12??
I agree - this is overkill to the, um, 12th degree. If one driver will reproduce a given range of frequencies equally as well as two drivers, then you only need that one driver; you don't need two with a filter between them.
If 12 drivers, why not 13? Why not one driver for each audible frequency?
Answer: It isn't necessary - there is nothing to be gained.
I agree - this is overkill to the, um, 12th degree. If one driver will reproduce a given range of frequencies equally as well as two drivers, then you only need that one driver; you don't need two with a filter between them.
If 12 drivers, why not 13? Why not one driver for each audible frequency?
Answer: It isn't necessary - there is nothing to be gained.
I recall hearing that argument for having the nine drivers in a Bose 901. Of course with 12 drivers this should sound even better than a Bose!
the bose 901 features 9 of the same full range drivers.. one in the front, four on each side of the back to reflect sound on the wall. theory is to give a full sound throughout the room is the point of that... where most sound hear is reflected anyways..
i own a series II bose 901.. sounds pretty damn good anywhere in the room...
complete information ?
At the very state I must agree that not all pages have been completely written and translated so not all reasons have been quoted at this point. On the other hand a lot of the text eplains already a big bunch of reasons for that decesion. It seeems to me that i must edit the outlay of the first page
due to the fact that it wasn´t clearly spoted that that reasons are explained in detail at the related further pages at the linklist in the bottom of the page.
to the reasons:
first of all the physics of every single electromagnetic speaker in a speakersystem that disables them to reproduce more that four or five tones really exactly same as the original source - so the first reason is physic.
second the amount of Frequencies that are recognizable by the humen ear and thé need to split down the entire area to small areas that enable a speaker to operate within its upmost highest performance quality.
third the physics within a speakercase and that each speakersystem sharing volume and air resources together with other speakers affects that other speakers and therefor requires a single "innercase" within the maincase.
and there are a lot more reasons - but I do agree - if the entire amount of pages are read and the translations and still missing pages are finished to most readers there are more reasons not to take that challenge and only very few might attempt to start such a project.
Finally after all pages every reader knows that all normal concepts of speakers are only a compromise to all the limitations within building a speakersystem by yourself.
The very last but most important reason to take the challenge and startup with something that requires you to work some one or two years on a speakersystem is the sound - this speakersystem beats every speakersystem that you ever might build or buy ! You can spend thousend of dollars to speakersystems that claim to be the best availible and comparing them with this system you´ll find out that they can´t beat this system due to laws of physics. At the moment I just must guess that you did not read all the pages in the lower part of the linklist within the first entrypage and therefor have not counted out all the problems that might only be solved by such a system with at least 12 speakers. I explain within that pages that finally the system might even be expanded to 15 or 16 speakersystems - and that a such system probably might be able to overcome the result out of my project - in my project I just spoted out that to reach such a goal of quality at least 12 speakers within a system is a must !
At the very state I must agree that not all pages have been completely written and translated so not all reasons have been quoted at this point. On the other hand a lot of the text eplains already a big bunch of reasons for that decesion. It seeems to me that i must edit the outlay of the first page
due to the fact that it wasn´t clearly spoted that that reasons are explained in detail at the related further pages at the linklist in the bottom of the page.
to the reasons:
first of all the physics of every single electromagnetic speaker in a speakersystem that disables them to reproduce more that four or five tones really exactly same as the original source - so the first reason is physic.
second the amount of Frequencies that are recognizable by the humen ear and thé need to split down the entire area to small areas that enable a speaker to operate within its upmost highest performance quality.
third the physics within a speakercase and that each speakersystem sharing volume and air resources together with other speakers affects that other speakers and therefor requires a single "innercase" within the maincase.
and there are a lot more reasons - but I do agree - if the entire amount of pages are read and the translations and still missing pages are finished to most readers there are more reasons not to take that challenge and only very few might attempt to start such a project.
Finally after all pages every reader knows that all normal concepts of speakers are only a compromise to all the limitations within building a speakersystem by yourself.
The very last but most important reason to take the challenge and startup with something that requires you to work some one or two years on a speakersystem is the sound - this speakersystem beats every speakersystem that you ever might build or buy ! You can spend thousend of dollars to speakersystems that claim to be the best availible and comparing them with this system you´ll find out that they can´t beat this system due to laws of physics. At the moment I just must guess that you did not read all the pages in the lower part of the linklist within the first entrypage and therefor have not counted out all the problems that might only be solved by such a system with at least 12 speakers. I explain within that pages that finally the system might even be expanded to 15 or 16 speakersystems - and that a such system probably might be able to overcome the result out of my project - in my project I just spoted out that to reach such a goal of quality at least 12 speakers within a system is a must !
Last edited:
Discussion without basics
Last not least i´d like to shorten up the post´s within this thread - it is useless to discuss this thread witout reading the related pages at the web ! That´s like starting up argumentation on a crash without having viewed the photos and the crashanalysis related to the crash....and the links above point to the german language entrypages ....
the very entrypage with the mentioned linklist at the bottem in english language is only this link:
http://www.harrowalsh.de/Elektronik/english/thema0804e.htm
and all people taking part in this thread and speaking english are kindly asked to first read all the related pages in the web before posting here objections that might be a result to the fact that the related pages have´nt even been read....
