Hi Michael again
In post#1546 you make another very valid point which Lynn has separated to fine front and coarse grained spacial behavior.
When I have used round edging to optimise reproduction on baffle/driver axis, it has led to an increase of error the moment you move off axis, like intensity concentration rings around a poorly fucussing torch beam.
I find this change more distracting than the frontal advantage gained, and thus short, thick, fine piled carpet remains my surface wave limiting preference.
Cheers .......... Graham.
In post#1546 you make another very valid point which Lynn has separated to fine front and coarse grained spacial behavior.
When I have used round edging to optimise reproduction on baffle/driver axis, it has led to an increase of error the moment you move off axis, like intensity concentration rings around a poorly fucussing torch beam.
I find this change more distracting than the frontal advantage gained, and thus short, thick, fine piled carpet remains my surface wave limiting preference.
Cheers .......... Graham.
Hi
Lynn, I am not sure if your approach " measuring and auditioning.... on a large flat baffle, like a door." will reveal what you are searching for.
The simulation shows a 220mm speaker in a baffle the size of a door – on axis to 45 deg off axis on 5 steps.
You can see that right in the most sensible region there are heavy disturbances.
Maybe if you make a CSD and window out the arrival of the edge diffraction but this most likely will be of little value to judge a speakers performance ?
Also here a smaler baffle - remember the roughly 2.5 times the speaker diameter rule of thumb - will perform better.
Greetings
Michael
Lynn, I am not sure if your approach " measuring and auditioning.... on a large flat baffle, like a door." will reveal what you are searching for.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The simulation shows a 220mm speaker in a baffle the size of a door – on axis to 45 deg off axis on 5 steps.
You can see that right in the most sensible region there are heavy disturbances.
Maybe if you make a CSD and window out the arrival of the edge diffraction but this most likely will be of little value to judge a speakers performance ?
Also here a smaler baffle - remember the roughly 2.5 times the speaker diameter rule of thumb - will perform better.
Greetings
Michael
I found some interesting reading here from links on fullrangedriver.com
http://www.spiritone.com/~rob369/audio/audio_index.htm
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6334505
Cheers .......... Graham.
http://www.spiritone.com/~rob369/audio/audio_index.htm
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6334505
Cheers .......... Graham.
Hi
JohnK, I have a feeling that I didn't get this " messing with the dipole response " completely.
By " edge treatment " do you refer to a lossy ( mesh ) edge or to the thickness of the baffle at the edge or to an unsymmetrical edge shape ?
-----------------------
Graham, this is exciting.
Sadly I didn't find anything else about Alfred Duppke's design when I ran Google.
Greetings
Michael
Greetings
Michael
JohnK, I have a feeling that I didn't get this " messing with the dipole response " completely.
By " edge treatment " do you refer to a lossy ( mesh ) edge or to the thickness of the baffle at the edge or to an unsymmetrical edge shape ?
-----------------------
Graham, this is exciting.
Sadly I didn't find anything else about Alfred Duppke's design when I ran Google.
Greetings
Michael
Greetings
Michael
Hi
To overcome the restrictions with the wired FR of large baffles one way might be to provoke diffraction close to the speaker by abrupt truncation of a ( rectangular ?) wave guide for example and retaining the low frequency sensitivity by the several times overall dimension of the baffle.
(I ask Earl's forgiveness for the abuse of his patent's picture- and yes, I know I need some more classes from Bob Ross
)
Any thoughts on this?
Greetings
Michael
To overcome the restrictions with the wired FR of large baffles one way might be to provoke diffraction close to the speaker by abrupt truncation of a ( rectangular ?) wave guide for example and retaining the low frequency sensitivity by the several times overall dimension of the baffle.
(I ask Earl's forgiveness for the abuse of his patent's picture- and yes, I know I need some more classes from Bob Ross
)An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Any thoughts on this?
