OK, I can see that. The Quads had an impact in the Hi-Fi world. The W.E. stuff would have had a hidden impact on millions. Most movie goers had no idea what the gear was they were hearing.
I suppose it confirms me as small-minded and unromantic, but I pretty much think of all speakers on the same footing--electro-mechanical sound makers possessed of various advantages and drawbacks.
WE speakers could certainly be considered paradigm shifting and culturally impacting, like flint and steel were for fire. So now we have peizo-ignited pocket mini torches. I wouldn't call that a paradigm shift from flint and steel, just an evolution.
So, if the first paradigm shift was from silent movies to ones with sound tracks, then I don't expect another of that magnitude until we switch to something crazy like direct neural stimulation, and even that wouldn't really compare.
WE speakers could certainly be considered paradigm shifting and culturally impacting, like flint and steel were for fire. So now we have peizo-ignited pocket mini torches. I wouldn't call that a paradigm shift from flint and steel, just an evolution.
So, if the first paradigm shift was from silent movies to ones with sound tracks, then I don't expect another of that magnitude until we switch to something crazy like direct neural stimulation, and even that wouldn't really compare.
Sure. I'm not using it the way Kuhn strictly intended it, but let me give a personal illustration:
Until I heard a WE system I had clung very tightly and dogmatically to a very rigid worldview. It was experientially based on many years of selling B&W, KEF, Spendor, Sonus Faber, Dynaudio, ProAc, Infinity, Maggies, Naim, PSB, Polk etc, and reading Stereophile and TAS and traveling to hi-fi shows and yada yada yada...
Well, the WE experience was a shock. Partly because it defied nearly every word John Atkinson had ever written, but mostly because it radically redefined both my notional and experiential values apropos music replay. It wasn't just that music shouldn't be able to sound this essential through something so archaic, it's that it didn't sound archaic at all - it was like it was from the future.
And it required on my behalf a wholly new worldview in order to appreciate it. It rendered the previous worldview redundant and forced me to consider the possibility that I had been dead wrong and for a very long time. It caused a paradigm shift.
So it fascinates me that this thread exists. It's obviously had a similar effect on many people, one that's not easily disseminated via the written word. Really, it sounds like a bunch of hyperbole from guys who can't show up with the measurements.
From an engineering point of view, the WE guys were just doing a job. But it's relevance for music replay in a domestic setting is profound. Today. Not just "for its time", not just as an historical marker (though it was certainly revolutionary then in regard to advent of cinema) - as a transducer it's still relevant now and we might do well to ask ourselves if in our forward march toward technological perfection we might have overlooked the very reason why these things were created in the first place - to communicate.
I think we can learn so much about music replay from it and why the gap is just getting wider and wider between experiential music listening and the stuff being currently advertised on the back page of Stereophile. I think the ESL 57 is similar. Is it any coincidence the WE stuff and the '57 aren't a bunch of dynamic drivers with a power-sucking crossover through the midband in a nicely veneered box with a port? I don't think so. I think the reason this thread exists is because technologically and culturally those two, as a for-instance, redefined what is possible for music replay in a domestic setting - whether that was their intention or not.
I know it sounds like religious zealotism from a guy who just does not care what Sean Olive and Floyd Toole can "prove". That's the problem with paradigm shifts. Like sex, unless you've had it, you just won't get it.
Last edited:
devilsinthedetails, I do not represent anybody other than myself, and even then I would not count on good representation either... but Silbatone and GIP are entirely different companies, iirc in different countries as well.
What GIP did or does you would have to check with them.
I would expect that they started with commercial drivers and did analysis and reverse engineering, testing, prototyping, etc...
Silbatone makes electronics. JC is a designer/engineer for them.
***********************
Anyone here with slightly deep pockets can buy a Chinese copy of the 555, test, publish and resell them probably not losing any money... I'd consider doing that myself, but I am presently up to my ears in alligators and can't even get done things that are essential here. 🙁
The Chinese copies are alleged to me not as good - but the major parameters ought to be fairly close - enough to get a handle on some of the behaviors that the 555 exhibits.
I do not know for sure, but I hear rumors that there will be copies of large format WE horns, with modern manufacture ready in the fall of 2012 here in the USA. I think that probably the people making them are aware of this thread, but I am not certain. Perhaps they will do the sort of measurements that I think that nobody would object to having in hand... 😀
_-_-bear
What GIP did or does you would have to check with them.
I would expect that they started with commercial drivers and did analysis and reverse engineering, testing, prototyping, etc...
Silbatone makes electronics. JC is a designer/engineer for them.
***********************
Anyone here with slightly deep pockets can buy a Chinese copy of the 555, test, publish and resell them probably not losing any money... I'd consider doing that myself, but I am presently up to my ears in alligators and can't even get done things that are essential here. 🙁
The Chinese copies are alleged to me not as good - but the major parameters ought to be fairly close - enough to get a handle on some of the behaviors that the 555 exhibits.
I do not know for sure, but I hear rumors that there will be copies of large format WE horns, with modern manufacture ready in the fall of 2012 here in the USA. I think that probably the people making them are aware of this thread, but I am not certain. Perhaps they will do the sort of measurements that I think that nobody would object to having in hand... 😀
_-_-bear
You know I was going to respond to Fatchance about his latest "not caring" but I honestly just don't care anymore myself. Not caring what Toole and Olive can prove shows me he just doesn't get it and never will.
Last edited:
isn't wakoo Intact Man workin' on some ?
hifi heroin: Western Electric 16a 2012 drawings..
hifi heroin: Western Electric 16a and 16b - verifying the model with the measurements...
hifi heroin: Western Electric 16a 2012 drawings..
hifi heroin: Western Electric 16a and 16b - verifying the model with the measurements...
The funny thing is, that if the Western Electric engineers were alive today they would care, greatly, what Toole and Olive and all of the modern researchers had discovered since their time. They were trying to design the best product they could for the task at hand. Their obvious approach was to apply new tools of electrical circuit modeling, and new understanding of exponential horn loading to make the best performing system that they could.
Most of this discussion just highlights the difference between the engineering approach and the marketing approach.
David S.
I have been pondering the use of different materials in a WE inspired horn build. I am moving in the next few months so I might actually have more space to play with some bigger toys.
I think most of the magic is the horn itself, not discrediting the engineers, they had the vision to see that.
I had typed out my opinion why this topology works better then a direct radiator, but it needs refining for a thread such as this.
I think both camps are putting too much weight into the "know how" of the engineers.
You need to be looking at nature. Despite all the fancy flying machines that man kind conceived, it was only after the study of a birds wing, the Wright brothers "learned" how to fly.
Even helicopters and jet engines rely "air-foils". It's the "only" way too fly.
With flight, there is no "pretty good", you can fly or you can't.
So you need to realize that the WE engineers did not "invent" that horn, they simulated it from nature.
Even the human voice is created through a horn resonator. Although not a fixed size, it is variable to help phrase different words and sounds.
Not only do I believe the horn to be better, I am confident that we can surpass what the WE engineers did with our modern equipment, materials and man power. A new horn.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I think most of the magic is the horn itself, not discrediting the engineers, they had the vision to see that.
I had typed out my opinion why this topology works better then a direct radiator, but it needs refining for a thread such as this.
I think both camps are putting too much weight into the "know how" of the engineers.
You need to be looking at nature. Despite all the fancy flying machines that man kind conceived, it was only after the study of a birds wing, the Wright brothers "learned" how to fly.
Even helicopters and jet engines rely "air-foils". It's the "only" way too fly.
With flight, there is no "pretty good", you can fly or you can't.
So you need to realize that the WE engineers did not "invent" that horn, they simulated it from nature.
Even the human voice is created through a horn resonator. Although not a fixed size, it is variable to help phrase different words and sounds.
Not only do I believe the horn to be better, I am confident that we can surpass what the WE engineers did with our modern equipment, materials and man power. A new horn.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Read the published papers by WE.
Their horn is based on the work of Webster and is of exponential growth and folded to fit the space. The primary impetus of Webster's work was to get away from the trial and error of musical instrument makers and find a scientific basis for design. Not exactly drawing from nature.
I do agree that the performance of the 15A system is primarily down to the performance of the horn.
David S.
Their horn is based on the work of Webster and is of exponential growth and folded to fit the space. The primary impetus of Webster's work was to get away from the trial and error of musical instrument makers and find a scientific basis for design. Not exactly drawing from nature.
I do agree that the performance of the 15A system is primarily down to the performance of the horn.
David S.
Science is nature, you cannot separate the two.
When you do, you create fiction.
The golden mean is derived from an exponential progression.
When you do, you create fiction.
The golden mean is derived from an exponential progression.
Puff, puff, pass. 😛
Absolutely agree we can stand on giants' shoulders and achieve new technical heights. However, one important ingredient will always be missing, no matter how closely we approach the seventh heaven of perfection. We humans are complicated critters, and we engage much more than our auditory pathways when we listen. So, when we listen to our new, improved WE15a, we may find we deeply miss the extra yumminess our minds add to the experience of listening to an actual oh-my-goodness-gracious original WE15A.
On a different note, it seems to me that, in the 15a, WE engineers tried to embody the best science of the day: the ideal of the exponential horn expansion.
Simulating the 15a in Hornresp, and knowing only a few of the driver parameters, I was free to tweak the other parameters for ideal pairing with the known horn flare. With such design freedom, it's remarkable how flat one can make a simulated response! 🙂 I have no idea how far my guessed parameters diverge from those of an actual 555.
Below is a screenshot of my sim. The known parameters are circled in red, and the rest I made up to suit.
Today we know much more about how to minimize higher-order modes, how to terminate horn mouths effectively and how to launch coherent wavefronts. We also have a much wider palette of materials and methods for controlling physical behaviors, resonance, etc. But can we overcome the synthetic sonic benefits of a legendary reputation? I'm not so sure.
