I haven't tried the realizer, but those who have report very good things. The problem is it is calibrated against a pair of speakers in a room. If you room is not good, then that doesn't help.
Edit; Demian, thanks for the link. I have Koss ESP/950 and etymotics so I have half decent headphones. Can't justify full decent 🙂
second edit: Tried the demo, and whilst better than normal headphones something is not clicking with me. I need to try again. Might try the free trial
Edit; Demian, thanks for the link. I have Koss ESP/950 and etymotics so I have half decent headphones. Can't justify full decent 🙂
second edit: Tried the demo, and whilst better than normal headphones something is not clicking with me. I need to try again. Might try the free trial
Last edited:
That's interesting, I haven't heard that before, it makes sense. Thanks.
It will probably make me ponder the whole sweet spot head in a vice thing 🙂
I tried it, the effect is quite striking, especially the feeling that the headphones really were not there. Theoretically I suppose someone could sample systems with a reference dummy head and offer a service where you come in and get a correlation file to your head so you could "buy" any listening experience. I wonder how robust the algorithms are for something like this.
There are "underhung" voicecoils that do not extend out of the magnet gap and then "overhung" that extend beyond it depending on the design for efficiency or to be more linear. position dependence is well known.
Consumer loudspeakers have the minimum impedance of .8 times the rated value. Professional loudspeakers use .5. Confusing a consumer amplifier with a professional rated one can be a real problem in my area of work.
So how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
eh? So what about these nominal 8 Ohm speakers that have narrowband 0.2Ohm impedances? Should they be rated at 0.3Ohms?
I thought there was a Wilson model that had large dips or do you mean raw drivers?
Do witches float?
Thank you Miklos for putting up the HCA-855 schematic. I don't think that I have ever seen one, but it is my template that I gave Parasound about 25 years ago.
Now to explain the situation: Back in 1993, I was asked by Parasound to make a more cost effective design than the HCA2200 that we were producing at the time.
Somewhere it was mentioned that I would probably not get any royalties for the very cheap units made with this design, and I personally didn't care at the time, because I don't like being associated with really cheap units, and my salary at the time was mostly a weekly stipend.
However, things changed drastically, and I found myself almost completely shut out of any royalties, when Parasound started producing the HCA1200 series These became extremely popular, eclipsing the earlier, more complex HCA-2200, 2 channel circuit. I realized that I was being taken advantage of, so I got legal assistance and started a number of 'lawyer letters' to Parasound, threatening to quit. Finally Parasound relented after about 1 year, and gave me back royalties for the HCA-1200, HCA 1000 series, etc. I then got a fat check of about $20,000, (back royalties) that I bought my Acura with in 1995. However, there was a dividing line where products numbered below 1000 would not give me a royalty, and they could do what they wanted to 'gut' the unit to make it more affordable. This included reducing the power supply transformer, heatsinks, power caps etc. Apparently, the circuit template worked well enough that they kept it, but I studiously ignored their compromises, and in return assumed no responsibility.
So while the 2105 is compromised to fit 5 channels into a 2 channel box, I got royalties from it, but not from the HCA 855, which is even more compromised, and they could allow more xover distortion that I would ever hope to associate with in some of their cheaper products. The same problem has arisen with the recent A55+, that has claimed my authorship, and has some xover distortion of its own. Now, 25 years later, I can't afford to quibble with Parasound, and I have to accept that some of my designs will have some xover distortion, because the power supply voltages are just too high (in order to get max voltage output) and the heat sinks are just too small to allow enough quiescent current. It is a dilemma that I will have to accept. If you want my best, you have to pay the price, unfortunately.
Now to explain the situation: Back in 1993, I was asked by Parasound to make a more cost effective design than the HCA2200 that we were producing at the time.
Somewhere it was mentioned that I would probably not get any royalties for the very cheap units made with this design, and I personally didn't care at the time, because I don't like being associated with really cheap units, and my salary at the time was mostly a weekly stipend.