Greetings
Michael
mige0 said:
What I am referring to is a lossy mesh type of arrangement. In a conventional speaker the artifacts in the on axis response due to diffraction are those associates with the acoustic wave propagation outward along the baffle surface and the diffraction of that wave at the edge. We are dealing with only the front radiation. With the dipole those edge effects cancel with the corresponding edge effect form the rear wave (for a moderately thin baffle) and what we are left with is the full strength of the rear wave coming around the baffle edge (which will be stronger than the diffraction of a conventional speaker). Now if you are in a frequency range where the driver is fairly directional, then what is coming around from the rear may already fairly well attenuated relative to the front direct radiation. In such a case the lossey edge would be beneficial since this is really very similar to conventions baffle diffraction only with different strength edge wave. But with a larger baffle, where the driver is still pretty omnidirectional at and some what above the dipole peak, the rear wave will be nearly as strong as the front. I don't believe a lossey mesh will have much success in attenuating the surface waves at these lower frequencies, just above the dipole peak, where on axis dips and peaks would be most severe. Remember the first dipole null occurs at a frequency where the wave length is equal to the radius of a circular baffle. It would be pretty hard to attenuate a frequency of that wave length significantly with edge treatment. What is required is an irregularly shaped baffle (like a rectangle) which basically scatters the rear wave in time due to the different path length around the baffle edge.
The problem is that the problem is very complex and depends on the driver's directional characteristics, baffle shape and size, yada, yada, yada... This is why I think this discussion keep going and going and going. Because may of the ideas presented may work, or seem to work well for a specific case. But they may not apply to another design because the parameters are different. That's also why I think there has to be a line between OB and dipole.
This is why I am changing the web page I was preparing. I want to try and address these issues, at least as they are important to me, to sort of put all the duck in a row.
Anyway, I'll be away for a while, working on the web page.
Hi all, lots happening here, thus the absence. Baby birdies coming out of their nest (under the rafters of our roof) and learning to fly. Baby birds #1 and 2 fell off the roof, opened their wings in shock, glided and landed under the shaded porch, peeped mournfully to their mother, who flew into the porch and fed them again, and then they flew to a nearby fence.
Birds #1 and #2 are flying (somewhat unsteadily and frequently missing their target) and are starting to find bugs on their own. Baby birds #3 and 4 cling to the edge of the roof and watch what's going on - their chance to fall off, then fly, is coming soon. Of course, this whole learning-to-fly thing has a deep resonance for me, since I myself have only just started walking unassisted (no cane, no walker) in the last few days, and can now get up and down the stairs with a cane and using the railing.
Aside from the charm of the nearby flight school for the little ones that have grown up under the eaves of our house, I've been meditating a bit about that last posting.
Rather than thinking of radiation patterns from the viewpoint of the loudspeaker (certainly easier to analyze), I think a listener-centered approach is better systems design. We know the direct-arrival sound is treated differently by the ear/brain/mind than the first room reflections, including first reflection from the floor (which arrives 3~3.5 mSec after the direct sound).
I don't see the currently popular quasi-anechoic approach as desirable. By this I mean the listening room should at least have decent enough acoustics that a live instrument - say, a violin or a singer - sounds musically pleasing. I strongly feel if the listening room is so bad that live music is unpleasant, than any serious attempt at hifi is doomed from the start. You can tell this just by speaking out loud - if the room is murky and dead-sounding, or shrill and harsh, then playing games with the radiation pattern from the loudspeaker is not going to be successful.
It may sound a little simple-minded, but I almost see it as a problem in lighting. A certain amount of direct illumination is desired, along with smoothly-distributed ambient light. If the room is so live it's nothing more than a series of mirrors, it's not going to sound good. Similarly, if the room is so dead it's like a black cave, it's not going to sound good either - in fact, it'll look and sound like a dungeon lit by flashlights, a scene out of the X-Files.
The room and the speakers themselves should have a reasonably smooth distribution of direct and ambient energy, as in the illumination metaphor above. The hundreds of room reflections falling in the 3~25 mSec window don't need to completely attenuated - in fact, in their absence, the spatial impression will be quite deficient on most recordings - nor do they need to be precise and exact replicas of the direct sound. What's important is the sum of these reflections needs to have a spectral similarity to the direct-arrival, most importantly, without peaks that are not present in the direct-arrival.
With this model, the exact radiation pattern of the loudspeaker isn't that important, since what matters is the total power into a sphere - the energy fed into those hundreds of room reflections in the 3~25 mSec window. Since the total room power is processed independently of the direct-arrival, the direct-arrival integrity is still important, since it is responsible for overall tonal color and localization (but not spatial impression).
