How is this a conflict? Why is it that designing along multiple design philosophies is wrong. It's Garden of the Forking Paths kind of stuff. Sort of.
This whole thread has become quite silly.
So John thinks his design is best. I'm sure SL feels that way about his design. Whether he posts it or not, well...he has posted it, just on his site.
We're all losing sight of the point that dipole designs in general may offer very significant advantages and that this is a CLASS EFFECT, that is, all these designs are good. They are minor variations around the same theme. My guess is that SL and John are happy there is more interest in this class of designs. Both of them seem to have well executed designs. They likely sound more similar than different. (I've heard the Orions, but not the NaO's)
I don't care which one is better, since I'm going to build my own.
And of course, it will be the best...
ucla88 said:
From my experience i can mount no argument against this -- the only BIG disadvantage is size.
My latest -- still in development.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55322&highlight=
dave
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Oh I dunno...I think you guys are misinterpretting things. Which happens all the time on the 'net. So it's no biggie- and certainly no need to start jumping on each other?
When I read JohnK's quip about his NaO II, i didn't find it the least bit offensive or rude. After all, I thought the inital poster was asking about amplifiers (for his Orion-based HT system.)
Read it for yourself.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050430...orums/showthread.php?postid=592310#post592310
Isn't he asking a question about amplifiers?? My interpretation is that GotJazz has a real concern about getting high quality amplification, at reasonable prices, for his work-in-progress construction. And rightly so- it does require 14 channels of amplification to run 5 speakers.
I presume that John K saw an opportunity to do a plug for his upcoming NaO II, which up to that date, was largely kept in secret. One of the pros of the NaO I/II, by his own admission, is that it requires only 4 channels of amplification. So with a centre and surrounds that's 7 channels to power 5 speakers.
So you put two and two together, isn't JohnK just making a plug for his NaO II. So what?
Does claiming that some speaker is a "wrong" speaker make it a a stab at the design, or even designer?
I want to build a compact and slim speaker that can be propped up against a wall, in the corner of my beloved's small townhouse living room, measuring only 16x13 ft.
If I wanted to build the NaO for this room, wouldn't this be the would be the wrong speaker to look at? And if someone were to say to me "you are looking at the wrong speaker" is that bashing the design/er?
Is it ok for John "Zaph" Krujke to come in and put in a plug for the "right" speaker for my needs? After all, he knows I'm building his L18TBFCG (with reduced baffle step compensation option)
Why don't I save him the hassle and link his website?
http://www.zaphaudio.com/audio-speaker17.html
Say I'm a believer in full range speaker systems, is there something wrong when I decide to design a 2-way WITH a crossover?
Come on guys, lets get a few beers and chillout...
Getting ready for flames about how I'm a JK fanboy, how I hate SL or Mac...
mac said:
(JPK) Thanks, really. That was a case of offering an option that doesn't require 14 channels of amplification. But I can see how it could be taken the wrong way. If you found it offensive I apologize. It seemed to me, probably because I didn't read the thread closely enough, that the gentleman was balking at the need for all that amplification. So I offered the option.
So let's leave it at that. It was not intended to offend anyone. Just pointing to what might a way out of what I saw as a dilemma. Again, I apologize to anyone who was offended.
Now mac, as for the TP stuff, I don't really think I need to justify why the NaO is not TP any more that SL needs to justify why the Pluto has the woofer in a box and has an omni radiation pattern when SL is so vehemently against both. For me TP design is an on going area of interest and research. It is not a requirement that every speaker I design must adhere to just as SL's Pluto doesn't adhere to his primary design objectives. However, I do believe that if a speaker system can be designed which is TP, or maybe better stated, minimum phase, on axis, without sacrificing other properties, then it should be a better, more accurate transducer.
As for you comment about me and dipoles, well I responded to you on that front at MAD and I am not about to rehash that again here except to say, as I did at MAD, that every commercial speaker I have owned since 1977 has been a dipole of one form or another. That should cover where I stand on dipoles. Any other comments were always in response to questions or in making comparisons between dipoles and monopoles and the good/bad points of each.
Hi John K,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I believe that it was a very poor choice of words - not meant to offend - and leave it at that. I personally chose an Orion based design because it fit my needs. I saw your NaO design, but saw no advantage over the Orion, since I use only 6 channels of amplification. DCX2496 outputs to a HK receiver. 4 amp channels of receiver used for mids/highs and preouts for lows to a QSC 2 channel Pro amp. The 2 woofers on ea. side are wired parallel (4ohms). Perhaps I should have suggested this simplified setup on the original post by Jazz. I see no need to take this discussion any further and would like to steer the thread back to the original direction.