Attachments
Last edited:
Are you suggesting the legend preceeds and biases the listening experience? Oh no!
Nice to see the sims, now lets bend the horn through 360 degrees and see what we get. Also, don't forget that the sim is for power response so the frequency response at any particular angle is not accounted for. This will particularly messy for a folded (bent) horn.
David
Nice to see the sims, now lets bend the horn through 360 degrees and see what we get. Also, don't forget that the sim is for power response so the frequency response at any particular angle is not accounted for. This will particularly messy for a folded (bent) horn.
David
Again, I think your trying to weigh the horn against your "criteria" for a good speaker system, which is almost irrelevant for designing horns.
Even the use of hornresp is fairly limited.
A true exponential horn has no corners to worry about.
If you need/wish to use corners, you might be able to account for the back-pressure of a 90 degree bend by "bulging" the corner to alleviate the impedance of the added corner.
Use a non-linear corner, the 90 degree transition must also exponential, not like a plumbing pipe.
The image below is divided into four "corners", semantics really.
Even the use of hornresp is fairly limited.
A true exponential horn has no corners to worry about.
If you need/wish to use corners, you might be able to account for the back-pressure of a 90 degree bend by "bulging" the corner to alleviate the impedance of the added corner.
Use a non-linear corner, the 90 degree transition must also exponential, not like a plumbing pipe.
The image below is divided into four "corners", semantics really.
Attachments
Last edited:
The "centerline" of an exponential horn is not in the center, it is tucked to the inside.
The added resistance of the turn is offset because this "centerline" is able to take a "shortcut" by tucking to the inside of the turn. A natural balance. There is more resistance on the outside, but more cushion too, higher expansion to offset compression.
A remarkably beautiful solution.
The added resistance of the turn is offset because this "centerline" is able to take a "shortcut" by tucking to the inside of the turn. A natural balance. There is more resistance on the outside, but more cushion too, higher expansion to offset compression.
A remarkably beautiful solution.
Last edited:
Well, that's not quite my understanding of how wavefronts propogate down a horn. Like Tom Danley pointed out earlier in the thread...
Last edited:
What exactly did Toole and Olive "prove"?
I get tired of "proof".
There is no "proof". Just tests and results and conclusions; some of which are warranted, some of which are possible, and some of which are highly questionable.
So, nobody wants to 'fess up and tell us which speakers that they prefer out of Toole's and Olive's list of tested speakers? Nobody wants to say what THEY are using that is so darn good that I should consider buying them myself?
It's absurd. A few posters are just relentless, and have yet to provide much substance as far as examples of the claimed better designs due to all this modern research. Why not? Maybe I want to go listen to it!
Heck, I am totally open to changing my mind. I used to have the opinion that horns suck and there is nothing that anyone can do to fix them. Until I heard a set that positively did not suck. Then I not only changed my mind, I had to try to figure out why this particular set up was different than all other set ups that I had heard before.
Apparently an essentially ruler flat response over many octaves combined with a sensitivity way over 100dB isn't worthy of any consideration??
_-_-bear
I think Bill F and Tom are confusing propagation with transportation.
A 22Khz tone may travel fine down a copper tube because it is already created and the wavelength "fit" in that tube. At that size, the tube almost appears to be straight.
I do appreciate Tom's innovations, don't get me wrong, but once we stray from a true exponential horn, then the criteria changes. I would consider the Unity horn to be a creative hybrid of sorts, with more in common with a regular 3-way then anything resembling an exponential horn.
A 22Khz tone may travel fine down a copper tube because it is already created and the wavelength "fit" in that tube. At that size, the tube almost appears to be straight.
I do appreciate Tom's innovations, don't get me wrong, but once we stray from a true exponential horn, then the criteria changes. I would consider the Unity horn to be a creative hybrid of sorts, with more in common with a regular 3-way then anything resembling an exponential horn.
Last edited:
If by ruler flat response you are referring to the terminated tube performance, you should know what that represents.
It is a pressure related to the power into an acoustical resistor. It is essentially the starting point of a full horn system. On top of that you would have to add the effect of the true impedance of the horn (the messy part of our Western electric, or any other branded system, definitely not a resistor) and finally you would need to define how this power radiates into space i.e. the directivity of the system.
Terminated tube curves are part of the design process of compression drivers and are primarily looked at to see what the top few octaves are doing. The reason for this is that most all compression drivers do a good job in the midrange. Most are flat from some frequency up to about 3k where they hit a mass breakpoint and roll off 6dB per Octave. Above that point they can get quite messy from surround effects, diaphragm break up and phase plug issues. The WE curve looked good to me, in fact very good for its era. (I've seen JBL curves that were smoother in the top 2 Octaves, but they are much more recent designs)
Do not think that this implys the final system (horn and driver) is nearly as flat at the listeners position. It won't be. Even if a horn could radiate flat power into space the directional effects are responsible for quite strong horn colourations. This is what we learned and were able to deal with during the development of constant directivity horns in the 80's.
As to what Toole and Olive have proven, I won't waste any time trying to convince you of their accomplishments.
David S.