I try to do so.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is my actual, not yet completed iteration in search of LoDiffractionEffects. This combination is intended for ranges from 285Hz..710Hz for the W22EX001, 710...2200 for the W12CY001 and 2200Hz upwards for the T29MF001, along with a DXT-shaped waveguide and an additional halfsphere shape surrounding 270° of it's cicrumference. Measurements, not yet performed, will tell ...
I like it! Is there a dedicated thread for this design?
It reminds me of the NHT Xd system. In that design the round-over seems to work quite well for the tweeter.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
NHT Xd active loudspeaker system Measurements | Stereophile.com
Zaph|Audio - NHT XDS Passive Crossover
Milkshake,
As someone who works on the speaker driver end of things not so fast. While the test equipment and even the assembly techniques may be more precise than in the past there are still many compromises you must make if you are making any type of dynamic driver, cone, dome, compression driver, what have you. There is no perfect device in all regards and never will be, it isn't possible with the physics of the devices. If you want perfect sound reproduction I'm sorry but it will have to be a new method of exciting air than a moving diaphragm. I could expound on a few compromises that must be chosen but there are any number of them, there is no dynamic device that could pass a simple input=output null test.
As someone who works on the speaker driver end of things not so fast. While the test equipment and even the assembly techniques may be more precise than in the past there are still many compromises you must make if you are making any type of dynamic driver, cone, dome, compression driver, what have you. There is no perfect device in all regards and never will be, it isn't possible with the physics of the devices. If you want perfect sound reproduction I'm sorry but it will have to be a new method of exciting air than a moving diaphragm. I could expound on a few compromises that must be chosen but there are any number of them, there is no dynamic device that could pass a simple input=output null test.
Audio reproduction.
I'm sorry if I made some translation mistake.
Audio Reproduction,
we need to distinguish in two cathegories.
A) if you want "Accurate Reproduction" you must to have a reference,
this point is absolutely the first point request for obtain the solution,
this is scientific method.
The reproduction it will be accurate only when you have reduct alle the errors present during the reproduction.
you must to reproduce without change the informations already present on the recording, especially you must to mantain intact all the informations space/time already present in the recording, then we have the problem to have an accurate miking.. this is another history.. but the logic not change.. if you miking correctly without change the information space/time of the musical instruments.. you will have a good recordings.
B) if you not follow or ignore the information already contained in the recording, and modificate at own pleasure,
This is "Creative Reproduction", it is a very different thing from "Accurate Reproduction".
There is no solution for "Creative Reproduction".
You will never know where your system is failing, and you will never be able to understand the problem..
Reproduction Creative is good only for playing infinitely, everything is subjective.
Nobody can say what is better, better than what?
you turn around at the problem for infinite time..
"Creative Reproduction" confuse or perhaps not know the difference from original sound played from musical instruments, where you can to create the sound at own pleasure, but when the sound was recorded, you are not free to modificate at own pleasure, if you want "Accurate Reproduction"..
is a little aspect that make a big difference.
the important is to be aware form the substanzial differences,
and choose your preferite way, is a your free choose.
the important is not confuse each with other the two different approach for the same problem.
if you adopt the method B) "Creative Reproduction" you never obtain the point a) "Accurate Reproduction".
I'm sorry if I made some translation mistake.
Audio Reproduction,
we need to distinguish in two cathegories.
A) if you want "Accurate Reproduction" you must to have a reference,
this point is absolutely the first point request for obtain the solution,
this is scientific method.
The reproduction it will be accurate only when you have reduct alle the errors present during the reproduction.
you must to reproduce without change the informations already present on the recording, especially you must to mantain intact all the informations space/time already present in the recording, then we have the problem to have an accurate miking.. this is another history.. but the logic not change.. if you miking correctly without change the information space/time of the musical instruments.. you will have a good recordings.
B) if you not follow or ignore the information already contained in the recording, and modificate at own pleasure,
This is "Creative Reproduction", it is a very different thing from "Accurate Reproduction".
There is no solution for "Creative Reproduction".
You will never know where your system is failing, and you will never be able to understand the problem..
Reproduction Creative is good only for playing infinitely, everything is subjective.
Nobody can say what is better, better than what?
you turn around at the problem for infinite time..
"Creative Reproduction" confuse or perhaps not know the difference from original sound played from musical instruments, where you can to create the sound at own pleasure, but when the sound was recorded, you are not free to modificate at own pleasure, if you want "Accurate Reproduction"..
is a little aspect that make a big difference.
the important is to be aware form the substanzial differences,
and choose your preferite way, is a your free choose.
the important is not confuse each with other the two different approach for the same problem.
if you adopt the method B) "Creative Reproduction" you never obtain the point a) "Accurate Reproduction".
Keyser,
As soon as I see that copper colored pole piece I already know what to expect out of those speakers. To polite for my liking, there was just something not to my liking with those drivers even though technically they look good. My description would be a soft sound, somehow over-dampened, something missing.
At the same time I appreciate your enclosure design even if I'm not in the open back camp. That top section should take care of any edge diffraction from that tweeter. Really what edge effect do you worry about with a dipole or cardiod pattern? I would expect some of the edge diffraction front to back would cancel. I would expect much more of a problem with comb filtering than edge diffraction from your design.
As soon as I see that copper colored pole piece I already know what to expect out of those speakers. To polite for my liking, there was just something not to my liking with those drivers even though technically they look good. My description would be a soft sound, somehow over-dampened, something missing.
