Hi Teh,
I am relatively new around here and am going to appeal to your practicle side. The majority of speakers you mentioned, I never heard of and quite hunestly, are way too much money for me.
So I am going to come from a different perspective. I don't know if you ever built speakers before but the higher you aim, the bigger the fall can be (disappointment).
I like music with great production but I like some old stuff that sounded great on vinyl and somehow was butchered onto CDs. So I like a speaker that does everything really well and can be forgiving sometimes too. I like a soundstage deep and wide where you close your eyes, you can picture everyone in the band where they would be standing in the studio. I like hearing ride cymbals like they were never recorded and somehow the drummer is in your listening room and I like when the texture of the singers voice is so real they have to be there. I like to be able to be able to hum the bass line (busy or simple) no matter what else is going on in the recording loud or soft. I don't like anything that gives me listener fatigue and makes me stop listening and start thinking about what chores I should be doing instead. When I have all these qualities usually everything else I am looking for seems to fall into place too.
Now one manufacturer for me comes to mind (something I can afford too) that is an English manufacturer ProAc. Their Studio 100 monitors are in more recording studios as near field monitors than you can imagine and are involved in quite a bit of the music mixdown we hear daily.
There are a few DIY kits available, especially the Response 2,5 which are usually raved about everywhere (the original). But their D28 (new) is a somewhat simple design that uses Scan-speak tweeters and Mid/woofers (you can probably get from Madisound) and are ported downward to let the speakers distribute bass even in the middle of a large room. Fabric tweeters are nice and don't make your ears bleed so you can listen for hours. They shouldn't cost months of salary to build so this might be a nice first speaker project. The rep from ProAc lives in Maryland is a genuinely good guy. I am sure he can point you in the right direction when you run out of places to find answers.
I love mine. No I did not build them, I bought them used and would look at more ProAcs before anything else. I replaced my Mid/woofers a few months ago that were 15 years old and they are still available and will be for quite some time.
This is just an idea from a different angle and perspective. Maybe you have built many different designs and this would be like Legos for you. Or you might really like them. There are other more expensive models too, D38, D80 & D100 and the older raved about Response 3.8.
I hope this helps!
Regards//Keith
I am relatively new around here and am going to appeal to your practicle side. The majority of speakers you mentioned, I never heard of and quite hunestly, are way too much money for me.
So I am going to come from a different perspective. I don't know if you ever built speakers before but the higher you aim, the bigger the fall can be (disappointment).
I like music with great production but I like some old stuff that sounded great on vinyl and somehow was butchered onto CDs. So I like a speaker that does everything really well and can be forgiving sometimes too. I like a soundstage deep and wide where you close your eyes, you can picture everyone in the band where they would be standing in the studio. I like hearing ride cymbals like they were never recorded and somehow the drummer is in your listening room and I like when the texture of the singers voice is so real they have to be there. I like to be able to be able to hum the bass line (busy or simple) no matter what else is going on in the recording loud or soft. I don't like anything that gives me listener fatigue and makes me stop listening and start thinking about what chores I should be doing instead. When I have all these qualities usually everything else I am looking for seems to fall into place too.
Now one manufacturer for me comes to mind (something I can afford too) that is an English manufacturer ProAc. Their Studio 100 monitors are in more recording studios as near field monitors than you can imagine and are involved in quite a bit of the music mixdown we hear daily.
There are a few DIY kits available, especially the Response 2,5 which are usually raved about everywhere (the original). But their D28 (new) is a somewhat simple design that uses Scan-speak tweeters and Mid/woofers (you can probably get from Madisound) and are ported downward to let the speakers distribute bass even in the middle of a large room. Fabric tweeters are nice and don't make your ears bleed so you can listen for hours. They shouldn't cost months of salary to build so this might be a nice first speaker project. The rep from ProAc lives in Maryland is a genuinely good guy. I am sure he can point you in the right direction when you run out of places to find answers.
I love mine. No I did not build them, I bought them used and would look at more ProAcs before anything else. I replaced my Mid/woofers a few months ago that were 15 years old and they are still available and will be for quite some time.
This is just an idea from a different angle and perspective. Maybe you have built many different designs and this would be like Legos for you. Or you might really like them. There are other more expensive models too, D38, D80 & D100 and the older raved about Response 3.8.
I hope this helps!
Regards//Keith
Many of the expensive speakers and the prices they charged MAY well be justified, some of them have many years of speaker design, matching drivers for compatibilities and building cabinets experience. Companies like B&W is one of them.
For us novice(I am one of them) it would be VERY difficult to build with your own design(and not a copy of proven one, eg Linkwitz) a type of speaker comparable to the one of more expensive speakers from the ground up during the first try.
