Beyond the Ariel - Page 571 - 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 20th May 2009, 07:56 AM   #5701
h_a is offline h_a  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
h_a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Graz, Austria
Hope you recover soon, Lynn!

By the way, may I ask you about your experiences on aging suspensions of the P13W in your Ariel? I just read a post from somebody that wrote that the fs of the P13W went up from about 60 Hz to about 150 Hz after being unused for years.

If the drivers really age this way, one is certainly well advised not to build an Ariel with the original (now NOS) parts as performance suffers.

Quote:
One has to write it down in the equations of Quantum Electro Dynamics and analyze the situation.
Plain Quantum mechanics are sufficient. But there really is not more to it (basically) as I lined out previously. Writing it down is the easy part.

Have fun, Hannes
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 08:08 AM   #5702
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally posted by h_a
Hope you recover soon, Lynn!

By the way, may I ask you about your experiences on aging suspensions of the P13W in your Ariel? I just read a post from somebody that wrote that the fs of the P13W went up from about 60 Hz to about 150 Hz after being unused for years.

If the drivers really age this way, one is certainly well advised not to build an Ariel with the original (now NOS) parts as performance suffers.

Have fun, Hannes
Huh - that's news to me. I bang on my Ariels pretty regularly, since they are connected to my Denon 2905 home theater receiver most of the time. So whenever a TV show with decent audio is on, or we watch a DVD, they're in use. I replaced all the drivers about 6 years ago - one of the tweeters developed a buzz and one of the Vifa's had the surround come unglued. No point replacing one driver - they won't match the older ones - so I replaced all the drivers at the same time.

I suspect the Vifa was subtly modified over the years - my darkest suspicions is that it was cheapened while nobody was looking. But that's just a feeling. I definitely preferred the older Scan-Speak 9000 to the 9500 I have now - I don't find the dryer sound of the 9500 all that appealing. There was a wonderful "liquid" quality to the 9000 that seems to have disappeared from modern Scan-Speak tweeters.

Since it would be a giant hassle to re-design the crossover to cater to the subtly different drivers, I considered for a while re-vamping the Ariel to a Mark II version using the Audio Technology drivers. That have the same beautiful sonics as the older Scan-Speaks - no surprise, since the designer is the same.

It's the designer, not the name of the company, that is responsible for the sonics of a driver or a complete loudspeaker system. The name of the company means nothing if the original designers have left - in particular, older drivers may have subtle parts and assembly changes that take it well away from the original designer's intent.

Since the "sound" is the result of the designer, not the brand name, it can be difficult to follow as designers move from company to company. The companies usually go out of their way to conceal personnel changes, so it helps to ask around and find out who designed which driver. Those are the people you want to follow, since their "sound" will follow them. The "sound", of course, is a collection of hard-won knowledge by the designer, combined with personal preferences.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 09:26 AM   #5703
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
My go-to resource on H1N1 is Effect Measure, a science blog. As mentioned in the comments on this posting, "testing is now focusing on those with severe disease, those at high risk due to underlying conditions, and those whose cases might be indicative of the virus moving into new environments. As a result, the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. should not be expected to be anything like the true number of cases."

For political and economic reasons, people are not being advised to avoid unnecessary air travel. But I would think twice about being cooped up in a poorly-ventilated tin can for several hours with passengers from all over the world - the same for a cruise ship. The reason I suspect what I had was H1N1 was the unusual variety and fast-moving diversity of the symptoms - every day was different, something I've never experienced before with influenza.

Although H1N1 is now considered "mild" compared to how it looked at first, I can say from experience that is a very relative term. If I had an underlying health condition it would have been very serious, not just unpleasant. As it was, it went after my ears, sinuses, and eyes (in a day-by-day progression), as well as my lungs, and that's when I went to the hospital to get antibiotics. If I had been this sick in a hotel in a foreign country, it would have been quite frightening, and relying on unknown medical system would not have been pleasant. As it was, I had Karna as a 24-hour caretaker, and slept (as well as I could) in my own bed. That, and the availability of medical care, made a big difference.

