still sounding great...
I like the Decware modified FE206 drivers in a Voigt Pipe very much, they seem like a pretty good match with my K502 tube amp. The highs are plenty well rounded, the pipes seem plenty bright, and I don't feel the need to add a supertweeter at all. They sound pretty good off axis too, you dont have to be right at the sweet spot. They do have a tall soundstage, and a little wider than the speakers, with plenty of depth and separation. Some people have said they sound similar to electrostatics in some regards and I think thats a good comparison too. With a tube amp many instruments sound very real & live, especially piano, guitar, violins, cymbals and most voices too. Bass is pretty acceptable for much music, I havent really listened to much hard rock but they handle louder volumes well. I plan on testing the sound soon by varying the amount of stuffing inside and comparing various speaker wires - currently I am using RS magnet wire, and will test some Vampire CCC magnet wire next.
I like the Decware modified FE206 drivers in a Voigt Pipe very much, they seem like a pretty good match with my K502 tube amp. The highs are plenty well rounded, the pipes seem plenty bright, and I don't feel the need to add a supertweeter at all. They sound pretty good off axis too, you dont have to be right at the sweet spot. They do have a tall soundstage, and a little wider than the speakers, with plenty of depth and separation. Some people have said they sound similar to electrostatics in some regards and I think thats a good comparison too. With a tube amp many instruments sound very real & live, especially piano, guitar, violins, cymbals and most voices too. Bass is pretty acceptable for much music, I havent really listened to much hard rock but they handle louder volumes well. I plan on testing the sound soon by varying the amount of stuffing inside and comparing various speaker wires - currently I am using RS magnet wire, and will test some Vampire CCC magnet wire next.
A round baffle is probably the absolute worst shape to use (like the centered little fostex's in the cane&cane ). 
If it is mounted near the the center of the circle like the the above simple physics will tell you using a circular baffle is is a sure fire way to a sonic disaster.
If you do this anywayto spite the warning be sure and use a big baffle(maybe a baffle 30" or more in diameter to get some real gain) and offset the driver from the center by quite a bit.
If it is mounted near the the center of the circle like the the above simple physics will tell you using a circular baffle is is a sure fire way to a sonic disaster. If you do this anywayto spite the warning be sure and use a big baffle(maybe a baffle 30" or more in diameter to get some real gain) and offset the driver from the center by quite a bit.
:james_b said:
Ah, Master Bates,
Long time from the ole audio forums eh?.
Actually the baffle is centered on a cabinet, meaning it's not a fully circular baffle. that will add a whole nuther level of diffraction calculation subtraction and division you'll have no doubt overlooked in your calculations? Measurements? W- semi circular baffle and without?
Physics and a beer.
Don't forget to calculate some decreased radii, in addition to the diffraction calculations for 90 degrees of the exposed baffle edge that is not occupied by the cabinet. The circular baffle is not a flat plane and round, but a compound curvature back into the negative space from the front of the driver. Math IS hard.
TC
Long time from the ole audio forums eh?.
Actually the baffle is centered on a cabinet, meaning it's not a fully circular baffle. that will add a whole nuther level of diffraction calculation subtraction and division you'll have no doubt overlooked in your calculations? Measurements? W- semi circular baffle and without?
Physics and a beer.
Don't forget to calculate some decreased radii, in addition to the diffraction calculations for 90 degrees of the exposed baffle edge that is not occupied by the cabinet. The circular baffle is not a flat plane and round, but a compound curvature back into the negative space from the front of the driver. Math IS hard.
TC
TC said:
"TC" : A speakers salesman that resorts to name calling and
hocus pocus stories rather than
repeatable, verifable measurements and facts- gee isn't
'high end audio' full of crack pots these days?
Short story.
I have an IEC standard baffle for measuring drivers. This one has
interchangeable center plates, one for each kind of driver (I got a LOT of
center plates!).
For a while, I had a consistant error consisting of a 5-6 dB deep hole
centered around 9 kHz, a peak around 12 kZ about 2-3 dB high, a dip around
15 kHz 4 dB deep, a peak at 18 kHz, etc. with all European 1" dome tweeters
and their Japanese copies (the Japanese copies, by the way, had many, many
more problems than these!).
What is different about all these tweeters (Vifa, Seas, Peerless, Scan Speak,
Audax etc., Tonegen, Foster, KSC, etc) is that the domes where made of many
different materials, had different shapes, different resonant frequencies, etc.
what was common among them was a round mounting plate ranging in size from
96 mm to 103 mm. Bingo!
I was hurrying through a pile of measurements, (gated lms) and had not bothered to cut
the appropriate recess to flush-mount the tweeter to the measurment baffle.
the front plates ranged in thisckness from about 1.5 mm to 4 mm, but that, in
and of itself, seemed to matter little. What was important was that there
was a discontinuity at some constant distance from the effective radiating
point, in this case about 50 mm. Now 50 mm corresponds to 3/2 wavelength at
9 kHz, 4/2 wavelength at 12 kHz, etc., a good 1/2 wave correlation.
What was surpising is the that effect was still quite measurable when the
driver had been recessed with as little as .5 mm protruding. The effects
were extremely audible in the unrecessed conditions, and barely, if at all
in the slightly protruding case.
By the way, there are a significant number of speaker manufacturers that
DO NOT recess their tweeters, and publish curves that show no sign of this
phenomenon. I found it absolutely impossible to avoid it, and the effects,
especiialy the first dip and peak to be both deep enough (5-6 dB) and wide
enough (1/2 octave) not to be lost in 1/3 octave smoothing. Hmmmm....
Seems your circular baffle is protruding quite a bit from the baffle behind it.
Let's see your measurements. No 1/3rd octave smoothing please.
1st off, it is quite misleading calling Terry's baffle pod a circular baffle... it in in fact an oblate spheroid.
As Olson has shown, a sphere is a very good shape for diffraction effects. Collapse that into a 2 dimensional shape -- the circular baffle -- and it becomes one of the worst. An oblate spheroid is somewhere in between.
Without hearing Terry's speakers you cannot grok the amount of effort that has gone into getting a shape that works.
dave
As Olson has shown, a sphere is a very good shape for diffraction effects. Collapse that into a 2 dimensional shape -- the circular baffle -- and it becomes one of the worst. An oblate spheroid is somewhere in between.
Without hearing Terry's speakers you cannot grok the amount of effort that has gone into getting a shape that works.
dave
That fits my intention accurately. The width of the baffle is actually the center of the driver to whatever point you think it matters. That being a receding and negatively curved surface leaves only specualtion.
Adding mass, ridgidity and improving aesthetics were also high on the list. And departs from a -box-, something I myself, find great entertainment in.
Thank you sir.
TC
"1st off, it is quite misleading calling Terry's baffle pod a circular baffle... it in in fact an oblate spheroid."
It's a circle.
"As Olson has shown, a sphere is a very good shape for diffraction effects. Collapse that into a 2 dimensional shape -- the circular baffle -- and it becomes one of the worst. An oblate spheroid is somewhere in between."
I see, you say it is between one of the worst and good. Let's look at the unsmoothed measurements and the dimensions of this circular baffle and see what's going on. Anyone that has looked at the cane&cane baffle knows is very far from a sphere.
Does he have the measurements? I'd like to see them and compare them with the circle's dimensions.
"Without hearing Terry's speakers you cannot grok the amount of effort that has gone into getting a shape that works."
I'm not groking I'm saying the baffle shape proposed in this thread (and with the cane&cane speakers) is one of the last choices anyone that has expiremented with their ears and a good gated measuring system would build. Any shape will 'work' why use one that is this backwards? To copy someone elses mistake? This was the original question asked here wasn't it?
How do you know I have not heard these speakers?
It's a circle.
"As Olson has shown, a sphere is a very good shape for diffraction effects. Collapse that into a 2 dimensional shape -- the circular baffle -- and it becomes one of the worst. An oblate spheroid is somewhere in between."
