Very nice
but keep in mind,
HIFI has been a huge market 2 decades ago.
Big names and research.
Today with the kids on MP3
ok car sound is still a huge market...
have a look at their woofers
but mp3 has pushed
hifi in the niche like single ended, Lowthers and all this stuff
where tweeking is sometimes more important as music.
Look at turntables, a good Thorens used is rare but
direct drive is like outdated, monster
high mass drives often not quite usable and adjusting
is more important as music are fascinating the niche market
The last Techniks direct drive is a great
piece on the block, hifi geeks are crying NO
no finesse and so on, Grado Uhhhhhhhhh
Renkus Heinz among others, like Genelec
have a huge market today
doing research and the unity patent
went to PA anyway
Look at Behringer,
homestudio use
makes it possible.
There is a very nice fanless power amp out
the digital xover for
a price hifi geeks won't look at.
but keep in mind,
HIFI has been a huge market 2 decades ago.
Big names and research.
Today with the kids on MP3
ok car sound is still a huge market...
have a look at their woofers
but mp3 has pushed
hifi in the niche like single ended, Lowthers and all this stuff
where tweeking is sometimes more important as music.
Look at turntables, a good Thorens used is rare but
direct drive is like outdated, monster
high mass drives often not quite usable and adjusting
is more important as music are fascinating the niche market
The last Techniks direct drive is a great
piece on the block, hifi geeks are crying NO
no finesse and so on, Grado Uhhhhhhhhh
Renkus Heinz among others, like Genelec
have a huge market today
doing research and the unity patent
went to PA anyway
Look at Behringer,
homestudio use
makes it possible.
There is a very nice fanless power amp out
the digital xover for
a price hifi geeks won't look at.
And please keep in mind
all this finesse and marvel you get
was done by a mixing and mastering on so called nearfield monitors
maybe Genelecs.
there has been a time
LS3/5 A and Spendor
was in home use
and studio as well
some B&O still is
so mid field monitors with digital room EQ should give the
same finesse and marvel as they had mixing it down.
I do know I do blame all
single speaker and glass geeks.
I do like to have some single speaker a design from this Forum
in my bedroom, the design is free and the speaker not expensive,
some nice furniture with a nice gainclone,
it will marvel my mp3's huuuuuuuuuuuuuu really.
all this finesse and marvel you get
was done by a mixing and mastering on so called nearfield monitors
maybe Genelecs.
there has been a time
LS3/5 A and Spendor
was in home use
and studio as well
some B&O still is
so mid field monitors with digital room EQ should give the
same finesse and marvel as they had mixing it down.
I do know I do blame all
single speaker and glass geeks.
I do like to have some single speaker a design from this Forum
in my bedroom, the design is free and the speaker not expensive,
some nice furniture with a nice gainclone,
it will marvel my mp3's huuuuuuuuuuuuuu really.
Bratislav said:
But isn't the point that I did show that HOM existed and that they were audible. You seem to be discounting the fact that I HAVE looked for "box coloration" and I can't find it. Why would I acknowledge one and not the other? I have described my tests and my conclusions and I think that you should show some valid data to make the claims that you do. Where has it been shown in a controlled test that box coloration is audible for a reasonably well built box? I know of no such work.
This is getting interesting again 
Chrisb03, "audiophile" has become as much a dirty word as anything. A fashion and illusion industry that shuns measurements of objective performance. It doesn't matter to me what you call the product category as long as the design is based on an understanding of what really matters to the human ear (as opposed to what satisfies a spectrum analyzer, or what satisfies the ego). Without objective data to judge our progress by this is the harsh truth of the audiophile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4l2LMVAzig
Chrisb03, "audiophile" has become as much a dirty word as anything. A fashion and illusion industry that shuns measurements of objective performance. It doesn't matter to me what you call the product category as long as the design is based on an understanding of what really matters to the human ear (as opposed to what satisfies a spectrum analyzer, or what satisfies the ego). Without objective data to judge our progress by this is the harsh truth of the audiophile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4l2LMVAzig
Earl, I don't know of any box coloration data but I think his point was that we haven't seen any HOM measurements from you either. As far as I remember when asked about them you've usually said "they're very hard to measure". I'm not doubting they exist, seems logical enough, but I can't remember seeing any data showing them.