However, things changed drastically, and I found myself almost completely shut out of any royalties, when Parasound started producing the HCA1200 series These became extremely popular, eclipsing the earlier, more complex HCA-2200, 2 channel circuit. I realized that I was being taken advantage of, so I got legal assistance and started a number of 'lawyer letters' to Parasound, threatening to quit. Finally Parasound relented after about 1 year, and gave me back royalties for the HCA-1200, HCA 1000 series, etc. I then got a fat check of about $20,000, (back royalties) that I bought my Acura with in 1995. However, there was a dividing line where products numbered below 1000 would not give me a royalty, and they could do what they wanted to 'gut' the unit to make it more affordable. This included reducing the power supply transformer, heatsinks, power caps etc. Apparently, the circuit template worked well enough that they kept it, but I studiously ignored their compromises, and in return assumed no responsibility.
So while the 2105 is compromised to fit 5 channels into a 2 channel box, I got royalties from it, but not from the HCA 855, which is even more compromised, and they could allow more xover distortion that I would ever hope to associate with in some of their cheaper products. The same problem has arisen with the recent A55+, that has claimed my authorship, and has some xover distortion of its own. Now, 25 years later, I can't afford to quibble with Parasound, and I have to accept that some of my designs will have some xover distortion, because the power supply voltages are just too high (in order to get max voltage output) and the heat sinks are just too small to allow enough quiescent current. It is a dilemma that I will have to accept. If you want my best, you have to pay the price, unfortunately.
Last edited:
It helps to know that at resonance, the speakers' efficiency is very high ( at maximum) .... this compensates for any other losses.... otherwise....
(max efficiency; small input, large excursion/output)
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
That's confusing. Joe R's "Elsinore" speaker is described as "current compatible". What does this mean? In combination with his link to his transconductance amplifier project I took this to mean the Elsinore is meant to be driven by a transconductance amplifier. But on further reading of the website I can find no such indication and in this thread Joe denies (repeatedly) promoting current drive while at the same time saying current drive is superior due to variable driver impedance. Curiouser and curiouser.
What the heck is Joe going on about? I'm not sure why I care. I suppose I don't normally think about speaker design so this is new. If anyone thinks they know and can be bothered to put it in a nutshell for me I would be obliged.
What the heck is Joe going on about? I'm not sure why I care. I suppose I don't normally think about speaker design so this is new. If anyone thinks they know and can be bothered to put it in a nutshell for me I would be obliged.
Last edited:
My take is that if indeed the speaker looks like a broadband purely resistive load it can't matter how you drive it. You know, the Norton/Thevenin argument. I don't see how this improves the actual acoustic output of the speaker except via anecdotal reviews.
In relevance to recent discussions here, OSHA has issued a "final" ruling on the beryllium standard:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-09306.pdf
Howie
http://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-09306.pdf
Howie
Then it's about time you did, not sure this is the best way to start.........
Except that a low impedance voltage drive makes a huge difference to the driver damping, at least in conventional speakers.
Overhung by definition has front coil which does not couple to the flux return, so will have variation. Underhung reduces flux return as it moves forward.
Jn
First post on a cell phone. Pita
Of course not .25 ohms would comply with the IEC standards!
The standards are voluntary! Yes there are many loudspeakers that do not follow standards or even common sense.
Everyone knows witches float, that was always the New England test. If the suspect drowned then they could be buried in hallowed ground. Of course with the decline in modern society, witches are now allowed. Want proof they are around? That would violate the forum rules about politics, or do you have a better explanation than it was a strong curse on the... (This bit makes more sense than much here...)
JN,
Overhung extends beyond both sides of the pole piece, under should never leave the gap!
Last edited:
Should I stand in the naughty corner? I have an excuse:
My experience of speakers, once you spend enough to enter into hifi territory, is that they don't make as much difference to "music" as electronics does. By "music" I mean the excitement, emotion, rhythm. I'm not saying they don't make a difference to how a system sounds - of course they do. Other people sometimes put speakers at the top of their hifi investment list but not me. I can live with modest speakers by audiophile standards but I cannot live with modest electronics. So my design focus has always been on the electronics. I do appreciate that there is plenty of interesting technology going on in the good ones.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.