I suggest try a few projects to experiment to obtain some experience in terms of
1. design of speaker x-over, active or passive
2. selection of drivers
3. building cabinets/housing
4. hear type of sound each design giving, eg ob, horn, vented, sealed, etc the type of sound you enjoy.
After that you may want to refine the design you like most. I know this is time consuming, it is my hobby and somthing I enjoy and that is what I am doing now.
Cheers.
For us novice(I am one of them) it would be VERY difficult to build with your own design(and not a copy of proven one, eg Linkwitz) a type of speaker comparable to the one of more expensive speakers from the ground up during the first try.
I suggest try a few projects to experiment to obtain some experience in terms of
1. design of speaker x-over, active or passive
2. selection of drivers
3. building cabinets/housing
4. hear type of sound each design giving, eg ob, horn, vented, sealed, etc the type of sound you enjoy.
After that you may want to refine the design you like most. I know this is time consuming, it is my hobby and somthing I enjoy and that is what I am doing now.
Cheers.
1. Just use a loudspeaker construction program like LinearX or Lspcad.
2. Search around and read the technical data.
3. Two layers MDF,...
4. .....
I have constructed a pair of loudspeakers for myself: 4 way semi-active,
2x32cm bass drivers, 2x Fostex FS41RP, 1x Fostex FS21RP, 1x Technics TH800B. And a pair of active crossovers.
Yes, indeed: it sounds very good.
2. Search around and read the technical data.
3. Two layers MDF,...
4. .....
I have constructed a pair of loudspeakers for myself: 4 way semi-active,
2x32cm bass drivers, 2x Fostex FS41RP, 1x Fostex FS21RP, 1x Technics TH800B. And a pair of active crossovers.
Yes, indeed: it sounds very good.
To all:
First of all I am not a neophyte when it comes to building speaker systems. I have built numerous systems since the early 70's when I felt my Father's JBL's were inadequate. I don't recall the model number but they were two way units with one horn tweeter and one 15" driver. They were vented and the vent was a simple square hole in the front of the cabinet. At the time they were 2nd to the top of the line JBL's. I went on to work (at age 16) for the Hi-Fi shop that sold them. I grew to think they were awful. By the way, the woodwork was wonderful.
My first serious purchase were a pair of a/d/s L910's that I still own. I was 21 years old so that would be 29 years ago.
As for now, what am I after is opinion. I have listened to many critics and articles and have read far more from what I believe to be “experts”. The breadth of varied opinion is almost incomprehensible. In fact, it’s alarming. I do have my own "preferences" yet just because I have those preferences doesn't make me right. I question my own "tastes", as a result of much of what I’ve read.
What has been revealed, maybe unbeknownst to Lynn, is his commentary on the Bastini's, again, another design high on my radar. His commentary, which I highly respect, is pointing me in this type of direction.
I have always considered box speakers as having what I describe as a “contained” sound. Another enigma, right? This is one of the reasons I dislike individual descriptions of a speaker’s sound signature. What does it actually mean? How does it translate for you, or you or you? I think that answer is indubitably individual and therefore, in my opinion, is discounted as lacking substantive, demonstrable, informative information, hence, lacking in personal value. It’s almost as if half the game is in how eloquent the description is and therefore it MUST hold significant merit. For me, it does not!
For me I see a few issues in this quest that I am fighting;
A; That drivers too large (nobody is clearly specific about this) cannot successfully reproduce quality sound as frequencies rise. I can cite many respected articles, from people I respect (including yourself Lynn) that indicate an inherent, I repeat INHERENT (as in physics), inability to perform as requested. This might apply to the Bastinis, no?
B: Driver diaphragm composition. A number cite driver diaphragms as a source of unreasonably difficult components to contend with. Usually the problem is metal vs. some kind of paper diaphragm. Then there is the Mms of the diaphragm itself. Indicative of speed and, from what I’ve learned, it’s ability to faithfully render higher frequencies. But then size comes into play doesn’t it, or, does it not?
C: Crossovers. This remains a bit of an enigma to me. Why? Well EVERYBODY says not to crossover in the primary listening frequencies of 300-3,000 Hz. So in lies the conundrum. A small driver just can’t do this with adequate/proper dynamics and a large driver, by many written accounts, can’t respond like a small driver. Hence, “muddy” or “veiled” frequencies within the band. So many of the brands I’ve detailed in my original post crossover right smack in the center of the most audible frequency band. Heck, even the Orion does this. I feel like I’m missing something here or some of what I’ve taken as gospel is not correct or is no longer relevant. Is it, or, is it not? You tell me. All of this (the Orions, Perfect 8) is accomplished with a very difficult metal driver (Magnesium)? Or, somewhere my thinking, based upon respectable audio experts, just must be simply wrong?
