Ron E said:
Are you really serious? Have you ever built a sub before? T-S are eminently useful, but are no more than a guide to what the actual response will be at 10-20-30Hz. Most woofers have a falling response of 6dB/octave from 100Hz or so that is not at all predicted by T-S. Many drivers might look like great subs on paper but are in reality 12-18dB down at the frequencies of interest.
Unless you are looking at a nearfield measurement and correlating that with the T-S simulation, you are indeed living in a fantasy world.
Re: Re: Pro speakers and "personal preference"
Well, if the recording equipment was a bit rolled off in the highs and peaky in the bass, the difference between the unmodified recording and the real event would be peakier bass and attenated highs. If you modified the recording so that the average spectrum of energy content was the same as the original event (pardon my ridiculous terms), why would it not be accurate with respect to the original event?Steve Eddy said:
Ok.
But perfectly reproducing the recording itself is to reproduce that which has no particular context to either the original event or the intent of those who made the recording.
The recording process involves reproductoin as well seeing as we can't directly experience the recording itself. And the decisions made in the making of a recording will be influenced by the reproduction system used as well as the acoustic environment it's used in.
So what ends up on the recording itself doesn't necessarily have any particular context to either the original event or the intent of those who made the recording. What ends up on the recording itself is ultimately the inverse transfer function of those elements in the reproduction system and acoustical environment which infludenced the making of the recording.
Let's take an overly simplified example and say that the reproduction system used to make a particular recording was a little peaky in the bass and a bit rolled off in the highs. And the goal of the recording engineer was to accurately capture a live acoustical event.
So the recording engineer makes adjustments for this in the recording process to even things out a bit better on playback so that the result is closer to the original event.
If we were to play back this recording with perfect accuracy (i.e. "Hi-Fi"), what we'd end up with would be rolled off bass and peaky highs, the inverse of the playback system used to make the recording. And while it would be accurate with respect to the recording itself, it will not be accurate with respect to either the original event or the intent of the recording engineer.
But it would be "Hi-Fi."
se
Re: Re: Re: Pro speakers and "personal preference"
I wasn't talking about the recording equipment. In my example I was assuming that the recording equipment was effectively "prefect."
What I was saying was that playback wasn't something that only occurred on the end user side of things but that it's also part and parcel of the recording process.
se
454Casull said:
I wasn't talking about the recording equipment. In my example I was assuming that the recording equipment was effectively "prefect."
What I was saying was that playback wasn't something that only occurred on the end user side of things but that it's also part and parcel of the recording process.
se
Stay on track!
I think JinMTVT started this thread because he wanted to learn more about and discussing pro sound drivers, not discussing general hifi philosophy.
It is (was) a good thread, can't you folks for once try to keep out the characteristic diyaudio.com **** talk?
Please, it's almost Christmas and all!
/Magnus
I think JinMTVT started this thread because he wanted to learn more about and discussing pro sound drivers, not discussing general hifi philosophy.
It is (was) a good thread, can't you folks for once try to keep out the characteristic diyaudio.com **** talk?
Please, it's almost Christmas and all!
/Magnus
Re: Re: Re: Pro speakers and "personal preference"
Konnichiwa,
I think you are unaware of some basic facts about 2-Channel recording/playback. Let us assume recording equipment, mikes, cables, mike preamps, ad converters in 24/192 and direct to HDD recording with suitable level playback to say STAX ESL Headphones that is in essence neutral and transparent (based on bypass testing).
Now we make a reccording using this equipment, using either 2 Mikes or 24 Mikes, 2 Tracks or 24 Tracks and we mix-down if use more than 2 Channels to stereo without any EQ. Typhically a lot of EQ will be employed of course, but for arguments sake we don't.
And in the Mixdown we will also avoid compression, despite the fact that it is commonly used, on classical often by "gain riding" manually, rather than mechanical.
Also, we avoid splicing together "the right notes" but make the whole recording in a single take, mistakes, clams and all.
Do we now have a recording that, if replayed over "perfect" replay replay equipment resembles the experience of sitting in the concert hall and hearing the actual performance?