So keep the soft-pedaling by the authorities in mind. They are trying to protect the airlines and the tourism industries, and as this link discusses, there are pressures on the WHO to not raise the pandemic level to Six - for political reasons. I'm not joking about getting an N95 mask - travelers would be wise to use them, no matter what people think about how they look.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 04:48 PM   #5704
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Default swine flu

Don't give up your day job....

No amount of government intervention is gonna protect anyone from viral illness. Common sense should always be the #1 tenet of interacting with the public (I know this, I deal with sick parents and children EVERY day)

Flu is flu... it's all contagious (as is streptococcal infection, nasopharyngitis, bronchial infections, gastroenteritis, etc.) Testing for H1N1 is pretty useless (except for political reasons), since there's nothing different in the treatment vs. standard flu. Treat it with tammyflu, whatever, you're still sick.

Probably 90% of our office visits are unnecessary overutilization of the medical care system by patients who can't cope with the reality that there is very little in medicine that can't be fixed by "tincture of time"... it's just that most of the public lives on the "sound bite" mentality of "quick fixes", get the doctors reassurance so I don't have to be personally responsible, etc.

Is it any wonder medical care consumes 20% of our GDP??

(getting down from the stump... ;-)

John L
__________________
"...His brain is squirming like a toad..." Jim Morrison
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 05:23 PM   #5705
diyAudio Member
 
serengetiplains's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Olson

The sneaky thing about the Tamiflu and Relenza prescriptions is that they're telling the public to stay away from the hospitals unless it gets serious and starts to develop potentially dangerous secondary symptoms, which takes about a week, and guess what, Tamiflu and Relenza are only good if administered in the first 24~48 hours after onset of symptoms. Nice Catch-22 there.
There's more interest where that one comes from. Remember the bird flu AKA the bird flu hoax? Tamiflu was also then prescribed. At that time, one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary, and Tamiflu was $old by Roche on license from Gideon, the company that created the drug. Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Gideon from 1997-2001.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 05:47 PM   #5706
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
Default Re: Uh, what?

Quote:
Originally posted by ion


I wouldn't go so far to say the all sound is mixed on constant directivity designs.

I am no sound engineer, but all studios (broadcasting and recording) I've come across so far in soon 20 years of musicianship in various part time projects, I've yet not seen a single one where anything else than regular dynamic speakers (may it be active or passive) has been used for monitoring.

Cheers

While I don't have 20 years of musicianship, I think a distinction may be in order to clarify Xpert's comment and your experience. Typical monitoring during recording sessions seems to be done using a mixture of headphones and cheap basic monitors, such as the oh so famous Yamaha NS-10M. However, mastering, finalizing, etc. is often done separately and seem to use larger better, and often very expensive monitors which seem to often incorporate CD or quasi-CD designs. There are exceptions, even very famous ones (Abbey Road Studio's uses B&W for final mastering), which I suspect is because they realized that most home speakers aren't controlling directivity even remotely, and so mastering on speakers more akin to what people own is more valuable. I forget the name and type now, but I recall seeing a very expensive "radio speaker" monitor in a studio used to ensure that mixes sound decent on the types of speakers most music is listened to (i.e. TV speakers, radio speakers, and car speakers). It was basically a pair of cubes with very inexpensive full range speakers like you might find in a clock radio.

During a tour of one of Sony's recording studio's in NYC almost ten years ago now, the only CD designs I saw were in the mastering rooms. I was told by the mastering engineer that he typically worked in isolation from the rest of the process, and that the artist typically only heard this final mastered version on a cd copy sent to him, not in the mastering room. Why this was done I can't say, I found it strange, but that was their protocol.

With the quality of recordings coming out today, it wouldn't shock me one bit if all of this has fallen to the wayside. It just seems like nobody cares anymore. I keep hearing catch phrases like, aurilazation. I actually was told by an engineer that to save money and time, they stopped using mid and far field monitors for mastering in favor of headphones and aurlization techniques to mimic the effect. He told me that much of this mastering work that was, at one time, done by hand, is now done through software, almost completely hands off by the "engineer", and only a very short 1-2 hours of final mastering is done on the album. This was an engineer working for a major recording label, how had recently opened his own studio in NY because he was fed up with those sorts of cost cutting and thus quality cutting measures. Just sad in my opinion, and explains why I can count the number of recent recordings I have purchased on my fingers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 06:09 PM   #5707
diyAudio Member
 
Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default Re: Re: Uh, what?

