I can assure you that I have tried everything.
Crossing the speakers so much makes the sound image narrow. I prefer them to be crossed 1 meter behind or more. Then the sound image becomes wide.
I wonder how much the box really affects the sound image of a full range speaker?
If I manage to stiffen up and make the box completely dead from internal impact.
I can imagine if you play loudly, over 95 db, so the glasses rattle and the ears almost fall off, that affects the cabinet more than you do when you play like 75 db.
If I manage to stiffen up and make the box completely dead from internal impact.
I can imagine if you play loudly, over 95 db, so the glasses rattle and the ears almost fall off, that affects the cabinet more than you do when you play like 75 db.
My experience:
A "stiffed up and completely dead from internal impact box" does sound dead.
Our ears do love distortions. They need distortions;-)
A "stiffed up and completely dead from internal impact box" does sound dead.
Our ears do love distortions. They need distortions;-)
Last edited by a moderator:
;-)
I would love tube amps;-)
The "sonic advantage" of most tube amps is their less complex construction: few components, few amplifying stages. And their materials: glass and metals.
Many confuse their cleanliness, which is hardly detectable with peek measurement methods, with "distortions" (thd, tmd...), which is detectable with peek measurement methods.
Aside: most "electricians" only know peek-measurement methods and misinterpret them as hearing-measurement methods)-;
I would love tube amps;-)
The "sonic advantage" of most tube amps is their less complex construction: few components, few amplifying stages. And their materials: glass and metals.
Many confuse their cleanliness, which is hardly detectable with peek measurement methods, with "distortions" (thd, tmd...), which is detectable with peek measurement methods.
Aside: most "electricians" only know peek-measurement methods and misinterpret them as hearing-measurement methods)-;
Last edited by a moderator:
If you love distortion, choose tubes.
If you love a sound image that is detailed and provides information in width and depth, choose something else. ClassD can create depth and breadth.
There are many amplifiers that cannot create depth in the sound image.
If you love a sound image that is detailed and provides information in width and depth, choose something else. ClassD can create depth and breadth.
There are many amplifiers that cannot create depth in the sound image.
Depth in soundstage:
moves the speakers together until the depth, created from the mono parts of the signals playing together, is present. But also the cleanliness, the noiselessness of electronic devices is crucial for depth.
The vast majority of transistor amplifiers are too complex to play a clean or noise-free sound. In addition, very different sounding complementary transistors, which results in very different sounding half-waves. Also with transistor amplifiers, whether analog or digital, I recommend minimal designs. I prefer se and max. 2 stages.
Who has ever compared the sound of transistors, whether with each other, or with e.g. resistors or diodes, will want to do without any transistor. In addition, 9 of 10 transistors, whether bipolar or mosfet or jfet, are simply unsuitable for audio applications: gray, flat, tired, cloudy, "noisy".
moves the speakers together until the depth, created from the mono parts of the signals playing together, is present. But also the cleanliness, the noiselessness of electronic devices is crucial for depth.
The vast majority of transistor amplifiers are too complex to play a clean or noise-free sound. In addition, very different sounding complementary transistors, which results in very different sounding half-waves. Also with transistor amplifiers, whether analog or digital, I recommend minimal designs. I prefer se and max. 2 stages.
Who has ever compared the sound of transistors, whether with each other, or with e.g. resistors or diodes, will want to do without any transistor. In addition, 9 of 10 transistors, whether bipolar or mosfet or jfet, are simply unsuitable for audio applications: gray, flat, tired, cloudy, "noisy".
Yes of course But in the end of the game i subscribe to the party that thinks that a cabinet must not flinch even when shaken with a powerful 60Hz signal
I would love to know which kind of measurements high quality brands do on their cabinet and understand if they can be replicated at DIY level
Maybe above a certain point of mass/stiffness the improvements could be minimal So not really needed
Another video i found extremely interesting ... this one
So it seems that stiffness is more important than mass Their speakers are quite heavy but not the heaviest around for sure
I have read of speakers of 200kg I do not understand the monoliths by the way I like the sub + sat approach a lot indeed
I would prefer concrete or some plastics or some metals for cabinets. It is not alone the "not flinch" but also e.g. the sonic character of the materials, their "resistance" - to the movement of the drivers - and their resonance.
