Am such a turkey! i burst out laughing like a child at first, but as i read on, it kind of had a theory behind it, maybe a its all BS but its sounds ok, i mean the theory. I know that NXT shares are worth alot on the stock market! i promise if i had money i would invest it in them, BS or not there making money and am not with my conventional woofers, makes me feels sick. I would really like to speak to Dr. Shelley Katz about the design, if anybody knows who they are! get them on this forum please, I am always interested in a new way of making a transducer, i think it could have something in it, Its only a few generations old and am sure the first speakers made in the early 1900 were not all that great, so lets cut them some slack and see what happens!
7V said:
There is some info on Diaural crossover technology on their patent.
Just go to www.uspto.gov, download one of the freeware image viewers, (I use Internetiff), fill patent number 6115475, and there you are.
For some reason, that Patent Office link works better if you write it out rather than clickong on the link.
They call it a capacitorless crossover. They use a resistor in place of a capacitor in some way.
Here is the 2 way version:
Attachments
Here is the 3 way version, for those interested.
I leave it to the reader to decide if this is an advance or overhyped guff. I would guess that using a resistor in place of a capacitor might have beneficial results on the phase response.
Just by glancing it at it, I don't know if this makes it possible to have symmetrical second order crossovers without having to reverse the polarity of one of the speakers.
At any rate, it might have value if you can eliminate the necessity of using electrolytic capacitors for drivers that cross over low in frequency.
I leave it to the reader to decide if this is an advance or overhyped guff. I would guess that using a resistor in place of a capacitor might have beneficial results on the phase response.
Just by glancing it at it, I don't know if this makes it possible to have symmetrical second order crossovers without having to reverse the polarity of one of the speakers.
At any rate, it might have value if you can eliminate the necessity of using electrolytic capacitors for drivers that cross over low in frequency.
Attachments
Well the obvious thing with both circuits shown is you have
8R in parallel with the bass unit at low frequencies, which
is chucking away half of the input power, not good at all.
The only effect of the 8R resistor is to reduce bass unit
treble levels by ~ 6dB, less so if inductance is high (2 way).
Analysis of the "3 way" is highly amusing.
Utter guff IMO, you'd struggle to call it proper 1st order.
sreten.
8R in parallel with the bass unit at low frequencies, which
is chucking away half of the input power, not good at all.
The only effect of the 8R resistor is to reduce bass unit
treble levels by ~ 6dB, less so if inductance is high (2 way).
Analysis of the "3 way" is highly amusing.
Utter guff IMO, you'd struggle to call it proper 1st order.
sreten.
I've met Dr. Katz - he came round to my house 3 days ago to hear my speakers and he brought some of his NXT toys. I haven't yet been able to evaluate the Layered Sound approach thoroughly but what I've heard has interested me enough to look further. That's why I originally started this thread.Paradise_Ice said:
I suspect Shelley Katz might be too busy to get involved with a DIY forum, as in addition to his work in this field he is a professional musician and concert pianist of some repute.
It was as a result of his conducting that he became interested in this field. When the orchestra used early acoustic instruments, such as harpsichords, he became frustrated by how difficult it was to keep the things in tune for any length of time. So Dr. Katz used electronic keyboards in their place. However, he couldn't replace his Steinway with electronics. He found that the best electronic piano played and felt exactly like a Steinway. It even emulated the waveforms precisely. But it didn't sound like the real thing.
Dr. Katz went to hi-fi dealers and borrowed their 'top' loudspeakers in an attempt to get an electronic piano to sound real but he had no joy. Then, one day he was experimenting with an NXT panel and he discovered that if he used it in combination with a conventional moving coil loudspeaker (but at a lower volume) the piano sounded real to him.
I'm interested to see if this combination technology has a use in hi-fi. The possibility of combining the dispersion characteristics of NXT and moving coil speakers is very interesting to me.
Anyway, well done Paradise_Ice, you've broken through. I must admit that when I originally asked
I was hoping for answers other than "Don't bother, they're no good".