I think the Pluto is simply an extension of SL's original surround speaker (which was midwoofer ONLY) that he chose to develop into a fullrange NEARFIELD monitor. I think he clearly makes this distinction. Could he have made another OB dipole for the same $ amount? Sure. But why? He has examples of a lower cost dipole in his Design Models page. I really think he simply chose to take something he already had, modify it, then offer it up as a design that might meet someone's PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS. It is not meant to replace the Orion as a reference design. BTW I personally would have NO interest in something like the Pluto. But thats just me Lets all try to keep these forums that I truly enjoy participating in more of a discussion of ideas, rather than a discussion of personalities and ego's.
Again, hopefully we can steer this thread back to the original thoughts about the PLUTO.
Cheers
AJ
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I believe that it was a very poor choice of words - not meant to offend - and leave it at that. I personally chose an Orion based design because it fit my needs. I saw your NaO design, but saw no advantage over the Orion, since I use only 6 channels of amplification. DCX2496 outputs to a HK receiver. 4 amp channels of receiver used for mids/highs and preouts for lows to a QSC 2 channel Pro amp. The 2 woofers on ea. side are wired parallel (4ohms). Perhaps I should have suggested this simplified setup on the original post by Jazz. I see no need to take this discussion any further and would like to steer the thread back to the original direction.
I think the Pluto is simply an extension of SL's original surround speaker (which was midwoofer ONLY) that he chose to develop into a fullrange NEARFIELD monitor. I think he clearly makes this distinction. Could he have made another OB dipole for the same $ amount? Sure. But why? He has examples of a lower cost dipole in his Design Models page. I really think he simply chose to take something he already had, modify it, then offer it up as a design that might meet someone's PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS. It is not meant to replace the Orion as a reference design. BTW I personally would have NO interest in something like the Pluto. But thats just me
Lets all try to keep these forums that I truly enjoy participating in more of a discussion of ideas, rather than a discussion of personalities and ego's.Again, hopefully we can steer this thread back to the original thoughts about the PLUTO.
Cheers
AJ
As usual with Siegfried, he illustrated what his design objective was, how he proceeded to try and meet it, and published the results.
And he noted the caveats and limitations clearly.
I'm not sure what's left to say about the Pluto at this point.....until someone builds them or one of our northern California friends can get an invite to SL's for a listen.
Davey.
And he noted the caveats and limitations clearly.
I'm not sure what's left to say about the Pluto at this point.....until someone builds them or one of our northern California friends can get an invite to SL's for a listen.
Davey.
"I'm not sure what's left to say about the Pluto at this point.....until someone builds them or one of our northern California friends can get an invite to SL's for a listen."
Davey. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, getting back to the original theme of the thread - one of my questions is about that Aura tweet - anybody know anything about it? Heard it? Built anything with it? Any audible issues with a ceiling of 15 khz? And what about alternate drivers altogether?
Also, one thing I just can't shake off is the active electronics of the Pluto - I'm sure it really tweaks the design to get everything possible out of the drivers, but if you're going to go budget I'd just go passive and use my existing amps. This would really bring the price down, but I suppose you could just go ahead and build it that way anyway - there's enough info on SL's description on the site to take the basic concept and do anything you want with the electronics.
Cosmetically speaking, I think it's an ugly duckling, but that is of low priority if one is serious about a particular design. I'd paint the thing, or veneer it, or use a wood cylinder for the woof tube and put a sweet finish on it.
P.S. - John said he misspoke in the other thread, so I'll accept that.
Davey. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, getting back to the original theme of the thread - one of my questions is about that Aura tweet - anybody know anything about it? Heard it? Built anything with it? Any audible issues with a ceiling of 15 khz? And what about alternate drivers altogether?
Also, one thing I just can't shake off is the active electronics of the Pluto - I'm sure it really tweaks the design to get everything possible out of the drivers, but if you're going to go budget I'd just go passive and use my existing amps. This would really bring the price down, but I suppose you could just go ahead and build it that way anyway - there's enough info on SL's description on the site to take the basic concept and do anything you want with the electronics.
