Well, if a hobbiest is going to spend time and money on analysis software like COMSOL, measurement system like Klippel, lots of time making things not to mention manufacturing skill and machinery, there really is not much to talk about. So many people like Ted Jordan spent their lifetime working full time on audio things. Putting technology into audio requires that dedication and money whether you are hobbiest or not.graaf said:
let's discuss it
what is problematic and what can be done and how
what do You mean?
yeah, "financial issues"... "development of loudspeakers"... "making the product"... "tough decisions"... for an "industry guy"
yeah, "consumers"
BUT are we here "industry guys"? or "consumers"?
NO - we are DIY hobbyist!
trade-offs? compromises? I say - **** compromises!
I am not a promoter of ambiophonics, I mentioned it purely incidentally
best regards!
graaf
forr said:
let's discuss: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121385
best regards,
graaf
soongsc said:
putting SCIENCE into audio requires not so much a lot of money
but rather freedom from commercial and DFM ("design for manufacturability") considerations
as DIY hobbyist we have such a freedom
putting SCIENCE into audio is about basic design choices!
not about sophisticated fine tuning with "analysis software like COMSOL, measurement system like Klippel"
being free from commercial and DFM ("design for manufacturability") considerations we can make those choices
and the science is free
best regards,
graaf
Good luck for the amount of free things you can accomplish with.graaf said:
putting SCIENCE into audio requires not so much a lot of money
but rather freedom from commercial and DFM ("design for manufacturability") considerations
as DIY hobbyist we have such a freedom
putting SCIENCE into audio is about basic design choices!
not about sophisticated fine tuning with "analysis software like COMSOL, measurement system like Klippel"
being free from commercial and DFM ("design for manufacturability") considerations we can make those choices
and the science is free
best regards,
graaf
Does make me feel sorry for the people spending money to learn more about it.
graaf said:
Hi Graaf,
Thanks for the link.
What Gedlee says confirms what I begin to think about diffraction effects arriving within a delay of less than 1 mS from the main sound source and which was quoted (with 700 µS rather than 1 mS) by J.Watkinson in Electronics World, August 1999, page 668. In fact, it was precisely this article which made me to begin experiences with large baffles only some weeks ago.
Regards
One thing to remember when one wants to use anything more than front firing CD speakers is that when you listen to recording that have recorded room reflections, you are now mixing your room reflection with the recorded reflections during playback.
Speakers need to settle as fast as possible with as little stored energy as possible. Lots of technology in trying to achieve this.
Speakers need to settle as fast as possible with as little stored energy as possible. Lots of technology in trying to achieve this.
Funny that the '(old) common sense' told us to put the tweeters at the ear height and let them aim straight at the listener etc etc... but over the years, such ordinary stereo systems seldom give a satisfying presentation. I mean overall presentation, a full musical event.
Recently I tried putting the tweeters on floor, among mid/bass OBs and walls, facing up of course - it's the only way out, LOL.
I like what I'm hearing.
Recently I tried putting the tweeters on floor, among mid/bass OBs and walls, facing up of course - it's the only way out, LOL.
I like what I'm hearing.
Funny that the '(old) common sense' told us to put the tweeters at the ear height and let them aim straight at the listener etc etc... but over the years, such ordinary stereo systems seldom give a satisfying presentation. I mean overall presentation, a full musical event.
Recently I tried putting the tweeters on floor, among mid/bass OBs and walls, facing up of course - it's the only way out, LOL.
I like what I'm hearing.
great
give us more details please - the frequency and slope of the crossover to the tweeters, a picture or schematic of this setupOne of Peter Snell's earliest design, the 'type 1' had the tweeter at the very bottome of the cabinet that included a bottom 'flap' to reflect the tweeter's output. However, that was the end of that approach. Peter later went on to create the Model "A" and the rest is history.
Attachments
Last edited:
great
Thanks a lot for your encouragement. But my system, which is a pile of junk actually, has never reached 70% of completion. I'm afraid it would profane this thread (with 'science' in its topic) talking too much of it.
The flooder tweeter is Emenence APT with Dayton's 12" circular waveguide, crossed at about 3kHz by only a cap (please forgive me on the numbers, they are never accurate).
