gedlee said:
The "audiophile" market for your speakers just went to zero
Since you are probably uniquely positioned to carry out controlled testing of loudspeakers (I know Harman, etc does, but those are probably not open to all competition eh?
), why not do some more like what was done before with your Summa vs the Gradient & JBL? That would be a great way to show the benefits of your (loudspeaker) design philosophy - no? Proof in the pudding?cheers,
AJ
Errata
Actually the word for asymmetrical probabilities is "skew". "Kurtosis" is the 3rd moment - the peakiness in the data. Sorry about that error.
I did some work on try to correlate p[erception of nonlinearity with the probabilty density function of the musical passage. There was some results there, but then I became disinterested in nonlinearity because it didn't seem to matter. That was about four years ago and I haven't changed my mind. In fact I'm more convinced now than I was then.
And as to the perception of absolute polarity, I'd have to say that if you are obsessing about something that people argue about even being audible then you are missing something somewhere. There are far far greater audible effects than this that go uncontrolled. When your speaker has constant coverage control from 500 Hz - 10 kHz over a narrow range of say + - 30° and flat response within that zone, then you can begin to obsess about some things that are further down the list. But most speakers don't even come close to meeting even these fundamental requirements.
Actually the word for asymmetrical probabilities is "skew". "Kurtosis" is the 3rd moment - the peakiness in the data. Sorry about that error.
I did some work on try to correlate p[erception of nonlinearity with the probabilty density function of the musical passage. There was some results there, but then I became disinterested in nonlinearity because it didn't seem to matter. That was about four years ago and I haven't changed my mind. In fact I'm more convinced now than I was then.
And as to the perception of absolute polarity, I'd have to say that if you are obsessing about something that people argue about even being audible then you are missing something somewhere. There are far far greater audible effects than this that go uncontrolled. When your speaker has constant coverage control from 500 Hz - 10 kHz over a narrow range of say + - 30° and flat response within that zone, then you can begin to obsess about some things that are further down the list. But most speakers don't even come close to meeting even these fundamental requirements.
AJinFLA said:
The "audiophile" market for your speakers just went to zero
Since you are probably uniquely positioned to carry out controlled testing of loudspeakers (I know Harman, etc does, but those are probably not open to all competition eh?
cheers,
AJ
Yes it would and you are quite correct that this IS the way to do things. Unfortunately those kinds of tests are very very difficult to perform. And I don't have any competitive speakers to use in a test like this and I can't afford to buy anything that would be a fair contest. I would dearly love to do a blind shootout against a really first rate system. But I don't see how that could happen. Who's going to take that challenge? They have everything to looseand nothing to gain.
Great idea, but I just don't see how it could happen. The whole thing would have to be blind. JBL does this all the time, and they once asked me to supply my speakers for a round robin test, but they would not have let me use the data. Again, whats in that for me?
These things aren't done for very obvious marketing reasons. No manufacturer wants the public to know the truth. They can't twist it arround that way.
Show me how this can be done and I'm totally on-board.
Throughout the history of science, there have been arguments about whether many things exist or not or what is the smallest element of universe, and new discoveries never seem to end. So I don't think we should be limited by what is being argued, but we should just each find what we wish to pursue possibly through what is being argued about. There will be no argument over any thing well known, and possible no necessity for improvement as well.
Through the process of development, we each will notice thing that we may not have noticed before. These are usually good indicators that we are making progress for good or for bad.
I do wonder what areas of improvements can be identified as valuaand can be identified through distortion figure? Mr. Klippel has identified many which may or may not be agreeable to all. But can anyone identify others, and how that these are of more significant level than what Mr. Klippel has addressed?
Through the process of development, we each will notice thing that we may not have noticed before. These are usually good indicators that we are making progress for good or for bad.
I do wonder what areas of improvements can be identified as valuaand can be identified through distortion figure? Mr. Klippel has identified many which may or may not be agreeable to all. But can anyone identify others, and how that these are of more significant level than what Mr. Klippel has addressed?
Re: constant power drive
Further thinking on this makes me now believe that not constant power but constant current could the way to take VC heating completely out of the picture. We need not care about the amount of *electrical* power fed into the speaker, all that counts is *acoustical* output, which to my best knowledge is basicly proportional to voice coil current. Voice coil electrical power or voltage does not show up at all.
