• Disclaimer: This Vendor's Forum is a paid-for commercial area. Unlike the rest of diyAudio, the Vendor has complete control of what may or may not be posted in this forum. If you wish to discuss technical matters outside the bounds of what is permitted by the Vendor, please use the non-commercial areas of diyAudio to do so.

DIY Waveguide loudspeaker kit

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
If I put together the Nathans myself I'd leave the xover board (blank) inside the speaker where it's supposed to go (CLD). Mount the xover on some plywood I've got laying around, following the plans and using the parts supplied. At almost no extra cost. And I get to live my subjective fantasy! BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!

And no, I haven't done double blind testing of statistically relevant quantities of people and published the results in a peer reviewed journal. Like The Outboard Crossovers Review Journal. Maybe with the money I save building the Nathans!

Since space and money are constraints, would buying 2-3 cheap self powered subwoofers from Parts Express, or other places, work? Placed around the room. Not as good as Geddes subs, but as place holders.

Nice review of the Nathans.
Have you received your Abbeys yet?

Mounting the crossover just on plywood was not what I had thought you would do. Of course that could be done for little to no money. And of course it will look like you put in little to no money as well. To each his own.

Don't worry, we know you didn't do double blind testing and certainly are not expecting it.

If you want bass to be even and nice for MULTIPLE listeners, yes, the distributed bass system works very well for as little money as possible. If however, you want to EQ just one sub, then it will be suitable for that one listener in that one sweet spot. Still, I would go for Geddes/Toole's/Welti's method of using multiple subwoofers personally. I like being able to walk around the room and feel like bass is all around me without peaks and valleys!

I have not received my Abbeys.

Anand.
 
This statement is vague.

It is unclear if you are speaking of electronics or the sound source itself. Sound sources (transients) are not symmetric; thus, the reason for keeping absolute polarity.

Also, you often state that electronics don't matter, yet now it seems you are saying the opposite.

I am speaking of the signal and the system, the system includes the speakers and the electronics.

And I am surprised that you are miss quoting me. I never said that electronics "can't" make a difference they can. I said that they "need not" make a difference and that many (majority?) products don't. Most of all, price is no indication as to which category the equipment is in.

Now, the Greiner test was done a very long time ago back when electronics were indeed poor and loudspeakers, as today, were much worse. So it is highly likely that the factor that I am talking about was relavent in that test.

Today, I believe that I could set up a test where no one could detect absolute phase - just as I could easily set up one that could. That's really the point - you have to understand what is going on and control for it or you will get the results that you seek.


And thats the problem with audio. I could setup a test to prove almost anything that you wanted me to prove. It's the question that you ask that is the important thing and is it an honest question aimed at getting the truth or is the question itself setting up the answer that it wants.
 
I am speaking of the signal and the system, the system includes the speakers and the electronics.

And I am surprised that you are miss quoting me. I never said that electronics "can't" make a difference they can. I said that they "need not" make a difference and that many (majority?) products don't. Most of all, price is no indication as to which category the equipment is in.

Now, the Greiner test was done a very long time ago back when electronics were indeed poor and loudspeakers, as today, were much worse. So it is highly likely that the factor that I am talking about was relavent in that test.

Today, I believe that I could set up a test where no one could detect absolute phase - just as I could easily set up one that could. That's really the point - you have to understand what is going on and control for it or you will get the results that you seek.


And thats the problem with audio. I could setup a test to prove almost anything that you wanted me to prove. It's the question that you ask that is the important thing and is it an honest question aimed at getting the truth or is the question itself setting up the answer that it wants.

My point is that you have "proven" that non-linearities in speakers aren't audible, yet now allege them to be in this case. You also don't specify what these non-linearities are.

You pre-suppose Greiner's test was flawed, yet have offered no direct support that the supposed non-linearities are the basis for what people hear in polarity tests.

Then you make sweeping generalizations that all absolute polarity tests are flawed.

Perhaps there are no flawless tests that would convince you.

My primary point is that in stating that everyone else is unconvincing, you remain unconvincing about your view.
 
Last edited:
Mounting the crossover just on plywood was not what I had thought you would do. Of course that could be done for little to no money. And of course it will look like you put in little to no money as well. To each his own.

Don't worry, we know you didn't do double blind testing and certainly are not expecting it.

If you want bass to be even and nice for MULTIPLE listeners, yes, the distributed bass system works very well for as little money as possible. If however, you want to EQ just one sub, then it will be suitable for that one listener in that one sweet spot. Still, I would go for Geddes/Toole's/Welti's method of using multiple subwoofers personally. I like being able to walk around the room and feel like bass is all around me without peaks and valleys!

I have not received my Abbeys.

Anand.

If I go ahead, I will mount the xover under the wood speaker shelf with my 100W icepower amp. Both out of sight and out of mind. Fewer vibrations there, too.

Hard wire amp to xover, have a wire break from xover to speaker. Short speaker wire so most anything will work well that's 10-12 ga. even audiophile crap, er wire. Hard wire interconnect to amp, have RCA connector at the source.

Currently my bass goes down to around 30-35hz or lower depending where you are in the room. Smoothing response with another sub or 2 sounds like a good idea.
 
