Beyond the Ariel - Page 224 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

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 26th September 2007, 11:38 PM   #2231
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Its true, leads and transports can be easily picked up through it. But they don't fundamentally shake its rhythmic or tonal delivery. As far as they could measure the effect of jitter they are honest. But there must be other interface issues at play too. The 5532 op amps were the only ones not exhibiting IMD as the Benchmark engineers have emailed me, and they were not picked on cost grounds but on performance ones as they assured. Its clarity can be disturbing systems built around high end sources. Its a demanding little devil. In studios it sounds correct 9 out of 10 times. Well accepted in the pro world. I changed my view (which was exactly as yours) when I first listened to it directly feeding pro ATC 12'' actives. Hell, it was sounding towards sweet! In a Hi-Fi system I first heard it, it was relentlessly harsh! I asked some engineers that had a Weiss pro DAC in a remastering studio (they do mainly classical), and they told me, ah! its so sweet and we got shocked by its rendition because we could not initially differentiate it from the Weiss! Go figure...
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2007, 11:47 PM   #2232
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Olson
You think it's bad to read reviews? Imagine writing them - that's worse, I can say from experience.
I remember once sitting in the office of an editor at one of big European audio mags. He was asking me how I liked the magazine. "Well", I replied, "it's nice - but you guys like everything. Don't you ever write a bad review?" He just signed and said "I know, I know. But we survive on advertising. It puts us in tough spot." And I agreed it was not a spot I'd want to be in.

Sometimes you just have to read between the lines. Art usually isn't a plain statement of obvious facts, is it?

(BTW, my gripe is more with movie critics).
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 01:50 AM   #2233
JohnL is offline JohnL  United States
diyAudio Member
 
JohnL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Olson


This might sound a little stupid, but the choice of any of these configurations depends on the sonics (and measurements) of the drivers.
Touché. I guess that would be of primary importance, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Olson

My own personal set of priorities are low subjective colorations in the 1 to 5 kHz region (requiring a minimum of equalization), traded off against in-band headroom. The 12" driver is almost certainly going to have an insane amount of headroom, but the subjective quality of 1 to 5 kHz region is probably not going to be as good, and there are secondary (to me) issues about dispersion vs crossover frequency.

The most annoying downside of the 8" driver is the reference efficiency, which is 3 dB less than the other drivers I'm looking at. In Class A triode-land, that makes a substantial difference for the required power amplifier.
I'm really curious how this will turn out. I may just bite the bullet and try the 10NDA or 12NDA myself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Olson

You bring up a good point about magnet size in the LF augmentation driver(s). A driver with a small magnet will have the "correct" high Qts, but an overall lower efficiency. The exact same driver (same cone mass and compliance) with a bigger magnet will have substantially lower QTs, require equalization, but have much higher efficiency. All of my instincts tell me to choose the driver with the highest in-band efficiency, and only equalize where necessary.

The same applies to raising Qts with a series resistor, which has precisely the same effect as reducing magnet size - in effect, you are throwing away efficiency of a device that already has abysmally low efficiency to start with. (Direct-radiator audiophile reference efficiency is typically 0.3 to 1.0%, direct-radiator prosound reference efficiency is typically 3 to 8%)

I'm quite OK with throwing away efficiency to improve damping and control resonance - back when audiophile drivers were smoother, and prosound drivers were really rough (Altec 604, anyone?), this choice made a lot of sense. Now that modern audiophile drivers have both low efficiency and rough response, they seem like a poor choice, considering the strides made in the prosound world.
So are you looking at a series damping resistor on your bass driver, whether it ends up being a 15 or 18?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 04:30 AM   #2234
poptart is offline poptart  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
poptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quote:
Its either accurate or it isn't. There is no middle ground.
imho aiming for an idealized, almost fundamentalist goal of "accurate" sounds hopeless. Accurate to what? Most records are a few mics recorded, eq'ed, compressed, levels mucked around with and panned around to suit whatever guess the engineer is making about the range of playback equipment this music might be played on. It's common to take a mix and listen to it in the car, in a bedroom system etc. He knows there's no one exact way this mix is going to sound to everyone, he just tries to make sure many people will enjoy it.

Would you rather enjoy something or be the only one that knows you were right in listening to what you think someone else is saying you should hear?

To each his own, but would you really rather be right than happy?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 05:22 AM   #2235
FrankWW is offline FrankWW  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: n/a
Quote:
Would you rather enjoy something or be the only one that knows you were right in listening to what you think someone else is saying you should hear?
I think accurate (as in faithful reproduction of input signal) is a good place to be. Otherwise I won't get maximum enjoyment out of a good recording.

