|
Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | diyAudio Store | Blogs | Gallery | Wiki | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#141 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
|
Quote:
Without comparing, actually I can detect what is wrong or missing, only by ears. But direct comparison makes it easier and I can also compare the "quality" of the new design relative to the proven speaker. To me speaker design is an art. The hardest part is to "understand" why one option should be better than the other, when you understand that you cannot avoid compromises in engineering decisions. We have to understand measurement and simulations, but those will only be meaningful if we know its correlation with sound quality perceived by ears. Drawing this relationship is an "art". Of course, first we must understand the physics (measurements, simulations), then we must have good ears, and the worst thing is that it is not enough. Okay, we can hear differences and we know what physical properties are in effect, but we cannot gather all the good things in one design, we have to choose. I can see that most speakers have "signatures". It may come from cone material or even deliberately designed to give an "impression" to the listeners. (Well, may be some just have it by accident). Usually there are prices to pay for. Certain speakers are said to be "neutral". But I think only God knows if we refer to the same thing when we mention "neutral" ![]() I think we cannot find the more advanced engineering wisdom that is deliberately written in bold points on the internet. May be because only few who knows it, or just don't want to share. Many times people ask "If you think that the current measurement techniques are flawed, why can't you propose one that work?". I think if the questioners ask nicely, may be he can get the answer, may be. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#142 | |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Quote:
The sound that comes directly to the listening position from the driver should have a response that for arguments sake let's say should be flat, or in any case smooth. Most of the sound that a speaker produces does not travel directly toward us though. Some of this sound may affect imaging and much of it has the potential to colour the sound. Speaker baffling can be responsible for diverting some of this energy via diffraction, with a particular response and timing which may be audible. A baffle also controls the entry of this energy into the room in a way that can be beneficial, or not. I am of the opinion that fixing sibilants begins with weighting voices. This begins at a couple of hundred Hertz or lower. This is basically about making a vocalist sound the correct size, with the goal of being able to hear their breathing and movements as these seem to be related to this. A crossover here is responsible for equalising the sound, naturally. Managing room reflections here can be critical. Even moving a speaker about one foot can potentially make the difference between just right, and awful to the point of being hard to listen to, when it causes a critical problem in the low hundreds of Hertz. As you know, dome tweeters don't respond well to being overloaded. Their response also needs to be smooth. The smoother the better, particularly where we are the most sensitive (in the low to mid kHz region). Apart from low variations (peaks and dips) in the response, it should blend with the midrange and again, the direct sound is only part of the story here with regards to whether the midrange driver will match up. Controlling diffraction and managing reflections from a tweeter can also contribute to a smooth response. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#143 | |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Quote:
I thought I'd found it once, about 20 years ago when I'd managed to find the 'clinical' sound. I guess the point would be that if I liked it enough I may not have built any more speakers. Fortunately also, there is enough information on this site (on the net, to be fair) to build an almost perfect speaker. I say almost here, noting that the experts can't decide what perfect means in this case. There is much written on measurement techniques and I believe they will serve their purpose to this end. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#144 | |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
I have found over the years of just messing around with speaker designs that even removing or adding a small piece of internal wadding, it's position in the cabinate and type of wadding can have a massive effect on the overall sound produced, getting this wrong can cause all sorts of headaches for the uninitiated builder as they cannot understand why the $1000's worth of expensive drivers doesn't give them the results they expect. Yes of course measuring software and the math etc IS important but I believe the final stage of a loudspeaker design should be done by thorough listening tests with a large variation in source material, volume levels, speaker positioning room acoustics etc etc and by the ear of the primary listener. What might sound great to one person may sound horrible for a different listener due to their auditory anatomy and a thousand other variables. To me its how the music makes me feel emotionally and if the electronics and acoustics are not right, the end result is a big waste of time and money which equals a depressing disappointment. Iv'e always craved the "live sound" or "performers in the front room" sound which is why I am so critical of my own work, maybe a little too fussy sometimes but that's just me, and what gives me the most pleasure is: I didnt have to spend $200'000 on Wadia CD players, Krell amps and Wilson speakers to get the end result. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#145 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
|
Quote:
It is this enjoyable experience, sitting all day listening to music, and cannot part long enough with the system, just like listening to certain live music, that makes it harder for me to accept modern systems. I parted with tube amps because of my perceived low speed of bass slam with rock music. I parted with fullrangers because I don't like the breakups at high SPL, and I want extra details from multi-way speakers. There are many known compromises, but enjoyment is really a double edge sword for me. It usually doesn't want to go hand in hand with the most transparent, the most detailed, etc. For men, it is clearly different between having a beautiful wife and having one that makes us happy (tho not that beautiful). Quote:
![]() Neutral to me is more positive. It doesn't try to impress you with too much of anything. Quote:
Those who are familiar with non-resonating enclosures will look down on resonating enclosures. Switching from non-resonating enclosure to resonating one, we will clearly hear that "box sound". But another funny thing is, just give us some time with the resonating box and we will get along well with it and forget the strange sound ![]() Harbeth, Spendor, the LS3/5A variations, Audio Note (The Orang Utan), they all sound "wrong" but have higher possibility of enjoyment experience than those speakers with overdamped enclosures. Try this: change your box with concrete and tell me if you like it better. Overdamped enclosure only works perfectly with expensive drivers, especially those who can use very simple crossover. Second order is maximum. Sonus Faber speakers can get away with 6db/octave with good measurement results. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#146 | |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
