I understand his concept - using subwoofer AER Subway with Excenter loudspeakers. You are not understanding his concept!
No, it has not enough bass, that is why AER says this on their web-page: "Excenter comes with our active Subway subwoofer for the low frequency range."
Please tell those 20 people to check their hearing ability at the audiologist.
Sorry, AER Exciter loudspeaker has only a short waveguide in front of the fullrange driver, it is not a real horn!
On the other hand:
Model Aerofon is a real back-loaded horn.
Model Pnoe is a real back-loaded horn, with short waveguide in front.
Model Axjet is a real back-loaded horn, with (real) short horn in front.
[/QUOTE]
Model Pnoe is a real back-loaded horn, with short waveguide in front.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Model Axjet is a real back-loaded horn, with (real) short horn in front
[/QUOTE]
dave
I am very happy eveyone to share their idea or opinion.. You cannot force people to accept your absolute correct opinion.
If you do not agree, please just ignore it.. Plesase be gentle to your postings..
I am building amp for 50 years.. I am still learning.
AER is building speaker for 40+ years. I will trust his claim based on 40+ years.. research and development
Using Sub or no Sub is a personal choice.
I think you have better idea than Filip's AER Products.
Thank you for your contribution but please be gentle . There are a lot of threads you will not agree..
What Filip amd I are listening Excentre daily Not ... those models with boxes you mentioned..
We prefer OB... NO Enclosure..
If you do not agree, please just ignore it.. Plesase be gentle to your postings..
I am building amp for 50 years.. I am still learning.
AER is building speaker for 40+ years. I will trust his claim based on 40+ years.. research and development
Using Sub or no Sub is a personal choice.
I think you have better idea than Filip's AER Products.
Thank you for your contribution but please be gentle . There are a lot of threads you will not agree..
What Filip amd I are listening Excentre daily Not ... those models with boxes you mentioned..
We prefer OB... NO Enclosure..
Last edited:
Did you listen this speaker before?
I have this speaker for the last 2 years.. My ears will tell me whether the speaker is right or wrong.
When we are using this type speaker we know what we want to pursuit.. The openness and Airy feeling ..are the most attractive elements of this speaker..
If we really want low low bass.. there are a lot of speakers that we can use with the same money... ..
When we are using this type of speaker with 1.6W amp... We are not talking about power or how high/ how low it can go..... We are talking another level of music experience..
I hope you can do your experience to pursuit your dream speaker..
I have this speaker for the last 2 years.. My ears will tell me whether the speaker is right or wrong.
When we are using this type speaker we know what we want to pursuit.. The openness and Airy feeling ..are the most attractive elements of this speaker..
If we really want low low bass.. there are a lot of speakers that we can use with the same money... ..
When we are using this type of speaker with 1.6W amp... We are not talking about power or how high/ how low it can go..... We are talking another level of music experience..
I hope you can do your experience to pursuit your dream speaker..
People, please note vkung's use of limited attic space and very low eaves to turn them into practically rear corner horns, (probably) listened very near-field considering the size of baffle.
I have tried 15" widerange baffle-less by sticking the magnet into a 6.5" cab driver-hole, back cloaked with a thick/dense wad of stuffing, against the wall on the desk at the foot of my bed in a small room. Surprisingly, bass was not a problem for most acoustic instruments. I easily preferred the naked 15" cello to my 8" or smaller TL speakers. Dubbed the Elfenu15. (Tweeter was True Unobtainium, dipole Mantra Sound Naturelle; of course ctc rather large.)
So I can believe a much larger open baffle/waveguide will handle the doublebass (which I listen to often on small TLonken just fine). I think extreme bass clarity reduces the need (or desirability) to play accompaniment loud, relative to the lead instrument or vocal; in fact, live music balances them that way.
I have tried 15" widerange baffle-less by sticking the magnet into a 6.5" cab driver-hole, back cloaked with a thick/dense wad of stuffing, against the wall on the desk at the foot of my bed in a small room. Surprisingly, bass was not a problem for most acoustic instruments. I easily preferred the naked 15" cello to my 8" or smaller TL speakers. Dubbed the Elfenu15. (Tweeter was True Unobtainium, dipole Mantra Sound Naturelle; of course ctc rather large.)