Once I have accurate I can always install a "nice" button, if I am so inclined, but I can't really even do that, unless I start out with accurate reproduction because I won't even know what it is I'm attempting to modify - electronic, recording, or acoustical artifact .
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 05:52 AM   #2236
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by poptart


imho aiming for an idealized, almost fundamentalist goal of "accurate" sounds hopeless. Accurate to what? Most records are a few mics recorded, eq'ed, compressed, levels mucked around with and panned around to suit whatever guess the engineer is making about the range of playback equipment this music might be played on. It's common to take a mix and listen to it in the car, in a bedroom system etc. He knows there's no one exact way this mix is going to sound to everyone, he just tries to make sure many people will enjoy it.

Would you rather enjoy something or be the only one that knows you were right in listening to what you think someone else is saying you should hear?

To each his own, but would you really rather be right than happy?
As a recording, mixing and mastering engineer I have to make this sort of decision every day. Who or what am I mixing for - airplay? boom boxes? clock radios? earbuds? well-healed audiophiles?

I long ago decided to mix "for the future", presuming that in the future the average playback system would be more accurate, tonally at least, than is currently the case. This presumption is based on my observations over the last 40 years. I do believe that quality of playback is steadily improving, taken as a whole.

In the meantime, I think it only fair to mix for the guy who has taken the trouble to assemble an accurate playback system, as he demonstrably cares how it sounds, as do I. Moreover logic tells me that as long as speaker manufacturers (in particular) have accuracy, i.e., flat response as the target which I believe they do, apart from a little fudging to fatten up the bass in tiny boxes, then the target will be hit more often if the mix was done on genuinely accurate speakers in a quality acoustic environment.

If that means I must be unhappy with a bad recording, then so be it. I need to be!

So yes, for my work I would rather be right than happy.

On the same hand, good recordings sound fabulous, as they should.

I should add:
1) I will happily tolerate awful sonics if the performance is great
2) The more I do this the more I appreciate live un-amplified music!

Russell
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 05:56 AM   #2237
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnL

So are you looking at a series damping resistor on your bass driver, whether it ends up being a 15 or 18?
Ugh. No way.

As mentioned earlier, you can have low efficiency everywhere (small magnet or series resistor) or you can have high efficiency in the mid band and have about the same efficiency as the other approach close to the Fs region. Throwing away power for no good reason - especially since I'm pretty dubious about amplifier sonics - just makes no sense to me.

Thus, I'm seeing bi-amplification - with EQ near Fs, as needed - for the Bass and Midbass drivers. Since these drivers cover the region where the room is having major deviations in response, independent per-channel parametric EQ is needed anyway.

The widerange driver and tweeter share a highest-quality moderate-power amplifier (with no EQ and a passive mid/hi crossover), the midbass and bass drivers share a substantially higher-power amp with active crossovers and parametric EQ, and there's a separately powered subwoofer coming in around 60~80 Hz.

Using a parametric EQ to create higher-Q rolloff (with a mild amount of peaking) is quite a different thing with an efficient large-area pro driver than an inefficient small-area audiophile driver. Efficiency and low IM distortion really matter in this application - this is the traditional weak area of dipole systems, and it's an area I want to address. The usual comments of "thin bass" have a lot to with drivers - or electrostatic panels - that just don't have the grunt necessary for the job.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 06:09 AM   #2238
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
''I should add:
1) I will happily tolerate awful sonics if the performance is great
2) The more I do this the more I appreciate live un-amplified music!

Russell''


He, he, your last two phrases ring a bell. Its a dirty job, but someone has to do it...
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 06:18 AM   #2239
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Lynn, I remember a conclusion from a string of old discussions with mates and in the fora, no particular reference in my memory, and the conclusion was: For a speaker in a room, best line of combat should be monopole 20-40Hz, dipole 40-200Hz, cardioid 200-20000Hz. What is your opinion?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2007, 06:33 AM   #2240
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally posted by salas
Lynn, I remember a conclusion from a string of old discussions with mates and in the fora, no particular reference in my memory, and the conclusion was: For a speaker in a room, best line of combat should be monopole 20-40Hz, dipole 40-200Hz, cardioid 200-20000Hz. What is your opinion?
I honestly don't know, and am reluctant to follow along and use the opinions of others - I guess I'd rather make my own mistakes. Maybe another example of that Swedish/Norski stubbornness that used to be a standing joke in our family as I grew up.

A 40~200 Hz true dipole is going to be: very large, use a W-baffle (and associated sharp lowpass crossover), or many dB of bass-boost equalization. A quasi-cardioid relaxes all of these constraints, and to my ear, sounded very, very good at Gary Pimm's place. Frankly, as good as anything I'd ever heard in that frequency range, and with Eminence drivers I'm not that fond of.

As for higher frequencies, I really don't know. The smoothness of the walkaround test is important, though, regardless of the formal designation of polar pattern. I strongly suspect if a rear tweeter is used, it does need to be 6~10 dB down relative to the front tweeter, so the backwave doesn't diffract around the front and screw up the (frontal) impulse response. It has crossed my mind that a plain old Scan-Speak in a rear-facing hemispherical baffle might be just fine for this application.
  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 09:32 AM.


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