really? gee, I was under the impression that real science actually produces results that we see in everyday life.
absurdity aside (the bold portion), the article explains why what you wrote happens.
oh, another lesson of epistemology...
so, according to Jan's article... do you fit into the "currently getting rich" category?
it is so funny to see you replying, especially when your posts into the "snake oil" thread fit into the patterns described in the article (claims without proof, basic lack of understanding of the pre-existing science etc).
My take on this is that the speaker's distortion characteristics intermodulate with the distortion from all elements earlier in the chain. The 'drawing attention to itself' is the typical marker of excess low level distortion which is the product of every element, including the driver, in the chain.
Have you tried heavily conditioning the drivers, especially the more vintage sounding ones, before subjectively assessing them. By this I mean feeding them a diet of high energy music, especially with lots of treble, at high volume for at least an hour, say? I've found cheap or rough sounding speakers usually have fairly crappy suspensions, and driving them hard helps to make them more 'flexible'. Unfortunately, this has to be done every time from cold ...
Not always, no. I'm having trouble seeing the current technological application of, say, electroweak force, though perhaps I'm missing something. Technology follows science, but not always immediately.
The link is amusing but not terribly enlightening- yes, charlatans put on conventions that are attended (and paid for) by the gullible and the ignorant. This is news?
read a bit more and realized what a flat Earth theorist site that is.
I remember watching some science/technology program on national television many years ago. some guy claimed that he invented the perfect engine (can't remember the details). indeed, at a quick look it seemed to be the perfect engine. turned out it had been first invented long before and the conclusion was is that it creates more problems than it solves and it's only good for water pumps or something.
but it's a great introduction to this quackery thread
and the last thing before I go about my business... the fact that some think that science took the wrong turn in the 20th century (mentioned in the flat Earth article) is because it has reached a level of complexity that requires much understanding effort. the age of simple inventions and discoveries is long gone. issue which, even more amusingly, is also addressed in the article Jan linked to.
I remember watching some science/technology program on national television many years ago. some guy claimed that he invented the perfect engine (can't remember the details). indeed, at a quick look it seemed to be the perfect engine. turned out it had been first invented long before and the conclusion was is that it creates more problems than it solves and it's only good for water pumps or something.
but it's a great introduction to this quackery thread
and the last thing before I go about my business... the fact that some think that science took the wrong turn in the 20th century (mentioned in the flat Earth article) is because it has reached a level of complexity that requires much understanding effort. the age of simple inventions and discoveries is long gone. issue which, even more amusingly, is also addressed in the article Jan linked to.
Last edited:
Cone breakup makes a huge difference in polar patterns, as do modes from edge reflections. We can measure things a bit better now than we could 40 years ago.
"Audio" used to use Heyser plots in their speaker reviews- I miss that a lot, it's a superb technique for pinning down unintended resonances that may be too subtle to show as wrinkles in the magnitude plot.
"Audio" used to use Heyser plots in their speaker reviews- I miss that a lot, it's a superb technique for pinning down unintended resonances that may be too subtle to show as wrinkles in the magnitude plot.
Cone breakup makes a huge difference in polar patterns, as do modes from edge reflections. We can measure things a bit better now than we could 40 years ago.
"Audio" used to use Heyser plots in their speaker reviews- I miss that a lot, it's a superb technique for pinning down unintended resonances that may be too subtle to show as wrinkles in the magnitude plot.
Yes, concur.
Take a (lengthy) look at the Linkwitz labs documentation on Frontiers
He finds that differences in polar response are one of the most significant factors in the sound of a speaker and on the effect of room acoustics
http://www.platanaudio.sk/cache/documents/HE-NOVUM-2013.pdf
anybody interested in expensive casted brass ?
anybody interested in expensive casted brass ?
It's all about human nature, really.
Some years ago, I came up with a circuit which seemed next to perfect. I was elated initially. Then I discovered that Nelson Pass had done excatly the same thing some 15 years before me. Oh well, ...
Amateurs love to think they discovered something new even when they have not, and if they are to be faulted, it would be for not checking out their discovery more throughly because chances are they'd find that somebody had already done that.
Academics are, by and large, locked tightly into their both professional and academic boxes, and will fight to their dying breath anything that does not play by their rules, as they see them. But they do have the necessary knowledge base which most amateurs do not.
I would not be quick to call all academics hoplessly locked into their boxes, I think that in the end, it all comes down to the individual. Some will be locked in, others my be excited if not by what they see before them but by what they might see beyond what's before them, some will tell you not to meddle with the heavenly forces they command, others will gently explain how things really are and still pat you on the back for the effort you put in it, and so forth. No simple and single approach is possible really, everybody is a different person.
As for intellectual superiority, it is a necessary evil with most academics, and especially those who actively teach. It comes from 35+ years of looking at eager young freshmen waiting for the lecture, who are actually there to be educated. Trust me, I have had a total of 4 academics in my immediate family, and still have one (the good wife, medicine, pharmacology, 35 years a professor, generally acknowledged as the best in the country in her field).
And yeah, oh yessir, they can be ever so childish.
Some years ago, I came up with a circuit which seemed next to perfect. I was elated initially. Then I discovered that Nelson Pass had done excatly the same thing some 15 years before me. Oh well, ...
Amateurs love to think they discovered something new even when they have not, and if they are to be faulted, it would be for not checking out their discovery more throughly because chances are they'd find that somebody had already done that.
Academics are, by and large, locked tightly into their both professional and academic boxes, and will fight to their dying breath anything that does not play by their rules, as they see them. But they do have the necessary knowledge base which most amateurs do not.
I would not be quick to call all academics hoplessly locked into their boxes, I think that in the end, it all comes down to the individual. Some will be locked in, others my be excited if not by what they see before them but by what they might see beyond what's before them, some will tell you not to meddle with the heavenly forces they command, others will gently explain how things really are and still pat you on the back for the effort you put in it, and so forth. No simple and single approach is possible really, everybody is a different person.
As for intellectual superiority, it is a necessary evil with most academics, and especially those who actively teach. It comes from 35+ years of looking at eager young freshmen waiting for the lecture, who are actually there to be educated. Trust me, I have had a total of 4 academics in my immediate family, and still have one (the good wife, medicine, pharmacology, 35 years a professor, generally acknowledged as the best in the country in her field).
And yeah, oh yessir, they can be ever so childish.
Another difference between accurate talking to explain things, versus trying to attack people because they hurt your believe:
You say 'the article Jan linked to'.
The other disturbed guy immediately called it 'Jan's article'.
May seem small, but the pattern is always there.
I believe it is called 'shooting the messenger becasue you don't like the message'. Sooo transparent!
jan
Gentlemen - do we really NEED to squabble here and now?
We know we disagree on a number of points - so what? Isn't that the purpose of forums such as this one, to let two or more opposing sides bring out their arguments and see how the general feeling goes?
Why do so many think of the opposing party as a personal enemy out to get him? I would have hoped we were all a bit too mature for that.
Jan, I think you are seeing too much of what is not there. Nobody wants to shoot you, messenger or not, Belgians are not too easy to come by these days. I for one may or may not agree with you, but I certainly don't want to be left without your comments. Cheer up!
We know we disagree on a number of points - so what? Isn't that the purpose of forums such as this one, to let two or more opposing sides bring out their arguments and see how the general feeling goes?
Why do so many think of the opposing party as a personal enemy out to get him? I would have hoped we were all a bit too mature for that.
Jan, I think you are seeing too much of what is not there. Nobody wants to shoot you, messenger or not, Belgians are not too easy to come by these days.
I for one may or may not agree with you, but I certainly don't want to be left without your comments. Cheer up!Au contraire, I'm impressed! If you come up with an idea without having been accidentally or otherwise exposed to the 'prior knowledge' then it's effectively equivalent to the original discovery, as far as I'm concerned. So I'm happy to say, "Good on you!!"
My redeeming value was that I was not one iota bitter, or angry, or anything such. I took it in my stride, after all, Nelson Pass has a PHD and has been at it way longer and deeper than I have, it seemed and seems normal that such a man has a better chance of hitting on the idea.
Plus, I kinda like Nelson's work, though I've never met him even via Internet.
Bored for a new idea I want to get 16 TV speakers and mount them on a 48 x 19 baffles ( 8 per baffle should be enough ) . The idea is to know if Robin Marshall was right when he said the Quad ESL is mostly about having no box . The panels I use now have a very narrow window as the only criticism . However they might be helping the room. The first thing with this idea is how best to use the polar dispersion . I suspect a line array is the more practical . This comes from me thinking my cheap TV is half decent . At not much cost how far will I get ? One idea is to use 16 x TDA2030 , The magnet might serve as a heat-sink . I don't see the low frequency being a problem . My panels rightly or wrongly crossover at 600 Hz . I might be able to get the " idea " to work having 2 sub woofers at the baffle bases . Initially use my nice speakers to supply the bass . Starting point for subs would be guitar speakers . The TDA's offer the chance to play with how the speakers work . I 75% expect it goes nowhere . If it works it is because Robin was right and Bose also . If it needs a tweeter Motorola types with TDA 2030 crossing over at 7 kHz , when not asked to go to 3 kHz they can be very good . $4 or less per driver
http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1256279.pdf
It is very strange how IB speakers killed the use of moving coil baffles . All the high flung stuff spoken of here never looks at how bad a box is . It is really bad . I don't mean slightly bad . I mean , really bad . There was a craze for sand filled speakers in the 1950's . This was I guess because people remembered baffle speakers ? Gilbert Briggs did tests on speakers and found the debates laughable ( output of sidewalls and distortion produced ) . He simply said as sand was transportable it was the answer , that plywood or chipboard was best was by measurement splitting hairs . It would be said 1 inch this was better than 1 inch that . As Gilbert said 1 1/2 inch of the worst was better still .