Quote:
Originally posted by pjpoes
It was basically a pair of cubes with very inexpensive full range speakers like you might find in a clock radio.
Auratones AKA horrortones. They had them in the first studio I worked in. Their best use was somewhere to put my coffee mug.

Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 06:18 PM   #5708
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
yes sir, that looks like the ones I saw. I just checked my Full Compass catalog and noticed these: Click the image to open in full size.

Anyone explain to me why Studio's wouldn't simply buy a cheap pair of computer speakers for this purpose? Are these some how more reliable? I mean, 235 dollars per pair is a little disturbing when you consider what they are and what they are for. Here is another over priced example: Click the image to open in full size.

I understand why these exist, I understand what they are for, I even understand why normal cheap speakers wouldn't necessarily give you the same result. What I don't understand is why these can't be produced for 10 dollars, or why the thousands if not millions of computer speakers, using almost identical designs, can't serve the same purpose.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 06:26 PM   #5709
xpert is offline xpert  Afghanistan
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default Re: Re: Uh, what?

Quote:
Originally posted by pjpoes

... to clarify Xpert's comment and your experience. Typical monitoring during recording sessions seems to be done using a mixture of headphones and cheap basic monitors, such as the oh so famous Yamaha NS-10M. However, mastering, finalizing, etc. is often done separately and seem to use larger better, and often very expensive monitors which seem to often incorporate CD or quasi-CD designs.
Hi,

What kinda recordings are You thinking of? In Germany CD-designs are common at least at radio stations. And, btw doesn't US Genelec sell anything? On the other hand my assumption isn't validated in a statistical sense, correct.

Can it be that You missed my blinking with ConstDir no good lifeless due perfection? I personally don't give to much on "CD". But it is a valid concept that has it's merits. To have an eye on the issue of controlled sound radiation is worth the effort. At least much more than overdoing enclosure death-quiet-non-resonating-things.

An other is level. You can't scale down music to some harmless by-the-way muzak without loosing it all. I experienced that whilst testing the CD thing. The necessary bigger midrange speakers did very well. So it's two for one. Bigger speakers good with level, good for CD.

so long
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 06:42 PM   #5710
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
Many recording studios in the United States try to do things as cheaply as possible, unfortunately, and it's not uncommon to see the majority of mixing during recordings done on small book shelf sized speakers. I would say that the smaller JBL, Mackie, KRK, and Edirol designs, which I wouldn't really consider CD, are pretty common. Many costing substantially south of 2000 dollars, even in major big studios. While Genelec is a major company, they are Finish, not American, and I have actually never seen them in a studio. I know American studios use them, I just haven't been to one. Not all of there's are CD either, some might argue none of them are. That would add to the confusion of finding CD in studios, you can't always look at a speaker and know if it's CD or not. The last radio station I was in, which was for an advertisement for a program I was involved in, didn't even have monitors, just headphones, so it can really vary.

The merit of controlling directivity in some fashion, be it true CD or not, is something I happen to find very important in a speaker design. While I would be lying if I was to say that Dr. Geddes hadn't heavily influenced that opinion in recent times, I was heading in that direction on my own, which is how I found his speakers in the first place. The implications of a constant and smooth roll off as you get with a good CD is, to me, very important in ensuring a good in room response. To me it's not just the advantage in seat to seat consistency you might get in a theater, it is important for the person in the golden seat as well. While I have no idea what specific attributes contribute to a speakers ability to portray a convincing soundstage with the speakers disappearing, insturments well placed in space, etc., I can say that the Summa Abbey's do a better job than any direct radiator I have heard. A part of me wonders if the CD design has something to do with that, but without broader experience, I can't say. JBL Everests and K2's also seem to do this as well, as do the higher end KEF Reference lines, which also offer superb directivity control, which is why I suspect it. Previously I had thought maybe the phase response of the speaker was a major contributor, but all of those speakers use different crossovers with differing degrees of "linear phase" and, as such, I wouldn't expect all of them to have a good stage if the phae variations are so different between designs.
  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 11:45 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