Well, DUH!
I know they're no good. Dr Shelley Katz knows they're no good. The relevant questions are, "how good could they be?" and "could they be any use?"
PS: My advice would be to stay away from NXT shares. Apparently, they're the real turkeys.
sreten said:Well the obvious thing with both circuits shown is you have
8R in parallel with the bass unit at low frequencies, which
is chucking away half of the input power, not good at all.
The only effect of the 8R resistor is to reduce bass unit
treble levels by ~ 6dB, less so if inductance is high (2 way).
I was wondering about that, too. Unless this is designed to be used specially with high inductance speakers, or something.
I note that this crossover made it's appearance a few years after all the amplifier manufacturers started emphasizing extra current as one of their major design goals.
I don't think the public, as well as a fair portion of the audio world, understands the correlation between impedance and efficiency yet.
Who knows, maybe it sounds good, and the public might think, "It sounds good, all it requires is some extra current, but my amp has it", not really understanding that it is lowering the speaker's efficiency by perhaps 6 dB.
NXT panels
My experience, following the HiFi World review is with the TDK S80 tremor design. The were designed by NXT not by a licensee.
I heard the Misson's mentioned and agree with you on their performance.
The TDK's NXT panels have an altogether much better sound (the sub is truly awful) It is better than my Sennheiser HD580's in their frequency range 250Hz up. They have a limited output, which is fine for PC use when tried in my living room 24ft by 14ft it became a problem even for moderate volumes.
One day when I have time I will be making a proper speaker with them as I feel that these have tremendous potential.
Simon
My experience, following the HiFi World review is with the TDK S80 tremor design. The were designed by NXT not by a licensee.
I heard the Misson's mentioned and agree with you on their performance.
The TDK's NXT panels have an altogether much better sound (the sub is truly awful) It is better than my Sennheiser HD580's in their frequency range 250Hz up. They have a limited output, which is fine for PC use when tried in my living room 24ft by 14ft it became a problem even for moderate volumes.
One day when I have time I will be making a proper speaker with them as I feel that these have tremendous potential.
Simon
Hi Steve
Its fascinating the theory, I have heard Missions attempts at the NXT for hi-fi and it was the wrong time, As the marketing people promised to much, I believe this technology has the potential to be better once again in theory then a cone and coil, I don’t care what anybody says, no matter what amp or source is used the transducers make the greatest effect on the sound and the enclosures, more than any cable or circuitry people get carried away with tweaking and reinventing the same old formula again and again,
A chip is a chip; wither its round or crinkled or straight,
A woofer is a woofer, sure with different tones characters
But basically the same, I have become so disillusioned with the world of Hi-fi for its lack of vision, I hope this technology gets more refined and improved upon year after year leading to more designs! I don’t want to be making subwoofers in 20 years time!, I want something more advanced for better or for worse, R&D into transducers is very low and the progress is almost static
The Shed people are a rare breed now days, spending hours making there own concoctions, that’s one of the greatest things about Britain, but a new way of making music will not e made in a shed, just as brain surgery was
Not refined in a kitchen, I hope! The big company’s need to invest and encourage new ideas and new people, there is elitism from the big wigs to the boot straps, so why would anybody put themselves up to be mocked, Am glad you started this thread, I needed to be slapped into eating a humble pie, I may even turn my hand to the NXT and see what I can do with it?