D: Then there is the issue of openness. This is a sound propagation issue, I think. To me this is absolutely huge. No boxed speakers, to my knowledge, are capable of transmitting this intangible. The advent of OB designs seems to have opened this up to those of us that see boxed speakers as a “contained” sound, not even closely realistic. It is a “flatness” that seems to fail to transmit the nuances of dynamics. I had one of the first DBX units to try to overcome the issues of true to life dynamics. I still have it. It really did work (well at least somewhat)!
E: With regard to building capability; I can build anything with precise accuracy. I can build from wood or from composite or I can build from a made plug (I can build the plug) for fiberglass or carbon fiber construction. I have no limitations in this regard. I have the top of the line equipment to build as I want. From vacuum forming to the finest router that is made (the Elu). I can shape a baffle to whatever shape I want and I have the ability to form any kind of Epoxy compound to shape a baffle (as in baffle step shaping) like a Vandersteen or a Rockport Technologies enclosure. I can easily spray piano finish quality finishes with my HVLP system. So, I’m not limited as to how they would have to be built or whether I can achieve furniture quality finishes to the final outcome (which, BTW, I am disgusted by much of what I see from DIYers). The question is what is the best way? This is why I’m seeking your opinions.
F: Low frequency delivery is almost a separate issue. I’m not sure why but it clearly seems to be. The Point (or the Force) from Perfect 8, the Bastini’s and the Orions all suggest a separately powered, eq’d and sealed solution. I am leaning this way and the Servo Sub seems the highest quality solution. Again, from what I’ve been taught by many of the great minds, its metal diaphragm is holding me back a little. The Beethovens, and the like require even more space that I’m unwilling to give from my listening room (26 x 20 x 8’). I don’t want separate subs if I can avoid it. I still want stereo subs built into the front primary speakers. I just don't want separate units. Placement and proximatey issues abound and, regardless, I don't want to give up a separate floor space for individual subs. Plus, I don't see that it is necessary, is it?
G: Multi-channel, regardless of my final choice of design I want to incorporate it into a full 5 channel system. I think I can build the Bastinis into this format and I’ve designed superior mounting methods/brackets to finally provide a superb mounting solution for those types of augmentary speakers.
H: Financial. This is a non-issue for me. I can buy/build as I choose. I don’t do DIY for the savings; I do it for the quality of potential and for the sheer joy of implementing such a high level of performance at my own hand. I like the pride of being the builder.
At this point I have the following drivers; 5-Audiom TD5’s, 5 Audiom 6WM midranges, 10 Cabasse 21NDC 8” that were to comprise the 60-80 Hz, and above, region. I hadn’t settled upon the sub-bass system but I’m looking closely at the Rythmic sub system.
I wanted to power them with individual amplifier channels from 41Hz (amp 5) Tri-Path 2022 amplifiers. I have already purchased all of the channels necessary to meet my original plans. My preference would be onboard amplifiers, along with a proper active crossover/eq. I am looking closely at the Linkwitz ASP crossover/Eq as a solution. I’ve not purchased any of the crossovers yet. All of it, I will construct. I will run it all from a Lexicon MC1.
Then, I ran into this site. I started re-evaluating everything I’ve done to this point. That’s a good thing. I will sell all of what I’ve purchased (which is a substantial investment) in order to satisfy my goals of the most superior sound that I can create. Financial investment remains a lesser significant issue for me.
“Audiophile-scaled dynamics” still remains a conundrum for me. Does this mean the drivers, like the Audiom 6WM, are incapable of moving as the amp requests? Does this mean it simply cannot move as far, as quickly, with as much force (even at 95 db sensitivity) per the demand presented? What is it about these products that make them sub audiophile? I know this is hard Lynn (due to the sensitive nature of a public forum) but I’d appreciate an honest assessment. If you can’t vocalize publicly, please, e-mail me.
So, this is a long response (sorry), but I really do value the opinions I receive here. Especially professionals like you Lynn. Still, in my mind there is much to settle, much to resolve. Actually there is much to refute of what has been written by professional speaker designers, is there not?
Lastly, I really do value the source of your musical delights. That means what music it is that you listen to and do you choose your system configurations based upon your favorite type of music?
Thanks to all of you for your input. It is greatly appreciated!
TEH
First of all I am not a neophyte when it comes to building speaker systems. I have built numerous systems since the early 70's when I felt my Father's JBL's were inadequate. I don't recall the model number but they were two way units with one horn tweeter and one 15" driver. They were vented and the vent was a simple square hole in the front of the cabinet. At the time they were 2nd to the top of the line JBL's. I went on to work (at age 16) for the Hi-Fi shop that sold them. I grew to think they were awful. By the way, the woodwork was wonderful.
My first serious purchase were a pair of a/d/s L910's that I still own. I was 21 years old so that would be 29 years ago.
