Anything that measures as flat as the 8c is interesting in my book. I think at that level it's more interesting in terms of what it represents as a benchmark in manufacturing and design than what it can practically offer to people as a product.
Another example being the 3D printed speaker set by another Dutch designer (interestingly enough).
snowmen speaker set – Dirk Vander Kooij
Silly price and plenty to criticise about them from a practical perspective (they're far too large for what they do, for example), but they're of academic interest as a reference for others who consider to print speakers in 3D. They show it can be done, first of all, and on a large scale. Not economically but with a little applied creativity (and well optimised corner cutting) to the basic concepts being showcased, it can be. The same may be true of designs like the 8c.
Keyser references Floyd Toole as a source of the theory behind the box, which is a bit vague but it offers a starting point, and details shared of the design process can also be picked up on. I've got no interest (personal or in any other sense) in monitors at that level when used for their intended purpose (or at least the purposes that are most immediately apparent). I think it's excessive, personally, for what anyone really needs, but it does at least place some loose bits of information in my head that weren't there before, and maybe they'll pop back up again for some useful and relevant purpose at some other point in time.
Even the idea that "the people at Dutch & Dutch make excessively high fidelity audio products, have an apparently solid grasp on baffle edge diffraction effects, and seem happy to make themselves and their methods relatively accessible" is a valuable piece of information.
The only real concern is that things may drift over into snake oil territory. It's a very fine line if you don't understand the underlying science well enough, which I don't.
Another example being the 3D printed speaker set by another Dutch designer (interestingly enough).
snowmen speaker set – Dirk Vander Kooij
Silly price and plenty to criticise about them from a practical perspective (they're far too large for what they do, for example), but they're of academic interest as a reference for others who consider to print speakers in 3D. They show it can be done, first of all, and on a large scale. Not economically but with a little applied creativity (and well optimised corner cutting) to the basic concepts being showcased, it can be. The same may be true of designs like the 8c.
Keyser references Floyd Toole as a source of the theory behind the box, which is a bit vague but it offers a starting point, and details shared of the design process can also be picked up on. I've got no interest (personal or in any other sense) in monitors at that level when used for their intended purpose (or at least the purposes that are most immediately apparent). I think it's excessive, personally, for what anyone really needs, but it does at least place some loose bits of information in my head that weren't there before, and maybe they'll pop back up again for some useful and relevant purpose at some other point in time.
Even the idea that "the people at Dutch & Dutch make excessively high fidelity audio products, have an apparently solid grasp on baffle edge diffraction effects, and seem happy to make themselves and their methods relatively accessible" is a valuable piece of information.
The only real concern is that things may drift over into snake oil territory. It's a very fine line if you don't understand the underlying science well enough, which I don't.
Last edited:
Zzzz... you speak like a politician after a Daesh attack, are you also part of the business?
No. But it should be noted that if there is any merit to their methods and it's not in snake oil territory, there looks to be very little defensible about their product that could stop another similarly skilled and equipped producer of sound equipment from cloning a fair approximation of it at a much lower price, and if DIYers can glean anything useful from that, so much the better.
Something like a Mackie HR824 ie, or one of the Genelec designs, both of which have advanced a lot in recent revisions, and no doubt in part this may be attributed to the work of companies who push the envelope.
Are D&D actually pushing the envelope? Don't ask me. I have literally no idea how many speakers have plots similarly flat to the Kii 3 or the 8c because it's a market I basically never look at, so the last thing you want to do is assume that I know what I'm talking about (or that I'm trying to suggest that I do). I'm interested to understand better and if you think I'm talking out of my **** then call me out. With useful information if possible, to disabuse me of my folly.
Something like a Mackie HR824 ie, or one of the Genelec designs, both of which have advanced a lot in recent revisions, and no doubt in part this may be attributed to the work of companies who push the envelope.
Are D&D actually pushing the envelope? Don't ask me. I have literally no idea how many speakers have plots similarly flat to the Kii 3 or the 8c because it's a market I basically never look at, so the last thing you want to do is assume that I know what I'm talking about (or that I'm trying to suggest that I do). I'm interested to understand better and if you think I'm talking out of my **** then call me out. With useful information if possible, to disabuse me of my folly.
Last edited:
Is this a discussion for Gear Sluts (aka Biyaudio) on a Diyaudio topic about diffractions control...Remember that?
This ought to be a discussion to which D2D contribution should strictly limit to topic, and obviously they didn't want to miss the opportunity to BUZZZ...
And in those cases, as you might understand, i will fight the intruder with NO MERCY!!!!
Last edited:
Simple acoustic recordings of a couple of instruments and a voice are the favourite of sound system salesmen because of their very simplicity. It's almost impossible for it not to sound convincing. Far better test is full orchestra or multilayered complex mixes the likes of which will rarely be heard or appreciated by the majority of customers
In these days and age with plenty of low budget equipment and even free SW available aiding in loudspeaker designing it's not that difficult anymore creating a speaker exhibiting a relatively flat frequency response, what I would like see more is CSD (waterfall) measurements which could set speakers more apart.