Last not least i´d like to shorten up the post´s within this thread - it is useless to discuss this thread witout reading the related pages at the web ! That´s like starting up argumentation on a crash without having viewed the photos and the crashanalysis related to the crash....and the links above point to the german language entrypages ....
the very entrypage with the mentioned linklist at the bottem in english language is only this link:
http://www.harrowalsh.de/Elektronik/english/thema0804e.htm
and all people taking part in this thread and speaking english are kindly asked to first read all the related pages in the web before posting here objections that might be a result to the fact that the related pages have´nt even been read....
Last edited:
It`s always refreshing to see this kind of modesty together with REAL new and ingenious approaches backed up with hard facts....
my ** meter already caught fire
because it got overloaded by at least 60dBand now... even more crashanalysis....OH MY GOD
Where is my extinguisher........
ahhhh.... so good
I've seen something like this before in Danish "High Fidelity" magazine way back in the 70's or early 80'. Some guy claimed that all loudspeaker driver had their narrow band where they sounded best. Consequently he ended up with some 30 to 40 different drivers per channel - all with their own crossover and covering their own separate frequency band. Most of them looked like they came from old radio's and TV's, although there was a big 18" woofer. The system was praised for smooth tonal balance, but "a bit unstable imaging". I wish I had the magazine around... maybe some of you Danish guys here remember this, and have a copy of it? It looked really weird, but he reportedly had gotten some interesting results from this.
That`s what I thought first too but after reading some bits of his web page (I don`t bear to read ALL that balderdash) I`m sure he is dead serious about it.
Everyone is entitled to do or build whatever (cr@p or not) he/she wants and to love and be proud of it - BUT what REALLY irks me is this schoolmaster tone in which he tries to lecture everyone else (this bits get usually "lost in translation"), as if all others were just caveman not able to handle a calculator to drop in some numbers (so much to: "serious math"..) in a textbook formula to calculate the values of this ludicrous 12-way "crossover".
This guy needs a serious reality check.
I really hate it to be a party pooper but this had to be said by someone, sooner or later.
I will continue to think it's a joke! It looks like my parts bin from around 30 years ago! Some of those drivers have to be thirty years old! The reason I think it's a joke is those two piezos nearly at floor level! They're there for the little folk!
"Up till now no physical measurements have been made.... " No, really! You don't say! Very practical way to proceed!
I must admit, I would love a view of the crossover, I bet it's all wired straight to the drivers!
Joke or **, still an amusing thread!
Terry
mental health ?
thanks a lot to your botherings about my mental health but that is neither the target of this thread nor do I feel need to reply - thats below the belly... and its below of the levels to be treated in a thread....
at my personal guess its only result that due to missing knowledge thats the only objection that was found to be submitted ....
thanks a lot to your botherings about my mental health but that is neither the target of this thread nor do I feel need to reply - thats below the belly... and its below of the levels to be treated in a thread....
at my personal guess its only result that due to missing knowledge thats the only objection that was found to be submitted ....
I say ignore the naysayers and keep translating for those who wish to read, DIYAudio.com would be a dull place if there was no "crazy" ideas and unconventional plans.
Dont be discouraged, even if you turn out to be right/wrong about the design logic, you have still spent a lot of time and put a lot of thought into your project.
DO be modest with your claims though.. or else people might get a tad flamey
Dont be discouraged, even if you turn out to be right/wrong about the design logic, you have still spent a lot of time and put a lot of thought into your project.
DO be modest with your claims though.. or else people might get a tad flamey
I've made a living for over 30 years designing loudspeakers. Probably 90% of the sytems have been 2-ways. Give me a pair of good drivers and that would be my preference by far. I've done my share of 3-ways but I'm never sure the results justify the extra expense and effort to get the crossover to work well.
I can recall only designing 2 or 3 4-ways. The Snell XA75 and XA90 and maybe one for a/d/s/? (Really 3-ways with built in subs.)
Never a 5 way or greater, but then, maybe thats what I've been missing?
As to each audible frequency...my piano has 88 keys and I can hear just about all of them! (Are we talking about critical bandwidths?)
David S.
I'm much newer to speaker design, but am having a similar experience. It's not so much that three way is needed for good performance but that two way doesn't always offer quite enough degrees of design freedome. Out of curiosity, what motivated your four way designs? Higher SPL?
Doing the same as throughout the past 30 years might be a pleasent way to think about the problem - but for sure it does not take response to the physic of speakers. Going back to the roots - have you ever really thought about what happens on the membrane of a speaker that is intended to reproduce 5 differnt instruments at five different frequencies at the same time on the same membrane- the fact is, that the speaker is to produce some kind of interpolation and "interpretation" instead of focusing to each instrument and the related frequency. Thats surely a surrender to examination of true physic and examination and it is sure the fastest way to give away advance of technic and acceptance of compromise... but its for sure the easy way...
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.