DIY Waveguide loudspeaker kit - Page 143 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Commercial Sector > Manufacturers > GedLee

GedLee Home of the renown Geddes Loudspeakers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18th October 2009, 01:41 AM   #1421
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donovad View Post
or what its worth i prefer a non photo-shopped picture of your speaker designs if only because they look like real speakers rather than a digital representation of what they might look like.
Which picture shows more?

Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 02:44 AM   #1422
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Both awful pictures with strange shaddows, to be honest
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 12:26 PM   #1423
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Carolina
Well, the picture on the left has one shadow that I can see. The one on the right has multiple. But that isn't the problem. Why in the world are these pics so small? Is it because I have a 22 inch monitor ?

Let's make the pictures BIGGER please. The picture on the left shows a little more detail, but I am really being anal here. Both pictures represent a fantabulastic loudspeaker and so, sonics is the only final determinate

Anand.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 04:18 PM   #1424
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
I don't understand these comments. These are the same picture, one was photoshopped to remove the background and add in a fake shadow (the one on the left) while the one on the right is the original image. They must show the same detail as they are equivalent images. The only thing the one on the left does is make those details more apparent as it removes the distractions of the background.

Depending on the purpose of the image, I too sometimes prefer an image in the natural background. This isn't one of those situation, and for the basic website images, they should probably be photoshoped like markus has done. However, I'd also like to see an "action shot" at some point, with the speakers staged in a theater or room.

Also, Dr. Geddes, are the scales and resolutions of the polar plots all the same? It looks like the resposne of the 10" model is the best of all of them if you were to go by response smoothness/eveness. However, I'm guessing that is just due to a different scale and/or resolution?

Also, why is it that the Abbey has the biggest on axis dip? I would have thought that the dip would become larger as the waveguide got smaller. When I bought the Abbey it was because I had hoped that this model would be the closest thing I could get to a more compact Summa in performance. I feel like the description and data on the website doesn't fully bare that out, even if it is the case.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 06:01 PM   #1425
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
[QUOTE=pjpoes;1953287]
Also, Dr. Geddes, are the scales and resolutions of the polar plots all the same? [QUOTE]

No, they are not the same. The 10" one is a much older set of data that was done at a time when the resolution was much lower than I get today. All the others use almost four times the resolution as found in the 10" data.

As to the axial hole, it not so simple. The Abbey hole is not much different than the Summa hole, but this Abbey has a much more curtailed HF response, which drives this hole deeper. Right or wrong, this is deliberate because a flat HF response just sounds bright. The Abbey has been particularly difficult to get a smooth response at the crossover and there are a couple of ideas that I have had to improve this.

You have to remember when you look at this data that you are seeing reality - something virtually never shown by manufacturers. This makes the data look "not so good". The point here is that these responses are in fact far better than what you would see for another speaker. People need to get used to looking at "real" data and not "marketing" data. Reality is never as pretty as marketing would have you believe.

When I look at real data I can tell what the speaker will sound like. When you look at typical data, there is nothing to give you any indication of the sound quality. If we (as in the audio community) are to ever get out of the grips of marketing we must learn how to understand the meaning and importance of real data.

Quote:
I feel like the description and data on the website doesn't fully bare that out, even if it is the case.
I'm not sure that I'd agree with this. The Abbey is not as good as the Summa, thats been known for a long time. It is much better controlled than the Harper, and the Nathan data is not on the same scale. I need to get the Nathan data on a comparable scale and I need to look in getting a better crossover for the Abbey. I have long wanted to get a better waveguide for the Abbey and that is in the works. I guess that I should show the data with a flat HF response as this just never looks right when it is shown as rolled off.

These are all growing pains from finally seeing real loudspeaker response data instead of the kind of stuff that most people show. The bottom line here is that the Abbey and Summa data are what a really great loudspeaker looks like and you need to use that fact to calibrate your expectations.

