You can play with words all day long, rename harmonic distortion blah blah. The truth is a speaker that has less thd is going to sound better and be better. We do not need someone to say "My study says it is inaudible so therefore lets forget about it" I have been watching this discussion around here for years with no small amount of amusement. It usually boils down to "sure my speakers distort more than some other ones, but do not be concerned because you guys can't hear it"
Gee I wish Paul Klipsch was alive an on this forum.
Gee I wish Paul Klipsch was alive an on this forum.
The Memory of PWK Lives On!
And here is some evidence.
Also, there is a new 'K-Man' on the block.
WHG
And here is some evidence.
Also, there is a new 'K-Man' on the block.
WHG
Last edited:
😀.... and if not sure, push some Rammstein on the player.... (with them all the compressions and horn sound the same !)
(PS : if only I had skill with wood and a caveman I would have liked to build your synergy DIY !)
Last edited:
Yes, a troglo à là pano or a huge cave...without walking deads...they are dirty...but when they dance like M Jackson 's clip...
Foam is holm free and light and clean...
Foam is holm free and light and clean...
Btw , thanks I need to buy an english grammar too 😀, you're right I write like a caveman !
Question to you xrq please : I know your are working also on a phase plug, but did you try to putt a light open reticuled foam cork like Earl Gedle in front of the Apex (to brew even more the front wave) ! Something very open (< 10kg/m*3) but certainly with a high ShoreA indice ??? I assume there is already a reference to approach it in the DIYAUDIO litterature somewhere !
I must say I like brillant ideas what are materialised with a so simple stuff, does it work also for the most closed horn or only on the open OS like wave guide à a Gedllee speakers ?
Question to you xrq please : I know your are working also on a phase plug, but did you try to putt a light open reticuled foam cork like Earl Gedle in front of the Apex (to brew even more the front wave) ! Something very open (< 10kg/m*3) but certainly with a high ShoreA indice ??? I assume there is already a reference to approach it in the DIYAUDIO litterature somewhere !
I must say I like brillant ideas what are materialised with a so simple stuff, does it work also for the most closed horn or only on the open OS like wave guide à a Gedllee speakers ?
Last edited:
Ha! But oddly, on this esteemed board, we have esteemed members who both quote Klippell and refute the study. 😈😂😂😂
Nonsense!
Instead of a stream of emoticons, you get a KBSB from me on this one.
Nowhere, here or elsewhere, will you find a refutation made by me of Klippell's work. If you want to understand loudspeaker distortion, its causes and effects, his work is about as good a study as you can find, particularly for free. That is why I posted a sample paper here. There is a lot more on his website, if you are really interested in pursuing the matter. WHG
https://www.klippel.de/know-how/literature.html
Instead of a stream of emoticons, you get a KBSB from me on this one.
Nowhere, here or elsewhere, will you find a refutation made by me of Klippell's work. If you want to understand loudspeaker distortion, its causes and effects, his work is about as good a study as you can find, particularly for free. That is why I posted a sample paper here. There is a lot more on his website, if you are really interested in pursuing the matter. WHG
https://www.klippel.de/know-how/literature.html
Not you brother. I am always fascinated by those who say "non linear distortion" instead of THD
Electronic, mechanical and "compressed air" distortion are totaly different in "taste"
The kind of distortion that compression drivers make at high levels is infinitely easier on the ears than the other two. I do not like seeing them all lumped together as "non linear distortion" I play Hammond Organ and program synths. I promise that those upper harmonics can make all the diff. I know most of us get this but I don't like the generalization.
Especially from those that truly understand this.
The reason is that a mere term "THD" does not say much. It is one of the means how to quantify nonlinear distortion, which is best described by a transfer function. THD, CCIF IMD, SMPTE IMD are only ways how to look, quantify or visualize the existing nonlinearity. They all express the same nonlinearity.
Well maybe, up to a point. I've sat in front of far too many overdriven compression drivers to say "easy on the ears." 😛
Badly done horns/drivers are the worst sounding devices that I have ever heard. That's why they got such a bad name. Only when one cleans up the distortions do they start to sound tolerable.
It's all just a further clarification of the issues:
"Distortion" clarifies to - "linear" vs. "nonlinear"
"Linear" clarifies to - "frequency response", and "minimum" vs. "non-minimum phase" attributes
"nonlinear" clarifies to - "transfer characteristic orders" (please note that "transfer function" refers to frequency response not to the nonlinear "transfer characteristic")
"nonlinear" is not a "catch all" it is simply not the finest gradation possible for the discussion of nonlinear systems. The Taylor series polynomial orders of the transfer characteristic are the finest gradation (in the Volterra Theory approach.) I'd be happy to discuss "orders of nonlinearity", but the fact is that this is beyond most people so I KISS.
It is true however that to understand perception of distortion accurately one must talk about the nonlinear orders. Discussions below this level will always be "glossing over" the significant details and can never result in a complete understanding of the problem.
"Distortion" clarifies to - "linear" vs. "nonlinear"
"Linear" clarifies to - "frequency response", and "minimum" vs. "non-minimum phase" attributes
"nonlinear" clarifies to - "transfer characteristic orders" (please note that "transfer function" refers to frequency response not to the nonlinear "transfer characteristic")
"nonlinear" is not a "catch all" it is simply not the finest gradation possible for the discussion of nonlinear systems. The Taylor series polynomial orders of the transfer characteristic are the finest gradation (in the Volterra Theory approach.) I'd be happy to discuss "orders of nonlinearity", but the fact is that this is beyond most people so I KISS.
It is true however that to understand perception of distortion accurately one must talk about the nonlinear orders. Discussions below this level will always be "glossing over" the significant details and can never result in a complete understanding of the problem.
Last edited:
May I ask for a citation that would prove that transfer function refers to frequency response and transfer characteristics to nonlinearity? How about nonlinearity that is both a function of frequency and amplitude? Are you creating your own terminology?
Both continuous and discrete time transfer functions of nonlinear systems are analysed and inter- preted in the frequency domain by investigating the properties ...
To a musician those orders of "distortia" make perfect sense. It is essentially dissonance in the spectra as opposed to "harmony"
It takes a lot to drive a compression driver into the ugly area. That being said I am not sure we are gaining much by foregoing true horns which allow the drivers to barely move. There is a purity that is not there in shallow hornguidethingys. And this is where it gets interesting. I contend that we can hear a difference and that difference is due to more or less excursion of the driver. Sometimes lumped into the generic nn linear baskett.
Are you familiar with the Volterra Theory of non-linear systems? In this theory each order has a transfer function that determines its frequency response, hence a nonlinearity that is a function of frequency. The orders are all in parallel each with its own transfer function. When I first gave my paper on this topic at AES Professor Stanley Lipshitz (Mathematics) was the one who corrected my terminology, as I had also used the term "transfer function" as you did. He was correct in that it was confusing to use the same term for the linearity and the frequency response as they are two different things. This is also consistent with the terminology in Schetzen's book.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.