As for now, what am I after is opinion. I have listened to many critics and articles and have read far more from what I believe to be “experts”. The breadth of varied opinion is almost incomprehensible. In fact, it’s alarming. I do have my own "preferences" yet just because I have those preferences doesn't make me right. I question my own "tastes", as a result of much of what I’ve read.
What has been revealed, maybe unbeknownst to Lynn, is his commentary on the Bastini's, again, another design high on my radar. His commentary, which I highly respect, is pointing me in this type of direction.
I have always considered box speakers as having what I describe as a “contained” sound. Another enigma, right? This is one of the reasons I dislike individual descriptions of a speaker’s sound signature. What does it actually mean? How does it translate for you, or you or you? I think that answer is indubitably individual and therefore, in my opinion, is discounted as lacking substantive, demonstrable, informative information, hence, lacking in personal value. It’s almost as if half the game is in how eloquent the description is and therefore it MUST hold significant merit. For me, it does not!
For me I see a few issues in this quest that I am fighting;
A; That drivers too large (nobody is clearly specific about this) cannot successfully reproduce quality sound as frequencies rise. I can cite many respected articles, from people I respect (including yourself Lynn) that indicate an inherent, I repeat INHERENT (as in physics), inability to perform as requested. This might apply to the Bastinis, no?
B: Driver diaphragm composition. A number cite driver diaphragms as a source of unreasonably difficult components to contend with. Usually the problem is metal vs. some kind of paper diaphragm. Then there is the Mms of the diaphragm itself. Indicative of speed and, from what I’ve learned, it’s ability to faithfully render higher frequencies. But then size comes into play doesn’t it, or, does it not?
C: Crossovers. This remains a bit of an enigma to me. Why? Well EVERYBODY says not to crossover in the primary listening frequencies of 300-3,000 Hz. So in lies the conundrum. A small driver just can’t do this with adequate/proper dynamics and a large driver, by many written accounts, can’t respond like a small driver. Hence, “muddy” or “veiled” frequencies within the band. So many of the brands I’ve detailed in my original post crossover right smack in the center of the most audible frequency band. Heck, even the Orion does this. I feel like I’m missing something here or some of what I’ve taken as gospel is not correct or is no longer relevant. Is it, or, is it not? You tell me. All of this (the Orions, Perfect 8) is accomplished with a very difficult metal driver (Magnesium)? Or, somewhere my thinking, based upon respectable audio experts, just must be simply wrong?
D: Then there is the issue of openness. This is a sound propagation issue, I think. To me this is absolutely huge. No boxed speakers, to my knowledge, are capable of transmitting this intangible. The advent of OB designs seems to have opened this up to those of us that see boxed speakers as a “contained” sound, not even closely realistic. It is a “flatness” that seems to fail to transmit the nuances of dynamics. I had one of the first DBX units to try to overcome the issues of true to life dynamics. I still have it. It really did work (well at least somewhat)!
E: With regard to building capability; I can build anything with precise accuracy. I can build from wood or from composite or I can build from a made plug (I can build the plug) for fiberglass or carbon fiber construction. I have no limitations in this regard. I have the top of the line equipment to build as I want. From vacuum forming to the finest router that is made (the Elu). I can shape a baffle to whatever shape I want and I have the ability to form any kind of Epoxy compound to shape a baffle (as in baffle step shaping) like a Vandersteen or a Rockport Technologies enclosure. I can easily spray piano finish quality finishes with my HVLP system. So, I’m not limited as to how they would have to be built or whether I can achieve furniture quality finishes to the final outcome (which, BTW, I am disgusted by much of what I see from DIYers). The question is what is the best way? This is why I’m seeking your opinions.
F: Low frequency delivery is almost a separate issue. I’m not sure why but it clearly seems to be. The Point (or the Force) from Perfect 8, the Bastini’s and the Orions all suggest a separately powered, eq’d and sealed solution. I am leaning this way and the Servo Sub seems the highest quality solution. Again, from what I’ve been taught by many of the great minds, its metal diaphragm is holding me back a little. The Beethovens, and the like require even more space that I’m unwilling to give from my listening room (26 x 20 x 8’). I don’t want separate subs if I can avoid it. I still want stereo subs built into the front primary speakers. I just don't want separate units. Placement and proximatey issues abound and, regardless, I don't want to give up a separate floor space for individual subs. Plus, I don't see that it is necessary, is it?
G: Multi-channel, regardless of my final choice of design I want to incorporate it into a full 5 channel system. I think I can build the Bastinis into this format and I’ve designed superior mounting methods/brackets to finally provide a superb mounting solution for those types of augmentary speakers.
H: Financial. This is a non-issue for me. I can buy/build as I choose. I don’t do DIY for the savings; I do it for the quality of potential and for the sheer joy of implementing such a high level of performance at my own hand. I like the pride of being the builder.