Wooden speakers can be well countered by means of metals. Whether as plugs, sockets or spikes and plates. But still, best-tuned wooden speakers would never achieve the resolution and neutrality of concrete, for example. But a highly musical tuning is mostly feasible - unless it is a dead damped cabinet, e.g. by too thick and unpleasantly resonating wood materials.
Mass-stiffness-material-character ratio;-?
E.g. with mass record players are subsonic uncleanlinesses, which are unknowingly misinterpreted as particularly deep or clean bass, which mostly counters wood character, whether of the loudspeakers or of any bases, consequence.
My experience.
Wooden speakers can be well countered by means of metals. Whether as plugs, sockets or spikes and plates. But still, best-tuned wooden speakers would never achieve the resolution and neutrality of concrete, for example. But a highly musical tuning is mostly feasible - unless it is a dead damped cabinet, e.g. by too thick and unpleasantly resonating wood materials.
Mass-stiffness-material-character ratio;-?
E.g. with mass record players are subsonic uncleanlinesses, which are unknowingly misinterpreted as particularly deep or clean bass, which mostly counters wood character, whether of the loudspeakers or of any bases, consequence.
My experience.
I think the damping is more important than the box.
Want as little damping as possible so as not to kill the acoustics.
Hate standing waves but it's a matter of balance.
Want as little damping as possible so as not to kill the acoustics.
Hate standing waves but it's a matter of balance.
Last edited by a moderator:
People are still doing it wrong...
The correct way would be to glue the speakers(s) onto a granite totem-pole, which is driven 3 metres into the earth.
Then, we only need to deal with air vibrations from the back wave, and not the additional problem of a bulky magnet pushing the box around as well.
The correct way would be to glue the speakers(s) onto a granite totem-pole, which is driven 3 metres into the earth.
Then, we only need to deal with air vibrations from the back wave, and not the additional problem of a bulky magnet pushing the box around as well.
Actually some people did it very right The challenge is to do it right with "human" speakers I am sure that just for name one Rockport did it right
But then i look at the specs of their Antares and see 400 lbs/each and 40 kUSD/pair Very few can afford speakers like those
The question for me is ... can it be done right the same with much less weight and cost ? of course it can ... to do it is the challenge
But then i look at the specs of their Antares and see 400 lbs/each and 40 kUSD/pair Very few can afford speakers like those
The question for me is ... can it be done right the same with much less weight and cost ? of course it can ... to do it is the challenge
Last edited by a moderator:
For a commercial company? Of course, to a modestly greater or lesser extent -at the end of the day, they're businesses, not charities. If they don't turn a profit, they don't survive. That isn't, however, a synonym for 'everybody involved is inept and all commercial products are devoid of engineering merit'. There is plenty of junk out there. But there are also good products too.
Perhaps not 'every' but a lot can, or better than sometimes might appear.
On thing you may not have tried. Extreme nearfield: take your regular speakers, mild toe-in if desired (but only mild), place about, oh, 6ft apart and plonk yourself down between them, about 1ft from the front baffles. Assuming a speaker with reasonable dispersion & consistent polars, you'll have a rock-solid phantom centre and strong left-right stereo. I used to do this, mostly as a joke, when demoing the MA-Sota range at shows, since a lot of attendees had never tried it. It doesn't work with big floorstanders or the larger types of 3-way etc. standmounts as they usually need more distance for proper integration, but anything up to, say, a half-decent 8in 2-way with some consideration for the polars can give many people a bit of a surprise when set up like this.