We did show that HOM types of distortions would be audible with a subjective test and I did show evidence in one of the ALMA papers on my web site where the foam reduced just this kind of thing. Thats not the complete package, true, but its close. As to box coloration all I have is data that says its NOT a significant effect. I don't think the two situations are comparable at all.
Why are some people so much more interested in the vehicle than the destination?
For my part of this box heresy I simply linked to Linkwitz's own answers to the question of the thread. If you have thoughts about orions you wish to post and I'm somehow disrupting this I apologize and hope you will post those rather than trouble the moderators.
I would think people interested in the orion/dipole would have read the Linkwitz and music and design sites (and maybe then endless earlier threads about them) by now. If they did that and then kept strictly on topic in this thread I don't think there would be many posts.
I've seen worse, at least we're talking about audio
For my part of this box heresy I simply linked to Linkwitz's own answers to the question of the thread. If you have thoughts about orions you wish to post and I'm somehow disrupting this I apologize and hope you will post those rather than trouble the moderators.
I would think people interested in the orion/dipole would have read the Linkwitz and music and design sites (and maybe then endless earlier threads about them) by now. If they did that and then kept strictly on topic in this thread I don't think there would be many posts.
I've seen worse, at least we're talking about audio
dipoles
No, I have dipoles... I'm always interested in more information about DIPOLES... hence, when I see a thread talking about DIPOLES, I start reading it. I've read Linkwitz's site, found it very enlightening re: OB's and DIPOLES.
I've also read Gedlees site when I waas intrigued about horns and HT, found that interesting and informative as well.
However, since this forum has chosen to give threads a title, one would hope that title would represent the content of the thread.
Or maybe DIY should degenerate into an Audio Asylum or the old newsgroup format RAO unmoderated. That'd be really fun...
John L.
No, I have dipoles... I'm always interested in more information about DIPOLES... hence, when I see a thread talking about DIPOLES, I start reading it. I've read Linkwitz's site, found it very enlightening re: OB's and DIPOLES.
I've also read Gedlees site when I waas intrigued about horns and HT, found that interesting and informative as well.
However, since this forum has chosen to give threads a title, one would hope that title would represent the content of the thread.
Or maybe DIY should degenerate into an Audio Asylum or the old newsgroup format RAO unmoderated. That'd be really fun...
John L.
Sorry for that
but Summa you can not compare to Orions
it is like apples to fish
there was a unity gif.
so it came in my mind
Orions and Linkwitz I do know for 20 years, Linkwitz imho....
it is a bit like the Quad ESL talk
or the Manger talk
each with his own theory
neither good or bad
neither false or true
For Orion and Quad ESL
most ESL there is quite no box involved
The Manger does the trick with one front
and 2 side 1 each side firing speakers in the top module.
All this to overcome box diffraction coloration.
Maybe an unity horn does it too with
other short comings but read the patent.
The magic of all this speakers is a so called box-less sound.
Theory about boxiness is very rare and mostly vague.
Anyway there are many routes to Rome...lousy translation
only there is no one and only way to go
have fun
doing mastering,, re-mastering, playing piano,
open to music of any kind I do know what I'm talking about
there is no one speaker for all music !!
But lots of people do claim for........
Point source, curved array, unity horn,
group delay, camb filter effect, all this stuff
is daily talk with PA people
but Summa you can not compare to Orions
it is like apples to fish
there was a unity gif.
so it came in my mind
Orions and Linkwitz I do know for 20 years, Linkwitz imho....
it is a bit like the Quad ESL talk
or the Manger talk
each with his own theory
neither good or bad
neither false or true
For Orion and Quad ESL
most ESL there is quite no box involved
The Manger does the trick with one front
and 2 side 1 each side firing speakers in the top module.
All this to overcome box diffraction coloration.
Maybe an unity horn does it too with
other short comings but read the patent.
The magic of all this speakers is a so called box-less sound.