Have you Keyser done any CSD measurement yet on your new monitors, none the less, the little I have seen and understand I think you have done a great job with your monitors, it's appreciable to have guys like you here on this forum sharing your experiences creating a positive reciprocal synergy between diy'ers and commercial producers.
Have you Keyser done any CSD measurement yet on your new monitors, none the less, the little I have seen and understand I think you have done a great job with your monitors, it's appreciable to have guys like you here on this forum sharing your experiences creating a positive reciprocal synergy between diy'ers and commercial producers.
Yea fair enough I see your point.
Veering off topic into the merits of commercial speaker wasn't appropriate.
Tad hyperbolic to compare manufacturer plugging to a Daesh attack perhaps.
(Uh-oh, there I go again. Subtly putting emphasis on the letters 'TAD'! Is there no one I won't shill for?)
Veering off topic into the merits of commercial speaker wasn't appropriate.
Tad hyperbolic to compare manufacturer plugging to a Daesh attack perhaps.
(Uh-oh, there I go again. Subtly putting emphasis on the letters 'TAD'! Is there no one I won't shill for?)
Wavebourn,
You have a very cool setup. Didn't know that Netflix has that Jean Reno movie. You know what I'll be watching tonight! BTW dinosaur eggs are totally cool. Wish I had some!
Back to speakers...
When I first saw the B&W Nautilus on a magazine cover, I was instantly fascinated. It's ridiculously high price was also a shocking - before that, I have not imagined speakers can get so expensive. (Foolish youth!)
Spent lot of time thinking about designs inspired by the Nautilus.
Unfortunately I got to hear them. In a very fancy setup with eight monoblocks each costing its weight in gold driving each driver. The tension (and the heat from the amp factory) in the room was palpable as we waited for the music to start. Well, it was one of the poorest sounds (and greatest disappointments) I ever heard in my life. B&Ws entry level DM302 beat it in every aspect - not by little margin, but by very far.
However, the look on people's faces was priceless - everyone trying very, very hard to figure out how to justify spending in the range of million $ (includes the rig playing) to get sound so bad. This sentiment was on everyone's forehead: "I must be really deaf not to hear the sonic superiority of this magnificent setup!" I was almost lost to the same thought track, but my little brother (5 at that time) asked me to leave because it hurts his ears so bad he can't stay a moment longer. (BTW, if anyone needs expert ears, ask kids. They still have their hearing intact ; .)
Bottom line, I never gave up exploring ideas, but always listen and decide for myself. Measurements are very handy, but only when you measure in your room. Theoretical measurements will give results to guide you, but interaction with the room is key.
I've found three means to deal with the room:
1. Avoid clutter, to the extremes - even a cup placed between the speakers can throw off imaging when your system has good enough resolution. And in case you are forced into a smaller space, with furniture overcrowding the room, then stereo will give you pure frustration, go mono. (Mono with 2 speakers and 1 mono amp.)
2. Set up speakers carefully - the slightest angles, distances count. After you rearranged furniture in your room - even misplacing a chair, you'll have to adjust speaker position to get best imaging
3. Build blue tac ridges on the speaker front - to break up the speaker face, so it's not a reflective mirror to all sorts of unwanted effects. This works supremely well, but needs experience to find optimal placement. After placing a few inches, listen. If imaging / sound improves, keep it, and add more. If worsens, remove and find other position / angle. Will take you weeks, but perseverance pays of very big time. Downside - looks ugly as hell. Or, you can attach small, long, triangular shape balsa strips with the blue tac... looks nicer, but still looks weird especially on $$$ speakers.
You have a very cool setup. Didn't know that Netflix has that Jean Reno movie. You know what I'll be watching tonight! BTW dinosaur eggs are totally cool. Wish I had some!
Back to speakers...
When I first saw the B&W Nautilus on a magazine cover, I was instantly fascinated. It's ridiculously high price was also a shocking - before that, I have not imagined speakers can get so expensive. (Foolish youth!)
Spent lot of time thinking about designs inspired by the Nautilus.
Unfortunately I got to hear them. In a very fancy setup with eight monoblocks each costing its weight in gold driving each driver. The tension (and the heat from the amp factory) in the room was palpable as we waited for the music to start. Well, it was one of the poorest sounds (and greatest disappointments) I ever heard in my life. B&Ws entry level DM302 beat it in every aspect - not by little margin, but by very far.