Last edited:
Significant affects. Comparison of CGR Mar-Ken12 to the same alignment trapezoid. Sonically illustrated why one would take the effort to build the more complex one
dave
i see But this is not a listening position that one could keep normally For me the Stenheim approach is the best one But not only them
Other brands have used Al for cabinets before ... Krell Audiomachina Genelec Kef The so called ringing can be eliminated very easily from what i understand
In the real diy world MDF looks like the only option by the way
Last edited:
What makes you believe that? There are plenty of better materials than MDF for bass enclosures -any quality void-free multiply (Baltic bitch, apple, marine, bamboo) will outperform it in MOE terms, and also have the advantage of the laminate construction increasing internal boundary losses. MDF's only real virtue is consistency and relative lack of expense -it's okay for midrange / HF enclosures, but not a particularly efficient engineering solution for LF boxes. While it can be used effectively for those enclosures, to do so well takes you into the realms of brute-force engineering, a la Avalon. They use it because they're a commercial company, not a philanthropic institution, so they have overheads and margins to consider. It isn't because it's the 'best' material option available.
CRS or a good aluminium (solid or honeycomb) are excellent options for speaker cabinets, but less viable for many DIYers. They ring like a bell if you hit them -which is good, because hitting a speaker cabinet has very little connection to the actual operating conditions involved. The frequency and Q of the modes is typically very high, where relatively little energy is available to excite them, and can be damped with comparatively little material. That's 'efficient engineering'. 😉 As noted though, it's also expensive & difficult engineering for most DIYers, so a high MOE wood or grass based sheet material leans in that direction while being more viable for the majority. Apart from me, obviously, since what minimal talent I had for building things vanished some time ago, and these days a hammer is about the limit of my skillset. 😉
CRS or a good aluminium (solid or honeycomb) are excellent options for speaker cabinets, but less viable for many DIYers. They ring like a bell if you hit them -which is good, because hitting a speaker cabinet has very little connection to the actual operating conditions involved. The frequency and Q of the modes is typically very high, where relatively little energy is available to excite them, and can be damped with comparatively little material. That's 'efficient engineering'. 😉 As noted though, it's also expensive & difficult engineering for most DIYers, so a high MOE wood or grass based sheet material leans in that direction while being more viable for the majority. Apart from me, obviously, since what minimal talent I had for building things vanished some time ago, and these days a hammer is about the limit of my skillset. 😉
Last edited:
The acoustics, so to speak, will depend on the cone geometry and outer baffle, and this doesn't change with a change in damping material in the box. However the power out will equalise with the change in box volume, and the rear colouration from standing waves etc will change.
It is known that I prefer Alpair drivers.
Cone geometry is probably the answer to this.
Well-balanced sound is spread with these drivers.
Everything affects, some more some less.
Have 4 Alpair drivers now and I have always been satisfied. Certainly the box has an impact, but perhaps the driver has the biggest impact. Choosing a driver is the hardest part to be satisfied. It is the deep bass and the highest tweeter that are usually the weak point in a full range driver.
Alpair does this best with a reasonable cost.
There are better drivers that handle this better, but it costs maybe 10-50 times more.
We should be happy that Alpair exists.
Cone geometry is probably the answer to this.
Well-balanced sound is spread with these drivers.
Everything affects, some more some less.
Have 4 Alpair drivers now and I have always been satisfied. Certainly the box has an impact, but perhaps the driver has the biggest impact. Choosing a driver is the hardest part to be satisfied. It is the deep bass and the highest tweeter that are usually the weak point in a full range driver.
Alpair does this best with a reasonable cost.
There are better drivers that handle this better, but it costs maybe 10-50 times more.
We should be happy that Alpair exists.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not at all in my experience as mentioned above - £30 laptop source, £20 Behringer DAC and an inuke amp I had laying around! With the electronics' distortion three or four magnitudes below that of the speakers, and the room making nonsense of ruler-flat anechoic measurements I know where my money is prioritised. I do concede, however that a better source will add that last few percent, but all this is subject to the woeful variation in recording quality - we all have no choice but to listen to the mastering engineer's taste in sound.