I see, you say it is between one of the worst and good. Let's look at the unsmoothed measurements and the dimensions of this circular baffle and see what's going on. Anyone that has looked at the cane&cane baffle knows is very far from a sphere.
Does he have the measurements? I'd like to see them and compare them with the circle's dimensions.
"Without hearing Terry's speakers you cannot grok the amount of effort that has gone into getting a shape that works."
I'm not groking I'm saying the baffle shape proposed in this thread (and with the cane&cane speakers) is one of the last choices anyone that has expiremented with their ears and a good gated measuring system would build. Any shape will 'work' why use one that is this backwards? To copy someone elses mistake? This was the original question asked here wasn't it?
How do you know I have not heard these speakers?
Those Fostex drivers have a very pronounced ridge around them.
So there will be significant diffraction effects well before the disk goes into effect. Also, isn't there a difference between:
diffraction effects
and:
nulls caused by cancellations due to equal paths from the front to the rear of the speaker?-especially with open baffles.
I think the 2 are being confused.
The speakers are called Cain and Cain
So there will be significant diffraction effects well before the disk goes into effect. Also, isn't there a difference between:
diffraction effects
and:
nulls caused by cancellations due to equal paths from the front to the rear of the speaker?-especially with open baffles.
I think the 2 are being confused.
The speakers are called Cain and Cain
planet10 said:
The circular baffle shows up fine with my PC.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0103/caincain1.jpg
The original poster also recognizes the baffle being circular. You seem to be one that doesn't see it.. The edges would need to be rounded at a 4" radius for the circular baffle to little edge effect. That is just a another problem with the TC speaker. You already identified another when you referred to Olson - the speaker is centered in a circular baffle. This will cause pronounced audible and measurable problems. - I think that's one reason why we don't see any measurments from this manufacture.
On another note I do however like the way it looks - but ..........
Variac said:
Yes, no doubt there are multiple problems here. The drivers. the circular baffle, and the edge effect from the entire front baffle.
These aren't open baffles, a speaker need not be open in back for the shape and size of the baffle to mangle the sound.
Here is a neat little program to play with
>>Do you have measurements for your speakers?
==I have done measurements in shaping of the horncavities..
>>I'd like to see them along with the diameter of your circular baffle. That way we can get to the root of the problem here right?
==Define the problem....
The *problem*(the one I think you are trying to establish) -needs-, and has -yet- to be established.
As far as measurements that I feel are important, the below would typify what the er important -net- results would typically be:
Wally Malewicz of WAM Engineering and Wallytractor fame [lower left next to Michael Fremer during Stereophile's 2002 Joint Accessories of the Year Award] walked the halls volunteering on-site measurement services. I wonder how many room let him? Terry did. Wally whipped out his Neutrik/NTI ML1 analyzer with mini SPL mic, MR-1 generator and Ayre test CD. He measured 42 Hz to 16kHz +/-3dB in-room response sans a single room treatment or equalizer in sight, confirmed by a quick post-show phone call. Superb real-world performance if you ask me. No wonder this rig sounded so linear.
If I put the speaker within 2x the amount of the baffle's dia. to a wall and in the range of 90deg on axiss you would have 16 times greater the effect than that of the baffles shape but that's a stretch because assuming a 2.5pi placement effects only midbass leaving upper midrange as the affected region of the baffle but it's soooo a non issue (read stretch waste of time, a *pity* argument, sounds like balloon is gonna blow)) due to cone shape, directivity in plain evidence in the mfgr's data in the range of the ahhhemmm, ,,, alledged problem in freespace?
"baffles are easy" sure they are - if you just want them to look pretty and sell.
==Apparently.
TC
==I have done measurements in shaping of the horncavities..
>>I'd like to see them along with the diameter of your circular baffle. That way we can get to the root of the problem here right?
==Define the problem....
The *problem*(the one I think you are trying to establish) -needs-, and has -yet- to be established.