At this point I have the following drivers; 5-Audiom TD5’s, 5 Audiom 6WM midranges, 10 Cabasse 21NDC 8” that were to comprise the 60-80 Hz, and above, region. I hadn’t settled upon the sub-bass system but I’m looking closely at the Rythmic sub system.
I wanted to power them with individual amplifier channels from 41Hz (amp 5) Tri-Path 2022 amplifiers. I have already purchased all of the channels necessary to meet my original plans. My preference would be onboard amplifiers, along with a proper active crossover/eq. I am looking closely at the Linkwitz ASP crossover/Eq as a solution. I’ve not purchased any of the crossovers yet. All of it, I will construct. I will run it all from a Lexicon MC1.
Then, I ran into this site. I started re-evaluating everything I’ve done to this point. That’s a good thing. I will sell all of what I’ve purchased (which is a substantial investment) in order to satisfy my goals of the most superior sound that I can create. Financial investment remains a lesser significant issue for me.
“Audiophile-scaled dynamics” still remains a conundrum for me. Does this mean the drivers, like the Audiom 6WM, are incapable of moving as the amp requests? Does this mean it simply cannot move as far, as quickly, with as much force (even at 95 db sensitivity) per the demand presented? What is it about these products that make them sub audiophile? I know this is hard Lynn (due to the sensitive nature of a public forum) but I’d appreciate an honest assessment. If you can’t vocalize publicly, please, e-mail me.
So, this is a long response (sorry), but I really do value the opinions I receive here. Especially professionals like you Lynn. Still, in my mind there is much to settle, much to resolve. Actually there is much to refute of what has been written by professional speaker designers, is there not?
Lastly, I really do value the source of your musical delights. That means what music it is that you listen to and do you choose your system configurations based upon your favorite type of music?
Thanks to all of you for your input. It is greatly appreciated!
TEH
Good post because I think it points out that price may have little to do with good design or good products.
High end audio is an irrational market so its difficult if not impossible to draw conclusions based upon what is popular.
I wouldn't make any blanket statements about the applicability of ported designs. Like any engineering choice they have advantages and disadvantages. Obviously the advantages are fairly desirable because the mass of commercial loudspeakers are ported.
As Lynn has stated, your quest for the "ultimate" design has problems from the get-go. You have to define "ultimate" before you can even start down that path. For most people that starts with getting some exposure to loudspeakers and finding out what trips your trigger. You can also approach it from an engineering standpoint. Since I'm an engineer I'm biased but I think that good engineering & arriving at good subjective design are completely compatible. Others think that the subjective experience is the only mechanism for achieving good design. There are both kinds of designers in the market.
I've given up on what other people think. I design for my own enjoyment and if others find it meets their desires.... great. If not... there are plenty of other items on the menu.
High end audio is an irrational market so its difficult if not impossible to draw conclusions based upon what is popular.
I wouldn't make any blanket statements about the applicability of ported designs. Like any engineering choice they have advantages and disadvantages. Obviously the advantages are fairly desirable because the mass of commercial loudspeakers are ported.
As Lynn has stated, your quest for the "ultimate" design has problems from the get-go. You have to define "ultimate" before you can even start down that path. For most people that starts with getting some exposure to loudspeakers and finding out what trips your trigger. You can also approach it from an engineering standpoint. Since I'm an engineer I'm biased but I think that good engineering & arriving at good subjective design are completely compatible. Others think that the subjective experience is the only mechanism for achieving good design. There are both kinds of designers in the market.
I've given up on what other people think. I design for my own enjoyment and if others find it meets their desires.... great. If not... there are plenty of other items on the menu.
Well, I don't want to hog the thread, so I'll keep it as brief as possible. You want lots of words, well, there's the other thread.
Audiophile vs prosound dynamics. Contrary to the myths of the glossy magazines, no, you can't pair a $100,000 audiophile speaker with a MBL kilowatt amplifier and have it fill a 500-seat movie theatrer. 5~7" midrange drivers and 1" dome tweeters can only put out so many acoustic watts. First they compress (around 90~95 dB). Then they distort. Then they distort a lot more. Then they fail, sometimes taking the crossover and amplifier with them.
It may seem a little nuts to use a speaker that is capable of lighting up a theater to fill a small room. The idea here is headroom - you don't necessarily want 125 dB SPL at the listening position, but having a reserve of 12~20 dB isn't a bad idea at all. The speaker is always coasting, no matter what you're listening to, at any level. It's the difference between a 8 x 10 view camera and 35mm - even the finest Leica and Schneider lenses aren't going to come close to a contact print made from a 8 x 10 negative.