Hell no. Microphones do not listen like humans and they are NEVER placed where I like to sit in a performance. So the recording will be a reasonable document, in the way a direct photo taken technically perfect is a reasonable accurate document of what was photographed, but you are unlikely to mistake it for the real thing..
Now in the best case, with the most transparent equipment and studious avoidance of manipulating the signal we arrive at something that is seriously flawed against the real performance. And of course, few if any recordings are done the way I described above.
So, in the end both recording, storage and replay process are crippled with inadequacies which make a truely realistic reproduction unlikely. As a result we must individually select what makes a more agreeable reproduction, one where we are less distracted by the artificiality of the recording/replay chain interposed and where to us as individual the reproduction manages a credible illusion.
And that is where "personal preference" rules supreme, with all the imlications behind that.
Sayonara
Yuck - I'm agreeing with SE, I guess I need to go to the Hospital to change my mind....
Konnichiwa,
454Casull said:
I think you are unaware of some basic facts about 2-Channel recording/playback. Let us assume recording equipment, mikes, cables, mike preamps, ad converters in 24/192 and direct to HDD recording with suitable level playback to say STAX ESL Headphones that is in essence neutral and transparent (based on bypass testing).
Now we make a reccording using this equipment, using either 2 Mikes or 24 Mikes, 2 Tracks or 24 Tracks and we mix-down if use more than 2 Channels to stereo without any EQ. Typhically a lot of EQ will be employed of course, but for arguments sake we don't.
And in the Mixdown we will also avoid compression, despite the fact that it is commonly used, on classical often by "gain riding" manually, rather than mechanical.
Also, we avoid splicing together "the right notes" but make the whole recording in a single take, mistakes, clams and all.
Do we now have a recording that, if replayed over "perfect" replay replay equipment resembles the experience of sitting in the concert hall and hearing the actual performance?
Hell no. Microphones do not listen like humans and they are NEVER placed where I like to sit in a performance. So the recording will be a reasonable document, in the way a direct photo taken technically perfect is a reasonable accurate document of what was photographed, but you are unlikely to mistake it for the real thing..
Now in the best case, with the most transparent equipment and studious avoidance of manipulating the signal we arrive at something that is seriously flawed against the real performance. And of course, few if any recordings are done the way I described above.
So, in the end both recording, storage and replay process are crippled with inadequacies which make a truely realistic reproduction unlikely. As a result we must individually select what makes a more agreeable reproduction, one where we are less distracted by the artificiality of the recording/replay chain interposed and where to us as individual the reproduction manages a credible illusion.
And that is where "personal preference" rules supreme, with all the imlications behind that.
Sayonara
Yuck - I'm agreeing with SE, I guess I need to go to the Hospital to change my mind....
Re: Stay on track!
Isn't the basic problem with using pro drivers in most homes simply that they're too wide? I would love to have a front stage populated by three horns with BMS 4590s in them or Servodrive C^3's, but that would mean staring at about five linear feet of horn-mouth in my bonus room!
IMO, it's hard to go above 12" front-firing drivers width-wise even for an audio enthusiast who does not have SAF issues but simply cares what his/her room looks like. Speakers wide enough to have front-firing 15's just dominate a room too much visually. Does that lead to compromises compared to Dr. Geddes' approach? Absolutely. Unfortunately.
Swedish Chef said:
Isn't the basic problem with using pro drivers in most homes simply that they're too wide? I would love to have a front stage populated by three horns with BMS 4590s in them or Servodrive C^3's, but that would mean staring at about five linear feet of horn-mouth in my bonus room!
IMO, it's hard to go above 12" front-firing drivers width-wise even for an audio enthusiast who does not have SAF issues but simply cares what his/her room looks like. Speakers wide enough to have front-firing 15's just dominate a room too much visually. Does that lead to compromises compared to Dr. Geddes' approach? Absolutely. Unfortunately.
Re: Re: Stay on track!
Konnichiwa,
How so? Given that a speaker must be around 20" wide to actually work sensibly in the acoustic sense throughout the formant region of most instruments and the human voice what is the objection? 20" wide box with an 8" Driver? 20" Wide box with an 18" Driver? What are 10" between friends?
