soongsc said:
This is obvious, is it not? They are unnatural and not inherent to the source material. You don't continue to further an improper practice just because it is popular. You do it because you are ignorant, lazy, constrained, or unable to do otherwise.
The whole point of audio is effective and accurate reproduction of the source, whatever that may be (acoustic event, synthesized sounds, engineered and produced music, etc). If HOMs are part of the source ... then go ahead an HOM away!
I said that stepper slopes was not necessary, not that it was bad. But a sixth order LP (4th electrical and 2nd acoustical) does not appeal to me because of the ringing. I'd just use 2nd electrical on a bandpass sub.
And anyway, I think that the sound that I am refeering to is mostly generated after the amp so making the filter steeper doesn't help anyways.
And anyway, I think that the sound that I am refeering to is mostly generated after the amp so making the filter steeper doesn't help anyways.
soongsc said:
I disagree and think you're being pompous about this point. I was not 'driving this point' at all, instead I was questioning why you were asking a question with such an obvious answer in the first place.
I do not think that live, unamplified performances should be used as THE reference, but I believe they are part of the equation during subjective evaluation.
Subjective evaluation has only a very minor part to play in validating the state of the art in audio reproduction. Audio is a science, and should be treated as such. Experiments and measurements are top of the game.
There ... is your ego happy now?
I only mentioned live, unamplified performance should be used as A reference. Hope you understand.MartinQ said:
Audio industry will never put themselves in a situation where people can decide what is best just by looking at published data alone. I don't know whether it's good or bad, but it's a fact. If customers ask for more data, the response is likely one of the following:
1. We don't have that data. (sales)
2. We don't think that data has relevance. (sales with some engineering background)
3. Do you own measurements. (real engineers)
So from a buyer point of view, subjective evaluation is the most important aspect.
In the process of development, different types of evaluation and measurements will more evidently reveal different problems. If we are not able to be open minded enough to use various methods, we are really not approaching the issue in a scientific manner.
I prefer to do the "right thing" rather than cater to the marketplaces whims and fancies. Quality "reproduction" is not subject to fashion or preference. It stands alone as "truth". You may not like the truth, but that doesn't make it false.
"Hear the real thing!" - you don't really mean that do you?
"Hear the real thing!" - you don't really mean that do you?
I think we want to reproduce sound in a way that people feel like they "Hear the Real Thing". The "right thing" itself is a very subjective issue.
Personally, I like to use listening for problem identification, use measurements for problem isolation and fix verification, then use listening to confirm problem reduction/elimination. Not an easy task.
Dr. Klippel was here last week, very interesting workshop, I provided some drivers out of my collection for the workshop and discovered very interesting aspects in those drivers. It also inspired more thoughts on various subjects.
Personally, I like to use listening for problem identification, use measurements for problem isolation and fix verification, then use listening to confirm problem reduction/elimination. Not an easy task.
Dr. Klippel was here last week, very interesting workshop, I provided some drivers out of my collection for the workshop and discovered very interesting aspects in those drivers. It also inspired more thoughts on various subjects.
We've been through the whole "accurate" (to what?) subjective/objective thing enough times. Let's talk about speaker kits and waveguides
Did the idea of a less expensive woofer already get put to rest? The bigger B&Cs really are pricey. I'd love to try one of these kits but the price is still putting me off. (I know, they're a great value/not meant for cheapskates etc. We covered all that before too with my talk of 50" tvs and motorcycles competing for a slice of the same "disposable" budget.) Also it sounds like someday there's going to be a version with an elliptical waveguide that I expect will work better and look cool as heck... it's hard to be patient.
Did the idea of a less expensive woofer already get put to rest? The bigger B&Cs really are pricey. I'd love to try one of these kits but the price is still putting me off. (I know, they're a great value/not meant for cheapskates etc. We covered all that before too with my talk of 50" tvs and motorcycles competing for a slice of the same "disposable" budget.) Also it sounds like someday there's going to be a version with an elliptical waveguide that I expect will work better and look cool as heck... it's hard to be patient.
poptart said:
I'd really like to know if there is real value in an alternative to the 10PS26 & 12/15TBX100. How far off the mark do the Eminence drivers land? Are the Delta and Kappa Pro of a value (or equal) alternative in a home listening environment? What about the Beta line? Other mfg?
What is it about a $300 driver that makes it essential in a demanding 2-way + sub application?
I too have no interest in discussing "accuracy" versus "preference". I design for accuracy, period. If its not your preference than so be it.
