🙂
Earl
still don't understand where the trade-offs would be. One of your own speakers goes to 15.5kHz (I posted an in-room response several hundred posts back). You use multiple subs that easily reproduce 20Hz at adequate levels. What important aspects did you trade off for that kind of performance?
Best, Markus
Markus
The tradeoff is obvious to me (HF only please, I'm not talking about the LFs, that an entirely different thing). In all my speakers the pristine response that is seen from 1 kHz -10 kHz is no where near as good above 10 kHz. The only solution would be to add another SHF speaker - like JBL does - to extend the response and smooth things out above 10 kHz. But this would be a very poor tradeoff as it would add another crossover, higher cost and complexity, etc. and the benefit would be minimal. And trust me, there are lots of people who think that you need perfectly flat response to 20 kHz to have an "audiophile" speaker. This is simply not true and doing so adds significantly to the price of the end product, all so that the manufacturer can advertise "20kHz".
So while my speakers do have response above 10 kHz, nothing is done intentionally at those frequencies to make it better. Doing so would be a bad tradeoff for the final product.
It was you that started talking about frequencies beyond 10kHz and below 40Hz.
But good enough. If there would be nothing above 10kHz, would you sell these speakers anyway?
Best, Markus
Geddes last paragraph sums it up nicely. No need to take it any further, guys. We don't need to beat it into the ground.
Yes and primarilly market driven where response above 20K is a requirement for SACD/DVDA. I would argue that the benefit is a personal choice as you say for some 20K and above has a magic significance. I have both types of systems and I agree that the improvement is marginal looking at speaker performance overall at least in the systems I have so far.
Rob🙂
No, I did not bring up below 40 Hz, I just added a comment. Things are completely different down low and the discussion here, above 10 kHz, is not applicable to below 40 Hz.
That's a hypothetical question that would need better quantification. There certainly would be situations where I would and others where I wouldn't. It all depends.
But, as with many things, perhaps it's an indicator of quality. I was discussing "imaging and soundstaging" last night. I could care less about these particular aspects of sound, as they're largely constructs of the studio in any case, and don't really add to my enjoyment- in isolation, and to my way of thinking.
BUT! There are things that speakers have to do right to get these things right that ARE important. While THD may not be the critical issue, if it means that the motor is well behaved, then low THD may help to indicate lower levels of other problems.
Agreed but your comment was misleading (to me).
We're still talking about audiophool-grade like stereo and multichannel at home, right?
Best, Markus
seems to me Dr. Geddes approach might be hindered by adding another spatial source, xover and subjective offset, lobing/etc. it could create - the end user of his products might monkey around with an add-on tweeter sitting on top of the cabinets which would do no physical harm to the cabinets. Smooth off-axis response to 15K would be good.
fwiw here's B&C 1" ~ on-axis
Pioneer's copy of the old Peerless 2.5" paper cone tweeter vs DE25 on Transylvania's ~5.2" long tube
prototype Unity horn with similar B&C 1" driver - I didn't rotate it so see how the response held up at high frequencies
fwiw here's B&C 1" ~ on-axis
Pioneer's copy of the old Peerless 2.5" paper cone tweeter vs DE25 on Transylvania's ~5.2" long tube
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
prototype Unity horn with similar B&C 1" driver - I didn't rotate it so see how the response held up at high frequencies
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Maybe I use a different definition of the words "imaging and soundstaging" but spatial attributes are at least of the same importance as frequency response and low distortion. Just listen to what a symphonic orchestra in an anechoic space sounds like:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
If you're interested send me a PM.
Best, Markus
Last edited:
Yea, maybe!? The point is that there is nothing objective to quantify this as true or not. It's a "warm fuzzy" feeling that marketing loves to hear about - and charge for.
Personally, I want my motor structures high in third order nonlinearity because this DOES make them better and is not audible. So personally I guess I believe the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Merely observation - I intended no malice. However the fact remains that those parts of truth given most weight are also for sale, and this calls the objectivity of subsequent discussion into question. Furthermore, it is evident that marketing has had an effect on how information has been presented in this thread for both sides.
You have me interested. What makes a motor with high third order supperior?? I alway thought the the odd order were the most objectionable going by conventional thinking.
Rob🙂
I guess I have much the same issue, I am obsessed with the cleanliness of the top octave - at least that part of it that I can actually hear, and have gone to great lengths to sort it out - easy enough since most of my sources and hardware are largely homebrew. The problem definitely isn't with the driver, x-o, or amplifier chain, but usually originates right at the source. All of the little linearity problems seem to manifest themselves most audibly up there, clean them up and the whole system just sounds better. (DAC ics, I/V converters, mis-tracking cartridges, and electrolytic capacitors in critical points in the circuit path have been the main culprits in my system.)
I also wondered about that one
But Im sure Earl meant high quality rating in terms of 3. order distortion, meaning LOW distortion
Funny way to put it though
Earl, Im surpriced you claim to only aim at highest quality, and only that will last
Im sure WAF, budget, commercial production, buyer group etc are very strong consideration you have, and need to have
Might be more interesting to try and get beyond the "what makes sense", that might hold above priorities
This is really not about a factual design anyone will actually build
A non compromise design is no reality, but I would expect a debate likie this to get as close as possible
Problem may be that we have different priorities
To me, the need fore subs is in several ways already a huge compromise
To others it would be the opposite, and so on
Last edited:
I am very particular with the highs too. Presently, the new generation of hi-fi tweeters have extended bandwidth to 30K, giving the impression that it is the solution to "dirty" highs. Personally, I don't think this is the solution.
There's really not much main musical content above 10K. However, frequencies above that do contribute to the harmonics making the highs more natural.
I would say the main problems with highs are related to the quality of the drivers (not just the tweeter but the woofer/mid too), the crossover (main culprit) and issues like lobing and phasing.
If the mid and tweeter are well integrated, the highs are "clean".
This is all conjecture on your part since you don't know what influence marketing makes on anyones statements. Its just as possible to sell truth - something that is truely "better" - as it is to try and sell something that is not. Your assuming the later and that need not be the case.
Since marketing is not my expertise, but audio design is, I don't waste my time with that for which I have nothing to offer.
I can't get into this very deeply, but I said what I mean.
The magnetic field has to go to zero outside of the gap. The more gradual that it does this the better, because sharper slopes on this field generate higher orders of nonlinearity. So its quite obvious that the most gradual slope to zero is third order (only odd orders go to zero on both sides of the gap) - anything else is going to be higher order and hence more audible.
And don't try and tell me about underhung being perfectly flat and hence of zero order, because that is another classic tradeoff for high cost with nothing gained. The coil still hits the gap edges and then its very sharp, and this whole structure is a total waste of flux. The third order shaped field wastes less flux than any other shape.
Sounds like an ideal situation to me.
At least I'm not alone. 🙂
I agree the source components can be the main source of harsh HF but i've heard it on some commercial amplifiers and speakers too.
I bet you you do not regret your effort. 😉
Actually of those things in your list, only highest quality and budget matter to me. I want to sell the best speakers possible at the lowest possible price. I'm not interested in "extremes" of design - or price - nor am I interested in
- because that's just "blowing in the wind". A hypothetical waste of time that will never see the light of day. Truely what a lot of people do here, but it does not interest me in the least. Science fiction is fun to watch with the kids, but I only get serious about science fact.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.