Its fascinating the theory, I have heard Missions attempts at the NXT for hi-fi and it was the wrong time, As the marketing people promised to much, I believe this technology has the potential to be better once again in theory then a cone and coil, I don’t care what anybody says, no matter what amp or source is used the transducers make the greatest effect on the sound and the enclosures, more than any cable or circuitry people get carried away with tweaking and reinventing the same old formula again and again,
A chip is a chip; wither its round or crinkled or straight,
A woofer is a woofer, sure with different tones characters
But basically the same, I have become so disillusioned with the world of Hi-fi for its lack of vision, I hope this technology gets more refined and improved upon year after year leading to more designs! I don’t want to be making subwoofers in 20 years time!, I want something more advanced for better or for worse, R&D into transducers is very low and the progress is almost static
The Shed people are a rare breed now days, spending hours making there own concoctions, that’s one of the greatest things about Britain, but a new way of making music will not e made in a shed, just as brain surgery was
Not refined in a kitchen, I hope! The big company’s need to invest and encourage new ideas and new people, there is elitism from the big wigs to the boot straps, so why would anybody put themselves up to be mocked, Am glad you started this thread, I needed to be slapped into eating a humble pie, I may even turn my hand to the NXT and see what I can do with it?
johnnyx said:I read that if you buy a license from NXT, you get CAD software with it so that you can design speakers. It's probably difficult to design a flat(ish) response speaker without it, finite element maths & other such stuff. Theile & Small won't help you.
I'm told that the CAD software is a long way from perfect. With building NXTs you can choose material, size, thickness, shape, number of exciters, etc. I'd be very surprised if software could accurately model the whole caboodle.Paradise_Ice said:
Which means we're back in Paradise_Ice's shed. Great.
I say "Go for it". I visit this forum from time to time when I'm in a designing space because I find it inspiring. I remain convinced that with the skill, knowledge, creativity and experience we have here, members could do better than the big boys anyway.
And remember this, if we're using the panels in a combo application (Layered Sound), they don't have to be perfect. They're about 4dB to 6dB down on the moving coil main speakers anyway and that's enough to mask some of the evils.
PS: I've never had a problem with putting myself up to be mocked (as regular, long-term posters will know).
NXT, Capacitorless Xovr and AR Magic
As is common here one question forked into three threads.
First, the layerd concept is very similar to the AR Magic Speaker from many years ago. The core concept then was to control the room sound by swamping it with a controlled sound adjusted to NOT interfere with the primary direct sound. AR did it with a delay (before digital delays were easy) and an EQ to compensate for the room.
I have worked on a project with large NXT panels and have mixed feelings. Used as surrounds or as the room drivers in an AR Magic type installation they have a lot of promise. However the lack of phase coherency limits their performance as a stereo speaker. They may be perfect for MP3 and other ultracompressed audio formats with their innate ability to mask some artifacts. Extended bass is not likely to come from them anytime soon.
Somehow the capacitorless crossover/ series crossover patent turned up. I think its very narrow since 1) The big Sonus Faber used a similar technology before the patent was filed and 2) series crossovers are not new. The novel aspect is the combination, and that requires remarkably good drivers to work. I don't find the errors of capacitors so much more egregious than inductors that I would ban them. More likely the opposite.
As is common here one question forked into three threads.
First, the layerd concept is very similar to the AR Magic Speaker from many years ago. The core concept then was to control the room sound by swamping it with a controlled sound adjusted to NOT interfere with the primary direct sound. AR did it with a delay (before digital delays were easy) and an EQ to compensate for the room.
I have worked on a project with large NXT panels and have mixed feelings. Used as surrounds or as the room drivers in an AR Magic type installation they have a lot of promise. However the lack of phase coherency limits their performance as a stereo speaker. They may be perfect for MP3 and other ultracompressed audio formats with their innate ability to mask some artifacts. Extended bass is not likely to come from them anytime soon.
Somehow the capacitorless crossover/ series crossover patent turned up. I think its very narrow since 1) The big Sonus Faber used a similar technology before the patent was filed and 2) series crossovers are not new. The novel aspect is the combination, and that requires remarkably good drivers to work. I don't find the errors of capacitors so much more egregious than inductors that I would ban them. More likely the opposite.
Critical frequencies
500Hz to 5000 Hz would fit into the original concept from AR. This also relates to the Haas window and more. Sadly many new discoveries and patents turn out to be rehashes of much older work that was forgotton. The web as a research tool should make it much easier to test the history of an idea but its still hard to know what has gone before.