Trust me, a speaker with a max linear SPL limit of 105 dB and 125 dB sound different, even at very quiet listening levels. It's not a matter of available amplifier power, except in an odd inverse way - when speakers get very efficient (beyond 96 dB/metre/watt), they got a lot more picky about amplifier quality. Krells and Audio Research need not apply - they sound pretty awful with HE speakers. (The first public demo of the Ariel in Portland was ruined by the murky-sounding Krell amplifiers that were used - it wasn't until most people left that the OTS presenters had the wit to use a moderate-power tube amp. Thanks, guys.)
So when I invent the phrase "audiophile-scaled", I simply mean a speaker that uses typical audiophile drivers, like Scan-Speak, Vifa, Seas, etc. These are excellent drivers, some with superb time response and low energy storage as well. But they will not fill a theater with sound. They aren't designed to do that, and will fail if asked.
My little Ariels will reach 105 dB if asked - I've seen the 100-watt LEDs on the Crown Macro Reference light up - but that's really all those little pint-sized drivers are good for. "Bigger" audiophile drivers, like 7 to 10 inch, are maybe good for another 5 dB. Maybe. 15 dB, no.
Moving on, the Bastani Apollo and Prometheus sound quite different, although Bob Bastani disagrees with me there. He thinks the Prometheus is 85% of the Apollo, I think more like 30% or less. I don't care for the Eminence driver in the Prometheus at all, while I really like the Alnico-magnet guitar speaker in the Apollo - which sounds a fair amount like a 12" Alnico Tone Tubby (although it isn't).
This whole thing of the mid driver having to be a certain size is BS. Listen to enough drivers with no crossover on a test baffle, and let me tell you, some sound good, and many sound really bad. Crossovers can disguise a bad driver, but listen long enough, and the badness comes through.
The good vs bad quality is independent of driver size. Plenty of funky-looking 12 and 15-inch drivers pulled out of a dusty 1958 Magnavox French Provincial stereo console sound astonishingly good full-range. There are also well-reviewed, state-of-the-art 7" drivers with ceramic, metal, and carbon-fiber cones that sound unbelievably bad - and measure that way too on MLSSA. If a driver sounds bad - as in grossly unmusical - with no crossover on a flat baffle, it's a bad driver, that simple. MLSSA and SoundEasy are just the high-tech way of confirming what you're hearing.
Pick good drivers, design a good crossover with careful phase transfers between drivers, and balance the system to taste. That's what our friend over at Zaph Audio is doing on his website, and Siegfried Linkwitz, and many others.
Good parts, good engineering, good taste. That's all it takes to design any audio component. No different than cooking, really, with good ingredients, technical experience, and a good sense of esthetics.
Audiophile vs prosound dynamics. Contrary to the myths of the glossy magazines, no, you can't pair a $100,000 audiophile speaker with a MBL kilowatt amplifier and have it fill a 500-seat movie theatrer. 5~7" midrange drivers and 1" dome tweeters can only put out so many acoustic watts. First they compress (around 90~95 dB). Then they distort. Then they distort a lot more. Then they fail, sometimes taking the crossover and amplifier with them.
It may seem a little nuts to use a speaker that is capable of lighting up a theater to fill a small room. The idea here is headroom - you don't necessarily want 125 dB SPL at the listening position, but having a reserve of 12~20 dB isn't a bad idea at all. The speaker is always coasting, no matter what you're listening to, at any level. It's the difference between a 8 x 10 view camera and 35mm - even the finest Leica and Schneider lenses aren't going to come close to a contact print made from a 8 x 10 negative.
Trust me, a speaker with a max linear SPL limit of 105 dB and 125 dB sound different, even at very quiet listening levels. It's not a matter of available amplifier power, except in an odd inverse way - when speakers get very efficient (beyond 96 dB/metre/watt), they got a lot more picky about amplifier quality. Krells and Audio Research need not apply - they sound pretty awful with HE speakers. (The first public demo of the Ariel in Portland was ruined by the murky-sounding Krell amplifiers that were used - it wasn't until most people left that the OTS presenters had the wit to use a moderate-power tube amp. Thanks, guys.)
So when I invent the phrase "audiophile-scaled", I simply mean a speaker that uses typical audiophile drivers, like Scan-Speak, Vifa, Seas, etc. These are excellent drivers, some with superb time response and low energy storage as well. But they will not fill a theater with sound. They aren't designed to do that, and will fail if asked.
My little Ariels will reach 105 dB if asked - I've seen the 100-watt LEDs on the Crown Macro Reference light up - but that's really all those little pint-sized drivers are good for. "Bigger" audiophile drivers, like 7 to 10 inch, are maybe good for another 5 dB. Maybe. 15 dB, no.
Moving on, the Bastani Apollo and Prometheus sound quite different, although Bob Bastani disagrees with me there. He thinks the Prometheus is 85% of the Apollo, I think more like 30% or less. I don't care for the Eminence driver in the Prometheus at all, while I really like the Alnico-magnet guitar speaker in the Apollo - which sounds a fair amount like a 12" Alnico Tone Tubby (although it isn't).