This is why I mentioned in the previous post fine and coarse-grained radiation patterns. If it's in the direct-arrival path going straight to a listener, then time, spectral, and spatial performance are extremely important, in order to provide realistic tone colors, stable and non-fatiguing image quality, and low "speaker" coloration. It's not hard to tell where the listeners are going to be - they'll be sitting in front of the speakers with their ears about 38" to 42" above the floor.
For all the other directions, the radiation from the speaker is going in the direction of one or (many) more room reflections. These fall into a different processing slot, one used to evaluate spatial impression. If these reflections are greatly diminished relative to a real, physical sound source in the room - which of course is still in memory, since the room wasn't silent when the listener first walked in - there will a conflict between the dry sound of the hifi and the characteristics of the room itself.
If the sum of the room reflections have a significantly different spectral characteristic than the direct-arrival sound, that too will draw attention to itself as a sort of spatial coloration that will be very likely be highly recording-dependent.
One of the goals I will aim for, like those birds learning to fly - is a smooth spectral characteristic (radiating into a sphere) that has a reasonably good correlation with the direct sound.
Birds #1 and #2 are flying (somewhat unsteadily and frequently missing their target) and are starting to find bugs on their own. Baby birds #3 and 4 cling to the edge of the roof and watch what's going on - their chance to fall off, then fly, is coming soon. Of course, this whole learning-to-fly thing has a deep resonance for me, since I myself have only just started walking unassisted (no cane, no walker) in the last few days, and can now get up and down the stairs with a cane and using the railing.
Aside from the charm of the nearby flight school for the little ones that have grown up under the eaves of our house, I've been meditating a bit about that last posting.
Rather than thinking of radiation patterns from the viewpoint of the loudspeaker (certainly easier to analyze), I think a listener-centered approach is better systems design. We know the direct-arrival sound is treated differently by the ear/brain/mind than the first room reflections, including first reflection from the floor (which arrives 3~3.5 mSec after the direct sound).
I don't see the currently popular quasi-anechoic approach as desirable. By this I mean the listening room should at least have decent enough acoustics that a live instrument - say, a violin or a singer - sounds musically pleasing. I strongly feel if the listening room is so bad that live music is unpleasant, than any serious attempt at hifi is doomed from the start. You can tell this just by speaking out loud - if the room is murky and dead-sounding, or shrill and harsh, then playing games with the radiation pattern from the loudspeaker is not going to be successful.
It may sound a little simple-minded, but I almost see it as a problem in lighting. A certain amount of direct illumination is desired, along with smoothly-distributed ambient light. If the room is so live it's nothing more than a series of mirrors, it's not going to sound good. Similarly, if the room is so dead it's like a black cave, it's not going to sound good either - in fact, it'll look and sound like a dungeon lit by flashlights, a scene out of the X-Files.
The room and the speakers themselves should have a reasonably smooth distribution of direct and ambient energy, as in the illumination metaphor above. The hundreds of room reflections falling in the 3~25 mSec window don't need to completely attenuated - in fact, in their absence, the spatial impression will be quite deficient on most recordings - nor do they need to be precise and exact replicas of the direct sound. What's important is the sum of these reflections needs to have a spectral similarity to the direct-arrival, most importantly, without peaks that are not present in the direct-arrival.
With this model, the exact radiation pattern of the loudspeaker isn't that important, since what matters is the total power into a sphere - the energy fed into those hundreds of room reflections in the 3~25 mSec window. Since the total room power is processed independently of the direct-arrival, the direct-arrival integrity is still important, since it is responsible for overall tonal color and localization (but not spatial impression).
This is why I mentioned in the previous post fine and coarse-grained radiation patterns. If it's in the direct-arrival path going straight to a listener, then time, spectral, and spatial performance are extremely important, in order to provide realistic tone colors, stable and non-fatiguing image quality, and low "speaker" coloration. It's not hard to tell where the listeners are going to be - they'll be sitting in front of the speakers with their ears about 38" to 42" above the floor.
For all the other directions, the radiation from the speaker is going in the direction of one or (many) more room reflections. These fall into a different processing slot, one used to evaluate spatial impression. If these reflections are greatly diminished relative to a real, physical sound source in the room - which of course is still in memory, since the room wasn't silent when the listener first walked in - there will a conflict between the dry sound of the hifi and the characteristics of the room itself.
If the sum of the room reflections have a significantly different spectral characteristic than the direct-arrival sound, that too will draw attention to itself as a sort of spatial coloration that will be very likely be highly recording-dependent.