So what? You are merely thinking wrong. Consider placing a false wall around 20 - 30" into the room. Behind that all the speakers go and you even get loads of space for all the Amp's to drive this shooting match actively. Then paint the wall and the Horns insides white and use an "acoustically transparent" Screen Fabric to cover the whole wall. That is your projection screen and when not watching TV simply use a few light projectors with Gobo's to make interresting looking light sculptures on the wall.
Now when you originally broach the project to your wife she is going to go up in arms, but once done you will be allright.
Even in rented accomodation you can build something like this, just make it modular.
Really? I din't feel that this was so bad in my (arguably small)place....
I still changed the speakers - yes, but only because something really outrageous is in the (slow) works....
Ciao T
Konnichiwa,
Pallas said:
How so? Given that a speaker must be around 20" wide to actually work sensibly in the acoustic sense throughout the formant region of most instruments and the human voice what is the objection? 20" wide box with an 8" Driver? 20" Wide box with an 18" Driver? What are 10" between friends?
Pallas said:
So what? You are merely thinking wrong. Consider placing a false wall around 20 - 30" into the room. Behind that all the speakers go and you even get loads of space for all the Amp's to drive this shooting match actively. Then paint the wall and the Horns insides white and use an "acoustically transparent" Screen Fabric to cover the whole wall. That is your projection screen and when not watching TV simply use a few light projectors with Gobo's to make interresting looking light sculptures on the wall.
Now when you originally broach the project to your wife she is going to go up in arms, but once done you will be allright.
Even in rented accomodation you can build something like this, just make it modular.
Pallas said:
Really? I din't feel that this was so bad in my (arguably small)place....
I still changed the speakers - yes, but only because something really outrageous is in the (slow) works....
Ciao T
Well, here we have two examples of nice rooms and high efficiency systems. Kuei's and Vuki's both look great, and the new baffles look great too in Kuei's room if he is still doing the OB in glass or acrylic.
vuki, I am interested in the horns with the 902s. I am not familiar with them. Are these of your own design? They look very clean up on the enclosures.
Good idea on the crossover to take the peaks out of the mix. There seems to be a peak on the 902 at around 2K, as I recall. I don't have them in the system right now. I have used TAD 2001s instead, and there is not that great of an improvement to justify the cost. A little smoother, a little more extended (15-16K Hz).
Tim
vuki, I am interested in the horns with the 902s. I am not familiar with them. Are these of your own design? They look very clean up on the enclosures.
Good idea on the crossover to take the peaks out of the mix. There seems to be a peak on the 902 at around 2K, as I recall. I don't have them in the system right now. I have used TAD 2001s instead, and there is not that great of an improvement to justify the cost. A little smoother, a little more extended (15-16K Hz).
Tim
The horns are round tractrix made of fiberglass, and yes - they are my design. There has been a lot of work to make them look like that. I made a negative plaster model (very dirty and time consuming) and than made a horn by laying resin and fiberglass on it. Than sanding, smoothing & painting. Enclosure for horn is made of some plastic tube.
This is how they look when taken of the plaster mold (white dirton the right horn is separator wax)
This is how they look when taken of the plaster mold (white dirton the right horn is separator wax)
Attachments
Konnichiwa,
Yes, still doing that.
I have a slightly less compromised version on the drawing board, with a "semi-coaxial" 15" & Ribbon main system and a 21" (or larger) woofer. It will still be an acrylic baffle though.
Sayonara
Tim Moorman said:
Yes, still doing that.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I have a slightly less compromised version on the drawing board, with a "semi-coaxial" 15" & Ribbon main system and a 21" (or larger) woofer. It will still be an acrylic baffle though.
Sayonara
Great design , Vuki.....
For your bass box, --obviously an Onken design ??
Have been looking into the same combination for a while now...
Onken's seem to be a reasonable compromise of the impossible combination of low bass, efficency, size and impulse response, at least in theory....
What is your impression ? Which driver is in the bass box??