So I can believe a much larger open baffle/waveguide will handle the doublebass (which I listen to often on small TLonken just fine). I think extreme bass clarity reduces the need (or desirability) to play accompaniment loud, relative to the lead instrument or vocal; in fact, live music balances them that way.
Attachments
Last edited:
Honk-hoot-boom... fed up year on year with the sound of boxed speakers up to my price point of about £300 each, I tried a neglected pair of 12-inch JBL chassis, type CS3110, naked and unashamed. Used only enough wood, about 4 inches deep, to hold things together, and zigzagged to minimise what baffling remained. Then, a stuffing of Auralex foam and bath towel, extended rearwards to absorb much of the antiphase.
Cone resonance is there for sure - but well tamed by glueing on 8 dense radial foam strips.
A touch of EQ adds some 'body' and two subs take care of everything from 100 down to 16. Yes, I am an organ freak, but also love good orchestral and choir sound, clean harpsichord and natural voices. This low cost untidy stuff really delivers!
Last time I heard a fine speaker was when I recorded through one when I had a job at the BBC - the original LS5/1 plus its onboard AM8/1 valve amplifier. If someone unexpectedly talked near a studio mic, you'd turn to answer until you realised it was the speaker. With most it's only too obvious.
Cone resonance is there for sure - but well tamed by glueing on 8 dense radial foam strips.
A touch of EQ adds some 'body' and two subs take care of everything from 100 down to 16. Yes, I am an organ freak, but also love good orchestral and choir sound, clean harpsichord and natural voices. This low cost untidy stuff really delivers!
Last time I heard a fine speaker was when I recorded through one when I had a job at the BBC - the original LS5/1 plus its onboard AM8/1 valve amplifier. If someone unexpectedly talked near a studio mic, you'd turn to answer until you realised it was the speaker. With most it's only too obvious.
"My ears will tell me whether the speaker is right or wrong." In a most obvious way perhaps, but when splitting hairs our innate hearing failings should remain suspect. We have machines to indicate, on paper just how poorly a loudspeaker behaves. When one spouts off that this device or that device can go from one-hundred hertz to seventy Kilohertz...this is a non-sensical specification, is this a billiard-table flat response thru out this range?, no deviation in decibels?
"another level of music experience..." so just what exactly is this "Level" that you are hearing?...& please spare us all the nebulous ethereal descriptors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
It's art, it's science, it's subjective indeed. And on the latter note, in agreement with vkung here four years ago, I know my ludicrous open-back & bath-towels speakers are better than anything I have used domestically because suddenly, instead of distracted thinking about wobbulated testing, boxy resonances etc etc, I find myself actually lost in the MUSIC! And I am exploring more 'complicated' pieces that used to demand just a bit too much effort. Now rewarding. So, better speakers!
Yes, for me that is the ONLY measure of how "good" my stereo is. I listen to a lot of live classical music and when my stereo can reproduce that convincingly it sounds pretty fabulous on pretty much everything.
A big part of the conceptual difficulty is that it is very difficult to identify what it is that makes my system enjoyable. If I run down a checklist and analyze the sound, CDs should sound great. Everything about them sounds great but I don't get caught up in the music. I get bored before the CD is over, but I can listen to vinyl or hi res digital for hours on end.
I have theories about what is happening psychoacousticly but I haven't figured out how to tell if I'll still want to put on one more record at 2:30 in the morning after 8 hours of listening, other than by putting in the time. When my system isn't drawing me in, it's hard to know what is wrong and how to fix it.
Pete
A few months ago I was playing around with a TDA2822M chip amp, then decided to go back to a Musical Fidelity E10; but it was boring by comparison, so I went back to the 2822m and now use one at home on my hifi as well. It measures terribly, has very low power, has quite a lot of hiss, but just communicates what the musicians/singers are trying to convey. It's the same with driver cones, I like paper and woven glass fibre, but find polypropylene sucks all life and interest from music.
Answering Pete and cracked case here: there's still something about digitised sound that ain't quite right, though I'm not sure I want vinyl crackle!
