Very interesting. A cross between a Kantor-era NHT and a modern high-efficiency waveguide speaker. Duke seems to be one of the few commercial speaker sellers who's actually thinking.
I think it's a good time to ressurect the corner speaker. Only modernize it with a modern waveguide and high-efficiency direct radiator. Maybe even integrate the ULF corner sub into one of the mains.
I think it's a good time to ressurect the corner speaker. Only modernize it with a modern waveguide and high-efficiency direct radiator. Maybe even integrate the ULF corner sub into one of the mains.
At 9X the cost and not DIY, I should certainly hope that Summas did SOMETHING better than these....
:: yawn ::
Your attacks on Geddes are tedious.
Music and movies are one of life's pleasures, and I don't regret a single penny that I've spent on the Summas. In fact, I'm often amazed that people spend so *little* on their audio gear.
Besides that, the resale value on hard-to-find loudspeakers is quite good. If only the same thing could be said about DIY speakers.
He makes a valid point: for 9x the cost of anything, you would only be a reasonable person to expect there to be a substantive difference.
Have you actually heard some of Zilch's designs?
As for tedious, I could say the same about you fanboi-ism.
I'm very pleased you are happy with them. And I agree that I'm also surprised that so few people ever spend any money on decent audio gear.
But that is not the point. You can often sell the component parts, which are the largest part of the expense for a good chunk of the purchase price. The rest of it can be put down to the fun of building things.
Zilch said "At 9X the cost and not DIY, I should certainly hope that Summas did SOMETHING better than these...."
This statement by Zilch is as an attempt to equate his own design with the Gedlee Summas. And I am repeating what I've said time and time again: The Summa is more than the sum of it's parts.
If there is one mistake I see repeated over and over and over again on these forums, it is this:
Many people seem to think that a loudspeaker is nothing more than what you put into it. But that is folly; you can use the best ingredients in the world, and still end up with junk. Loudspeaker design is a science and an art. I am not aware of a single person in the world who has more experience designing audio waveguides than Earl Geddes. If you want the best, you could hardly ask for a more qualified loudspeaker designer.
Did I come onto the forum and knock his designs? No - I simply defended the Geddes design. I believe I am qualified to do that; I do own them after all.
If I am not mistaken, Zilch has never heard a Summa. Whenever I read Zilch's posts, it reminds me of the guys that write car magazines and say that their Chevy Camaro is better than a BMW M3 because the Camaro is quicker. I would argue they're missing the big picture; a car is more than the sum of it's parts, and so is a loudspeaker.
Fanboy or very happy customer? Perhaps my enthusiasm is over the top, but these speakers ARE very good.
Back on topic, please.
One unethical thing that probably would be best avoided is for directly compare one's own commercially available product against another like a mud fight. There are lots of different compromises that a designer make to obtain as close to his/her goal as possible, which cannot be compared.
It seems okay do provide individual impressions of ones own listening experience and explain the difference. It also is good to discuss different performance data and interpretation of such. These benefit the DIYers, and also help potential buyers make a judgement that best meets their needs.
What is interestingly discovered while doing sims on horns and wave guides is that the rate of change of flare seems to have contradicting effects on acoustic loading and directivity control. This now really becomes a choice for the designer to make the appropriate tradeoff with whatever other methods used to obtain optimum performance.
It seems okay do provide individual impressions of ones own listening experience and explain the difference. It also is good to discuss different performance data and interpretation of such. These benefit the DIYers, and also help potential buyers make a judgement that best meets their needs.
What is interestingly discovered while doing sims on horns and wave guides is that the rate of change of flare seems to have contradicting effects on acoustic loading and directivity control. This now really becomes a choice for the designer to make the appropriate tradeoff with whatever other methods used to obtain optimum performance.
There is no product. It's about DIY I'm doing here, selling nothing but a concept, no charge....
Have anyone hear such OS/conical/eliptical-waveguide based speakers?
http://www.wharfedalepro.com/Home/Products/PASSIVELOUDSPEAKERS/DLXSERIES/DLX15/tabid/98/Default.aspx
SVP-15 - SVP SERIES - Wharfedale Pro
SVP-X15 - SVP-X SERIES - Wharfedale Pro
They are very cheap but made by a respectable manufacturer. I'm wondering if Mr. Geddes is aware of such incarnations of his oblate sferoid concept. Second fold, an 90x45 "eliptical OS" could be a good compromise if works.
http://www.wharfedalepro.com/Home/Products/PASSIVELOUDSPEAKERS/DLXSERIES/DLX15/tabid/98/Default.aspx
SVP-15 - SVP SERIES - Wharfedale Pro
SVP-X15 - SVP-X SERIES - Wharfedale Pro
They are very cheap but made by a respectable manufacturer. I'm wondering if Mr. Geddes is aware of such incarnations of his oblate sferoid concept. Second fold, an 90x45 "eliptical OS" could be a good compromise if works.
Last edited:
The comparison between Zilchlab's design and the summa isn't correct to start with.
He uses a 12'' so a comparison to the Abbey is more relevant. That makes it only 3.5X.
And considering that the B&C woofer is $100 more expensive, more XO components and a handmade waveguide integraded into the cab the Abbey is only 2.5X the cost.
I don't think Geddes is going to make himself a bundle of money selling his speakers a his current prices.
He uses a 12'' so a comparison to the Abbey is more relevant. That makes it only 3.5X.
And considering that the B&C woofer is $100 more expensive, more XO components and a handmade waveguide integraded into the cab the Abbey is only 2.5X the cost.
I don't think Geddes is going to make himself a bundle of money selling his speakers a his current prices.
The comparison was between Summa and an indeterminate JBL design that looks somewhat like what I showed/measured with specific respect to imaging.
The subject of this thread is the original Econo-Waveguide/driver combination's performance compared to Earl's then standard, ESP12, a predecessor to Abbey, which original costs less than 1/2 that of the "Deluxe" variant shown in a similar implementation. Duke is using that waveguide in his new products, based upon his own evaluation of its performance in comparison to other available options.
We have no apologies to offer for either the original design or how it has evolved over the intervening two years. Literally hundreds of DIYers the world over have benefited from this work, and Earl's own success has been enhanced by what we have done, as well....
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?t=215536
Last edited:
Hello Dorin,
Are you sure the waveguides developed by Waredale are are actually having an oblate spheroid geometry at their throat?
From the look of those (at least what I can glimpse through the grills) those are conical, elliptical horns, with no mouth termination and therefore having nothing in common with Dr.'s Geddes design.
Are you sure the waveguides developed by Waredale are are actually having an oblate spheroid geometry at their throat?
From the look of those (at least what I can glimpse through the grills) those are conical, elliptical horns, with no mouth termination and therefore having nothing in common with Dr.'s Geddes design.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.