..it was just nice occasion for some cheap-shots (a couple of which were hilarious).(..besides, "tooting your own horn" usually fails to impress - it's a matter of tact, made worse by the fact that it's in a potential competitors thread.)
As a historical note, I tend to think of Genelec as being (by far) the most influential "source" with respect to the "rise" of directivity control and lowered diffraction. Not just because they were doing it earlier, but because they've become something of a reference in the pro world, with examples like Behringer "saying": I can do it for less.
Copy of a Geddes design, or copy of a Genelec design?
GENELEC - they are the "reference".
I also think none of the market expansion in "waveguides" (or speakers with them), would have occurred without the manufacturing process of injection molded plastics. More than anything, that's likely *the* major factor in their more wide-spread use today.
Oddly enough, I think the Hughes paper made one of the best cases for the OS curve. Hughes didn't credit Geddes, but the Hughes paper was easier to follow and more readily available than the AES papers.
I work in software and this is something that I see a lot in my own industry. Basically ideas will get traction inside of the industry, and then the best of the best ideas will get plagiarized and popularized. Oftentimes the companies and individuals that come up with the original idea aren't the ones that reach 'critical mass.'
Copy of a Geddes design, or copy of a Genelec design?
GENELEC - they are the "reference".
My work preceded the Genelec designs by many years. That and Ari at Genelec told me in person that they used my curves, papers and ideas.
Starting in 1991 my AES papers were all peer reviewed and this is the only way to know who did what when and what work they used as a background to their work. It is the duty of the reviewers to make sure that prior art is referenced. I know I am a stickler for that as anyone who has had me as a reviewer knows. Don't credit a prior work and you don't get your paper published until you do.
Last edited:
Was this before '89?
Note that I specifically phrased it with respect to Directivity control and lowered Diffraction.
When I look over their prior and current products, none of it looks that similar to your own accept superficially, all being a fair-bit less directive and none having the sort of flare shape you advocate - including the 1032.
Of course none of this is to say that you didn't have an effect.. if there is research on the subject it would be foolish for engineers/designers in the field not to at least review the material, hopefully improve their own understanding of their work, and perhaps use the new information where they can.
Here are their products today:
PRO Monitoring
The 1035B sold today is very similar to the 1035A sold in '89.
Below is the 1022A started in '83 and sold in '85 with the design premise of directivity control and lowered diffraction.
Attachments
I was thinking of it more generically. Not a specific profile. Like I just mentioned, I don't think Genelec's are using anything like Earl's profile.
Directivity matching isn't anything new, nor is diffraction control.
My thinking is more about market forces/commercial success and the relative "feeding frenzy" that results with "me too" products. And you can't produce a "me too" product at a low fraction of the cost without a financial advantage (..provided from technical advances in production).
It's the other way around actually! The wild variation makes the job more critical, this is why you probably have records you cant listen to. Small spectral "mistakes" are *amplified* by inaccurate speakers and rooms, and a what would appear to be small peak turns into a big one if doubled at the listerners room, Think about it.
They don't
Though not mastering studios, we all know this one:
(Source: Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Audio's Circle of Confusion)
And then there's the movie industry which is so proud of their "standards":
Has there has never been a reason not to use this sort of speakers in the home? Improving them is a great thing, so is making them more attractive. Drivers have improved, why not use them up to full potential. Someone needs to be putting them in homes.There are always been sooooooo many BS speakers out there for stupid amounts of money that do not even come to the level of this type of speaker. Anyone ever really listen to those Quadratic Peavey's unit's like this? I'll bet a bunch of us did and just chalked it way back down in our memories as "good sound man" or "good sermon I could hear the words", and never thought of taking them into our houses and never gave the design a thought.
Last edited:
What do you want me to think about? Getting tonal balance right is a moving target as long as there are no strict standards. There are general trends though, just like in the fashion industry. Listen to recordings from different decades. One can hear the NS-10s, Genelecs, etc. and control room design philosophies.
Simply put, those using the NS-10s were misguided by someone who should not have misguided them, and records mixed from the Genelec period onward sound much much better in most rooms. NS-10s did not, do not, never have and never will be a good speaker to mix on. In all honesty I bought a set too around the same time I bought Sentry 100's, almost anyone could tell they were worse on the average than most hifi speakers. I mixed on the EV's and never turned the Yamaha POS's back on again. People wanted to see the "cool" white cones because they too were misinformed ( yeah trust me I know how this works). I was young enough and dumb enough to be taken in enough to buy them not enough to use them after I heard them. Maybe that's why I'm still doing this (-:
Last edited:
Actually the NS-10 is a good example of wider "Q" deviation in freq. response always "coloring" the sound. One full octave (from 1kHz to 2 khz) is about 3db higher than the average.
If you listen to these within a foot or so, I'd bet things would improve.
The Yamaha NS10 Story
Attachments
The graph you posted shows the NS 10 midrange peak some 7 dB louder than the low frequency response.
The response does not improve when you get closer to them, a 7 dB on axis peak does not go away without -7 dB of EQ.
The average looks to me to be about 88 db. The average "bump" in response between 1-2 kHz seems to be about 3-4 db higher.
As you move further into the near-field from 1 meter, the entire output "tilts" in favor of the lower freq. response.
Nearing 1 foot in distance (..sort of a "non"-headphone, headphone), I think it's likely that the response will effectively raise the net average, perhaps enough to account for that 3-4 db.
(..same thing happens with headphones, though to a more extreme degree because of the closer proximity.)
Now, if you move further out than a meter in distance you will end-up with an even broader-band deviation for lack of baffle support (starting at around 700 Hz), which would make things far worse the further away the listener is from the monitors.
Basically if someone has these as monitors at 2 feet and someone comes into the room a few feet behind them, the result will be dramatically different for those two people. Not bad for the person in the "hot seat", and utter piercing sh!t for the person 6 feet away.
Last edited:
If you listen with a fifth of vodka , a lobotomy, and an $800 hooker they would sound great.
Try it.
No, no - not the fifth of vodka, lobotomy, and hooker..
-try the NS-10 at about 1.5 feet away from your head, adjusting the speaker spread as needed.
Do it with *good* ancillary equipment however. In particular, make sure you aren't using over-damped amplifiers.
There is a procedure that you can do to eliminate the issues with an Ns-10, but its a bit tricky
1.Raise Ns-10 approximately to ear level
2.Have a 2" X 2" square piece of Kleenex ready
3.Have an assistant place a large shallow angle conical/symmetrical BFI or WM horn of 15" or greater throat diameter (throat) up and oriented vertically from floor, in order for the chamber to work it must be directly centered underneath the Ns-10.
4. Release Ns-10 and Kleenex.
1.Raise Ns-10 approximately to ear level
2.Have a 2" X 2" square piece of Kleenex ready
3.Have an assistant place a large shallow angle conical/symmetrical BFI or WM horn of 15" or greater throat diameter (throat) up and oriented vertically from floor, in order for the chamber to work it must be directly centered underneath the Ns-10.
4. Release Ns-10 and Kleenex.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.