Decreasing the seat-to-seat variation works only for a limited area and you'll probably have to EQ the results anyway because low seat-to-seat variation doesn't necessarily correspond to a flat frequency response which is the final goal.
Don't try to set up multiples subs if you don't have equipment for measurements.

Best, Markus
 
My primary point is that in stating that everyone else is unconvincing, you remain unconvincing about your view.

Thats because you are misrepresenting everything that I have said.

I never said that nonlinearities are not audible in loudspeakers. Only that they are small in most cases and negligable in those cases that were tested. I did not test the speakers used in Greiners test so I don't know what the nonlinearities were, but they could influence the test to the point of making in inconclusive if they were not accounted for. This is standard practice in test review - to make sure the nuisance variables have been accounted for. He didn't.

If there is a test, other that Greiners, that has statistically significant results in a blind study, then show it to me and I'll accept it if the variables are all controlled. I think the Greiner test was flawed and I gave my reasons why.

You get testy when people disagree with you.
 
Decreasing the seat-to-seat variation works only for a limited area and you'll probably have to EQ the results anyway because low seat-to-seat variation doesn't necessarily correspond to a flat frequency response which is the final goal.
Don't try to set up multiples subs if you don't have equipment for measurements.

Best, Markus

The seat-to-seat variability works for whatever area you do it over, but nothing can be said outside of that area. And EQ is alwways desirable for flat results. Its all a compromise and it is only logical to assume that the more variable I have at my disposal (degrees-of-freedom) the better this compromise becomes. And yes, setting all this up without measurements is not likely to yield the optimum results, but it IS likely to improve things over a single sub.
 
Thats because you are misrepresenting everything that I have said.

I never said that nonlinearities are not audible in loudspeakers. Only that they are small in most cases and negligable in those cases that were tested. I did not test the speakers used in Greiners test so I don't know what the nonlinearities were, but they could influence the test to the point of making in inconclusive if they were not accounted for. This is standard practice in test review - to make sure the nuisance variables have been accounted for. He didn't.

If there is a test, other that Greiners, that has statistically significant results in a blind study, then show it to me and I'll accept it if the variables are all controlled. I think the Greiner test was flawed and I gave my reasons why.

You get testy when people disagree with you.

I'm not testy for being disagreed with. It's the manner of how I'm being disagreed with.

Markus states that my system must be flawed if I could recognize absolute polarity, then gives evidence of fubar absolute polarity situations as seemingly supporting his contention.

You give a sweeping generalization that all tests are flawed, and state that all variables must be controlled. A perfectly acceptable statement on its face, but does that include the number of sunspots; the directionality of wire? What degree of nonlinearity or lack thereof would convince you?

You could ALWAYS find some variable that is not controlled in order to reject a study, only to drag the discussion into an endless argument about whether that variable is relevant.

There have been many reports that absolute polarity is audible, and for the most part, the sonic descriptions of the effects are pretty universal.

You allege that the effect is due to nonlinearities. Perhaps it is incumbant upon you to provide proof of this?
 
I have not received my Abbeys.

Anand.

Are you getting the Abbeys with:

- Although the stock enclosure is already very solid and inert, with internal Oak cross bracing and Constrained Layer Damping (CLD) front baffle and rear panel, the builder who seeks perfection may be interested in an available add-on package that provides extra Oak reinforcement and CLD on all panels.

Can this add on package happen for the Nathans?
 
Interesting; I'd expect it to be quite a bit higher than that by scaling from the 15" Summa, which I thought XO's at 900 Hz.

That was approximate, the Nathan is higher than the Abbey which is Higher than then Summa. The reason that I am sketching is how do you define "crossover" for a nonsymmetric filter set. The two filters don't cross at the -3 dB or the -6 dB points, so there is a wide range of answers depending on your definition. I usuually mean where the end acoustic responses are equal. This is more like 800 Hz in the Summa, 1 kHz in the Abbey and 1200 Hz in the Nathan, 1500 Hz in the Harper.
 
Are you getting the Abbeys with:

- Although the stock enclosure is already very solid and inert, with internal Oak cross bracing and Constrained Layer Damping (CLD) front baffle and rear panel, the builder who seeks perfection may be interested in an available add-on package that provides extra Oak reinforcement and CLD on all panels.

Can this add on package happen for the Nathans?

Anything is possible as a custom request. I would think it even less necessary in the Nathan since it has the same thickness of panels as the Abbey, but a smaller box, so it is naturally more rigid. They are all CLD on the front and rear panels.
 
"Maybe I'm unaware of something, but it seems that the big ISP's are offering roughly the same speed and prices for the last couple of years, and I'm in Silicon Valley."

Consumer Internet in the US not a competitive market. Because cable/telephony is in a no mans land of partial privatization and regulation it doesn't benefit from the price efficiency of competition, nor the high service level (ie vote buying) of nationalization.

We're now lagging essentially every developed nation. 100 mbit at prices comparable to what we pay for 10 mbit has been the norm in many places for several years now. In any case I think the situation in the US will resolve itself eventually. Faster if more municipalities threaten to do their own fiber networks.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.