As much as I admire John K's technical ability, I tire of his jealousy towards SL and his inability to just butt out of anything SL related and please John, don't keep denying that you don't do so. "My speaker design is better than your speaker design" got old a few years back. What I DO admire is SL's just ignoring all the noise and continuing his own research and betterment.
Where it possibly relates is in the key phrase "spatially unrealistic", used by SL. I find that stabilising speaker structures improves the quality of reproduction of the low level information which are the cues for sensing the space in a recording. If the main speakers are now doing a better job of reproducing this information then the Watson contribution may now be clashing, the two spatial environments being projected are in conflict.
Frank
Frank
Both to me are gods of dipoles and I follow their work very closely and I'm sure they influence a lot of people in this hobby. We need someone who is vocal and technically capable. JohnK contribution is well documented in linkwitzlab (e.g. that baffle width article). What we don't need are blind followers I guess
Both to me are gods of dipoles and I follow their work very closely and I'm sure they influence a lot of people in this hobby. We need someone who is vocal and technically capable. JohnK contribution is well documented in linkwitzlab (e.g. that baffle width article). What we don't need are blind followers I guess
Yes.. the attitude is sickening, particularly in any forum designed for such a discussion.
We should be *encouraging*, NOT stifling such a discussion.
Just because SL is a very well respected designer (and all around nice-guy), does NOT mean that his designs (and reasons for those design decisions), aren't open to criticism. Like-wise - JohnK's designs are also fair-game, and are in fact criticized (..hell, I was critical of the aesthetics just on this thread alone).
(..just think: we wouldn't have reams of threads in this forum alone if not for SL's reasoning/speculation as to the benefits of dipoles and their interaction in-room.)
The bridge over the woofer seems to me the most fasinating part of this speaker - does the vibration of the woofer affect the top structure ?
If it does not affect, this is something that should be used for all multi way OB designs
Heh, it's only a theory, I would have to listen to the actual setups to be more sure! In my own experiments, stopping the speaker carcase vibrating, or damping that excess energy that has to go somewhere when speaker drivers are working hard, pushing back and forth on the baffle, has made a very significant difference, creating a better sense of space.Ummmm........
This simply can't be. Do you really think so?
Noooooooo! No way.
It's a suck it and see exercise ...
Frank
Check this out: Gershman Acoustics Black Swan Loudspeaker | The Absolute Sound -- TAS reckons the idea works ...
Frank
Check this out: Gershman Acoustics Black Swan Loudspeaker | The Absolute Sound -- TAS reckons the idea works ...
Frank
I think SL's idea is better. The Black Swan Baffle is already so thick and the top cabinet is resting directly on the bottom, whereas for LX521, is there a gap between the bridge and the woofer ?
I've been following this thread, but I haven't contributed up to now. In my opinion john k is indeed critical towards SL's designs, but he has the same attitude towards his own designs and is always open to criticism. And of course he keeps comparing the LX521 to his Note II RS - the speakers are very similar!
John, why do you now prefer domes over the B&G Neo? I have very good experience with the Neo in several designs and I ran into problems with domes in dipole. Along with the Mundorf AMT's I think the Neo is the best option for dipole highs.
John, why do you now prefer domes over the B&G Neo? I have very good experience with the Neo in several designs and I ran into problems with domes in dipole. Along with the Mundorf AMT's I think the Neo is the best option for dipole highs.
In the Black Swan the two cabinets are completely separate, each with its own set of legs, both resting on the floor -- just like the LX521. There is no physical contact between the two, apart from a speaker linking cable, minimising transmission of vibration.
Frank
I might try Bodzio, why not.. Is the B1 filter used by SL reversed polarity? I am not sure I understand the "quasi B1" thing..
They were combined with 1st order quasi-Butterworth filters, which are 6 dB down at the crossover frequency. Both drivers then add in-phase over a limited frequency range.
SL is claiming smooth GD from 120 til 7k.