At the same time I appreciate your enclosure design even if I'm not in the open back camp. That top section should take care of any edge diffraction from that tweeter. Really what edge effect do you worry about with a dipole or cardiod pattern? I would expect some of the edge diffraction front to back would cancel. I would expect much more of a problem with comb filtering than edge diffraction from your design.
Interesting, but what has no solution to me is Accurate Reproduction, unless maybe when the input is the recording of a sound source in mono at one point in an anechoic space ( no soundfield) and the output is reproducted in same conditions, same distance and no soundfield.
But even in this case neither the source recorded nor the speaker reproducing it are point sources, so that for me Accurate Reproduction is moot: no practical relevance...
Not to mention, stereo which is a creative intent to fool our minds with a make believe soundfield...
Not to mention that our ears are not a pair of mikes and what they do is Critical/Creative listening, so that the point is Creative Reproduction should be clever and well made enough to fool our minds and make the listening as enjoyable as the real live event, though input and output are referenced to different soundfields and are different events...
Stuff not recommended for squared headed techno freaks...
Last edited:
Very likely so.
But that's no reason not to do some testing.
For instance you can record a grand piano with midi (or something very similar because midi itself is to jittery to pass ABX testing, add more dynamics and so on). Then playback this performance with a mechanical device (piano manufacturers are using these devices to "break in" brand new piano's) and record that in an anechoic room.
Now you can place the piano with mechanical playback device in a room with the speakers you want to test and switch from recording to piano just like regular double blind tests. Testing for preference is not out of the realm of possibilities with today's technology.
Last Tuesday we were in the large anechoic chamber of the Technical University of Delft (Netherlands) to do single-miced recordings of cello, snare drum and spoken voice.
When I walked a circle around the cellist playing, I noticed the sound change considerably. When the snare was being played, there was hardly any change in character. The sound of the spoken voice changes only gradually as you move off-axis. The human voice simply becomes more directional at higher frequencies.
When we listened to the recordings the snare drum and spoken voice were almost indistinguishable from live, but only if we made sure the sound level was close to the real level. With the cello it became immediately clear that, in the absence of reflections and reverberation, it is impossible to capture the true character of the instrument with a single microphone.
All this is to say that live vs. recorded is not really the ultimate test of a speaker, because it is very difficult to actually capture the sound of the live instrument. Also, the directivity of the speaker only in very specific situations will be similar to the directivity of the instrument. Nevertheless, I think people will be amazed at how close you can get with both spoken voice and the snare drum.
YouTube
When I walked a circle around the cellist playing, I noticed the sound change considerably. When the snare was being played, there was hardly any change in character. The sound of the spoken voice changes only gradually as you move off-axis. The human voice simply becomes more directional at higher frequencies.
When we listened to the recordings the snare drum and spoken voice were almost indistinguishable from live, but only if we made sure the sound level was close to the real level. With the cello it became immediately clear that, in the absence of reflections and reverberation, it is impossible to capture the true character of the instrument with a single microphone.
All this is to say that live vs. recorded is not really the ultimate test of a speaker, because it is very difficult to actually capture the sound of the live instrument. Also, the directivity of the speaker only in very specific situations will be similar to the directivity of the instrument. Nevertheless, I think people will be amazed at how close you can get with both spoken voice and the snare drum.
YouTube
Whether the studio guys have an objective or subjective taste and preference for a certain types of speakers and/or music style, or have to address a specific audience, in general the studio speakers ought to have a flat frequency response, it is an utmost necessity striving towards a common reference such that studio people worldwide can talk a "common language" with each other let it be someone from the other side of the world, that's how standards are working.
We have already in the past seen decades and thousands of broken records coming out of studios due to the dreaded Yamaha NS-10 in its several incarnations in combination with less educated studio people, so let us not peddle subjective and destructive ideas any further, subjective sound is first and foremost created with EQ'ing, not with subjective speaker frequency responses one select on a whim.
Having said that, it's alright to choose other types of speakers with respect to frequency response and other subjective "qualities" as long as one knows Why and how they may contribute to the recording and mastering.
We have already in the past seen decades and thousands of broken records coming out of studios due to the dreaded Yamaha NS-10 in its several incarnations in combination with less educated studio people, so let us not peddle subjective and destructive ideas any further, subjective sound is first and foremost created with EQ'ing, not with subjective speaker frequency responses one select on a whim.
Having said that, it's alright to choose other types of speakers with respect to frequency response and other subjective "qualities" as long as one knows Why and how they may contribute to the recording and mastering.
.
That's why i said that neither the instrument nor the speaker are really point sources. A cello, a flute, a grand piano, and your speaker have different directivity patterns that will illuminate any room in different ways, making them sound different. The use of an anechoic room mitigates this problem, but not eliminates it: all comparisons are valid at one point only.
Btw, many loudspeaker manufacturers have organized over time similar "His master's voice" shows, and well...there is no business like showbusiness...
Ahhh the NS10 mainly liked because they fit on top of a mixing desk. I agree with your point.
Thanks for posting this. You have given an example of what I've been meaning to say:
With 2 channels, there isn't enough information to accurately reproduce the acoustics of an instrument. It's pretty amazing what we can do with them, but we can't genuinely recreate the original, because information has been lost.
At any point in space (where you might place a mic), the acoustic waves that propagate through that spot have amplitudes that vary with time (which we capture fairly well), but they also have direction (which we typically ignore). Since our heads and brains perceive sounds from different direction differently, we need that information if we want to have any hope of re-creating an acoustic experience.