this is exactly why commercial paddlers should not be confused with DIY enthusiast(s) who wrote 500 pages on linkwitzlab site to share the ins and outs of the speaker design with people who do not have a PhD in electrical engineering, a lifelong experience in RF engineering (which is an order of magnitude more complicated than anything in the audio spectrum), who do not have filters named after themselves, who have not been subject of magazine reviews from back in the 70s and for whom Seas does not make custom drivers.
No one argues that people can have all sorts of opinion (like some one said above "we are not here to protect them from themselves"), but to say that SL did not understand C-C driver distance relative to the wavelength at the XOver frequency only says something about them: they have never read anything on his website.
The same goes about the comments about the constant width baffle. Well I have seen SL and JohnK (NaoNote) and even myself (check out my OBs) cut variable width baffles to play with the dispersion pattern. Where did you see Danny do that?
I love the incessant talking and waiving hands and Danny saying how (paraphrasing): "..using passive Xovers opens you up to the possibility of using all those high end DACs and amps and (I guess more of his magic wire) while the constricted budget level electronic (active) filters just suck the life out of music...".
Open Baffle Basics pt.2 - YouTube
Open Baffle Basics Part2
@ScottG: NO TIME STAMPS FOR YOU because you love watching Danny 😀
p.s. and please do not put yourself at risk by jumping from youtube to the Linkwitzlab website because the level of material there may shock you. It takes some step like transitioning like after scuba diving to adjust to the change.
Last edited:
I just keep going back to the tube connector thing. There is absolutely no way in the world that substituting those tube connectors for quality binding posts can change the sound in any perceptible way. The physics are just not there.
So when someone insists that there will not only be a perceptible difference in the sound, but a fairly significant improvement, I have to therefore discount just about everything else that person has to say.
There may actually be some validity in his other comments. But unfortunately the trust is already gone.
And then on top of that when this person who does not have a formal education in electrical engineering disses those that do by calling them ‘flat earthers’ it further destroys any trust that may have been there
-oh God, Danny just drones on, and on, and on. 😱 (..it's like inverted ASMR videos: droning with a slight chance of slitting your wrist.)
There is a reason why good Youtuber's read from a thought-out script and keep the video to a modest length. 😀
Don't go deifying SL. While having that bio - it doesn't make up for some very questionable design choices with the Orion. (..though really, the choices were again for aesthetic reasons attempting to blend form with function while missing-out on some of the more technical aspects of the design. ..and the design was a success overall: it was far more domestically acceptable than any of his other designs.)
BTW, I don't think ANYONE ever said that SL didn't understand C-C distance.
Instead, SL CHOSE to put the tweeter further in distance from the midbass. My guess is that it had something to do with mounting and rear reflections (..specifically that mount for the rear tweeter). Basically a "balancing" decision even though the vertical "window" is pretty narrow before you start into crossover "suck-out".
In other words the Orion was not only well thought-out, it was at once a very good design (balancing a range of issues) and a mediocre design (with regard to ultimate performance).
Obviously the LX was for SL: pushing into the deep-end of ultimate performance (..and having to somewhat sheepishly acknowledge the aesthetic choices that resulted from that pursuit).
Last edited:
Honestly I'm not into "Danny" and haven't followed his technical progress with designs. 😉
Chances are he has cut numerous baffles though, and of course played with non-baffles. Anyone actually pursuing this (different design choices with open baffle) has. ..and anyone selling product based on open-baffle designs always has to balance the design with market acceptance (..and you don't see to many no-baffle designs, where the particular driver operates below the frame's maximal diffractive gain point, because of that).
Different design choices for each type - and I've got nothing against wide-baffles as a part of the overall design.
I do have problems with freq. oscillation as a result of combing from diffractive effects (notably above about 1.4 kHz), and I have serious problems with any baffle REFLECTION. As Danny said in the first video: those effects let the listener (audibly) "know" where the speaker is.
Where are your OB's?: I like good system pic's! 🙂
Last edited:
monitors for sound pros
I think now we are starting to concur. I almost wish I could change the thread now to become about something else that is more worth talking about.
people are still welcome to comment on Danny but I will start mixing in other stuff: e.g. that monitor that was recommended above: JBL 708(or5)P:
I find it interesting that the industry seems to have moved completely into monitors which use CD and a waveguide. If the sound engineers were to use those how are they going to make recordings that sound good on direct radiator speakers which are common in average listening settings?
I sort of (half)decided not to spend money on making one like that. I listened to Geddes speakers (had a demo at his home) and I have had 18sound xt1086 horns sitting in a box for years, but when I see stuff like that it makes me reconsider (maybe just try one for the heck of it and run it at super low levels?).