One of the goals I will aim for, like those birds learning to fly - is a smooth spectral characteristic (radiating into a sphere) that has a reasonably good correlation with the direct sound.
Moving out of the meta-discussion, BudP is reporting very good results from the EnABL'ed Lowther PM6A's. Having heard hints of greatness from Oris front horns and the Big Fun back-horn, I'm curious to measure and audition the treated Lowthers. I've also heard there are versions of Lowthers that don't have the whizzer-cone and its difficult mechanical crossover, making them candidates for the RAAL ribbon tweeter (with a crossover around 7~8 kHz). BudP surprised me when he said the 16-ohm versions have 3mm of linear travel compared to the 1mm of the 8-ohm version, something I wouldn't expect at all. This relaxes the crossover requirement quite a bit.
Also am hearing very good things about the Fertin 20EX field-coil driver, although I don't have the courage to buy a pair and EnABL the cones - that would be a very costly mistake if the cones get ruined by the treatment. Still, I am very very curious about them, and hope they make an appearance at the RMAF.
Also a terrific contribution by Kuei Yang Wang over at the Legendary Loudspeakers thread:
I've heard about a third of these, and I would concur. The WWII-era Eckmiller Koaxial created a sensation at one of the last European Triode Festivals, according to John Atwood, who heard it and was astonished by the sound. I keep being intellectually attracted by the big pro coaxials, and keep being unnerved by the hair-raising freq resp curves of the woofer elements, which are typically even wilder than a Lowther.
Also am hearing very good things about the Fertin 20EX field-coil driver, although I don't have the courage to buy a pair and EnABL the cones - that would be a very costly mistake if the cones get ruined by the treatment. Still, I am very very curious about them, and hope they make an appearance at the RMAF.
Also a terrific contribution by Kuei Yang Wang over at the Legendary Loudspeakers thread:
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I've heard about a third of these, and I would concur. The WWII-era Eckmiller Koaxial created a sensation at one of the last European Triode Festivals, according to John Atwood, who heard it and was astonished by the sound. I keep being intellectually attracted by the big pro coaxials, and keep being unnerved by the hair-raising freq resp curves of the woofer elements, which are typically even wilder than a Lowther.
Panomaniac makes a very important point in this post:
This is a hallmark of a hifi system that's working correctly - there's no prejudice against "bad" recordings. As Panomaniac describes, the "noise and distortion seems to occupy a different space than the music". Yes, exactly.
With a mid-to-high-end system, the noise and distortion are inseparably woven into the fabric of the music, ruining any listening pleasure, and creating a list of "bad" recordings you can no longer listen to. This gets worse, not better, with many ultra-high-end systems, which seem to be optimized for playing a handful of "audiophile" jazz and blues records, and nothing else. Bring your favorite recordings to a hifi show, and you will be appalled at how bad the $50,000-on-up famous-name speakers sound on "non-audiophile" recordings, much less historical recordings like early LP's and 78's.
A great speaker, as Panomaniac describes, plays everything, and the music is effortlessly separated from the defects of the recording. I've heard this for myself, on several different systems in different parts of the world, and is certainly a goal for what I'm trying to do. This takes extremely high subjective resolution, not the edge and sizzle of the high-end market, but very low IM distortion, well-controlled time response, and superb system integration. The Jean Hiraga system Panomaniac is describing is a long way from a stock A7!
panomaniac said:
This is a hallmark of a hifi system that's working correctly - there's no prejudice against "bad" recordings. As Panomaniac describes, the "noise and distortion seems to occupy a different space than the music". Yes, exactly.
With a mid-to-high-end system, the noise and distortion are inseparably woven into the fabric of the music, ruining any listening pleasure, and creating a list of "bad" recordings you can no longer listen to. This gets worse, not better, with many ultra-high-end systems, which seem to be optimized for playing a handful of "audiophile" jazz and blues records, and nothing else. Bring your favorite recordings to a hifi show, and you will be appalled at how bad the $50,000-on-up famous-name speakers sound on "non-audiophile" recordings, much less historical recordings like early LP's and 78's.