This whole thing of the mid driver having to be a certain size is BS. Listen to enough drivers with no crossover on a test baffle, and let me tell you, some sound good, and many sound really bad. Crossovers can disguise a bad driver, but listen long enough, and the badness comes through.
The good vs bad quality is independent of driver size. Plenty of funky-looking 12 and 15-inch drivers pulled out of a dusty 1958 Magnavox French Provincial stereo console sound astonishingly good full-range. There are also well-reviewed, state-of-the-art 7" drivers with ceramic, metal, and carbon-fiber cones that sound unbelievably bad - and measure that way too on MLSSA. If a driver sounds bad - as in grossly unmusical - with no crossover on a flat baffle, it's a bad driver, that simple. MLSSA and SoundEasy are just the high-tech way of confirming what you're hearing.
Pick good drivers, design a good crossover with careful phase transfers between drivers, and balance the system to taste. That's what our friend over at Zaph Audio is doing on his website, and Siegfried Linkwitz, and many others.
Good parts, good engineering, good taste. That's all it takes to design any audio component. No different than cooking, really, with good ingredients, technical experience, and a good sense of esthetics.
Lynn Olson said:
Efficient speakers depend a lot more on the first watt being good than others because for the same listening level they spend a lot more time in a low-power regime.
Continuous 96 dB is LOUD, and in my experience most listening is quieter than that. If your speakers are 96 dB/W/M and you're in a typical living room, then the amplifier's likely not pushing more than a watt or two, less on quieter passages. If the speakers are the usual 86 dB/W/M, then the amp is running 10 dB hotter, well above where crossover distortion and noise might show themselves. I built a prototype line array which came in at 96 dB/W/M; it showed some amplifier problems which had gone completely unnoticed driving a standard 2-way.
Drivers with lousy decay curves in some part of the spectrum are usable so long as one knows where the problems lie and what to do about them. Linkwitz's Orions are an example: the Seas W22 has a high-Q cone resonance with the attendant long decay tail, but he uses a 1440 Hz crossover and a 5 kHz notch filter to make the problem innocuous. I wouldn't listen to that driver on a flat baffle without a crossover, though, not on a bet.
Teh said:
Hi Teh,
I totally agree with your sentiment regarding personal descriptions. It reminds me of a few Stereophile articles I read in the past: pages and pages of waffle (IMO), followed by measurements that seemed to be thrown in as a token gesture.
Just to try and answer some of your main points:
A) Driver size:
3 main issues - beaming, ripples in a pond, and the ability to reflect incoming sound.
The last two are the most important in my opinion. High frequency ripples going across the surface of a large driver are the forte of pro-sound woofers - the cones even tend to be corrugated to help absorb those ripples before they reach the edge. And remember, it's just a light-weight cone. If you had a speaker box with a big unwanted hole letting out the sound from the side, would you patch it up with something as light and flexible as a speaker cone? Probably not! But that's what happens with the majority of boxed speakers anyway. Large drivers have the inherent disadvantage that they're just bigger - they create a larger hole in the box.
A lot of people may disagree with me, but I think that paper cones can be unreasonably difficult components to contend with. If I design something I like to know what's happening, even at high frequencies. But with paper and other soft materials there are no guarantees: they wobble and flex, suggesting non-linear losses and IMD due to the low yield strength of the glue that holds the fibres together, resonances, and goodness knows what else. The arguments against metal diaphragm speakers seem to be mostly because people don't know how to make them work, or they want a simple "plug-n-play" solution that is mostly mechanical, with minimalist electronics.
It may or may not be an issue. There shouldn't be a problem as long as both drivers can play cleanly throughout the crossover band. The point is look at what happens past the crossover point: how does the speaker behave at -12dB? At -24dB?
I think I might actually be able to explain that... Imagine that you have an ideal point-source speaker in a room, and you're testing the in-room frequency response. It produces an impulse (or some other test signal) and the microphone picks it up along with various echoes. The interference caused by the walls etc, produce comb filter-like peaks and dips in the FR plot. Similarly, our ears use that information to help determine the position of the sound source relative to the walls, ceiling and everything. But what happens with an open baffle? The echoes are different. Not only is some of the off-axis sound cancelled out, reducing the amplitude of echoes overall, but the comb filtering peaks and dips are "swapped around", which may give the illusion that any reflective surfaces behind the speaker are a huge distance away.
Cheers,
CeramicMan said:
Here's an alternate theory: most closed-box speakers require baffle step compensation because of increased directivity related to the cabinet width. This means the system actually has decreased power response above the step point, which typically lies in the lower midrange. That could explain a "closed-in" and "boxy" perception of the sound since people mostly listen to their systems at or beyond the critical distance, where reflected sound predominates over reflected, and the reflected sound would start rolling off around the baffle step point.