However, the look on people's faces was priceless - everyone trying very, very hard to figure out how to justify spending in the range of million $ (includes the rig playing) to get sound so bad. This sentiment was on everyone's forehead: "I must be really deaf not to hear the sonic superiority of this magnificent setup!" I was almost lost to the same thought track, but my little brother (5 at that time) asked me to leave because it hurts his ears so bad he can't stay a moment longer. (BTW, if anyone needs expert ears, ask kids. They still have their hearing intact ; .)
Bottom line, I never gave up exploring ideas, but always listen and decide for myself. Measurements are very handy, but only when you measure in your room. Theoretical measurements will give results to guide you, but interaction with the room is key.
I've found three means to deal with the room:
1. Avoid clutter, to the extremes - even a cup placed between the speakers can throw off imaging when your system has good enough resolution. And in case you are forced into a smaller space, with furniture overcrowding the room, then stereo will give you pure frustration, go mono. (Mono with 2 speakers and 1 mono amp.)
2. Set up speakers carefully - the slightest angles, distances count. After you rearranged furniture in your room - even misplacing a chair, you'll have to adjust speaker position to get best imaging
3. Build blue tac ridges on the speaker front - to break up the speaker face, so it's not a reflective mirror to all sorts of unwanted effects. This works supremely well, but needs experience to find optimal placement. After placing a few inches, listen. If imaging / sound improves, keep it, and add more. If worsens, remove and find other position / angle. Will take you weeks, but perseverance pays of very big time. Downside - looks ugly as hell. Or, you can attach small, long, triangular shape balsa strips with the blue tac... looks nicer, but still looks weird especially on $$$ speakers.
What about integrating a speaker assembly into an array of qrd's?
This picture is fake, as everyone can imagine. It's only to show the basic idea/intention of the principle.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This picture is fake, as everyone can imagine. It's only to show the basic idea/intention of the principle.
You're welcome. You are right, it's pretty much impossible to capture and reproduce the true soundfield.
When I read the above sentence I first thought you were mocking me, but after reading the rest of your post I saw you were actually serious! You make some good points. If I ever get the chance again, I'll be sure to block one of my ears.
Or listen to binaural recordings with good in-ear headphones
They have their own limitations, such as not having the exact head-related impulse response as the listener and not taking into account small involuntary head-movement. If you could incorporate real-time convolution with personalized HRIRs and head-tracking, it might become a very convincing experience. I think it's only a matter of time.
Good point. The difficulty with reproducing the sound of real instruments at 'normal' listening distance, is that you have to reproduce the direct sound, but also early reflections and reverb. Under anechoic conditions you only need to accurately reproduce the direct sound, in a concert hall you basically only have to accurately reproduce sound power.
Most similar narrow baffle monitors which insist on flat axial response will require full BSC ( and even more than that if diffractions bumps are to be also adressed). This will originate a non flat power response (-3dbs and more) which results in those shelved in room responses which i don't find especially pretty. With such room curves those things can seriously pretend to sound...neutral?
Also worth mentionning, neither seem especially reflections proof despite the CD hype their designers insist so much about...
Standard 2 ways monopole designs, with and without a waveguide can give similar results without so much useless stuff...
Big 3 ways wall mounted monitors, with higher xover frequency between woofer and mids, will surely sound different and better, but cardioids are so... fashionable these days...
Last edited:
As I believe you know, room curves are easy to measure but nearly impossible to interpret, except for low frequencies. In the modal range of the room, a steady-state room curve correlates very well with what we hear. In the range above about 500 hz, it's mostly the speaker, which is best measured anechoically. In the range between about 100 hz and 500 hz the sound is mostly determined by boundary interaction and early reflections, which can cause audible comb filtering.
Both the Kii Three and the Dutch & Dutch 8c are very well-behaved anechoically, but also deal with some of the main issues in the transition range between 100 hz and 500 hz, the most important of which is the front-wall reflection. Unlike side-wall and floor- and ceiling reflections, the time delay and direction of the front wall reflection remain more or less the same when the listener moves his or her head a little. This makes it more difficult to psychoacoustically separate direct and reflected sound. This reflection is usually dealt with by moving the speakers far out into the room, which works well too. However, that usually isn't the best position for accurate bass.
Relatively flat isn't very hard to achieve anymore, I agree. Very flat and smooth is still a challenge for most. Getting pretty much identical flat and smooth response curves within a reasonable listening window is achieved in only a few designs.
You say you'd like to see a CSD plot. I personally prefer a burst decay plot, which uses the same data but normalizes to number of periods instead of time. This makes interpretation more intuitive. But regardless, I am a bit hesitant to share them, because the results depend a lot on the specifics of the measurement setup and the settings for generating the plot. Do you have specifics in mind?
Thanks Ultima! I've been a member of diyaudio.com for quite some time now. When I registered I was a true novice and a lot of what I now know about audio, I've learned here. I still like to come here to both learn and share my own experience and knowledge.