A great speaker, as Panomaniac describes, plays everything, and the music is effortlessly separated from the defects of the recording. I've heard this for myself, on several different systems in different parts of the world, and is certainly a goal for what I'm trying to do. This takes extremely high subjective resolution, not the edge and sizzle of the high-end market, but very low IM distortion, well-controlled time response, and superb system integration. The Jean Hiraga system Panomaniac is describing is a long way from a stock A7!
http://www.stageaccompany.com/en/products/ribboncd.php
High efficiency, high spl, good waterfall, rebuildable.Hmmmmm
High efficiency, high spl, good waterfall, rebuildable.Hmmmmm
Well Lynn, you must be feeling inspired by those little birdies and hoping to do a little wing stretching and flying away of your own.
Yes. It's a very surprising effect when you first hear it. Quite unexpected. Since the vast majority of sound systems weave the distortion inseparably into the fabric of the sound, we don't imagine that it could be otherwise. It's a bit of a shock when you hear it detach. But you can understand pretty quickly how it does not have to be interwoven. You hear it and believe it. The effect is more surprising than it is amazing, that's how natural it sounds.
I sometimes get this effect with my current system - it lets me know that I am on the right path. But it is never a sure thing, like it is with great systems. Still so much work to be done.
Sigh.... Oh Yes. A loooong way, a lot of knowledge and a lot of hard work. Most of the hard work was mine - all of the knowledge belonged to Jean Hiraga. The magic that he is able to pull from a clever combination of vintage technology and modern know-how is inspiring.
Yes, absolutely! Could not agree more. And a room like this is pleasant to be in, even without music. We feel good in a room like this - sort of subconscious sense of well being. With a little practice and experience, you learn to recognize the sound and feel of a good room. Most rooms are not very good.
Lynn Olson said:
Yes. It's a very surprising effect when you first hear it. Quite unexpected. Since the vast majority of sound systems weave the distortion inseparably into the fabric of the sound, we don't imagine that it could be otherwise. It's a bit of a shock when you hear it detach. But you can understand pretty quickly how it does not have to be interwoven. You hear it and believe it. The effect is more surprising than it is amazing, that's how natural it sounds.
I sometimes get this effect with my current system - it lets me know that I am on the right path. But it is never a sure thing, like it is with great systems. Still so much work to be done.
Sigh.... Oh Yes. A loooong way, a lot of knowledge and a lot of hard work. Most of the hard work was mine - all of the knowledge belonged to Jean Hiraga. The magic that he is able to pull from a clever combination of vintage technology and modern know-how is inspiring.
Yes, absolutely! Could not agree more. And a room like this is pleasant to be in, even without music. We feel good in a room like this - sort of subconscious sense of well being. With a little practice and experience, you learn to recognize the sound and feel of a good room. Most rooms are not very good.
RMAF ?
Hi Lynn and others
I've been a Lynn fan for a while building the Ariel and studying intensly the Amity and related scematics when they were released.
Well I've been thinking to attend RAMF '07 not so sure yet though.
Was wondering could we expect to see Lynn's prototype playing music there or is it too early??
.
Hi Lynn and others
I've been a Lynn fan for a while building the Ariel and studying intensly the Amity and related scematics when they were released.
Well I've been thinking to attend RAMF '07 not so sure yet though.
Was wondering could we expect to see Lynn's prototype playing music there or is it too early??
.
Tangram
Hi
Simulating around with baffles of different size and different speaker placement one has to realise that there is simply NO perfect shape or size for OB's.
It's all about optimisation and make the " right " trade off decisions.
An interesting observation can be made when simulating VERY big baffles with the speaker placed in close proximity to the corner.
The black and violet curve are for a 360 mm x 400 mm OB respectively baffle of a closed box – the green curve is for a OB 100 times this size with the same speaker at the same place.
What can be seen is that the dip and also the slope below the dip is comparable to the closed boxes with VERY LARGE OB's.
That's something I find worth to explore further.
Naturally a baffle the size of 30 m by 46 m does not have the best WAF - hence it might be a good idea to be open for some compromises.
Using the wall ( the rear area in the drawing) as extension comes into mind immediately.
Having NO sound towards the middle of the room prevents form arrival of too early reflections as well.
This is something I am especially looking for to have a really compact solution for relatively small rooms that do not allow for baffle placement 1 m – 2 m off to the back wall. The very first reflections reaching the listener from the rear sound wave of an OB is the one reflected by the front wall BETWEEN the speakers ( edge diffraction not considered here ).
Drawbacks may be that this arrangement basically forms a short - tapped - horn ( around 60 cm ) for the back wave and that there is slightly additional directivity to the side for the 2.5 speaker arrangement.
No software around to simulate such weird things – so I will be forced to breath sawdust IF I wanna know.
Greetings
Michael
Hi
Simulating around with baffles of different size and different speaker placement one has to realise that there is simply NO perfect shape or size for OB's.
It's all about optimisation and make the " right " trade off decisions.
An interesting observation can be made when simulating VERY big baffles with the speaker placed in close proximity to the corner.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The black and violet curve are for a 360 mm x 400 mm OB respectively baffle of a closed box – the green curve is for a OB 100 times this size with the same speaker at the same place.
What can be seen is that the dip and also the slope below the dip is comparable to the closed boxes with VERY LARGE OB's.
That's something I find worth to explore further.
Naturally a baffle the size of 30 m by 46 m does not have the best WAF
- hence it might be a good idea to be open for some compromises. An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Using the wall ( the rear area in the drawing) as extension comes into mind immediately.
Having NO sound towards the middle of the room prevents form arrival of too early reflections as well.
This is something I am especially looking for to have a really compact solution for relatively small rooms that do not allow for baffle placement 1 m – 2 m off to the back wall. The very first reflections reaching the listener from the rear sound wave of an OB is the one reflected by the front wall BETWEEN the speakers ( edge diffraction not considered here ).
Drawbacks may be that this arrangement basically forms a short - tapped - horn ( around 60 cm ) for the back wave and that there is slightly additional directivity to the side for the 2.5 speaker arrangement.
No software around to simulate such weird things – so I will be forced to breath sawdust IF I wanna know.
Greetings
Michael
I don't mean to be critical of the Edge. It's a nice little code. But it has problems at low frequency. Here is what I mean. If I run a 500 mm circular baffle with the Edge (100 corners) with a centered point source and a mic distance of 2 M looking at the very low frequency (1 Hz) the Edge pridicts a level of -42dB relative to the +6dB level of the high frequency response. However, for a dipole with those specs the low frequency level at 2 M should never drop below -18dB. At 20 Hz the level should be about -16dB but the Edge predicts -20.5. With that in mind I think you have to be careful about how you interpret the results.
Hi
JohnK, good to know, thanks !
But even so, the FR tendency for extreme large baffles to approximate against closed boxes should remain, no ?
Less excursion at low frequencies is always welcome with any open speaker – even if I am not sure one should call that TANGRAM-thing OB !
I ordered your " A, B, C, Dipole " the day before yesterday. Hope to get some additional insights...
Greetings
Michael
JohnK, good to know, thanks !
But even so, the FR tendency for extreme large baffles to approximate against closed boxes should remain, no ?
Less excursion at low frequencies is always welcome with any open speaker – even if I am not sure one should call that TANGRAM-thing OB !
I ordered your " A, B, C, Dipole " the day before yesterday. Hope to get some additional insights...
Greetings
Michael
mige0 said:
It's on the way. Additionally, I'll be releasing an update soon which I will email to you. As it turns out after looking at the Edge low frequency response and comparing it to the baffle tool which comes with ABC I noticed I had a bug in the low frequency proximity correction myself. Now fixed.
The Birds
Sigh. And I had such high hopes before the accident, and still during the loooong recovery. I'll be there in person, of course, but I'm not hauling in any audio-gear this year, unlike last year, when the Karna was briefly demo'ed in the Azzolino/Galibier room.
I can move around now with the aid of a cane, but I do get tired fairly soon, and can't go long distances without needing to sit down. Carrying anything is still awkward at best. I visited the basment a couple of days ago to help Karna organize all those wires, inductors, capacitors, shrink-wrap, etc, so I am more mobile than before, thank goodness.
What has been inspiring has been the beginning of new life literally right above our front door, just under the eaves of the roof. We've been hearing chirps, peeps, and warbles in our living room for the last several weeks now, as the chicks emerged from their shells, and we saw one, two, three, and then four really ugly grey-fuzzed chicks wheedle the two parents for food all day long.