Now look at the situation with open baffle speakers: midrange radiates from the front and back, so the in-room power response is flatter, and if the designer does as Linkwitz and places a tweeter on the back then the power response will be even flatter yet. Second, 90 degree off-axis response for mids and tweeters rolls off at the top of their passbands: 1 inch tweeters typically are down 10 to 15 dB at 10kHz at 90 degrees off axis. This could contribute to non-flat power response, but as it turns out open baffle speakers have a null at 90 degrees because the front and back waves cancel at that angle, so the unflat off-axis response drops out of the in-room response contribution. A flatter power response seems to be inherent to dipole designs; perhaps that might account for the perception they're more involving than closed-box designs.
Agreed, once midrange is on open baffle, its hard to go back to closed box midrange, no matter how well its done.
Isn't it simply a back wave reflection partly responsible for the difference between the sound of "boxed" midrange and "open" baffled midrange? You can equalize fr response flat each time, still the open baffle will sound cleaner.
I believe that back wall in most boxed speakers is just too close not to be an issue.
adason said:
That depends on the dimensions that we're talking about. For example if the speaker is 0.5m from the nearest wall, that's a return distance of 1m. If my calculations are correct, it should produce destructive interference at:
~340 * [ (180deg + X * 360deg)/360deg ] / (2*0.5m)
which = 170Hz, 510Hz, 850Hz...
Or for a 2m distance it'll be: 42.5Hz, 127.5Hz, 212.5Hz...
Teh said:
"Everybody' must not include me, or a number of people I know.
FWIW, some of the very best, world class systems I heard and worked with, had a crossover right at 700Hz, or there about. Also heard astounding systems that crossed at 400Hz and again at 1500Hz. They did not suffer from it.
While I understand the reason to keep the crossover out of this sensitive region, with good drivers and crossovers, it's not a problem. At all.
felixx said:
hi Felixx,
is there any link where you talk about the make-up of your jewels?
I am interested since I' m thinkin' to use this config. to build-up my subwoofer
Thanks
Diego
CeramicMan said:Forget the old-school 2 channel stuff...
If you want to build something really amazing, how about a large 2 dimensional array of speakers (on a wall or something) and control them individually with some serious processing power? Not only would the sound then be truly directional without fake imaging, it would be possible to control the depth of field by shaping the wave-fronts for a truly 3d effect
Did you have an example in your mind?
What do you mean by "serious processing power"? Computer-based or stand-alone?
RobWells said:
I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet. Calling this "malarkey" couldn't be further from the truth. The terminology is "oblate sheroidal," which is the name of the coordinate system whose coordinate lines form the walls of the waveguide. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OblateSpheroidalCoordinates.html Furthermore, the use of this contour is hardly arbitrary or based on marketing. Over the last 20 years Dr. Geddes has published a series of technical articles (in JAES) showing that this contour is closer to optimal than the other options in the relevant sense (minimizes HOM and is close to constant directivity).
Yes but if you put that quote back into the context of my full post you'll see I was mainly disagreeing with the summa being called a 'pinnacle of modern horn design' when it's a basic 2 way ported 15" with a 'special' horn loaded tweeter.
I got the info about the tweeter waveguide thingamajig from looking at the summa website, where it was indeed being marketed (advertised). Geddes also pushed it a lot over at Audoasylum as being something different and better to a horn.
So in your opinion is / was the summa a 'pinnacle of horn design' ? as that was what my post was addressing.
Rob.
I got the info about the tweeter waveguide thingamajig
from looking at the summa website, where it was indeed being marketed (advertised). Geddes also pushed it a lot over at Audoasylum as being something different and better to a horn.So in your opinion is / was the summa a 'pinnacle of horn design' ? as that was what my post was addressing.
Rob.
That's too vague of a statement for me to say either way. I'm not really sure what you are asking.
On the other hand, while I haven't personally heard the Summa, I believe that format is the best solution for a standard home audio or theater system, and that the OS waveguide has the best set of measurements I've seen relative to what IMO matters (polar response uniformity wrt frequency and lack of nasty stuff above 10k). I don't really understand HOM yet but apparently it does as good as can be done in that aspect as well. About the only "flaw" I can see is the vertical polar response around the crossover frequency, but it's still better than almost all other speakers.
On the other hand, while I haven't personally heard the Summa, I believe that format is the best solution for a standard home audio or theater system, and that the OS waveguide has the best set of measurements I've seen relative to what IMO matters (polar response uniformity wrt frequency and lack of nasty stuff above 10k). I don't really understand HOM yet but apparently it does as good as can be done in that aspect as well. About the only "flaw" I can see is the vertical polar response around the crossover frequency, but it's still better than almost all other speakers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.