-Demian
500Hz to 5000 Hz would fit into the original concept from AR. This also relates to the Haas window and more. Sadly many new discoveries and patents turn out to be rehashes of much older work that was forgotton. The web as a research tool should make it much easier to test the history of an idea but its still hard to know what has gone before.
-Demian
Re: NXT, Capacitorless Xovr and AR Magic
I'm not sure that the Layered concept is all that similar. As a matter of fact it's almost identical to the Kef Instant Theatre system discussed earlier. I think that the AR Magic speakers, together with the Kefs, the numerous omni-directional designs that have come out over the years (including the new B & O Beolab 5), the Bose 901, ambisonics, quadraphonics, Hafler mode, this Layered Sound approach and numerous others all attempt to address the problems inherent in moving coil stereo speakers playing in living rooms.
The NXT combo approach has advantages over the others and, as has already been pointed out, disadvantages but it does represent an interesting approach and is, in my view, a worthy attempt. It's certainly a simple approach.
I agree though, "There's nothing new under the sun" - not really new anyway.
I've been looking up the old AR Magic Speakers and have found this. Fascinating stuff. They seem to have been designed to get around the negative effects of early side-wall reflections. By delaying a small portion of the overall sound and directing out at an angle to the side, they are supposed to give the impression that the room's side walls are 20 feet away, although the width of the soundstage and the amount of 'ambience' could be varied.1audio said:
I'm not sure that the Layered concept is all that similar. As a matter of fact it's almost identical to the Kef Instant Theatre system discussed earlier. I think that the AR Magic speakers, together with the Kefs, the numerous omni-directional designs that have come out over the years (including the new B & O Beolab 5), the Bose 901, ambisonics, quadraphonics, Hafler mode, this Layered Sound approach and numerous others all attempt to address the problems inherent in moving coil stereo speakers playing in living rooms.
The NXT combo approach has advantages over the others and, as has already been pointed out, disadvantages but it does represent an interesting approach and is, in my view, a worthy attempt. It's certainly a simple approach.
I agree though, "There's nothing new under the sun" - not really new anyway.
It's a tricky area and one in which far greater minds than mine have failed to find agreement. Still, I'll throw out some thoughts and see who adds to or corrects them.1audio said:
Why doesn't a piano sound like a piano?
I believe that the main reason is the difference in the direct and reflected sound patterns in the living room compared to the concert hall. In a concert hall, a considerable proportion of the overall sound to reach the ears is ambient, reflected and delayed.
Most rooms don't sound like concert halls. This leads to many speaker manufacturers, myself included, suggesting that the speakers be placed away from the walls by a distance of 1 metre or more. It seems that when the reflected sound is delayed by this amount (with the corresponding reduction in amplitude owing to the longer path) the brain somehow filters it out and hears the speakers more directly. My own speakers go further and the line arrays significantly reduce the early reflections from the floor and ceiling in the critical mid-band.
However, this still doesn't duplicate the actual sound of the concert hall. Since when did the audience applause come totally from in front of the listener in a concert hall?
The various omni-directional moving coil approaches, whether they be Bose 901 type systems or 'reflective dish' type systems are far too room influenced to ever be considered accurate (although they may give a pleasant enough sound).
The modern vogue for surround sound/home theatre systems attempts to address this and follows the lead of great pioneers such as Hafler who used a simple system to decode the out of phase ("ambient") signal and play it through a rear speaker in order to give the impression of the concert hall ambience.
The modern Dolby decoding systems claim to solve this problem, although in reality, the systems and recordings are attempting more to achieve cinema-type special effects - like a large dinosaur breathing heavily behind your right shoulder or helicopters flying loudly overhead. There's not much music with dinosaurs and helicopters.
Of course at the bass frequencies, there are other problems due to the resonant nodes of the room leading to peaks and troughs in the frequency response. I believe that, at these frequencies, correction could be applied to get around the problem (such as the TACT systems). Still, there's a danger that the correction system somehow robs the sound of life.
I also have a feeling that there's another inherent property of moving coil loudspeakers which ensures that the piano doesn't really sound like a piano and this is, I believe, to do with the dispersion patterns. With a moving coil driver the dispersion becomes progressively narrower as the frequency increases. A piano doesn't act in this way. Speaker systems that incorporate a number of drivers with a crossover unit may have wider dispersion at high frequencies, owing to the dispersion properties of the tweeters but they're even worse at the crossover frequencies where there are dramatic changes in dispersion between one driver and the next.
Finally, systems such as the NXT panels discussed gives totally different radiation and dispersion patterns. The evidence seems to be that, used alone, they're even more disconcerting and 'wrong sounding' than moving coil systems.
This is probably one of those posts which 'I'll regret the next day' but, for what it's worth ...
Interesting thread... I will offer my 2 amateur cents (on credit due to oil prices and upcoming Canadian elections).
I've heard some cheapo NXT panels at the computer store. Not horrible but certainly not worse that just about any other computer speaker system, like the Monsoon or the Creative. I didn't get a chance to try them out with my portable CDP, so I cannot tell what they are like with a reasonably good source. I don't own any so I cannot give a long-term opinion.
I was also at a live concert last night (KD Lang and Vancouver Symphony) so my memory of a concert grand has been renewed quite recently. First, let me say that the hall had more reflections than a disco ball. Also, it seems they used sound reinforcement on everything, even the orchestra when they were playing selections before the main event. Worse, they gave KD Lang a horrible mic or preamp - noise floor so bad that it was more like a ceiling. She is good, but not enough to overcome the acoustics. No wonder I like small venues.
That said, many passages with the piano... and it was definitely more "real" when just the orchestra was on. I would say they didn't use as much mic'ing for that. Even so, it didn't sound like a piano would up close (FYI, I have some musical training - now mostly lost).
With this recent sonic signature in mind, I still think that the closest thing to a real piano I have heard from speakers is on a mid-sized Genelec. The ESL 63 did not do as well. These are both from test-drives in the store... I can't afford such baubles. In any case, I believe this is because drivers provide the "punch" necessary to recreate the attack of the hammer.
If Dr. Katz says that combo of NXT and driver makes for closer sound, then my guess (and this is a guess!) is that the panel helps create the diffraction pattern caused by the large sound box of the instrument. Recall that a piano has a huge area of wood and when opened and propped, creates a huge flap that bounces the sound towards the audience. (If you ever get a chance, listen to a piano from both sides of the lid - it is slightly different). Maybe Dr. Katz hears the panel creating properly diffuse decay sounds.
ensen.
I've heard some cheapo NXT panels at the computer store. Not horrible but certainly not worse that just about any other computer speaker system, like the Monsoon or the Creative. I didn't get a chance to try them out with my portable CDP, so I cannot tell what they are like with a reasonably good source. I don't own any so I cannot give a long-term opinion.
I was also at a live concert last night (KD Lang and Vancouver Symphony) so my memory of a concert grand has been renewed quite recently. First, let me say that the hall had more reflections than a disco ball. Also, it seems they used sound reinforcement on everything, even the orchestra when they were playing selections before the main event. Worse, they gave KD Lang a horrible mic or preamp - noise floor so bad that it was more like a ceiling. She is good, but not enough to overcome the acoustics. No wonder I like small venues.
That said, many passages with the piano... and it was definitely more "real" when just the orchestra was on. I would say they didn't use as much mic'ing for that. Even so, it didn't sound like a piano would up close (FYI, I have some musical training - now mostly lost).
With this recent sonic signature in mind, I still think that the closest thing to a real piano I have heard from speakers is on a mid-sized Genelec. The ESL 63 did not do as well. These are both from test-drives in the store... I can't afford such baubles. In any case, I believe this is because drivers provide the "punch" necessary to recreate the attack of the hammer.
If Dr. Katz says that combo of NXT and driver makes for closer sound, then my guess (and this is a guess!) is that the panel helps create the diffraction pattern caused by the large sound box of the instrument. Recall that a piano has a huge area of wood and when opened and propped, creates a huge flap that bounces the sound towards the audience. (If you ever get a chance, listen to a piano from both sides of the lid - it is slightly different). Maybe Dr. Katz hears the panel creating properly diffuse decay sounds.
ensen.The point about the "layered sound" concept is its patentable.
This implies a unique and individual implementation of something,
it in no way implies the theory is correct or the "implementation"
technology is the best way of implementing the theory.
I can easily see promise in adding NXT panels to a speaker,
(which by the way struggle above 5kHz and below 500Hz
by definition, so this is the range of interest in layered sound)
to improve spatiality of a mundane speaker.
It may well be the case this works well with a solo piano recording
but what is the effect on on the precision of image of say a large
orchestra, and why not throw in some choirs as well.
I'm sorry if I seem pessimistic, but IMO a technology that
improves bad acoustics (only application so far) is far from
being shown to being the next step up the ladder.
7V I'm not suggesting you shouldn't pursue the matter,
far from it, but personally I can't take the jargon and
marketing approach seriously, I want hard facts.
However for small domestic speakers they change from omni
to hemispherical at around 500Hz, so a NXT panel placed edge
on with the listening axis being a dipole will have no effect
on the axial response (so it doesn't need to be - 6dB) and
will fill out the off axis response considerably.
Of course "layered sound" can't consider whether a electrostatic
or magnetic planar panel might do this more accurately, or even
an open baffle driver, because by definition it uses NXT panels.
Remember NXT started out as noise cancelling techonology,
measured in dB reduction, fine resolution was not an issue,
but it showed the principle could be used as a transducer.
sreten.
This implies a unique and individual implementation of something,
it in no way implies the theory is correct or the "implementation"
technology is the best way of implementing the theory.
I can easily see promise in adding NXT panels to a speaker,
(which by the way struggle above 5kHz and below 500Hz
by definition, so this is the range of interest in layered sound)
to improve spatiality of a mundane speaker.
It may well be the case this works well with a solo piano recording
but what is the effect on on the precision of image of say a large
orchestra, and why not throw in some choirs as well.
I'm sorry if I seem pessimistic, but IMO a technology that
improves bad acoustics (only application so far) is far from
being shown to being the next step up the ladder.
7V I'm not suggesting you shouldn't pursue the matter,
far from it, but personally I can't take the jargon and
marketing approach seriously, I want hard facts.
However for small domestic speakers they change from omni
to hemispherical at around 500Hz, so a NXT panel placed edge
on with the listening axis being a dipole will have no effect
on the axial response (so it doesn't need to be - 6dB) and
will fill out the off axis response considerably.
Of course "layered sound" can't consider whether a electrostatic
or magnetic planar panel might do this more accurately, or even
an open baffle driver, because by definition it uses NXT panels.
Remember NXT started out as noise cancelling techonology,
measured in dB reduction, fine resolution was not an issue,
but it showed the principle could be used as a transducer.
sreten.
Emmmm am not sure if I should say this?
As I don’t like to be so disagreeable but I think the reason a grand piano does not sound the same from your speakers or any speakers is not just the poor old speakers fault, I have worked with many microphones over many years and every single microphone has a specific pick up pattern and there is no microphone in the word that sounds like a human ear! trust me I have look for many and found none!