One of the things I actually left out in my last reply WAS that I also believe a loudspeaker cabinet should not be totally damped (or made of stone) but act as an instrument itself with its natural coloration's (in the right place of course) Like a 200 year old Stradivarius it's the tone in the wood (and resonance) that gives it the rich sound. I didn't mention this because I expected a thousand annoyed forum members jumping down my throat and disagreeing with me, but you know what? I don't really care, that is my opinion (after lots of experimentation) and am sticking to it. At least now I know that I'm not alone in my thinking. I believe a loudspeaker should have its own character whether it adds or takes away from the music (Gasps of disapproval) there is nothing wrong with that as long as it gives pleasure to the listener, and some of the best I've ever heard have some kind of character. I was lucky enough to hear a Sonus Faber cremona auditor a few years ago and was very impressed with it's tonal accuracy with classical music, but obviously it is a different story with rock music. I was also very impressed with some Neat Petite speakers at a British HiFi show, but again no good for headbangers. Maybe this is the biggest holy grail of all -trying to design a speaker system (or complete audio system) that does everything well and I'm not sure this is really possible, I think the only thing that came close for me were some oldish very large KEF reference speakers developed for professional recording studios. Obviously yourself and AllenB have an extensive experience of design and you've had the pleasure of listening to many very good systems for which I am totally jealous -in a nice way of course. I was 13 years old when I found I was obsessed with HiFi and my dream was to get into audio design, unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity and now at the age of 51 I have missed the boat for which I really regret, so I am now left to tinker at home, Its just a shame I cannot share my results with others that matter. ![]() Last edited by mart.s; 13th May 2013 at 01:44 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#147 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
|
Quote:
Sonus Faber has more design with over damped enclosures. But yes, the Stradivari is classic. Imo, a good speaker must have no sound from box resonance. It is again about compromises. For expensive design such as Sonus Fabers’, I don’t expect a resonating box, but a resonating box is much much better than fatiguing speakers. Quote:
Yes, some of the best speakers have some kind of character. Honestly, at that cost-no-object level, I don’t expect a speaker to have “character”. Ask those who have good ears, they will know that different cone materials have different character. This is because the design is not perfect. If the design is perfect, there should be no difference between “magnesium” and paper except that you will get more detail with magnesium. Quote:
What I notice as the most outstanding “character” of my current speaker is the VOCAL. I have lived with Lowther and tube amps but I don’t think they (Lowther+tube) are at the same level, even with my speaker driven by a poor TDA2030 chip amp. It is not the SWEETNESS (which usually is a sign of distortion) but the NATURALNESS. The proof is in the listening of singers who have the angel voices. Great singers sound great, amateurs sound amateur. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#148 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
If anyone of you guys have ever been in a recording studio, and I mean a recording studio and not some friends basement with a 8 track machine and speakers on a table close to the wall, so you must have heard the sound of real studio monitors which were mated to the room they play with. Those rooms are designed to have a short reverberation time over the whole audible frquencie range. That is the enviroment where the sound engineer monitors his work, where he decides about different microphones used to record as natural as üossible or as artificial as he wants it. That's where the final mix is made by deciding about the colour of the various instruments and putting room information in to the context wether they were natural from recording in larger rooms or artificial digital reverbs.
Those speaker systems don't have "resonating baffles" or any such things derivated from a instrument like a old violine. They are build to reproduce as precisely as possible. That involves a enclosure that has carefully designed inner proportions to not avoid but spread standing waves across the spectrum. Then timeallignement between woofer and tweeter to stay in the here often used terms is used to induce less damage by the necessary crossover. Of course the used chassis are of high quality and also quality tested, means selected to be well within thenspecs. Last edited by JackNZ; 21st May 2013 at 12:17 AM. Reason: Add things |
![]() |
![]() |
#149 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
Not to forghet the non compromise placement of such speakers to be able to really elaborate a stereo mix, spezially with mono recordings and multitrack stuff that is mostly done with one microphone per instrument.
After this all was mixed and mastered, why would we go and add early reflexions to this records by designing speakers with sharp edges? Why should we add colouring by having a vibrating enclosure? What happens to the sound when our DIY crossover messes with the phase response of my speaker and gives me crazy coverage patterns? It is certanly not a enhancement to the original record but a distoted picture of it. So you guys better take care of trying designing a as good as possible flawless reproduction loudspeaker and placing them as good as you can in your listening enviroment. Then you will really here what the soundengineer recorded, what the musicians played and how good the room sounded. That is pleasure and you can listen to it for long times before you fatigue. No studio by the way uses Lowthers or Fostex fullrange drivers. The studio systems are designed by people who can make a good speaker and have ways around the problems of enclosures or crossovers. |
![]() |
![]() |
#150 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
|
The thing is that some records just don't sound good.
The better your speakers are, the more you will hear it. So this can become a bit of a problem. |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinSpeakerz vs others for measurement & crossovers | rick57 | Multi-Way | 8 | 12th December 2010 10:20 PM |
Designing crossovers using Vidsonix Virtual Crossover | triode4 | Multi-Way | 0 | 28th October 2007 01:22 AM |
A brief introduction | WayneM | Introductions | 7 | 30th April 2005 01:23 AM |
Designing passive tri-mode crossovers? | Datoyminaytah | Multi-Way | 9 | 4th September 2004 12:33 PM |
Designing for guys who like designing | Sch3mat1c | Tubes / Valves | 14 | 31st August 2003 11:46 AM |
New To Site? | Need Help? |