Note that this shallow 1st order HPF at this frequency is not recommended by the published datasheet. It doesn't bring me any trouble, though, because I don't listen very loud, and the tweeters are only for 2 of the 3-channel.
Oh, I guess my credit is getting even worse by this post.
haha thats scientific if nothing else Graaf! I am running ribbons crossed at 2.5k 2o order (also against manufacturer recommendation, and im bad with exact figures). I often listen at quiet levels, relatively speaking, and i experience no real issues. Its all part of the experimental adjustment of the design.
Last edited:
While all that is true, in reality, everything in the production and reproduction process of music count to a certain degree, each playback arrangement will vary the influence weighing of performance in each link of the process.
In the end science can tell us pretty much the exact acoustic field that is generated by a musical performance.
The question then is can we record this and then play it back.
Well no, we can only record simulations of it and play it back.
We do know in theory how to record it to a sufficient degree of accuracy, but in practice this is not at this juncture possible to both record and play it back ..
So in the end the science has always been there, but we are dealing with the practical realisation of it.
In other words how near to the ideal do we need to be for the illusion to be credible enough, just realising it is the problem.
This is not science but technology.
rcw
The question then is can we record this and then play it back.
Well no, we can only record simulations of it and play it back.
We do know in theory how to record it to a sufficient degree of accuracy, but in practice this is not at this juncture possible to both record and play it back ..
So in the end the science has always been there, but we are dealing with the practical realisation of it.
In other words how near to the ideal do we need to be for the illusion to be credible enough, just realising it is the problem.
This is not science but technology.
rcw
Capturing a stereo image is problematic and depends on the recording, however you don’t need to do that to auralize a loudspeakers accuracy or lack of.
When we started DSL, one of the things we did as a reality check was to do Generation loss recordings of our and our competitors loudspeakers. The Generation loss test was a popular trick used in the days of analogue recording tape etc, the idea is whatever is not faithful to the signal, produces an increasing degradation on each progressive generation.
While speakers are normally and by far the weakest link, where most electronics will pass many generations before sounding bad, we found many speakers sounded funny on just one generation and very very few (even my best passive Synergy horns) would pass just three or four generations before sounding funky.
What we did was to place the speaker on a lift so there were no close reflections or sound other than the speaker itself and then record music being played through it with a 24/96 recorder. We also re-recorded the music signal being played so that one had a reference to the loss in the AD/DA process being repeated.
What you get with the speaker or whatever is inserted is a caricature of what’s wrong with the speaker or device under test. Often after hearing the caricature of “what’s wrong” you could go back and hear “that” flaw listening straight up. This can be done in a room too except you also get the room sound / reflections which increase each generation as well.
The more accurate (faithful to the input signal) whatever is under test is, the greater the number of generations it takes to sound bad. A "perfect" thing permits an unlimited number of generations.
Best,
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs
When we started DSL, one of the things we did as a reality check was to do Generation loss recordings of our and our competitors loudspeakers. The Generation loss test was a popular trick used in the days of analogue recording tape etc, the idea is whatever is not faithful to the signal, produces an increasing degradation on each progressive generation.
While speakers are normally and by far the weakest link, where most electronics will pass many generations before sounding bad, we found many speakers sounded funny on just one generation and very very few (even my best passive Synergy horns) would pass just three or four generations before sounding funky.
What we did was to place the speaker on a lift so there were no close reflections or sound other than the speaker itself and then record music being played through it with a 24/96 recorder. We also re-recorded the music signal being played so that one had a reference to the loss in the AD/DA process being repeated.
What you get with the speaker or whatever is inserted is a caricature of what’s wrong with the speaker or device under test. Often after hearing the caricature of “what’s wrong” you could go back and hear “that” flaw listening straight up. This can be done in a room too except you also get the room sound / reflections which increase each generation as well.
The more accurate (faithful to the input signal) whatever is under test is, the greater the number of generations it takes to sound bad. A "perfect" thing permits an unlimited number of generations.
Best,
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs
In his essay, John Watkinson says about reflex designs : "Today its problems are known, and superior alternatives are known, but the reflex speaker continues out of pure tradition."
I'm a beginner and the majority of design I see are of the reflex type. Why ? And what are the "superior alternatives" that he is talking about ?
I'm a beginner and the majority of design I see are of the reflex type. Why ? And what are the "superior alternatives" that he is talking about ?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.