Cosmetically speaking, I think it's an ugly duckling, but that is of low priority if one is serious about a particular design. I'd paint the thing, or veneer it, or use a wood cylinder for the woof tube and put a sweet finish on it.
P.S. - John said he misspoke in the other thread, so I'll accept that.
sdclc126 said:
I've got some experience with the Aura Whisper. While I bought them and am currently using them in an application that is relatively sonically uncritical (currently covering ~400Hz up in a small roadster, paired with an 8" Peerless SLS woofer and an electrically 4th order crossover, though I'm going to do some more serious tweaking in the near future and that may change the crossover point) I have listened to them in the nearfield fairly extensively. I think for $40/pair they are a miracle, honestly, for the range they cover and the smoothness with which they do it. At nearfield-appropriate listening levels, there really isn't anything wrong them them. As you crank up the volume beyond what I consider comfortable for nearfield listening, they start to sound a bit honey-toned, not at all dissimilar to speakers hooked up to an amp designed to sound euphonic like a conrad johnson. (John Krutke's measurements show high 2nd order distortion, which correlates nicely with my subjective impressions. That's why SL's comments comparing the Pluto to the Orion - which uses the lowest distortion small drivers around*; however, he's got infinitely more experience and is all but certain to be a far superior critical listener than the likes of me, so being unable to make the comparison myself I'm inclined to accept his opinion.) Go a bit louder than that, and they finally become unpleasant, with a sharp edge on top of the music. Perhaps SL's higher crossover point keeps it out of the edgy range, though.
As far as the treble, I DO think there might be a little bit less "sparkle" to the treble compared to my reference nearfield speakers (KEF Q15's), but that could well be merely because I "know" the FR characteristics of the two speakers. In the car, it's no issue at all, though.
From a design perspective, the terminals are AWFUL, the worst of any driver I've ever used, and I'm not sure how the Pluto will look up close because of the Whisper's mounting ears. (Actually, neither driver's flange is a good aesthetic match for a tube enclosure.)
As for alternate drivers, I don't know of any other 2" drivers with that kind of incredible motor linearity and excursion. However, SL's 1kHz crossover point may allow the use of drivers like the 2" TangBands.
*Obviously, good larger format drivers and compression drivers on good horns are much lower in distortion than the tiny Seas Excels.
One thing I have noted for certain in reading SL's site is that he is very firm in his belief that active speakers are superior to passive.
He believes that better control of each driver is achieved with separate amplification for each driver. His site goes into the rationale in significant detail. On the Pluto, he is integrating the crossover, EQ and power amp functions in one relatively small and inexpensive package considering what all it does.
To paraphrase his own words, "You can change a Pluto by different crossovers or amps, but then it isn't a Pluto" He appears to want his designs to stand on their own, and he has considered all of the engineering tradeoffs and made his decision based on his analysis. What is wrong with that?
Others are certainly free to implement different design approaches with different tradeoffs. John K certainly has done that with the NaO, and by all reports, achieved results that are extremely well received. John certainly made design decisons based on tradeoffs that were inline with his design philosophy, just as SL has done with all of his designs. I just think that is great that people as talented as SL or John share the results of their work. It would be very boring to constantly see nothing but another 6.5" woofer two way in either a vented or sealed box with a conventional passive crossover, not athat there is anything wrong with that.....
He believes that better control of each driver is achieved with separate amplification for each driver. His site goes into the rationale in significant detail. On the Pluto, he is integrating the crossover, EQ and power amp functions in one relatively small and inexpensive package considering what all it does.
To paraphrase his own words, "You can change a Pluto by different crossovers or amps, but then it isn't a Pluto" He appears to want his designs to stand on their own, and he has considered all of the engineering tradeoffs and made his decision based on his analysis. What is wrong with that?
Others are certainly free to implement different design approaches with different tradeoffs. John K certainly has done that with the NaO, and by all reports, achieved results that are extremely well received. John certainly made design decisons based on tradeoffs that were inline with his design philosophy, just as SL has done with all of his designs. I just think that is great that people as talented as SL or John share the results of their work. It would be very boring to constantly see nothing but another 6.5" woofer two way in either a vented or sealed box with a conventional passive crossover, not athat there is anything wrong with that.....
sdclc126 said:
I've tested a bunch of them and the 2" Aura isn't very good. The drooping top octave is not the issue, in fact you can hardly notice that. It's the high distortion around 2kHz. high energy storage and a 3rd order HD spike makes it sound very edgy compared to other drivers of similar size. You may not notice this until the right music comes along, but some female vocals make it stand out real bad. (like Alison Krauss) I tested 4 of these total (2 about 8 months ago and 2 about 3 months ago) and they all had the same issue.