Theory about boxiness is very rare and mostly vague.
Anyway there are many routes to Rome...lousy translation
only there is no one and only way to go
have fun
doing mastering,, re-mastering, playing piano,
open to music of any kind I do know what I'm talking about
there is no one speaker for all music !!
But lots of people do claim for........
Point source, curved array, unity horn,
group delay, camb filter effect, all this stuff
is daily talk with PA people
I don't know of any empirical data for box "coloration"...or lack thereof, but "coloration" is a subjective term, is it not?
It seems intuitively obvious to me that if you "box" one side of a transducer the environment for each side is now completely different. Inside the box SPL's are much higher, etc, etc. For an open-baffle approach the environment on both sides remain the same. How could containing one side of an acoustic transducer in such a way NOT yield some box "coloration" (however small) relative to open baffle approach?
I've listened to many open-baffle speakers through the years and all had a characteristic or "sound" that was somewhat different than a conventional speaker. More enjoyable usually. I realize there are many other factors that would come into play, but box "coloration" must have been a factor eh?
Cheers,
Dave.
It seems intuitively obvious to me that if you "box" one side of a transducer the environment for each side is now completely different. Inside the box SPL's are much higher, etc, etc. For an open-baffle approach the environment on both sides remain the same. How could containing one side of an acoustic transducer in such a way NOT yield some box "coloration" (however small) relative to open baffle approach?
I've listened to many open-baffle speakers through the years and all had a characteristic or "sound" that was somewhat different than a conventional speaker. More enjoyable usually. I realize there are many other factors that would come into play, but box "coloration" must have been a factor eh?
Cheers,
Dave.
I've always thought OBs & other dipoles had an unnatural coloration.Davey said:
But yes, you can quantify comb filtering, etc (and other causes of "coloration in OBs) if it matters.
But some people like it.
And even say things like "blah, blah sound great because dipole"
Then it's off topic or flame city to talk about great sound if it requires leaving OBs, or break "coloration" up into "bad" (box) coloration or "pleasant" or "enjoyable" coloration...
(the entire above joke was not to be taken too seriously...)
Davey said:
I read an interview with the designer of the Vanderstien (sp?) speakers about 15 years ago. In the interview, he discussed how important it was for him to have a custom basket designed for his midranges so that there weren't reflections off the basket.
He missed the point entirely.
The sound he was hearing was due to the speaker's radiation pattern, not reflections off the basket. (It uses a dipole midrange.)
Misunderstandings like that are the same reason I bring up waveguides in a dipole thread. It's the *radiation pattern* that's special in a dipole.
Obsessing about reflections inside of a sealed box ignores the fact that the reflections off the enclosure itself are audible, and can lead to peaks on the order of SIX DB! That's *very* easy to detect in any frequency response or impulse plot.
Must it? It's a very interesting question. It certainly sounds reasonable, but do we know this or just feel it should be true? Many here say it's true, also that it's very obvious and easy to hear which would imply it's very easy to measure, but Earl has reported he had no success doing that.
I know there's certainly a large difference in sound when you take the same driver and put it in a box or an open baffle, but there are very large differences between these cases that would make "box sound" a small and difficult factor to isolate. Lets say we try this experiment with two identical fullrange speakers, one in a box and one on an open baffle. There will be very different polar responses in the two cases and we know this is a large factor in the perceived sound quality. Listening in an anechoic or outdoor environment should eliminate this as a factor. Still there is a large difference in bass extension which we also know is strongly correlated with good subjective ratings. Here we have more trouble because EQing the dipole to match the boxed speaker will have many undesirable effects. We could roll off the bass of the boxed speaker to match the dipole perhaps but this may reduce the "box coloration" we are looking for? Although we are outdoors we still have the delayed sound from the rear of the open baffle speaker coming around and reaching the listener. This is an obvious difference between our speakers and has nothing to do with box with the box resonances and coloration we seek to isolate. How to proceed now? I can see no path from here. Maybe we need a new starting point, infinite baffle with and without a box on the back? Then we don't hear any possible radiation from the cabinet though just what would come back through the speaker.
Any ideas?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.