The fact that I get a very good deal on B&C drivers is the reason that I use them. I've tried many other drivers and the B&C always come out on top. I don't see an option and its very time consuming to "try" other drivers. So as far as I am concerned B&C are it for the forseable future. They are very good drivers.
In the long run, if this project is successful, I will go to China or Thailand and have my own drivers built. But from what I am hearing the Asian prices are rising so fast that this option may soon be a waste of time. I am told that P-Audio has recently raised there prices 50%. Thats a lot and with the low dollar the benifits of Asia are looking less and less attractive.
No guarantees on an elliptic waveguide - the tooling prices are staggering.
The fact that I get a very good deal on B&C drivers is the reason that I use them. I've tried many other drivers and the B&C always come out on top. I don't see an option and its very time consuming to "try" other drivers. So as far as I am concerned B&C are it for the forseable future. They are very good drivers.
In the long run, if this project is successful, I will go to China or Thailand and have my own drivers built. But from what I am hearing the Asian prices are rising so fast that this option may soon be a waste of time. I am told that P-Audio has recently raised there prices 50%. Thats a lot and with the low dollar the benifits of Asia are looking less and less attractive.
No guarantees on an elliptic waveguide - the tooling prices are staggering.
A very minor part?!
I think most of us would choose what we think sounds subjectively better rather than what we think measures better, if that choice was in front of us. Some at this point would conclude that measurements don't tell the story, but I think it makes more sense to say merely that we're measuring the wrong thing. If we remove the importance of subjective evaluation and make it minor, then what is the point in measuring? Surely we measure only to the degree that we think we are showing how accurate the system is in some way which we can perceive subjectively. Otherwise it becomes an academic exercise.
Audio is a science.
Some describe it as engineering, some science, some as art.
I would argue that acoustics is a science, but diy audio is broader.
From Dictionary.com:
Science:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Engineering:
The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
Art:
Skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
Anyone aspiring to design their own system can use a mix of these. I'd say Earl's approach is mainly engineering based - applying certain design criteria based on certain acoustic principles. So his approach has a foundation in acoustics (science), but I think his approach is best described as engineering.
Many DIYers follow a process that is probably better described as art. Falling upon a design by chance. A little like those who experimented with transmission line speakers before the acoustics was well understood.
Back to the subjective issue. If you have discovered exactly what you need to measure in order to indicate what will be perceived as accurate, then you don't need to subjectively evaluate a speaker. You can merely measure it, and each change you make and evaluate it on that basis. In this case, having a panel to review anything subjectively would be counter productive to evaluation. The problem is, the way in which objectively measurements translate into perception does not seem to be universally agreed upon.
I should resist the urge to get into this, and let the topic stay on the kits!
paulspencer said:
Yes I did say,
"Subjective evaluation has only a very minor part to play in validating the state of the art in audio reproduction."
... but then most of us are not 'validating the state of the art', and if we were our ears would not be the first tool to turn to. We are simply looking for something that is good, great or better than something else.
The average (or even DIY) listener can use their ears as a rough guide to validating a piece of equipment, but as this thread is about Earls DIY kit, and the comment was about the validity of reducing HOMs, this is where science, engineering and measurements come in to play.
It has to be the oldest argument in audio ...and a completely different thread.
Earl,
Why is the elliptical waveguide mold more expensive than making another size of circular mold? I guess you can't build it on a lathe. Hands up, who wants the forthcoming 15" to be elliptical?
Back to the woofer topic. I guess if the price break you're getting on the B&C makes it similar to the Eminence then there's no point in changing. The difference in retail price for the two is massive though.
Earl,
Why is the elliptical waveguide mold more expensive than making another size of circular mold? I guess you can't build it on a lathe. Hands up, who wants the forthcoming 15" to be elliptical?
Back to the woofer topic. I guess if the price break you're getting on the B&C makes it similar to the Eminence then there's no point in changing. The difference in retail price for the two is massive though.
I think that the B&C's add value at the price of the kit. I want better than the minimum for speakers that are supposed to be high end, and the difference in price vis a vis the Eminence seems shockingly low..
It sure would be great if someone figured out how to make a single 15" elliptical mandrel at a somewhat reasonable price- now THAT would move things forward... There has to be a CNC device out there that can do it easily...
It sure would be great if someone figured out how to make a single 15" elliptical mandrel at a somewhat reasonable price- now THAT would move things forward... There has to be a CNC device out there that can do it easily...
We don't know what Earl's price difference is but I thought the retail difference was $200 more per woofer for B&C than Eminence. I wouldn't call $400 a shockingly low percentage of a $2000 kit. If you want cost no object performance there is the Summa. We don't even know if an Eminence would be audibly worse than the B&C.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.