For your bass box, --obviously an Onken design ??
Have been looking into the same combination for a while now...
Onken's seem to be a reasonable compromise of the impossible combination of low bass, efficency, size and impulse response, at least in theory....
What is your impression ? Which driver is in the bass box??
I made the box as an onken because I intended to use it for Altec 414 Z which I also have. Then I bought 416's and decided to use them in that box, but because of retuning only two reflex ducts are left open.
My impression is that they sound very nice - fast, powerfull, deep and clean, but I didn't try them in some other room or in another box. Maybe they would sound even better with the bigger box? Who knows?
My impression is that they sound very nice - fast, powerfull, deep and clean, but I didn't try them in some other room or in another box. Maybe they would sound even better with the bigger box? Who knows?
Re-tuning is a problem with the Onken design: since the vents are part of the side wall of the enclosure, they are hard to modify. I have added joined panels internally to create longer vents, but it was more difficult than just replacing a port tube of different length. Mine are tuned to around 40 Hz in a similar sized enclosure as vuki's.
I do like the side wall reinforcement from the double wall construction, however. Very strong.
I must say that your onkens, vuki, look great without the grill cloth, though I understand the cosmetic touch for the room. Very nice wood tones and trim.
This shot is just the raw baltic birch before any finish was added.
I also cut the rear corners at a 45 degree angle.
Tim
I do like the side wall reinforcement from the double wall construction, however. Very strong.
I must say that your onkens, vuki, look great without the grill cloth, though I understand the cosmetic touch for the room. Very nice wood tones and trim.
This shot is just the raw baltic birch before any finish was added.
I also cut the rear corners at a 45 degree angle.
Tim
Attachments
Midbass Horn
If you wish to go to further trouble, that same Altec 416 driver can sound excellent on a straight 80 Hz exponential midbass horn. Use a rear chamber of ~30 liters, a throat of ~520 cm^2, and an axial length of around 80 cm. I haven't modeled it for some time, so adjustments may be needed, but this is very close to one I have.
I also found this site, which shows a William Cowan's folded horn.
Look under Horn Sub Jr.
http://diy.cowanaudio.com/index.html
Tim
If you wish to go to further trouble, that same Altec 416 driver can sound excellent on a straight 80 Hz exponential midbass horn. Use a rear chamber of ~30 liters, a throat of ~520 cm^2, and an axial length of around 80 cm. I haven't modeled it for some time, so adjustments may be needed, but this is very close to one I have.
I also found this site, which shows a William Cowan's folded horn.
Look under Horn Sub Jr.
http://diy.cowanaudio.com/index.html
Tim
JinMTVT:
I know I should do better, but this was my first time! First plug was destroyed when taking horn off it. I then made plug for the second horn by pouring plaster in the first one...
Some idiot in the shop suggested me to use PVA separator... it was easier when I found out (found it on the web by some US rocket model champion) that wax shue polish works better.
Anyway- I could really use course on composite materials!
Tim:
Mine onkens are now classic BR
Veneering went a bit better than fiberglass molding; that's clear PU varnished cherry veneer. At the begining they looked very much like yours:
I know I should do better, but this was my first time! First plug was destroyed when taking horn off it. I then made plug for the second horn by pouring plaster in the first one...
Some idiot in the shop suggested me to use PVA separator... it was easier when I found out (found it on the web by some US rocket model champion) that wax shue polish works better.
Anyway- I could really use course on composite materials!
Tim:
Mine onkens are now classic BR
Veneering went a bit better than fiberglass molding; that's clear PU varnished cherry veneer. At the begining they looked very much like yours:
Attachments
first off, make ur plugs as smooth as possible..
car body puty should work pretty well
then use some type of gell coat, or at lest just spray some of the resin before applying the clothes ... try to make that an even layer
and use lots of unmolding wax ( again , even layer if possible )
that should do the trick
car body puty should work pretty well
then use some type of gell coat, or at lest just spray some of the resin before applying the clothes ... try to make that an even layer
and use lots of unmolding wax ( again , even layer if possible )
that should do the trick
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.