Sand filling allowed a speaker that could never be lifted to be owned . When Raymond Cooke working for Gilbert insisted plastics were the way forward he asked Raymond to listen to the Quad's . If that catches on we all need go to the workhouse Gilbert reportedly said . As far as I know time stood still and that is still true today . Having heard AR3 I can understand why it killed baffles . The rest I don't understand . I think my speaker would slightly outperform AR3 at 15 kHz ? If so not a disaster for a $4 driver . AR3's can be sublime if asking , no that is damming them with faint praise . They have faults , they are an important landmark . It could be argued all ( most ) modern turntables originate from Ed Vilchur's frustration about turntable rumble . He was asked how he made his turntable image so well . He thought it a daft question . I could answer it but won't bother .
@Nige
I agree in part with your comments regarding AR. A friend owned AR3a, and taking a cue from him, I purchased AR5. These were the same boxes, with the same mid and tweeter domes, but the bass was not 12" but 10", and in return, nominal impedance was not 4 Ohms but 8 Ohms. In 1986, I purchsed AR94, the world's first 2.5 way speaker, which I own to this day, and which has had its refreshment in 1997.
While AR definitely did have a treble, it's also true that despite dome drivers, it was rather directional, and over a narrow band. Removing the cloth baffle made them look downright ugly and agricultural, did improve the situation somewhat. But it still took standing about 2 yards away from them in a straight line to get the full dose of treble.
AR94 adopted a new architecture. They had a wide box, but the area around the dome tweeter to almost the edge had a bushy cotton (?) cloth glued around the driver, which was supposed to deal with refraction of the dome. It was definitely a better solution than on AR5, but to me still not quite "the real deal".
On my own speakers, that problem was dealt with by using a very thick baffle, 6 cm or 2.4 inches, where the top and sides were cut off under an angle, to reduce the absolute refraction area, period. Much like Avalon speakers. That worked rather well, although the titanium dome tweeter was by the now much lamented Son Audax. Thank god Elektron I had the good sense to buy a stock of spare tweeters when Harman International killed Audax off and each cost just €30 (original DISRIBUTOR price was €97).
While speaker mass is certainly important, it is rarely distributed as it should be, my experience says. Hardly anyone seems to remember the simple truth that around 90% of the driver dissipated energy is located on the front baffle. Consequently, you will achieve so much more by increasing the front baffle mass than by making the whole box heavier using normal MDF thickness. What it does is make the bass cleaner and in better control, which is what we want, yet we are still playing with considerable amoun of mechanical force. My 10" drivers have 6 screws, I do not make it play too loud, yet every two months or so, I can and do tighten the screws, admittedly just a little, but still.
So Nige, make sure your baffle board is as thick and massive as you can make it, THAT'S where most of the energy will be dissipated.
I agree in part with your comments regarding AR. A friend owned AR3a, and taking a cue from him, I purchased AR5. These were the same boxes, with the same mid and tweeter domes, but the bass was not 12" but 10", and in return, nominal impedance was not 4 Ohms but 8 Ohms. In 1986, I purchsed AR94, the world's first 2.5 way speaker, which I own to this day, and which has had its refreshment in 1997.
While AR definitely did have a treble, it's also true that despite dome drivers, it was rather directional, and over a narrow band. Removing the cloth baffle made them look downright ugly and agricultural, did improve the situation somewhat. But it still took standing about 2 yards away from them in a straight line to get the full dose of treble.
AR94 adopted a new architecture. They had a wide box, but the area around the dome tweeter to almost the edge had a bushy cotton (?) cloth glued around the driver, which was supposed to deal with refraction of the dome. It was definitely a better solution than on AR5, but to me still not quite "the real deal".
On my own speakers, that problem was dealt with by using a very thick baffle, 6 cm or 2.4 inches, where the top and sides were cut off under an angle, to reduce the absolute refraction area, period. Much like Avalon speakers. That worked rather well, although the titanium dome tweeter was by the now much lamented Son Audax. Thank god Elektron I had the good sense to buy a stock of spare tweeters when Harman International killed Audax off and each cost just €30 (original DISRIBUTOR price was €97).
While speaker mass is certainly important, it is rarely distributed as it should be, my experience says. Hardly anyone seems to remember the simple truth that around 90% of the driver dissipated energy is located on the front baffle. Consequently, you will achieve so much more by increasing the front baffle mass than by making the whole box heavier using normal MDF thickness. What it does is make the bass cleaner and in better control, which is what we want, yet we are still playing with considerable amoun of mechanical force. My 10" drivers have 6 screws, I do not make it play too loud, yet every two months or so, I can and do tighten the screws, admittedly just a little, but still.
So Nige, make sure your baffle board is as thick and massive as you can make it, THAT'S where most of the energy will be dissipated.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.