Last edited:
that is very strange indeed. one can think the Watson also provided some reflexions EQ for Orion's lack of CD.. but still, it's intriguing.
Listen guys, take a deep breath. I think maybe I should change my user ID when I post a comment about SL's speakers. Please, for a moment sit back, and consider the message, not the messenger. Consider exactly the point I brought up, a 1st order coupler may not be the optimum way to go. This was base primarily on the FACT that it leads to greater excursion at low frequency which, regardless of what you may or may not hear, isn't a good thing. Can you at least accept that? I have looked at this in the past, and I took the time to reconfigure my system with different order x-o's to see if there were audible differences. How else here has made any such effort? I reported that for the most part I could NOT detect anything significant that I could attribute to the order of the coupler x-o, though I seemed to favor the 2nd order slightly. Is than not an admission that while I don't think it is technically the best way to go, I didn't hear any significant detrimental effects for it? Ultimately it was brought up that SL stated something about group delay. I looked at that, with an open mind, and reported back that in fact 2nd and 3th order had slightly lower GD. Want to see the plots? What to see the data for my system? Still, I refer back to my listening experience where in I commented that perhaps (PERHAPS) the slight difference in GD of the 2nd order was what drew me to it.
So really, just what is it that you object to, the scientific method? I've followed a path to investigate what I though might be a place for improvement and concluded what, that maybe 2nd order is a pubic hair better? If you recall, I started with my system having a 4th order so obviously, if I now favor 2nd order I originally blew it.
So, and if I seem arrogant, it is not my intension, but gees guys, until you get down and dirty and dig into this personally, all you are doing is rattling walls. I am fortunate that I just happen to have been working on a system upgrade to the Note that happens to be very similar to SL's design. If it had not been for SL's announcement of the LX521, it would probably still be sitting in a corner gathering dust because I had pretty much lost interest in it.
So to all, have a Happy Thanks Giving and I'll see you in a couple of days.
So really, just what is it that you object to, the scientific method? I've followed a path to investigate what I though might be a place for improvement and concluded what, that maybe 2nd order is a pubic hair better? If you recall, I started with my system having a 4th order so obviously, if I now favor 2nd order I originally blew it.
So, and if I seem arrogant, it is not my intension, but gees guys, until you get down and dirty and dig into this personally, all you are doing is rattling walls. I am fortunate that I just happen to have been working on a system upgrade to the Note that happens to be very similar to SL's design. If it had not been for SL's announcement of the LX521, it would probably still be sitting in a corner gathering dust because I had pretty much lost interest in it.
So to all, have a Happy Thanks Giving and I'll see you in a couple of days.
John
You know that as much as your technical opinion is respected, it's difficult to take it as being objective in a thread that is supposed to be about SL's new speakers...you are clearly dominant.
How many posts has SL made ?
This does not question you in any way but maybe it might be contrived as thread highjacking ?
I personally would love to discuss your speakers on your thread.
You know that as much as your technical opinion is respected, it's difficult to take it as being objective in a thread that is supposed to be about SL's new speakers...you are clearly dominant.
How many posts has SL made ?
This does not question you in any way but maybe it might be contrived as thread highjacking ?
I personally would love to discuss your speakers on your thread.
Absolutely. There's no reason not to make notanotherLX521 a fully active 4-way, either emulating the crossover in SL's "hybrid" design or choosing different slopes (or even crossover frequencies). Once crossover design is "computerized" it all becomes (relatively) simple, and easy.
At this point the "design" of 4-way narrow baffle dipoles comes down simply to choice of drivers, "optimizing" the baffle(s) for those drivers (to get as close as possible to the desired polar) and rote, where the "designer" picks crossover frequencies and slopes, enters the numbers and the computer does the rest. Then you listen to see if the changes made any audible difference, rinse and repeat. What we used to call "voicing" is now just tweaking the tone controls (which is all it ever was, but they used to be "fixed" once the design was "done").
Last edited: