@tvrgeek - very good questions. There was a remark pertinent to this in the article about the 'Despacio' sound system linked to a couple of weeks back. They selected McIntosh amps for that, based on the fact that those amps give their highest output power into 8 ohm loads because they're using an OPT. Practically all SS amps give more output power into lower impedances (but worse distortion etc.) so a kind of amp/speaker arms race has existed where amp manufacturers trumpet their product's credentials into lower and lower impedance loads. Speaker designers then take advantage of those amps' capabilities and worry less about making their designs easy to drive.
my understanding is that deep loudspeaker Z dips are more a function of XO design with the legendary early Watt's <1 Ohm dip not even being repeated by that manufacturer in later models
large ESL with step-up transformers have leakage L and panel C resonance just above "conventional audio" 20 kHz or maybe an octave higher
large ESL with step-up transformers have leakage L and panel C resonance just above "conventional audio" 20 kHz or maybe an octave higher
The cutting of the lacquer was done from a better-than-dCS DAC then?
I heard they used one of your ebay specials ....
Best speaker is one with no VC .....
good xover design reduces dips and peak ....
I heard they used one of your ebay specials ....
If your aim here is to denigrate my designs by association then perhaps it would help you to know I've never bought anything from eBay. I use Taobao, an altogether classier outfit.
Most of the product from the 80's on was mastered through a digital groove computer. In some cases they would use a preview head but often (since the industry had nothing against digital) they were perfectly happy to use a digital delay (Lexicon) for the cutting channel. Even tape duplicators became digital in the 80's. It was more reliable than an analog master machine. no alignment or wear issues. And of course there were the infamous codes (DDD) for completely digital etc. and more D's equaled more sales (or so the exec's thought).
For instance: Cutting Up: Stereophile's Liszt Piano Sonata LP What, When, and How | Stereophile.com describes Stan Rickers setup. (And that was Mobile Fidelity's setup.)
The digital electronics of the computer were what you would expect and 16 bit digitizers were all anyone could find in the era. Here is a trip down memory lane Zuma Group - Products and they moved from lathe computers to web design. I know there is a lesson there but what I have not figured out yet. I'm still in the audio industry.
For instance: Cutting Up: Stereophile's Liszt Piano Sonata LP What, When, and How | Stereophile.com describes Stan Rickers setup. (And that was Mobile Fidelity's setup.)
The digital electronics of the computer were what you would expect and 16 bit digitizers were all anyone could find in the era. Here is a trip down memory lane Zuma Group - Products and they moved from lathe computers to web design. I know there is a lesson there but what I have not figured out yet. I'm still in the audio industry.
Yes, but not in the mastering chain. That was a Lexicon. And for the big successful pop and rock stuff you would not get this audiophile fringe stuff. Just the simple and 'cost effective" stuff. For a major hit you would be mastering around the clock since each master was only good for maybe 100K records, if that. And if the mother was number 8 from the master you can't expect a lot from it.
It was a joke , lighten up , England might even score more than one goal next WC ...
Rick, I believe that was just plain lazy on the speaker manufacturer side. I know squat about manufacturing driver units (aside from the bare basics), but I have learnt over my own back just how difficult speaker crossover adjusting is. It's pure hell, let me tell you. Looks simple on the surface of it, but once you're down to the nitty gritty of the job, your tears soon turn to blood.
Just when you have it nailed down to one problem only, you fix that problem, but a new one appears, or something else goes out of adjustment. And most people would be very surprised, and I certainly was, at how small differences in values can make very noticeable differences in the sound reproduced.
And believe me when I say that the crossover is like 50% of the loudspeaker. You can obtain unbelieveble results from very modest drivers with a well designed XO, or you can mess up the best of a driver array with sloppy XO work.
One of a XO's jobs is, or can be, to level out the impedance modulus into something that looks almost like a straight line after the bass reflex tuning port values (assuming the driver resonance is below that).
So why is it nor done often? Because it's a long, tedious and costly process most manuifacturers would rather avoid - no other reason. It costs money they are not willing to spend, they would rather invest that into advertising. All this hullabaloo about XOs actually started to become acute in the early 80ies, when the manufacturing logic switched into the hit and run tactics.
If anyone thinks I'm overdoing it, by all means check out the XOs from the 70ies, by respected names in the industry (e.g. JBL, Celestion, Spendor, Electro Voice, etc). Those were really serious circuits, not slap together like it mostly is today. The day before yesterday, I went to see a friend, a mechanical engineer with a passion for speakers, and hear his latest work, a small and modest speaker, using Morel bass/mid and dome tweeters. Frankly, I was amazed, quite literally, with what I was hearing from a modest setup, but his XO was exposed, and was quite obviously well worked out, with a fair number of high quality components.
And he is an amateur, no matter how good - now imagine what a group of professionals could do, if allowed to.
The professionals probably aren't given the time or incentive to in their day jobs. The work of 'amateurs' impresses me much more than the stuff I find that comes out of manufacturing - its the amateurs that do something for the sheer love of it. Having worked in the 'professional' sphere I do speak from experience about the time constraints, cost constraints, sourcing constraints, manufacturability and marketablility... blah blah blah. The list is almost endless. OTOH, just take a look at Lynn Olson's designs for one example. But I digress rather....
The cutting of the lacquer was done from a better-than-dCS DAC then?
If I understand the question correctly yes . The cutting was often done via first generation copies still in 48 kHz sampling . If people will accept that CD transports with the same DAC sound different then a first generation tape often used directly from the master would be better . I can say that played at a sane level on most peoples speakers the cutting lathe will preserve the better qualities of the master . If I have an issue with cutting I would like to have 78's .
Many lathes were coupled to digital processing devices . Used today these are most often removed . I have never asked if the processors could accept a direct digital signal . I suspect it was always analogue in .
My experience of early digital vinyl was better than CD but somehow like chlorinated tap water . I have a Buddy Holly which is digital . OK a friends original is better . Not by much . This was late era digital and a budget label !
My friend Malcolm has a Linn Troika cartridge . It must be well over 1000 playing hours ( 3000 + ? ) . About 3 years ago I built him a preamp to replace his Naim . Better than new and still is ( new = Naim ) . Malcolm took early retirement and can not replace it at the same price level ( Denon 103 ) . My ears say it has tons of life in it . It has been glass-papered .
I'm not sure that you have understood it, so let me precis my argument here. a.wayne said vinyl's superior sounding to anything digital in the replay system, but he doesn't mind the LP being cut from a 'studio grade' DAC (whatever that means). To my way of thinking - given that he says even dCS (getting close to six figures in USD for the full stack) doesn't quite reach to the full height of vinyl then the studios must be using something better than that to create the LP for him not to object to digitally sourced LPs.
So if the 'studio grade' DAC really does best dCS then why's it not marketed to vinylphiles?
The inescapable conclusion (for me at any rate) is that a.wayne just happens to enjoy something that vinyl is adding to the sound - euphony. All the talk about 'surpassing digital' is pure bluster. A DSP add on could be provided to supply it in the digital domain and LPs aren't needed any longer. QED.
I can think of two reasons.
First is marketing. A 4 Ohm speaker will sound louder than an 8 Ohm version of the same speaker on the same voltage in. In comparative listening tests in store, the louder speaker will oth sound better.
The second is that caps are cheaper than coils.
Interesting that over on his 'Beyond Ariel' thread Lynn just said he's going with 16ohm impedance because then the audiophile grade XO caps are more affordable
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-213.html#post3740811
I rather suspect your first reason is spot-on.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-213.html#post3740811
I rather suspect your first reason is spot-on.
Last edited:
Nice paper with a lot of discussion on thermal issues. I was surprised that their discussion of eddy shunts did not mention the advantages of linearity, only the thermal issues it causes. Good read for those who had not considered motor thermal issues. I had not seen a voice coil wound as inside and outside. Looks expensive.
Thinking out loud here:
I can't accept thermal issues as the only driver for low impedance. 10W is 10W no matter how you generate it. A 2 layer VC that has, for example 2 square inches of surface area dissipating 10W would not be very different from a one layer coil with the same surface area and same power dissipation. Smaller wire, more varnish, higher voltage, OK that makes some sense. It would decrease the efficiency. That means a tad more power, and a tad more distortion. I guess the driver distortion is so many times higher that the amp distortion, overall distortion is to optimize the motor and make the amp deal with it.
So, from a systems design issue, the advantages of a lower impedance woofer may make sense. A tweeter has so much inductance for it's size, it gives the impedance rise without more turns right in the frequencies where the amps distortion rises due to the higher current so it is partially compensating. If I was building a system with multiple drivers ( MMMT or a line array) there is possible opportunity to have a higher overall system impedance. Of course, this could adversely effect the cost of the crossover coils.
Does any of this pass the "sniff test"?
dvv,
"And believe me when I say that the crossover is like 50% of the loudspeaker. You can obtain unbelieveble results from very modest drivers with a well designed XO, or you can mess up the best of a driver array with sloppy XO work."
Only so far. Very quickly you find it is far more expensive to bear a poor driver into submission with the crossover than to buy a driver without so many problems. I am doing a demonstration on that problem as my current project using a Silver Flute woofer and Dayton tweeter. 100% agree on a sloppy crossover on good drivers.
"One of a XO's jobs is, or can be, to level out the impedance modulus into something that looks almost like a straight line after the bass reflex tuning port values (assuming the driver resonance is below that)."
My understanding, making a flat load is not of any advantage to the amplifier, and I am suggesting it may actually be detrimental. Smoothing a driver impedance should only be used to make the filters behave. OOPS, I forgot, tube guys out there who don't like strange loads. OK, that is valid is some cases.
"And believe me when I say that the crossover is like 50% of the loudspeaker. You can obtain unbelieveble results from very modest drivers with a well designed XO, or you can mess up the best of a driver array with sloppy XO work."
Only so far. Very quickly you find it is far more expensive to bear a poor driver into submission with the crossover than to buy a driver without so many problems. I am doing a demonstration on that problem as my current project using a Silver Flute woofer and Dayton tweeter. 100% agree on a sloppy crossover on good drivers.
"One of a XO's jobs is, or can be, to level out the impedance modulus into something that looks almost like a straight line after the bass reflex tuning port values (assuming the driver resonance is below that)."
My understanding, making a flat load is not of any advantage to the amplifier, and I am suggesting it may actually be detrimental. Smoothing a driver impedance should only be used to make the filters behave. OOPS, I forgot, tube guys out there who don't like strange loads. OK, that is valid is some cases.
The bit about driver distortion vs amp distortion is certainly true at large signal levels. However IMD is the bigger concern when playing music and David Griesinger found (when doing experiments on claimed audibility of ultrasonics) the amps he used more at fault than tweeters in this respect.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.