As far as measurements that I feel are important, the below would typify what the er important -net- results would typically be:
Wally Malewicz of WAM Engineering and Wallytractor fame [lower left next to Michael Fremer during Stereophile's 2002 Joint Accessories of the Year Award] walked the halls volunteering on-site measurement services. I wonder how many room let him? Terry did. Wally whipped out his Neutrik/NTI ML1 analyzer with mini SPL mic, MR-1 generator and Ayre test CD. He measured 42 Hz to 16kHz +/-3dB in-room response sans a single room treatment or equalizer in sight, confirmed by a quick post-show phone call. Superb real-world performance if you ask me. No wonder this rig sounded so linear.
If I put the speaker within 2x the amount of the baffle's dia. to a wall and in the range of 90deg on axiss you would have 16 times greater the effect than that of the baffles shape but that's a stretch because assuming a 2.5pi placement effects only midbass leaving upper midrange as the affected region of the baffle but it's soooo a non issue (read stretch waste of time, a *pity* argument, sounds like balloon is gonna blow)) due to cone shape, directivity in plain evidence in the mfgr's data in the range of the ahhhemmm, ,,, alledged problem in freespace?
"baffles are easy" sure they are - if you just want them to look pretty and sell.
==Apparently.
TC
Mag,
The point I'm trying to make is that the overall cabinet shape matters, not just the baffle shape.
For example, as has been mentioned, a sphere is a good shape to smoother response, as is an ovoid. A cylinder with the drivers in the circular end is about the worst. A rectangular prism isn't as bad as it looks....
From my point of view, the C & C speakers are a complicated shape. Yes they have a circular baffle around the driver, but there is a rectangular prism cabinet behind the baffle. There is the area on the front where there is no circular baffle, but just the front of the rectangular cabinet. There is the situation where the front of the cabinet is in contact with the floor- at this point the baffle is effectively very large. The driver isn't a tweeter, it is full range, so at higher frequencies might act as a tweeter in a waveguide (the tweeter being the whizzer cone or the part of the cone close to the voicecoil, the iwaveguide being the outer part of the cone. In this case the "tweeter" is recessed and inch or so into a cone shaped waveguide, NOT flush with the fron baffle. So the point is that IMHO it is overly simplistic of you to claim something similar to "the driver is in the center of a circular baffle so its bad"
Certainly Mr. TC doesn't have to supply you with graphs just because you demand them, and just because he doesn't supply graphs doesn't mean that his speakers don't sound good.
The point I'm trying to make is that the overall cabinet shape matters, not just the baffle shape.
For example, as has been mentioned, a sphere is a good shape to smoother response, as is an ovoid. A cylinder with the drivers in the circular end is about the worst. A rectangular prism isn't as bad as it looks....
From my point of view, the C & C speakers are a complicated shape. Yes they have a circular baffle around the driver, but there is a rectangular prism cabinet behind the baffle. There is the area on the front where there is no circular baffle, but just the front of the rectangular cabinet. There is the situation where the front of the cabinet is in contact with the floor- at this point the baffle is effectively very large. The driver isn't a tweeter, it is full range, so at higher frequencies might act as a tweeter in a waveguide (the tweeter being the whizzer cone or the part of the cone close to the voicecoil, the iwaveguide being the outer part of the cone. In this case the "tweeter" is recessed and inch or so into a cone shaped waveguide, NOT flush with the fron baffle. So the point is that IMHO it is overly simplistic of you to claim something similar to "the driver is in the center of a circular baffle so its bad"
Certainly Mr. TC doesn't have to supply you with graphs just because you demand them, and just because he doesn't supply graphs doesn't mean that his speakers don't sound good.
The circular baffle
*-Embiggened".
http://fullrangedriver.com/show_image.php?id=214
"The Wall"
A design by G. Rankin built in Walla Walla.
TC
*Homer simpson
*-Embiggened".
http://fullrangedriver.com/show_image.php?id=214
"The Wall"
A design by G. Rankin built in Walla Walla.
TC
*Homer simpson
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.