- Klaus
Further thinking on this makes me now believe that not constant power but constant current could the way to take VC heating completely out of the picture. We need not care about the amount of *electrical* power fed into the speaker, all that counts is *acoustical* output, which to my best knowledge is basicly proportional to voice coil current. Voice coil electrical power or voltage does not show up at all.
- Klaus
Re: Re: constant power drive
This is quite correct and it is well know that many sources of nonlinearity go away with a constant current source. I posted some results along these lines years ago when I was studying nonlinearity. I even went so far as to determine what it would take to make a decent constant current amplifier. But then when I considered the benefit/tradeoff I did not see following through as productive.
If, on the other hand, a constant current source reduces the thermal modulation then there is a new reason to look at it.
KSTR said:
This is quite correct and it is well know that many sources of nonlinearity go away with a constant current source. I posted some results along these lines years ago when I was studying nonlinearity. I even went so far as to determine what it would take to make a decent constant current amplifier. But then when I considered the benefit/tradeoff I did not see following through as productive.
If, on the other hand, a constant current source reduces the thermal modulation then there is a new reason to look at it.
Arguments are great ways of learning things and I strongly support doing so. But as any professional will tell you its imporatnt that the arguments are done politely and with respect shown to each other. When this is not done, its simply best to walk away.
Its also important in an argument to highlight your sources of data when such data could be brought into question. I always try and do this. I expect it of others too.
If something is not substantiated with solid evidence then it should be so stated.
These are not unreasonable expectations and I am surprised that they have to be stated, but sometimes they do.
Its also important in an argument to highlight your sources of data when such data could be brought into question. I always try and do this. I expect it of others too.
If something is not substantiated with solid evidence then it should be so stated.
These are not unreasonable expectations and I am surprised that they have to be stated, but sometimes they do.
High impedance drive do reduce distortion and thermal compression/modulation.
This is obviously one disadvantage with active systems that are driven with a very low impedance normally.
Constant current wouldn't be that good though..
Unless two coils are used that cary a DC which is modulated. I proposed such a solution some years ago at the madboard.
/Peter
This is obviously one disadvantage with active systems that are driven with a very low impedance normally.
Constant current wouldn't be that good though..
Unless two coils are used that cary a DC which is modulated. I proposed such a solution some years ago at the madboard.
/Peter
Some clarification is in place here I believe.
A CCS is used as the bias load in many class A amps of normal type.. that is voltage amps with low output impedance. But this has nothing to do directly with a amp that uses current drive/high output impedance drive.
I don't have much knowledge of these "current drive" amps though.
/Peter
A CCS is used as the bias load in many class A amps of normal type.. that is voltage amps with low output impedance. But this has nothing to do directly with a amp that uses current drive/high output impedance drive.
I don't have much knowledge of these "current drive" amps though.
/Peter
gedlee said:
but fortunately we can buy Shure E2c in-ear speakers and know the truth that way
those headphones are Linkwitz's reference: "immensely affordable reference transducers, whether you are designing speakers or just want to hear how accurate your system really is"
and from my own experience I can confirm the above - they are very, very good, quite exceptional
for me they have no competition among HiFi headphones regardless of price
and indeed they are judged as "boring", "dull" not to mention "muddy" by most audiophile headphone afficionados from Head-fi forum
for me they are very neutral and realistic, rather then "boring" maybe even a tiny bit to lively sounding, a tiny bit colored in some way - but certainly not boring at all
well, but I like "natural sound" as I am told by my audiophile friends who know my preferences while not neccesarily sharing them
music first!
maybe a shootout can be done - Summa vs Shurre E2c?
at least such a shootout was done by Linkwitz against his Orions
he writes: "the earphones have become very useful in confirming the accuracy of the ORION"
so why not?
best,
graaf
graaf said:
maybe a shootout can be done - Summa vs Shurre E2c?
at least such a shootout was done by Linkwitz against his Orions
he writes: "the earphones have become very useful in confirming the accuracy of the ORION"
so why not?
And how is that done "blind"?
I believe that the Shure phones are pretty much the same as the Etymotic that we use in all of our research and I wouldn't be without on a trip. Maybe it was these that calibrated my listening, I don't know, but I would agree with you that for the money they are a very good investment in quality reproduction.
I did a lot of work at Knowles on the transducers in those Phones and one of my employees worked on them at Shure.