In the space of a week, the grey fuzz was replaced by the distinctive yellow-green color feathers of the parents, and the little ones became more adventurous, venturing out onto the ledge of roof just above the nest. One of them played around with the edge of the rain-gutter, and sure enough, fell off and ended up stunned on the covered front porch. After a half-hour of looking stunned and hunched up into a little bird ball, it flew up to one of the lawn chairs on the porch, sat there a couple of minutes, and then flew in a swooping path across the lawn and out of sight to the south. Karna and I both though that was it - that once out of the nest, it would be on its own from then on. (The parent birds and the three remaining in the nest watching all of this very closely.)
The next day, the same thing from #2, although its flying was more graceful than the somewhat premature and unsteady flying of #1. What was surprising was discovering the mother bird had shepherded #1 to a place on top of the tall fence between two houses while we weren't looking. Even more remarkably, the mother bird somehow told, persuaded, or demonstrated to Bird #2 to join its compatriot on top of the fence, even though the new location was out of sight of the nest and the porch. That evening, we could see birds #1 & 2 nestled right next to each other in a protected location on a crossbar of the fence (in a partial corner where an attack by a hawk would result in the hawk crashing into the fence).
The mother flew back and forth between the fence and the nest, watching and feeding birds both groups from a tree in the front yard that overlooked both locations. For a little bird no more than five inches long, better and more attentive mothering than some human mothers - Karna, as a grandmother, was quite touched by this performance.
After somehow inducing #1 to fly to the fence, and then #2 to join it for the night, the next day, she shuttled back and forth between both groups. Birds #3 and 4 now sat on the edge of the rain-gutter, looking for all the world like the logo of ViewSonic, both right next to each other and looking down at us. The young birds had very sensitive hearing and vision - even small movements and sounds inside the house got their attention, and they would look right at us, then look out at other birds flying in groups. This two-domicile phase lasted for a couple of days - we were curious how the youngest two birds would leave the nest.
Karna saw the next part - she looked out the window, the ViewSonic duo were suddenly gone, no they weren't on the fence either, she went outside and saw they had flown not down, but straight up to the peak of the roof, and were both looking down at her. She went back inside, the pair on the fence were now gone, she couldn't find any, and then in the tree in the front yard, all of the birds were circling around in both directions. They perched on the tree for a few minutes, and she counted at least five, and probably six, which made the whole group. They sat there and chattered and tweeted at each other, then suddenly flew off to the North, circling the house as they went. My guess is they were headed for the big old cottonwood trees that are next to a small creek to the West of our house.
It was really quiet here after weeks of the cheeps, tweets, and warbles from the new ones and the two parents. They would quiet down in the evening, but from sunup to sundown, we had gotten used to the constant chitter-chatter of the birds close to the living room, and it felt very quiet without it. Yesterday morning, I heard a familiar chitter-chatter, and thought maybe they had returned, but wasn't too sure if it was them or not.
This morning, Karna pointed to the tree in the back yard, and sure enough, there they were. Bird #1 was probably out hunting for itself, and we saw the mother fly up every now and then and feed #2, 3, and 4. Karna later saw #1 spitting out a cottonwood fuzzball (like a dandelion fuzzball), so its bug-hunting technique still needs work. (These birds catch insects on the wing - we saw the parents do it several times when they were feeding the ones in the nest.)
So here's a picture of the 3 young ones sitting on the tree in the back yard. They sat there most of the day, half-dozing the Colorado summer heat (90~95F degrees this time of year), and the mother, who's about the same size, feeding them every half-hour or so. In the evening before the sun goes down, they fly away somewhere - I'm guessing some big cottonwood trees several hundred yards away by the stream-side.
(The gimlet eye from the lowermost bird is because of the zzzt-zzzt noise of the autofocus system of the Pentax K10D 50~200mm lens. Even though I was sitting inside and photographing through the plate-glass window of the sliding-door of the kitchen, they could easily hear this rather quiet sound. Maybe it sounds like the zzzt-zzzt sound of flying bugs, their favorite food.)
dude007 said:
Sigh. And I had such high hopes before the accident, and still during the loooong recovery. I'll be there in person, of course, but I'm not hauling in any audio-gear this year, unlike last year, when the Karna was briefly demo'ed in the Azzolino/Galibier room.
I can move around now with the aid of a cane, but I do get tired fairly soon, and can't go long distances without needing to sit down. Carrying anything is still awkward at best. I visited the basment a couple of days ago to help Karna organize all those wires, inductors, capacitors, shrink-wrap, etc, so I am more mobile than before, thank goodness.