that is to say evolution has given our ears a certain pick up range that is very narrow in the frequency range of sound but is most commonly heard by us humans, our brains have limited power and most of that power is used to process light from our stereo eyes, Yes music does sound better with our eyes closed or in the dark, a grand piano has a very complex sound wave and a single or even stereo microphone with a heavy, yes heavy diaphragm compared to our ears will never pick up the precious changes in air pressure that our ears can, there are some microphones that are more accurate and lets just say better than our ears! but that’s not what we hear! The quality of a recording and the Engineering making the recording make a massive difference in the quality we get on a recording, our ears hear a stereo omni directionally sound and some mics do also, but our ears can also do the cardio pattern, well what am saying is we cant plug our ears into a machine and test what we hear on a graph, we can only know what we hear and that is that, If we could use our ears as microphones then am sure you would get that sound back from the speakers but we can not until cybernetic systems become available! So I think we should cut the old boy coil and cones some slack and realise the what we hear is the very last link in a chain of processes and it has inherent flaws and limitations built into it. We can not reproduce everything that is crucial to accurate reproduce the sound we record, from the air temperature, humidity, barometric air pressure even the light energy and there are just to many variable factors need to create that sound again! It’s not our fault that we can’t make ultra realistic speakers, ok it is! But that’s not the point, the microphone needs to do better, and it’s almost a 200 year old design by some Welsh chap I think, David Edward Hughes, “thanks Google” so lets blame the real culprit! It’s not my fault Governor I only work here.
As I don’t like to be so disagreeable but I think the reason a grand piano does not sound the same from your speakers or any speakers is not just the poor old speakers fault, I have worked with many microphones over many years and every single microphone has a specific pick up pattern and there is no microphone in the word that sounds like a human ear! trust me I have look for many and found none!
that is to say evolution has given our ears a certain pick up range that is very narrow in the frequency range of sound but is most commonly heard by us humans, our brains have limited power and most of that power is used to process light from our stereo eyes, Yes music does sound better with our eyes closed or in the dark, a grand piano has a very complex sound wave and a single or even stereo microphone with a heavy, yes heavy diaphragm compared to our ears will never pick up the precious changes in air pressure that our ears can, there are some microphones that are more accurate and lets just say better than our ears! but that’s not what we hear! The quality of a recording and the Engineering making the recording make a massive difference in the quality we get on a recording, our ears hear a stereo omni directionally sound and some mics do also, but our ears can also do the cardio pattern, well what am saying is we cant plug our ears into a machine and test what we hear on a graph, we can only know what we hear and that is that, If we could use our ears as microphones then am sure you would get that sound back from the speakers but we can not until cybernetic systems become available! So I think we should cut the old boy coil and cones some slack and realise the what we hear is the very last link in a chain of processes and it has inherent flaws and limitations built into it. We can not reproduce everything that is crucial to accurate reproduce the sound we record, from the air temperature, humidity, barometric air pressure even the light energy and there are just to many variable factors need to create that sound again! It’s not our fault that we can’t make ultra realistic speakers, ok it is! But that’s not the point, the microphone needs to do better, and it’s almost a 200 year old design by some Welsh chap I think, David Edward Hughes, “thanks Google” so lets blame the real culprit! It’s not my fault Governor I only work here.
I'm happy to try to oblige but I don't really know how. If you tell me the nature of the hard facts that would determine whether or not the system works well with a solo piano and/or works well with a large orchestra and choirs, I will do my best to provide them.sreten said:
Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree here, although you may well be right. Yes, the NXTs will fill out the off-axis response but wouldn't it also change the sound for a listener precisely on-axis as well? For example, won't the listener gain a different impression of the sounds coming from behind him or from the sides?
I appreciate that these effects may be secondary but that may be the nature of what we're looking for?
Everything you say is spot on and, if I might say so, well said.Paradise_Ice said:
Still, it's the responsibility of speaker designers (amateur and professional) to push the boundaries out as far as we can. It's a thankless and some would say ultimately pointless task - this search for truth and beauty - but someone's got to do it.
If we can improve the speakers maybe they'll improve the microphones.... But that’s not the point, the microphone needs to do better, and it’s almost a 200 year old design by some Welsh chap I think, David Edward Hughes, “thanks Google” so lets blame the real culprit! It’s not my fault Governor I only work here.
Now, I've got this idea for a new microphone, using a combo with reverse flat panel technology ...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.