AURA-NSW2-FR.gif
AURA-NSW2-CSD.gif
AURA-NSW2-HD.gif
What I don't know is if mounting in a tube rather than a flat baffle improves that situation. I doubt it, but there's the chance and I have not tested them that way.
None of the 2" drivers performed very well (I've tested just about all of them) but of them, I think the Tangband W2-880 was the best.
Im still not sure what all the discord is about. SL has designed an active speaker system, ment to perform as well as possible, using the drivers and enclosure specified. Could it be cheaper by using a passive xo? Maybe. Will it perform as well. No. I think that for $290 for each for the electonics module, you get quite a bit. Two different amplifiers, an electronic xo, and equalization. It looks like it does include a toriod transfo and is fully tested. The PVC is not the most attractive material but it allows anyone to go to Home Depot, purchase materials, and with a hacksaw, glue, screwdriver and soldering iron, build a well engineered speaker. For those who are more adept at fabrication, the simple design can easily be transfered to wood or metal or a combination of materials.
I think that active systems are the obvious future, since the cost of electronics production is becoming very inexpensive. Chip and digital amps will make active systems quite cost effective. Using GOOD passive components is becoming a costly proposition. Throw in wireless signal from a preamp/DAC/ PC music server and youll have the next generation audio system now. Whether that rangles the "keep it simple" analog/discrete crowd or not, its whats next.
As for the Pluto, Im wondering if the boards would allow for elimination or bypassing the LM3886 amps and having outputs for off board amps. I personally would keep the woofer amp intact and opt for either using the tweeter amp or bypassing it to use an off board amp. Not sure if thats feasible with the other circuitry.
Looking at the schematic, it apprears that could be done. But Im not savy enough to really know.
amt
I think that active systems are the obvious future, since the cost of electronics production is becoming very inexpensive. Chip and digital amps will make active systems quite cost effective. Using GOOD passive components is becoming a costly proposition. Throw in wireless signal from a preamp/DAC/ PC music server and youll have the next generation audio system now. Whether that rangles the "keep it simple" analog/discrete crowd or not, its whats next.
As for the Pluto, Im wondering if the boards would allow for elimination or bypassing the LM3886 amps and having outputs for off board amps. I personally would keep the woofer amp intact and opt for either using the tweeter amp or bypassing it to use an off board amp. Not sure if thats feasible with the other circuitry.
Looking at the schematic, it apprears that could be done. But Im not savy enough to really know.
amt
Zaph said:
I'm wondering if one could use a more "conventional" set-up with the Pluto platform - regular 1" soft dome tweet at a higher x-over point - if the Peerless woof isn't ideal for this there have to be others that are - there are lots of conventional 2-way systems based on 6.5" woofs. Of course there would be changes in the electronics then, and SL has his (perfectly good) reasons for doing what he does...
Thanks for the info Zaph.
I believe that to retain the omni-directional effect of the woofer, it needs a low xo point, hence the 2" cone tweeter (really a wide range driver) Not any conventional domes that go down as low as needed, afaik. And small diameter is also key to the tweeter. No edge diffraction since the edge of the cone surround is the edge of the enclosure, I believe.
amt
amt
catapult said:
There is no rear chamber on these drivers, the back is open. There is a ring magnet assembly, and the speaker is visible through the middle. An enclosure of some sort is required.
The other interesting thing about these is that they have no terminals. To use them, you have to solder wires onto little plates. (kind of a pain)
planet10 said:
I know a guy who has a pair of JX53's. A while back, I asked him if he wanted them included in my test of small drivers, and he said no. Later he admitted he was afraid I would say they did not perform well. I find that the more expensive a driver is, the less likely it is to get tested and compared to similar and/or cheaper drivers. It's never a guarentee that something is better because it is more expensive. See my recent tweeter tests for an example of that.
Have you ever tested those and compared them to similar size drivers?
Zaph said:
As a side note, this is what the aura motors look like on the inside. These are also used in the M-Design towers. (thus the funky driver names) I can't tell from the picture if the one on the top is the NSW1 or the NSW2, but they both share the same motor geometry. The one on the botom is the NS3, which is a much nicer driver.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.