What has been inspiring has been the beginning of new life literally right above our front door, just under the eaves of the roof. We've been hearing chirps, peeps, and warbles in our living room for the last several weeks now, as the chicks emerged from their shells, and we saw one, two, three, and then four really ugly grey-fuzzed chicks wheedle the two parents for food all day long.
In the space of a week, the grey fuzz was replaced by the distinctive yellow-green color feathers of the parents, and the little ones became more adventurous, venturing out onto the ledge of roof just above the nest. One of them played around with the edge of the rain-gutter, and sure enough, fell off and ended up stunned on the covered front porch. After a half-hour of looking stunned and hunched up into a little bird ball, it flew up to one of the lawn chairs on the porch, sat there a couple of minutes, and then flew in a swooping path across the lawn and out of sight to the south. Karna and I both though that was it - that once out of the nest, it would be on its own from then on. (The parent birds and the three remaining in the nest watching all of this very closely.)
The next day, the same thing from #2, although its flying was more graceful than the somewhat premature and unsteady flying of #1. What was surprising was discovering the mother bird had shepherded #1 to a place on top of the tall fence between two houses while we weren't looking. Even more remarkably, the mother bird somehow told, persuaded, or demonstrated to Bird #2 to join its compatriot on top of the fence, even though the new location was out of sight of the nest and the porch. That evening, we could see birds #1 & 2 nestled right next to each other in a protected location on a crossbar of the fence (in a partial corner where an attack by a hawk would result in the hawk crashing into the fence).
The mother flew back and forth between the fence and the nest, watching and feeding birds both groups from a tree in the front yard that overlooked both locations. For a little bird no more than five inches long, better and more attentive mothering than some human mothers - Karna, as a grandmother, was quite touched by this performance.
After somehow inducing #1 to fly to the fence, and then #2 to join it for the night, the next day, she shuttled back and forth between both groups. Birds #3 and 4 now sat on the edge of the rain-gutter, looking for all the world like the logo of ViewSonic, both right next to each other and looking down at us. The young birds had very sensitive hearing and vision - even small movements and sounds inside the house got their attention, and they would look right at us, then look out at other birds flying in groups. This two-domicile phase lasted for a couple of days - we were curious how the youngest two birds would leave the nest.
Karna saw the next part - she looked out the window, the ViewSonic duo were suddenly gone, no they weren't on the fence either, she went outside and saw they had flown not down, but straight up to the peak of the roof, and were both looking down at her. She went back inside, the pair on the fence were now gone, she couldn't find any, and then in the tree in the front yard, all of the birds were circling around in both directions. They perched on the tree for a few minutes, and she counted at least five, and probably six, which made the whole group. They sat there and chattered and tweeted at each other, then suddenly flew off to the North, circling the house as they went. My guess is they were headed for the big old cottonwood trees that are next to a small creek to the West of our house.
It was really quiet here after weeks of the cheeps, tweets, and warbles from the new ones and the two parents. They would quiet down in the evening, but from sunup to sundown, we had gotten used to the constant chitter-chatter of the birds close to the living room, and it felt very quiet without it. Yesterday morning, I heard a familiar chitter-chatter, and thought maybe they had returned, but wasn't too sure if it was them or not.
This morning, Karna pointed to the tree in the back yard, and sure enough, there they were. Bird #1 was probably out hunting for itself, and we saw the mother fly up every now and then and feed #2, 3, and 4. Karna later saw #1 spitting out a cottonwood fuzzball (like a dandelion fuzzball), so its bug-hunting technique still needs work. (These birds catch insects on the wing - we saw the parents do it several times when they were feeding the ones in the nest.)
So here's a picture of the 3 young ones sitting on the tree in the back yard. They sat there most of the day, half-dozing the Colorado summer heat (90~95F degrees this time of year), and the mother, who's about the same size, feeding them every half-hour or so. In the evening before the sun goes down, they fly away somewhere - I'm guessing some big cottonwood trees several hundred yards away by the stream-side.
(The gimlet eye from the lowermost bird is because of the zzzt-zzzt noise of the autofocus system of the Pentax K10D 50~200mm lens. Even though I was sitting inside and photographing through the plate-glass window of the sliding-door of the kitchen, they could easily hear this rather quiet sound. Maybe it sounds like the zzzt-zzzt sound of flying bugs, their favorite food.)
