distortion.
I like the ’57. Within its limits of bandwidth and output, and sitting in the very narrow sweet spot, it is a well balanced and musical speaker. Compare it to all the others 50’s flagships, the JBL Hartsfield, the Bozak B310, the Jensen Imperial, the Klipschorn, the Altec A7, and most are laughably colored compared to the Quad ELS.
Never bettered?
David
This debate is identical to one that raged over on Classic Speakers, the Acoustic Research web site. There it was over the AR3 and 3a. One side felt the speakers were the best of all time, that any progress since was in areas of no importance. That is was sacrilege to say anything the least bit critical of Vilchur’s masterpiece. Others stated that it was good for its time but handily surpassed in the decades that followed (I’ll let you guess which side of the debate I was on).
The truth is that the AR3 and 3a were quite good for their time. The drivers had good response on and off axis and the acoustic suspension woofer/box system went lower with less distortion than most competitors. On the other hand the understanding of crossover design at that time was, to be charitable, basic. The three crossover sections were designed as isolated sections and didn’t blend at all. (Many DIYers here could do a much better crossover with today’s tools.) Tweeter sensitivity was inadequate and the cabinet design had huge edge reflection problems. Both contemporary and modern measurements show all these faults.
"No matter", the fans said. "Forget about direct response and measure it in a reverberant room and it is perfect enough." To justify their belief that the system was the best ever, they had to ignore the body of science that shows the importance of the direct sound and downplay modern crossover theory. The AR3a sounds dull and midrangey, but that is just because we’ve been ruined by modern balances that ignore the far field balance of an orchestra.
I think “good for their time” is the key to this. There have been systems that stood out as clearly superior to their peers, the 57 ELS, the AR3, maybe the B&W 801 and, yes, the early WE designs. They represent a big step forward and it takes time for competitors to catch up with (and surpass) them. For that reason they deserve all the acclaim and reverence we can muster, with a proper perspective. The problem comes when the AR fans make the leap from “great in their day” to “never bettered” and then have to deny all technical progress after that date as irrelevant. It becomes a pretty silly argument when you step back and look at it.
As to the 57 ELS, we (KEF engineering) used to have dinner with Peter Walker once a month and you would have a hard time convincing him that his “63” wasn’t head and shoulders better than the previous design. He constantly grumbled about the difficulty of building the older drive units with any consistency, the archaic tooling used for replacement drivers (tin cans filled with rocks on strings), the power handling issues, an inability to get good diaphragm material, etc. He, silly engineer that he was, would point out that the new design was smoother and flatter on and off axis and played lower with less distortion.
I like the ’57. Within its limits of bandwidth and output, and sitting in the very narrow sweet spot, it is a well balanced and musical speaker. Compare it to all the others 50’s flagships, the JBL Hartsfield, the Bozak B310, the Jensen Imperial, the Klipschorn, the Altec A7, and most are laughably colored compared to the Quad ELS.
Never bettered?
David
Sure DavidL, makes perfect sense.
Measurements are a window on what a driver is doing.
They are not likely to tell you anything much about how it sounds.
I have not found any system of measurements that will correlate back to how a driver sounds, have you?
Having said that, I am all for a comprehensive investigation and measurement of the 555 driver and its performance on any given WE or other horn. Problem is that one would have to have the measurement gear AND a 555 driver both. Very few have that. So until someone who has both does that work, we have to make do with the information that comes forth, from any sources.
Part of the discussion involves the possibility that someone will happen by that brings a bit of new information, or that two or more people manage to get together to make something new happen.
Seems to me DavidL, that you are constantly complaining and saying less than constructive things rather than contributing and building upon what information we have at hand.
And, if you can say why any driver sounds the way it does, that "why" you mentioned, please say; I'd like to know this?
_-_-bear
Measurements are a window on what a driver is doing.
They are not likely to tell you anything much about how it sounds.
I have not found any system of measurements that will correlate back to how a driver sounds, have you?
Having said that, I am all for a comprehensive investigation and measurement of the 555 driver and its performance on any given WE or other horn. Problem is that one would have to have the measurement gear AND a 555 driver both. Very few have that. So until someone who has both does that work, we have to make do with the information that comes forth, from any sources.
Part of the discussion involves the possibility that someone will happen by that brings a bit of new information, or that two or more people manage to get together to make something new happen.
Seems to me DavidL, that you are constantly complaining and saying less than constructive things rather than contributing and building upon what information we have at hand.
And, if you can say why any driver sounds the way it does, that "why" you mentioned, please say; I'd like to know this?
_-_-bear
Speaker Dave, I did not say "never bettered". Please don't exaggerate.
Peter Walker's opinion of his "new baby" in the form of the 63 notwithstanding, the question is not the one you seem to be answering. I said, if there was so much progress then why isn't a speaker like the 57 unremarkable except in a historical perspective? Or, what speakers eclipse it, which speakers are an order of magnitude better? Conversely, if not an order of magnitude better, why not after all of this time and "progress"?? Forget about WE for the moment.
_-_-
Peter Walker's opinion of his "new baby" in the form of the 63 notwithstanding, the question is not the one you seem to be answering. I said, if there was so much progress then why isn't a speaker like the 57 unremarkable except in a historical perspective? Or, what speakers eclipse it, which speakers are an order of magnitude better? Conversely, if not an order of magnitude better, why not after all of this time and "progress"?? Forget about WE for the moment.
_-_-
Sure they do.
They are defensive because you are assuming a lack of measurements is relevant to sound quality.
I think some of you guys may want to re-read what speaker Dave has actually written. He makes a very sensible, and fairly obvious argument, about engineering and design IMHO.
Stepping back and looking at some of the arguments, I can't help but think: Thank goodness that audio enthusiasts are not designing medical devices, fire alarms, braking systems, ladders, airplanes, etc.
Stepping back and looking at some of the arguments, I can't help but think: Thank goodness that audio enthusiasts are not designing medical devices, fire alarms, braking systems, ladders, airplanes, etc.
I disagree because there are some (me, for example) who have heard the W.E. gear compared to more recent equipment and still found the W.E. to be superior in many ways. Not all ways, just many. When used in the same way as modern gear, it can be as good or better - often better.
That's not antique worship, it's just plain hearing. I get surprised by what sounds good or bad all the time and the quality of the dusty old W.E. gear was a big surprise for me. To suggest antique worship is just a cop out, an excuse for telling us why we like it. Maybe it actually does sound better. Or is that simply not possible because it's old?
I know there are cults of antique worship out there, like the AR stuff (good, but not great - it's what I grew up on). But just because it's old does not mean that's why someone thinks it sounds great. That's become a pretty tired refrain.
The main argument here seems to be "It sounds great" vs "It can't sound great." Perhaps some day we'll get some good measurements, or maybe some of you will get a chance to hear it. Unit then, what's the point of that argument? There is no way it can be settled.
I'd rather discuss the technical details, if possible. But maybe that's not as much fun?
Not drivers but systems. Olive has found the weighting factors that can be applied to system measurements to create a single value performance number that directly correlates (correlates to a very high degree) to the rank ordering of systems achieved in blind listening tests.
AES E-Library A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part I - Listening Test Results
(also in Toole's book)
Key factors are axial response flatness, on and near off axis response smoothness and bass extension.
The science is a lot more settled than you would guess.
David
Me too, as those have nothing to do with art or emotion. At least we can hope they don't!
I suspect that the WE engineers weren't using "art" or "emotion" in the design. I'm also somewhat frustrated by the lack of any actual measurements or technical analysis so have more than a little sympathy for Dave- with no data and no way for any of us to listen to it, the discussion devolves into anecdote and philosophical meandering. I truly wish that the one guy here who has access to the system in question would stop getting huffy, break out a measurement mike, and show us what the system can do!
SY, agree, that would be nice. Perhaps some gentle persuasion might yield results?
Speaker Dave, sorry not being an AES member I can't access the paper in question. But, the abstract says he is comparing to Consumer Union (Consumer Reports magazine) methods? Dunno that I care what speakers CU thinks are "good"??
Beyond that, I can't comment, since I can't read the paper. Feel free to quote or post relevant excerpts under the "fair use" presumption.
I'd prefer if rather than saying that "science is settled" or things like that, if you would please give some real world examples when the opportunity arises?
_-_-bear
Speaker Dave, sorry not being an AES member I can't access the paper in question. But, the abstract says he is comparing to Consumer Union (Consumer Reports magazine) methods? Dunno that I care what speakers CU thinks are "good"??
Beyond that, I can't comment, since I can't read the paper. Feel free to quote or post relevant excerpts under the "fair use" presumption.
I'd prefer if rather than saying that "science is settled" or things like that, if you would please give some real world examples when the opportunity arises?
_-_-bear
I don't even suspect it, I'm sure of it. They were the rocket scientists of the day. They got great results from great engineering.
But what was the end use of their work? Cinema - the Seventh Art. Dialog was the most important thing, but singing and other sounds were also important. Isn't the end use of music systems art? Otherwise it's just a paging squawk box. Designing medical devices or airplanes is not usually considered a conduit for the delivery of art (despite some rather pretty airplanes.)
I agree that until we get more technical details, it's mostly just conjecture and philosophy. So far, that hasn't slowed things down much, perhaps the contrary.
I was reading this and was going to let it simply pass by as yet another example of hyperbolic argument, but then it hit me... quite a number of audio enthusiasts DO work in roles where they do exactly those sorts of jobs!
Thought that worth noting.
_-_-bear
He didn't say that and for you to wrap it in quotation marks is miss leading and incendiary.
I don't have a dog in this fight but I suspect there is measurment data in the possession of the likes of those who for example have built amplifiers specifically for the WE system that went to show in Germany.
While I would agree that measurements don't tell the whole tale, as a friend of mine once said, a guy with no data is just another guy with an opinion.
Threads like this are for me both interesting and amusing.
"Politics and religion make this a great place to work." Nixon.
With the cost of ownership so high, and performance expectations to match, I'm afraid it's not going to happen. Too much downside risk.
Putting myself in the shoes of an owner of a WE15a, I would have huge reservations about subjecting my baby to that kind of scrutiny. I would be afraid that a poor showing would cause many people to summarily dismiss it and marginalize me for liking it.
That's really too bad, because some of the rest of us really want to know more about the actual physics taking place so we can tinker and riff on the concept (this is DIYaudio.com, after all, so nothing can remain a "black box" here for long).
No matter how the measurements look, I, for one, will not judge. I accept that our understanding of psycho-acoustics is developing, and there is definitely room for the possibility that something that doesn't measure flat or have particularly low distortion can still sound great. Those measurements are still valuable, though, because they can guide us to what aspects are important.
I was listening to a pair of JBL LSR32's recently (really excellent monitors), until my 18-mo.-old mashed in one of the tweeters. I promptly turned the speakers to the wall to prevent further damage and put a junky little plastic Bluetooth speaker up so the family could have something to listen to. Later, while in the kitchen, I suddenly stopped what I was doing because it sounded like someone was singing in our living room. I knew it was a recording, but I still had to go into the living room and listen more closely. The vocals sounded like flesh and blood.
I'm only admitting this to demonstrate that I am a wide-eyed rube who finds sparks of magic in $50 worth of plastic, so no one need fear that I will turn up my nose at a less-than-perfect measurement result.
So let's have 'em!
Pano,
As I was playing with the sim to try to answer your question, I realized I had forgotten to add the 2.84 sq. cm. throat constriction in front of the diaphragm to the model, which makes a big difference.
So everyone please disregard my previous post about flare frequency and diaphragm excursion!
Here is the corrected info:
As far as I can tell, the 15a horn seems to follow the ideal exponential expansion rate for its 15-foot length with its mouth area (17,178 sq. cm.) ideally sized to radiate into half-space. The flare frequency is 52Hz. (In full-space, the flare is still 52Hz, but the mouth is undersized, so the lower end gets choppy from sub-ideal termination.)
The new sim indicates that a one-way diaphragm excursion of 0.25mm will yield 100dB @ 1m in half space--significantly less excursion than the previous calculation. Without a high-pass filter, the same voltage will cause a maximum excursion of 0.85mm @ 50Hz.
I wish someone could tell us the diaphragm-to-phase-plug spacing in a 555 driver, as that would tell us a lot about the maximum SPL vs. freq. before the diaphragm smacks into the phase plug.
I was trying to find a PDF where the Harman white papers are, but no luck yet. It is also well paraphrased in the Toole book in one of the later chapters.
At his blog spot he talks briefly about the Consumers Union connection:
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: January 2009
Basically it is a multivariable analysis using linear regression (which I don't fully understand). A group of speakers was ranked in the usual Toole/Olive way. On blind tests you compared a large number of pairings and ranked the speakers on a numerical scale. The individual rankings where then added up for a total accuracy score. The second part was to measure all the factors that could be important and then do the linear regression. That is, a math analysis to see if there is a correlation between any particular factor and speakers that did good or bad in the tests. Some measurements would have no correlation to ranking (didn't matter whether a speaker measured well or badly in that regard). Others a positive correlation (good results in that measurement tends to orrespond to a well liked speaker). Still other variables could have a negative correlation.
In the end you can come up with a "formula" that says: "measure these parameters and assign a weighting factor to each parameter" Add up the numbers and the final score will directly relate to your preferences in a blind listening test. Note that this has been done in other fields and Beranek and others have had some success working out the appropriate weightings for concert hall evaluation.
He was able to work out the variables and weightings to get great correlation with the listening tests. The CU connection was that they had tried a similar numerical weighting based on system power response and Olive ran his own rankings with the same speaker models and found his rankings and CU rankings were unrelated i.e. CU had picked the wrong variables.
The study was done twice, once for bookshelf speakers and once for a broader range of speakers, and the variable ordering was a little different between the two. In both cases the big factors were response smoothness and axial response flatness, plus -10dB bass cutoff. Phase response or distortion measurements were not big factors. Power response smoothness was a factor but power response flatness was not.
David
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.