I could make ALL the data look a lot better, but thats not something that I think would be benificial in the long run.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 06:57 PM   #1426
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
I appreciate this response, though I think some of my points were misunderstood. I knew going into this that for more than twice the money I would get a big sound improvement with the Summa, per my discussion with you. However, my comment was directed at the Abbey vs Nathan vs Harper descriptions. I wonder if it might be of benefit to make it more clear to people that as you move up the line you get a performance improvement, and what that improvement is. For instance, with some companies, as you move down the line, the only thing you really lose is bass or max output. In the case of yours, it's more complex than that, right? You have less good directivity control, less peak output, less bass, etc. I imagine the crossover point also move up, which has it's own associated issue's. It's not to say that the smaller models are bad, just that spending more get's more through a lot of different changes. I feel this often isn't true of other loudspeaker brands, and it's not made clear in your descriptions (at least not to me), that this is what happens.

I know you had talked about an elliptical waveguide, is that what you mean about an Abbey improved waveguide? Would these version 2 crossovers, or whatever you end up calling it, be something available to those of us with original Abbey's, or will it be based on the new waveguide?

I'm more than willing to beta test these improvements in a timely fashion if you send me different crossover's you come up with as idea's. I've since moved my setup around so that there is no longer the horrible diffraction causing cabinents and subs infront, so my setup should be far better now at revealing differences. I'd build them myself and cover the cost of the parts myself, all I'd want is the schematics.

Cost's would probably be prohibitive for many, and silly for the rest of us, but would you consider offering just replacement cabinets for the speakers as you improve the waveguides if someone was so inclined? In other words if you began offering an improved waveguide, could we purchase the kits for the cabinets with no drivers or crossover parts?

Last edited by pjpoes; 18th October 2009 at 07:02 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 08:04 PM   #1427
Donovad is offline Donovad  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Default Art vs Reality

Just as an example...

Art

Click the image to open in full size.

Reality

Click the image to open in full size.


Now... you probably dont need me to tell you which one I want to look at on my wall and which one I want to see when i walk into my garage.
It's one thing to Photoshop out distracting background objects or shadows but when you start altering every part of the image it doesnt look like something i could view with my own eyes.

Now back to the important stuff. Are there any subs in the field yet ? I would be interested in hearing some feedback from current owners and seeing some more pics of the fit-n-finish on the subs. Thanks Earl.

Daniel.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 08:13 PM   #1428
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Thanks for the example but the whole picture quality discussion was not about what you want on your wall or in your garage. The question is which picture you most probably will find on Audi's website. But as Earl earlier said, he's not an automaker
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 08:21 PM   #1429
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
I've put money down on a pair of subs, but not received them yet. I'm still awaiting Dr. Geddes to let me know when mine are built and ready. They will each be receiving a solid 300 watts or so from a very robust amplifier I have for them using Aussieamps modules from a little while back and a massively overbuilt power supply.

Once I receive them I can compare them to the various DIY subs I own. I haven't purchased a manufactured subwoofer in a good ten years since making a basic sealed or even ported sub is really one of the easiest DIY projects. I will have a pair of Dayton 12" reference subs in 2 cubic foot sealed boxes, a isobaric push-pull XLS 12" sub, a TC Acoustics 3000 12" ported sub with a 5 cubic foot enclosure tuned to 20hz or so (this is a special version of the 3000 which has a lighter cone and works in larger boxes), and a 7" Mpyre Audio Bandpass I came up with using multiples of the mpyres I have from when the company went out of business. I should be able to get a pretty good comparison of Dr. Geddes sub as compared with a variety of different types and designs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 08:53 PM   #1430
Donovad is offline Donovad  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Default Sub Feedback

Thanks Pjpoes, yours is exactly the sort of feedback I am looking for. I too have a couple of DIY sub projects kicking around the house and am also considering the Magellan subs by TBI. I'll look forword to hearing from you and any other potential owners out there.

Daniel.
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 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