My memory stretches back to BBC FM radio in the 60s to 70s: all analogue from concert hall to central HQ to Wrotham transmitter. Across London: superb quality - I would go to a concert live then rush home to hear the (analogue) delayed relay. Perfect detail. But the rest of UK: gruesome - because of basically telephone line links to regional transmitters. Dialling clicks, repeater resonances, HF cutoff etc. So the BBC introduced PCM digital links. Nice for Glasgow, but end of London quality! Curious crumbling as piano chords died away. Sort of 'pixelated' texture.
That's all got much better across all sources, but having become sensitised to it, it can seem to linger. It has been said that digital sound provokes stress in some listeners. But habituation is the key! I do now get lost in the music, and having just been given more than 300 classical CDs by a neighbour, well, great.
Speaker cones? This will be a very domestic-level observation, but the original Pure portable is an excellent speech reproducer. Paper cones. The next model, same size and power, uses polyprop cones: funkier, more musical bass, but voices honk. And, I have to add, its DAB is grainy and lifeless compared with FM. I think the MP2 architecture makes talkers sound depressed. Odd! In the same way that a theoretically inferior device like that 2822M might just sound better musically.
My memory stretches back to BBC FM radio in the 60s to 70s: all analogue from concert hall to central HQ to Wrotham transmitter. Across London: superb quality - I would go to a concert live then rush home to hear the (analogue) delayed relay. Perfect detail. But the rest of UK: gruesome - because of basically telephone line links to regional transmitters. Dialling clicks, repeater resonances, HF cutoff etc. So the BBC introduced PCM digital links. Nice for Glasgow, but end of London quality! Curious crumbling as piano chords died away. Sort of 'pixelated' texture.
That's all got much better across all sources, but having become sensitised to it, it can seem to linger. It has been said that digital sound provokes stress in some listeners. But habituation is the key! I do now get lost in the music, and having just been given more than 300 classical CDs by a neighbour, well, great.
Speaker cones? This will be a very domestic-level observation, but the original Pure portable is an excellent speech reproducer. Paper cones. The next model, same size and power, uses polyprop cones: funkier, more musical bass, but voices honk. And, I have to add, its DAB is grainy and lifeless compared with FM. I think the MP2 architecture makes talkers sound depressed. Odd! In the same way that a theoretically inferior device like that 2822M might just sound better musically.
Suppose that paper cones are musically better than polyprop, perhaps the light stiff cone has better impulse response than a soft heavy one.
Suppose a TDA2822m sounds good musically despite the hiss, perhaps everything that reduces hiss also harms impulse response
Suppose open baffles sound better than poorly designed, or cheap box speakers; perhaps better impulse response.
I seem to prefer plastic amplifier enclosures than metal, perhaps that effects impulse response - although that might be entering capacitor/speaker cable territory.
"I think MP2 architecture makes talkers sound depressed" - when my mother got her first dab for the kitchen, I couldn't help but think that it sounded so dreary and depressing, at the time I just thought it was the glum BBC station, but perhaps it was the effect of the early the DAB MP2. I'm not sure later DABs were as bad (perhaps planet rock DJs are more chirpy), DAB+ seems ok.
Suppose a TDA2822m sounds good musically despite the hiss, perhaps everything that reduces hiss also harms impulse response
Suppose open baffles sound better than poorly designed, or cheap box speakers; perhaps better impulse response.
I seem to prefer plastic amplifier enclosures than metal, perhaps that effects impulse response - although that might be entering capacitor/speaker cable territory.
"I think MP2 architecture makes talkers sound depressed" - when my mother got her first dab for the kitchen, I couldn't help but think that it sounded so dreary and depressing, at the time I just thought it was the glum BBC station, but perhaps it was the effect of the early the DAB MP2. I'm not sure later DABs were as bad (perhaps planet rock DJs are more chirpy), DAB+ seems ok.
It's a subtle art! And, on our shared point about 'depressing' algorithm sound: a very long time ago when I did work trips abroad I would phone my late wife - and become concerned she sounded low-mood. No, I'm fine she would say, but you also sound fed up. We concluded that something in the early long-distance phone processing was modifying our voices and perceived mental states. I'm inclined to think we were right, though of course we were also missing one another!