zeppelin in the Audio Nirvana - Page 11 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st January 2009, 02:59 AM   #101
freddi is offline freddi  United States
diyAudio Member
 
freddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Hi Nelson - what values do you suggest offhand for AN10 filters? --- do you like the AN8's as well sz 206?
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 08:53 AM   #102
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally posted by wakibaki
[B]The problem is, Scott, that this isn't much of a basis on which to build a buying strategy for most people.
Yes, I know. You might have noticed that I mentioned I am no longer able to measure drivers myself either, so I'm in a not dissimilar situation. However, it doesn't change the fact that many factory parameter claims are arrant nonsense & if you design something based upon incorrect specs., in practice, the results will be completely misaligned, the problems increasing the greater the deviance from the claims. That's just the way it is. Whether we like it or not is neither here nor there; it's just a fact.

Quote:
With Lowther and Fostex out of the running the choice is becoming somewhat limited anyway.
Limited choice goes hand in hand with a limited budget. If it's any consolation, I can't afford any drivers, period, at the moment. I got royally ripped off by my cabinet-maker for my last project, the quality of which was so bad the boxes are lurking at the end of the garden, awaiting a dry evening so I can have a bonfire, and which completely cleaned out my finances. All I have to listen to music on at the moment is my ancient PC & a dodgy pair of headphones with an intermittant left channel. But whether the choice of drivers available to your finances is limited or not is irrelevant to the fact that the parameters AN (in this case) publish are clearly at odds with what owners have measured in practice. As I've repeatedly said, that's not necessarily a reflection on the sound quality the units are capable of. It's just observing that the maker's claimed specs. for them are inaccurate, on the available evidence.

Quote:
Some of us are not tuned in to the folk grapevine, and anyway, a great deal of folk knowledge is superstition.

I have no inclination to indulge in a round of experimental buying and testing. I certainly wouldn't be thinking about measuring them until they had been run for some considerable time. Open baffle is too fragile for my circumstances, so it's a box.
I certainly can't afford to go buying & testing drivers. However, if people can't be bothered to spend a little while either doing some research before making a decision on what to buy, or measuring their units before they design their cabinet, they are looking for trouble, and they've nobody but themselves to blame if they don't like the results.

Quote:
Therefore my first port of call and my recommendation to any reader when seeking information about any piece of equipment remains the manufacturers published specification.
...which is perfectly logical; so do most of us providing you keep in mind that they are usually of questionable accuracy, so a reasonable degree of lattitude must be assumed / applied.

Quote:
I am often the first to castigate correspondents for their failure to apply rigorous analysis, but there is such a thing as over-dependence. There is an important component of engineering practice which is beimg ignored here. This is empiricism.

Mathematical models vary in their accuracy.

A loudspeaker is a complicated system. Many of the interactiog components, despite the best efforts of manufacturers, are possessed of ill defined or poorly understood qualities and behaviours such as e.g. the paper in the cone or the suspension.

Anyone comparing a simulated plot of a loudspeaker with a real one will instantly notice that the real one has a lot more departures from a smooth response than does the simulated one.

Cut-and-try is a perfectly respectable engineering technique, particularly if it gets better results than a sophisticated but necessarily incomplete model.
Indeed. The vast majority of the boxes I've done on the FH site for example, cannot be accurately simulated by any software, but I know how & why they perform & regularly had to explain why certain features present on a graph do not exist in reality. That's why we removed the FR plots from the site, because they were a source of confusion for some people. Hell, I was one of the first promoters of the BIB for pity's sake, which has the world's worst modelled FR, yet pretty decent in-room behaviour.

Cut & shut is perfectly respectable. I'd be intrigued to know who suggested otherwise. Plus, you can often learn more from doing it. However, it doesn't automatically mean that you'll get 'better' (whatever that means) results either, nor does it suddenly make a poor alignment 'good.'
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 05:29 PM   #103
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
OK....
If I want to measure driver parameters, what's the simplest current 'acceptable' method to use? Freeware or budget-conscious methods preferred!

I've got the usual electronics test equipment (signal gen,scope, freq counter), spare laptop running XP, some mics, but no calibrated mic or other specialized stuff.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 05:37 PM   #104
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Woofer Tester 3 is a good (mostly) automated budget option. http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...paign=DIYAudio

Alternatively, take a gander here for a less convenient, though possibly cheaper approach if you already have the required gear: http://sound.westhost.com/tsp.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 05:54 PM   #105
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Thanks for the 'instant response', Scott. This place (diyaudio) and the folks here are amazing.
It's 'on the list' , but no guarantees how soon I will get actual measurements.
John
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 06:34 PM   #106
GM is online now GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
John,

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...83#post1727683

"Oh really?! Please elaborate WRT actual box performance differences, not those in the mids/HF."

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 07:05 PM   #107
freddi is offline freddi  United States
diyAudio Member
 
freddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
hahaha - I get pig N poked a lot on T-S such as old Peavey 15" coaxial pair - no email from PV - - high qes, fs ~65Hz - unbelievably stiff - have real nice midrange considering 22A HF . my nice Jeep got destroyed by a tree during an ice storm - no insurance - my phone is out worse than the jeep, state is trying (and probably will succeed) to double mineral taxes which already tripled between 2007-08 - jeep, loudspeaker failures and waste are nothing in comparison
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 10:31 PM   #108
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Quote:
Originally posted by GM
John,
"Oh really?! Please elaborate WRT actual box performance differences, not those in the mids/HF."

GM
GM-
Sorry-
If I had understood clearly what you meant when I first read that sentence, I would have answered more promptly.....still a bit baffled.

Are you asking for some sort of detailed technical report (lotsa graphs, etc?) on the difference between the 167e/Brines 1600 and the AN10/AN2.8II ? Can't help you there, as I don't have things rigged up for testing. I'm also unable to use the 'lingo' to talk in detail about imaging, soundstage depth, width (and colour!), etc as I only have a few speakers here to compare. I guess it's kinda like wine tasting- you've gotta learn through experience what all the descriptors mean . (?)



However, the AN10s definitely sound better to me, particularly in the bass- which shouldn't be a surprise. I also like the overall response better with the ANs. With my tone-control-less tube amp this is more of an issue. The past few days I've been listening with a 'vintage' SS amp and can dial in more/less bass more easily. The 167e Brines bass is much better with that setup.

Cheers
John
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2009, 11:07 PM   #109
The one and only
 
Nelson Pass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by freddi
Hi Nelson - what values do you suggest offhand for AN10 filters? --- do you like the AN8's as well sz 206?
Are you looking for passive between-the-speaker-and-driver?

I'm still going through comparisons of the AN drivers, and haven't
yet worked out the passive values - active being so much quicker.

I like the AN8's as well as the FE206's but I haven't done a head-to-
head comparison under any kind of controlled conditions, but I'll get
to it eventually.

Keep in mind that tend to I view all these things in context, so you'll
find me smiling when I listen to the Bu20Fu20's - at $20.

  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2009, 03:12 AM   #110
freddi is offline freddi  United States
diyAudio Member
 
freddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
I'm having fun with an old 12" Semprini in a Karlson 12 topped with the first tweeter for helper tweeter and 0.75uF in sight playing "this" cd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBUYfbGeRnI

I've only got AH10 stamped frame - a line level filter between soundcard and solid state amp could be interesting - it'll be fun to hear your comments a a pile of fullrange :^)
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Audio Nirvana Drivers drwho Full Range 15 20th December 2007 05:33 PM
box for 6.5" audio nirvana ranaya Full Range 6 11th September 2007 02:31 AM
Audio Nirvana Andy9485 Multi-Way 6 21st November 2006 11:46 PM
Audio Nirvana - Where Is It? How Do We Get There? Bas Horneman Everything Else 9 25th January 2006 02:05 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2