Check out this video for a summary of his career and findings: YouTube
Some design criteria based on research by him and others, in no particular order:
- Very flat on-axis response
- Very smooth on-axis response
- Constant response within any likely listening window
- Off-axis response mimics on-axis response, even at large angles
- Smooth power response curve
- Deep bass output
- Works well with the room
- Sufficiently low distortion
High-end audio is not for everyone and I perfectly understand your position. For most people merely 'good' speakers will suffice for maximum musical enjoyment. For some people hearing the music with the highest possible sound quality adds to their enjoyment.
I'm surely happy to discuss the assumptions and design criteria, as well as share what I've learned - with the exception of a small number of trade secrets. I hope our designs will inspire people here to design their own reference systems, as I was inspired by the work and knowledge of several diyaudio members when designing the 8c.
Luckily there are quite a few people here who are very knowledgeable when it comes to loudspeaker design, acoustics and psychoacoustics. I'm always open to discuss the design criteria, premises and the technical aspects of the speakers I design.
It's some time that I am experimenting with BD, and in stone age I made some experiments with curving the edges of the baffle in order to spread the 2- to 4-pi transition for the pressure wave.
Here some early and quite naive examples:
Curving the baffle edge can indeed dramatically improve things, and I add one result of this technique to my previous data:
The Newcomer - it's a curved 2-d baffle countour a litte bit like a dwarf's cap:
The Sphere (as previously presented):
And the Nudist (also as known previously):
So how do they compare?
Amplitude:
Impulse:
Step response:
Dwarf's cap ist best, better than the spere. Period. The curved baffle approach might bear some further potential, as this war a first quick-and-dirty-but-educated-guess countour choice.
For all these with some narrow-baffled speakers and a stitchsaw at home you might experiment by expanding your baffles like in this example. Happy sawing!
Here some early and quite naive examples:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Curving the baffle edge can indeed dramatically improve things, and I add one result of this technique to my previous data:
The Newcomer - it's a curved 2-d baffle countour a litte bit like a dwarf's cap:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The Sphere (as previously presented):
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
And the Nudist (also as known previously):
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
So how do they compare?
Amplitude:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Impulse:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Step response:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Dwarf's cap ist best, better than the spere. Period. The curved baffle approach might bear some further potential, as this war a first quick-and-dirty-but-educated-guess countour choice.
For all these with some narrow-baffled speakers and a stitchsaw at home you might experiment by expanding your baffles like in this example. Happy sawing!
What does 'reflections proof' mean?
Reflections are not necessarily the enemy. Actually, I've listened to music under anechoic conditions more than once and although it lets you hear certain details in the recording you don't normally hear, it's not the most pleasurable way to listen to music.
But all reflections are not made equal. Some reflections help to bring out the natural richness and timbre of the recording, while other reflections are best avoided. What is important, is that those beneficial reflections have a tonal balance that resembles the direct sound from the speakers.
Thanks for sharing, Daihedz! Perhaps it's time you started a dedicated thread?
When I worked on the baffle design for the 8c I took infinite baffle measurements as a reference point. I looked at frequency response, directivity and the Energy Time Curve. In the ETC irregularities are easier to spot than in an impulse response.
A tip: make sure you are not focusing on very small reflections that happen close to the microphone, instead of baffle edges!
When I worked on the baffle design for the 8c I took infinite baffle measurements as a reference point. I looked at frequency response, directivity and the Energy Time Curve. In the ETC irregularities are easier to spot than in an impulse response.
A tip: make sure you are not focusing on very small reflections that happen close to the microphone, instead of baffle edges!
Attachments
Still some insist in the virtues of narrow radiation patterns for home/studio use ( horns...
) in low rt treated rooms...Or even prefer heaphones because of the room...
Omni (or approached...) will also give this result ... No need for synergies, oblate spheroids and stuff like this...
Last edited:
Both flat axial response and flat power response are not achievable on a narrow baffle. Hence a shelved room response quite easy to interpret and with a quite audible influence on the tonal balance obtained. BSC is a very compromised technique, and never really achieved.
Last edited:
Still some insist in the virtues of narrow radiation patterns for home/studio use ( horns...
Or even prefer heaphones because of the room...
Omni (or approached...) will also give this result ... No need for synergies, oblate spheroids and stuff like this...
Omni's can sound great in the right room and placed far from any boundaries. I had a pair of almost omnidirectional speakers in my former living room, with relatively low RT and I sat at about 2.5 meters from them. That sounded really nice!
In my current quite large living room with a 1 second RT60, they just don't work that well. Here a speaker with some directivity simply works better.
By the way, I'm not fundamentally opposed to speakers with high directivity. They tend to work well in larger rooms with high RT, or if you like a more dynamic and attention-grabbing sound. For everyday musical enjoyment I prefer to hear a bit more of the room, but such very directional systems can be a lot of fun to listen to!