Quite close but not exactly because higher source impedance of passive changes linearity. Another possible limit is that some...many DSPs don't have free biquads or FIR or maximum number of equalizers (biquads) is too small to imitate exactly.
Cloning of electrical responses in driver terminals does not require active filter, and active filter does not help cloning acoustical features.
So best to say not really yet then
But as with technology and digital it may be possible one day.
^If you mean cloning, it requires cloning of radiators i.e. mechanics & drivers and crossover. Crossover alone cannot imitate much. Not even in anechoic chamber if radiators or mechanics are different. Cloning for listening in "normal" room requires cloning of all details in construction.
But all this does not sound rational imo though DIY does not mean that we are not allowed to make exact copy. Money can buy original without putting close to same money for imitating all mechanical and electrical details. We can also design better to our listening environment and needs.
But all this does not sound rational imo though DIY does not mean that we are not allowed to make exact copy. Money can buy original without putting close to same money for imitating all mechanical and electrical details. We can also design better to our listening environment and needs.
All of the box and crossover details for 2.5 copy are available. The drivers are available, hopefully the woofers Qts and Vas hasn't changed. Many years ago, a friend had Proac 2.5 and His kids damaged the woofers. Without speaking to me first He ordered a pair of woofers from a Proac dealer in Britain and they sent Him Scan-Speak 18W/8535. I could have got them for half the price from Solen.. Anyway, His speakers were back in business, but without the Proac labeling on the woofer frames..
The greatness of being able to DIY a set of truly good performing speakers, as have been shown by many from this forum, is in the fact that we do not need to pay exorbitant amounts of money to build one compared to high end products from reputable manufacturers. Sure, DIY stuff has low resale value but that is fair for we did not pay for advertising at all.
Plus staff wages & pensions, large scale production & office facilities, manufacturing equipment capable of series production, power, water, computer networks, software licenses, business rates, taxes, etc. As you say, the advantage of DIY; we don't generally have to contend with any of these.
I believe with drivers that are little series production the diyer is paying though 100% more for the parts (double price) and more when it comes for miscellaneous (caps, iron, copper, wood, veenering).
ok the work man hour... but no R&D, nore anechoic chambers (well is that important really ?).
We will have a good time when it will be cheap(er) to make cabinets a la Vivid with injection mold. When it will exist there is chance brands drops their prices accordingly.
ok the work man hour... but no R&D, nore anechoic chambers (well is that important really ?).
We will have a good time when it will be cheap(er) to make cabinets a la Vivid with injection mold. When it will exist there is chance brands drops their prices accordingly.
Hmm.... I have to ask. What is so special about the Proac?
I see nothing particuallar fantastic in he design or the drivers. It's just an old design, with classic SS drivers(maybe modded a bit) in a typical arangement where the tweeter is off-set - trying to minmize the difraction and the woofer i kept mostly clear from it's breakup.
And why bother with an old design, when there are tons of good design out there today, with easy off the shelf drivers and potential for much better sound quality.
Nostalgia?
Not trying to stir the kettle or offend anyone..... I just really wonder why
I see nothing particuallar fantastic in he design or the drivers. It's just an old design, with classic SS drivers(maybe modded a bit) in a typical arangement where the tweeter is off-set - trying to minmize the difraction and the woofer i kept mostly clear from it's breakup.
And why bother with an old design, when there are tons of good design out there today, with easy off the shelf drivers and potential for much better sound quality.
Nostalgia?
Not trying to stir the kettle or offend anyone..... I just really wonder why
Last edited:
Hmm.... I have to ask. What is so special about the Proac?
I see nothing particuallar fantastic in he design or the drivers. It's just an old design, with classic SS drivers(maybe modded a bit) in a typical arangement where the tweeter is off-set - trying to minmize the difraction and the woofer i kept mostly clear from it's breakup.
And why bother with an old design, when there are tons of good design out there today, with easy off the shelf drivers and potential for much better sound quality.
Nostalgia?
Not trying to stir the kettle or offend anyone..... I just really wonder why
I've owned most, heard most of the best. Cutting edge technology it doesn't really matter, ProAc are still one of the best speakers Ive heard for natural timbre and realism and most of all enjoyment of the music at any cost, some of their old designs being the best. Speaker technology hasn't improved that much over the years, many still go back to 50 year old designs as a reference, the LS3/5A being one for midrange and vocal.
Here lies the problem - False belief that certain designers/Manufacturers have some special knowledge. Not only is it not Rocket Science, It's not even hard science! I've owned Proac Response 2, Nautilus 801, Elsinore, just to name a sprinkle of the many speakers I've owned, and now designing my own. Having complete control has taken things to a higher level and preference. All of the technical knowledge is on this forum, just have to search/dig for it and work hard. There is so much I've learned from the posts of Speaker Dave, and of course many others as well, and continue to do so.
Last edited:
If its such a basic speaker why does he spend years developing the crossovers on some. And why are they so world renowned. They are used in homes and many professional studios all over the world.
Oh- I agree on the driver development. Most of my drivers are older designs - but works sweetly. I'm not an advocate for BE tweeters or the like. And I do like simple good designs - no matter the age. I just found many that do not age well, since they used some choises, out of need, cause some drivers or filters where simply not good enough.
Most speakers I heard with fx. bass reflex and to large a midrange crossed to high... sounds way worse than a more even dispersion with more well thought out filters and driver choices.
Most SS 18W I've heard, did not have a good clean and clear midrange. And the dip in the midrange like B&W mostly have - is not for me either.
I often find older designs slightly muffled in the upper midrange and also usualy having trouble with good integration between midrange and tweeter. Also it seems that a good clean and even dispersion was less saught after.
It might be, that it has a distinct sound... but just like B&W - even their 800 series.... they are just trying to hard to make something work, that can be done more easily in another way - IMO.
And fair enough if they seek to "pull" back the "presense" in the x-over between the midrange and tweeter - and maybe even hide some errors - or make it sound more laid back. But mostly it gets a bit to boring for my taste. This is where I wonder.
Most speakers I heard with fx. bass reflex and to large a midrange crossed to high... sounds way worse than a more even dispersion with more well thought out filters and driver choices.
Most SS 18W I've heard, did not have a good clean and clear midrange. And the dip in the midrange like B&W mostly have - is not for me either.
I often find older designs slightly muffled in the upper midrange and also usualy having trouble with good integration between midrange and tweeter. Also it seems that a good clean and even dispersion was less saught after.
It might be, that it has a distinct sound... but just like B&W - even their 800 series.... they are just trying to hard to make something work, that can be done more easily in another way - IMO.
And fair enough if they seek to "pull" back the "presense" in the x-over between the midrange and tweeter - and maybe even hide some errors - or make it sound more laid back. But mostly it gets a bit to boring for my taste. This is where I wonder.
Last edited:
Somewhat agree. The more I perfected a loudspeaker to be even in both FR and dispersion... the more I prefer to listen to it - especially when listning to conversations, lectures or debates. Voices seem to come directly out of the screen and I forget my speakers. This does not happen so often with speakers that has a less even dispersion and FR - IMO.
And no matter if I listen to a 40 year old interview of Monty Python on youtube, TED talk or a modern movie - it's mostly the same good experience.
So my point is.... why clone something - when you can mostly make something better or at least equal
By the way... I hope they dont use "colored" speakers in the studio..... that would be bad practice - for several reasons.