I think now we are starting to concur. I almost wish I could change the thread now to become about something else that is more worth talking about.
people are still welcome to comment on Danny but I will start mixing in other stuff: e.g. that monitor that was recommended above: JBL 708(or5)P:
I find it interesting that the industry seems to have moved completely into monitors which use CD and a waveguide. If the sound engineers were to use those how are they going to make recordings that sound good on direct radiator speakers which are common in average listening settings?
I sort of (half)decided not to spend money on making one like that. I listened to Geddes speakers (had a demo at his home) and I have had 18sound xt1086 horns sitting in a box for years, but when I see stuff like that it makes me reconsider (maybe just try one for the heck of it and run it at super low levels?).
Last edited:
OBs
Kick@#! winged OBs for pick up in Ontario
sound great but WAF is not there (so I had to put LXMinis in their place to please 🙂 )
Kick@#! winged OBs for pick up in Ontario
sound great but WAF is not there (so I had to put LXMinis in their place to please 🙂 )
I thought it was a good looking design. (..though like any design there were a few things that made me go.. "errrrrrrrrrr, this could stand improvement": specifically the reflection points off of the interior side-cut-out edges for the tweeter-midrange (..in need of a strip of inch thick felt glued to that edge), and perhaps a bit more chamfering of the rear midrange's baffle.)
Also note that your design with the cut-outs around the midrange and tweeter I believe was similar to one of SL's earlier designs (though his was MTM), haven't seen that pic. for awhile though (so I could be wrong). I always wondered why he progressed with removing the smaller midrange drivers in favor of the larger midbass drivers and fewer drivers.. and then obviously came back to that with the LX. 😕
The leopard-print however was ABSOLUTELY QUESTIONABLE. 😀
Also note that your design with the cut-outs around the midrange and tweeter I believe was similar to one of SL's earlier designs (though his was MTM), haven't seen that pic. for awhile though (so I could be wrong). I always wondered why he progressed with removing the smaller midrange drivers in favor of the larger midbass drivers and fewer drivers.. and then obviously came back to that with the LX. 😕
The leopard-print however was ABSOLUTELY QUESTIONABLE. 😀
Last edited:
I don't usually comment here anymore but I was just browsing this threat and somewhere read that the claim was made that a passive crossover was better than active. I believed that for some time. Some of you may remember that when I first designed the NaO II it was a hybrid design where the MTM panel implemented a passive crossover between the mids and tweeter. The required eq to the lower mid and the mid to the woofer crossover were active, with active woofer eq. I felt this was superior approach because eliminated an amplifier and with all dipole eq done actively it minimized wasted power in a passive crossover. My discussion of the approach is still on the web at Hybrid Design
However, over time there were requests for a fully active analog version which I reluctantly developed. Ultimately the fully active system, which duplicated the transfer functions of the hybrid system, proved to be superior in every way to the hybrid version. It lead me to make numerous changes to the hybrid system in an attempt to equal the performance of the analog active system. But I was never successful at achieving that. I then ultimately abandon any hybrid, passive approaches when developing the NAO II RS Digital and the NOTE II RS digital and went straight to digital active. I'll leave it at that.
However, over time there were requests for a fully active analog version which I reluctantly developed. Ultimately the fully active system, which duplicated the transfer functions of the hybrid system, proved to be superior in every way to the hybrid version. It lead me to make numerous changes to the hybrid system in an attempt to equal the performance of the analog active system. But I was never successful at achieving that. I then ultimately abandon any hybrid, passive approaches when developing the NAO II RS Digital and the NOTE II RS digital and went straight to digital active. I'll leave it at that.
Last edited:
Geddes' Summas are narrower directivity on the horizontal than the JBLs (including the M2). You don't get narrow with the JBLs you get constant off-axis and a rising power response that works with the flat frequency response. Sean Olive explains it in the attached tweets.
You also get controls -- more extensive on the 708 -- that adjust for boundaries. Of course, the 305 to 708 also match amplification with the drivers so you know that's dead on perfect as well, with the 708 capable of higher listening levels.
Geddes repeats the fact you can't design toward both 1) spaciousness and 2) imaging quality. Geddes designed toward imaging quality with narrower directivity. JBL designed toward spaciousness with wider directivity.
You also get controls -- more extensive on the 708 -- that adjust for boundaries. Of course, the 305 to 708 also match amplification with the drivers so you know that's dead on perfect as well, with the 708 capable of higher listening levels.
Geddes repeats the fact you can't design toward both 1) spaciousness and 2) imaging quality. Geddes designed toward imaging quality with narrower directivity. JBL designed toward spaciousness with wider directivity.
Attachments
Your profile image always called my attention. I interpret it as omni in the modal region. Cardioid in the low-mid. Dipole in the mid-high and above.
To me, a scheme like that makes DIY worthwhile.
