No wonder - there is not *that* much to discover in CD - what actually was a "little bit new" was the discussion about horn honk and the entering of wavelet analysis to better display time domain issues of horns in general IMO.
With OB in contrary, there are still some white spots on the map - also regarding time domain issues - here diffraction is most obvious part and parcel with the principle - and this "diffraction alignment" thing and its CMP implication isn't in the heads of most still.
Michael
Last edited:
That's not my reading of it, or even what I have heard people actually say at GTGs and the like. Most see something like a Jamo 909 and see a flat board with a few holes in it filled with drivers and go 'I could build that'.
Most DIYers do not go into it in anywhere near the depth you do, as most don't have good measuring tools or are willing to do the analysis to really learn what goes on. There are a few, but looking over the dozen or so boards I regularly post on, most copy other people's designs and most are even reluctant to pop the $100 for a calibrated mic, let alone the $350 for SE and the time and effort to learn how to use it.
Most DIYers do not go into it in anywhere near the depth you do, as most don't have good measuring tools or are willing to do the analysis to really learn what goes on. There are a few, but looking over the dozen or so boards I regularly post on, most copy other people's designs and most are even reluctant to pop the $100 for a calibrated mic, let alone the $350 for SE and the time and effort to learn how to use it.
Dixi ? Modern ? Blues ? Cool ? Swing ? Free ? instrumental ? Solo ? BigBand ? Small ensembles ?
Michael
Well, I would argure than anyone can slap a couple of drivers on a baffle and call it an OB speaker, just as anyone can build a box. There isn't much difference. But getting the polar response the way you want it with either an OB or a box isn't a cut and past thing. I don't think many people who build OB speakers pay much attention to polar response. That should be pretty obvioud just by looking at them.
I agree with this. Cutting holes in a baffle in less work than building a box, but it is not 'simpler' than building a box. Having said that, OB certainly does produce a satisfying experience for me at least. It is the best speaker I have heard. I have measured it, I have done the crossover and I know what's going on. I have also chosen to ignore the off axis response. Not because its unimportant, but because its easy to enjoy these speakers without improving polar response.
At the end of it, OB is simple, easy to build and it sounds pretty damn good for the amount of work put into it.
Well, some would say that is quite a bit. Horns always could bring a lot to the table -- directivity control, efficiency, dynamic range. All of which were rendered useless to many because of the blasted honking or in-your-face sound they tended to have. But that part being pretty well solved nowadays makes for quite a big deal in my book.
Interesting, I would tend to agree a bit more with John K if he is meaning regularity in polar response. But I would also honor the CD claim because our loudspeakers will probably play in pretty symmetrical environment both sides.
Thus the intuitive strength of the CD claim for OBs is strong. I also think that forward and backward levels should match.
I would tend to disagree by a margin about 'sloppy OB presentations' (my terminology). This is about room performance, reverberation and direct and indirect sound. I have for instance visited the new Danish Radio Consert Hall which has a very short reverberation time. There I for the first time was listening to a live concert 'in stereo' that is I could place musicians on the podium when listening. Normally this is not the case in live performances and also musicians and conductors disagreed to a large extent to the hall acoustics. May be they have altered the balance by now. However I didn't think the effect was so disturbing, but interesting. Judging what you hear from your speakers against live performance I think good OB sound is the best.
I don't find the boxes very exciting or revealing as they are compromised both in bass and treble.
/Erling
Thus the intuitive strength of the CD claim for OBs is strong. I also think that forward and backward levels should match.
I would tend to disagree by a margin about 'sloppy OB presentations' (my terminology). This is about room performance, reverberation and direct and indirect sound. I have for instance visited the new Danish Radio Consert Hall which has a very short reverberation time. There I for the first time was listening to a live concert 'in stereo' that is I could place musicians on the podium when listening. Normally this is not the case in live performances and also musicians and conductors disagreed to a large extent to the hall acoustics. May be they have altered the balance by now. However I didn't think the effect was so disturbing, but interesting. Judging what you hear from your speakers against live performance I think good OB sound is the best.
I don't find the boxes very exciting or revealing as they are compromised both in bass and treble.
/Erling
Last edited:
What's next, the Bose 901 clone?
Hey.. how did you know I was about to build an IMP?
Hi Gainfile,
congrats, good job. A nice, reasonable and honest write up !
Two years ago I would have thought that as well. It was actually one of the behaviors that fascinated me about dipoles right away.
So funny that you say that !
Slightly OT again:
I was studying the MiniDSP links about the LT and played with the spread sheet. It really seems that the guys from NL have implemented it properly. I test drove the LT tab of the spread sheet with another application of the LT than LF extension: You can use it to make the HP behavior of a driver part of the acoustical HP transfer function (filter + driver). I also tried it with Q<0.5 and seems to work as well. So for now this is the only DSP S/W I know that can do it !
Thanks. Yes I'm sure you can relate to motorbikes analogy
. Fortunately speakers are cheaper and I can have ALL Indeed MiniDSP is so powerful. For my dipoles for example, I don't even need a HP filter for woofer. Just shape the natural rolloff accordingly with LT. It is *very* consistent between theory and measured practice. Nothing one can't do with op-amps, but this one only takes 3 minutes!
Sure. I will take listening position measurement next time (all my measurements are 1m. Please PM me your email address.
Going for the state of the art I suppose some challenge would be by comparing Earl Geddes best design with what could be built for some CD OBs with very equal back and forward response.
Neo10 and Neo3 come to suggestions as very natural, combined with AE Dipole15 as also a very safe bet.
Just do it !
/Erling
Neo10 and Neo3 come to suggestions as very natural, combined with AE Dipole15 as also a very safe bet.
Just do it !
/Erling
I did
Or should I say I am, but don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing my design to anyone's, wouldn't be game, dont know enough & probably never will, but I am using the speakers you mentioned.David
Thanks. Yes I'm sure you can relate to motorbikes analogy
I like this sound.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
And this sound as long it has stereo cilinders and good midrange and low end not that surround crap
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
And this sound as long it has stereo cilinders and good midrange and low end not that surround crap
Yes, stereo, no surround crap.
Depending how you look at it, it is even bipole or dipole
(not sure anymore if they are in phase or not).OK, back on topic...
Attachments
Hi,
It would indicate polar response may not be that important as long as loudspeaker directivity is above a certain level (like dipole), and that nowadays so famous concept of so called constant directivity is not the main contributor to achieve a good sounding loudspeaker.
On the other hand, for a loudspeaker having no or low directivity (like monopole) the relative importance of polar response gets higher.
- Elias
It would indicate polar response may not be that important as long as loudspeaker directivity is above a certain level (like dipole), and that nowadays so famous concept of so called constant directivity is not the main contributor to achieve a good sounding loudspeaker.
On the other hand, for a loudspeaker having no or low directivity (like monopole) the relative importance of polar response gets higher.
- Elias
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.