I have in front of me an interesting alternative. And it works extremely well- the issues still comprise the reliance on conventional recording formats, but it's a great look at what can be currently done by some smart engineers who are focusing on the right problems. I would suggest anyone at BAF seek out Jan Didden and Linear Audio to "see" for themselves.
My question on the nanotube stuff is of the "dancing pig" variety: in what way is it better than previous film transducer technologies (e.g., poled PVDF)?
It's a lot better to discuss present dead-ends and near-future possibilities in speakers if by "reality" you mean we are going to have an egotistical competition over who can hear what fabulous subtle sounds on their own personal sound system and why other people's gear is antique.
Ben
Last edited:
As far as I understand, they don't have any moving parts, the tubes simply move air by fluctuating temperature, at least that's how I saw it described in another article.
Yes, but specifically, what's the advantage to that? There's one clear disadvantage, and Ray Baughman (who I knew back in his Allied Chemical days- he's a genuine expert) pointed it out- horribly bad efficiency stemming from basic physics. Unfortunately, that is is not amenable to a major change through incremental engineering.
You're right, I'm sure they come with all sorts of new issues. When I read it and imagined it in my head, my first thought was "wallpaper speakers". The idea seemed interesting, but admittedly, I haven't done any significant research.
As inefficient as cone speakers where many people on this forum have hundreds of electrical watts capacity of multi-amped power (needing some very heavy power transformers, etc) to produce a small fraction of one acoustic watt in their music rooms?
(When you are near a jet airplane, the catastrophic sound is about one acoustic watt.)
Ben
Except that "statistically significant" aspects were found, which means that the test was not invalid as you suggest.
And if your so smart you should know that it is never possible to "prove" a negative.
Where is any data showing the contrary?
Another aspect of testing is that if you never question your beliefs you never find that they are wrong. (Ignorance is bliss!) I used to think that nonlinear distortion was a major effect. I don't anymore, because I did the tests.
Far less efficient. Also note that the thermal modulation has to be one-sided.
This minor tiff aside, I think Gedlee have shown outstanding leadership in research combining physical acoustics and psycho-acoustics. Exactly what is needed.
I admire their approach. It is that kind of testing that is essential as new paradigms of speakers are introduced because these new speakers may have virtues that promote sound enjoyment and faithful reproduction but are at variance with traditional ways of assessing speakers (as some previous posters have pointed out).
An example would be Gedlee's re-assessment of compression drivers/horns, concluding they are good choices for their dispersion advantages.
Ben
Last edited:
Audio being very subjective make consensus difficult especially since the science can always be rolled and dissected to prove one's thesis, the real culprit is our auditory imagination, very rarely ever the same ....
Last edited:
Why do you continue to use the word egotistical to describe people that understand the science behind audio reproduction and claim to achieve good sound with their own systems? Some of these people are long standing industry professionals, they all use simulations, science and measurements and they get good sound. You don't have any use for sims, science or measurements and you don't get good sound. But you call them egotistical.
Round and round in circles we go, but the fact that you completely ignore dispersion characteristics and lobing and don't measure anything (among other things) is a big part of the reason why your antique gear doesn't fully satisfy you. Bad gear and bad implementation = bad sound, but it doesn't prove that loudspeaker technology is primitive.
As far as the future goes, no matter how good it gets there's always going to be the potential to screw it up. If you don't understand the technology and don't read the instructions when installing it you could (and probably will) end up in the same boat you are in now.
Last edited:
An SP1-4000 can do 4000 watts and weighs 7 pounds, switching power supplies have made very heavy power transformers obsolete.
120 dB SPL =1 acoustic watt per per square meter (a rather quiet jet airplane)
150 dB SPL=1000 acoustic watts per square meter
160 dB SPL=10,000 acoustic watts per square meter
Tom Danley’s acoustic levitation device was able to levitate Styrofoam at about 150 dB, and lead at 165 dB.
At any rate, with dynamic music, the power used with current 90% efficient amplification is minimal even when using the least efficient speakers.
Even if I wanted to hit 120 dB, my TV draws way more juice than my stereo.
I'd really like to but that's the problem. There is no technical argument to address.
A lot of technical points have been brought up - time alignment, comb filtering, lobing, dispersion, effects of extreme off axis performance (how it sounds in a different room), single channel vs stereo issues (the stereo triangle), the effect that using outdated equipment has due to the outdated specs (frequency response problems, xmax problems, dispersion problems, etc), the importance of measurements and a whole lot more.
There has been no technical answer to any of this, in fact the people bringing up these concerns have been either ignored or labeled egotists and the argument has been characterized as "believers vs non believers".
I've asked a lot of technical questions, asked for measurements or any proof at all of the claims being made. There is no technical response.
But I've made my point (several times now with no technical rebuttal) so I'll remove myself from this conversation.
RegardingJust out of curiosity how many subjects are needed for a statistically Sigificant blind test, and does it matter if they know little about hifi. I would be very interested I'm seeing a blind test of non-linear distortion with a bunch of keen eared audio engineer types as subjects. I personally do not considerer this one a closed case.
Pete
Then do the tests, because as it stands the case is closed because there is nothing refuting what we found. And several others have also performed these tests. They all come to the same conclusion.
You can ignore the data all you want, but until you have other data to oppose it you just look closed minded.
Then do the tests, because as it stands the case is closed because there is nothing refuting what we found. And several others have also performed these tests. They all come to the same conclusion.
You can ignore the data all you want, but until you have other data to oppose it you just look closed minded.
There's plenty of primitive technology out there that's not obsolete. Speakers included. I can put together a system from the 50-60's that will put a big smile on almost any music lovers face.
Statistical_significance is quiet well defined for simple issues, what is enough significance depends on opinion.
To quote Wikipedia:
Popular levels of significance are 10% (0.1), 5% (0.05), 1% (0.01), 0.5% (0.005), and 0.1% (0.001). If a test of significance gives a p-value lower than or equal to the significance level,[3] the null hypothesis is rejected at that level.
A Standard deviation 3σ is often considered good enough for my old employers in particle physics to state that you have a pattern. 5σ was considered proof (until something more significant disagrees), my previous subject of biochemistry had much lower standards for statistical test.
Different areas expect different levels of confidence, Im sure in a blind test
- Status
- Not open for further replies.