@ John,
I have found there to be very little difference between passive and active options.. but my best passive experiences have been in conjunction with a global equaliser. It's worth mentioning because we almost get global EQ for free when going active, for no reason other than the process lends itself in that direction almost without even noticing it.
The task of crossing and EQing is distinct, one cannot make up for the other. Elements of EQ I determined to be helpful would be translated back to passive speaker level, then I'd reset the equaliser. Crossover complexity was not allowed to become a limitation. Acoustic fixes were always considered once identified.
I have found there to be very little difference between passive and active options.. but my best passive experiences have been in conjunction with a global equaliser. It's worth mentioning because we almost get global EQ for free when going active, for no reason other than the process lends itself in that direction almost without even noticing it.
The task of crossing and EQing is distinct, one cannot make up for the other. Elements of EQ I determined to be helpful would be translated back to passive speaker level, then I'd reset the equaliser. Crossover complexity was not allowed to become a limitation. Acoustic fixes were always considered once identified.
Originally I came to this forum to learn about DIY speakers. But after reading above I have my doubts if DIY makes sense in terms of saving money (not considering our own time).
I looked up the JBL 705P and 708P and especially the 708P has great reviews.
The JBL 708P cost on the US JBL site 1799 USD per speaker. If that is the perfect speaker I would be willing to spend that money.
Now back to DIY: Do the other members agree with above statement "You'll never be able to DIY speakers better than those"?
Because obviously building speakers can be fun. But if I spend more money building speakers than if I would buy brand name professional speakers then I better spend my creative hours with something else.
oh, you can definitely build fantastic speakers. but if you are only thinking "$ value" then you should not build since diy speakers do not have much retail value, no matter how well they sound (sad really). if you are thinking hobby and fun then the checkbook factor starts to matter a lot less. then it comes down to building as many speakers and amps to experience an occasional nirvana which happens as a rare combination of speakers+room+placement+amps+music material, so the value proposition is no longer the ownership of a particular piece of equipment but the experience (akin e.g. to traveling to a place).
Last edited:
I don't think about value for resale. I think about what would I be able to build DIY for 3600 USD? Would any DIY speaker pair for that money sound a lot better than a set of JBL 708P?
Or the other way around: How much would I have to spend for DIY parts if I want to match the performance of the 708P?
I don't intend to sell any speakers if I build them and if they sound great.
Now my edit after your edit: I am sure I would enjoy the travel to the place to build DIY speakers. But at least in the moment my plan was/is to travel that way one time and do it right from the beginning. I don't want to build 3 or 5 sets of speakers before I end up with something great.
Last edited:
This question really belongs in a different thread, but I've built five pairs of DIY speakers, and none of them were built to save money: they were built because they sound better than any retail speaker I've heard of similar price here (Australia).
Only one pair looks as good as a retail speaker, as I'm no cabinet maker: the nice looking pair was built by a family friend. The others look very average and would have little resale value, if that's a concern (not for me).
If you build a proved or high end project by a well known designer, I suggest that they will sound 'better' (accurate, enjoyable, well balanced etc) than a new retail speaker of the same or higher price. For example, Paul Carmody's Classix II cost me about A$350 plus my labour: I haven't heard anything in a retail store here that sounds as good, anywhere near the price.
Curt Campbell's Tritrix and Slapshot MTMs sound way better than their modest build price; the Slapshots are of 'reference' quality and cost me about A$1300. Ralf Giralfino of this Forum helped me with a pair of Peerless bookshelf speakers which sound great for just A$250.
A friend of ours has a **** system and the Slapshots kill them for sound quality and value.
Oh, and none of my projects use tube connectors....
Geoff
JohnK's avatar combines three dispersion patterns. But how you combine those is open and NaO Notes don't have omni radiation at all.
My AINOgradient is omni below 100Hz, cardioid 100-250Hz and dipole from there up - the horizontal pattern is in my avatar.
My heroes and sources of dipole speaker design are
Rudolf Finke Dipolplus - Alles über offene Schallwände
John Kreskowsky Original Offerings
Siegfried Linkwitz Linkwitz Lab - Loudspeaker Design
Jorma Salmi Gradient story - Gradient Labs Oy
The JBL 708P is intended for professional use in a mixing studio and is not well suited for home audiophile use. It has built in Class D amplifiers, a DSP that must be programmed, and a very complicated set of manual controls that must be set just right. Professionals in mixing rooms might find those useful and know how to set them, but you might very well find them to be a big pain to deal with and to get to sound right.
Moreover, it has far more power than you will probably ever need and along with that comes much higher distortion specifications than the type of audiophile speakers that are discussed here on this forum.
It’s really not a good fit for home use. I don’t care what anyone else here says. And at $3,600 it is no bargain either. For lot less money you can buy all the parts you need to build your own speakers that will sound even better than these for enjoyable music listening at home.
Last edited: