Scott
Sorry, I haven’t read this thread for a while…
How could I have some personal issue with you? I’ve never met you, and I’ve no idea who you are. What could you possibly say in private that would make any difference? Offer me a bribe from Fostex?
I apologise for the somewhat offhand yeah, right, etc, but then on the other hand, who begs another persons pardon in a written exchange? Get the wax out of your eyeballs.
I posted the link to the review to provide some balance for other readers, not for your benefit.
You may find my objections to the way in which you express yourself trivial; but when you use words like ‘optimal’ in this context it appears to me to be an attempt to dress up ‘I don’t like them’ to give it some kind of scientific credibility which it at best only partially merits. If you don’t like them, I’m interested in that (but less so if it is based more on hearsay [or even educated guesswork] than experience.)
All speakers and enclosures involve some compromise in SQ and are sub-optimal in some sense. What then is contributed to the discourse by the use of this word? It’s just an unnecessary derogation.
If you were talking about the impedance matching of a transistor amplifier for low noise from the S-parameters, or other comparatively deterministic engineering solution then I would consider such language appropriate, but loudspeakers are not readily modelled, and anyway there is the human dimension.
Loudspeakers, in my experience and from what I have read, enjoy less correspondence between listener satisfaction and modelled (or measured) performance than any other component.
Where loudspeakers are concerned I am much more likely to be influenced by the reported impressions of those with direct experience of a piece of equipment, and particularly where they draw direct comparisons with other equipment, than an evaluation based largely on computation, given the current state of the art.
My impression is that your personal experience with these speakers is not great, and that anyway, for my taste, too much of your ‘listening’ is habitually done with some organ other than your ears. Perhaps you could disabuse me of this and suggest some speaker setup which in the past you have chosen for its overall sound quality (or any other factor) over the fact that it does not graph perfectly flat (or whatever is your personal flavour of the month) in simulation as does the author of the TNT article. I note that you do start to talk about your experience of the speakers later, but this only tends to reinforce my impression that this is of secondary importance to you. If you had started there, and then moved on to the graphs, perhaps my impression would have been different.
As far as ‘canny buys’ are concerned, David can ship a pair of Fostex speakers to the UK including $80 shipping and a free set of plans (which you can ignore) cheaper than you can buy them from Wilmslow Audio and probably cheaper than anywhere else.
The AN have a better Xmax than the Fostex (206) and the supers have a phase plug. There’s some reason to think they _may_ outperform the Fostex in a Big ugly Box
Without double-blind listening tests it’s all just a lot of hot air anyway, but David does have the advantage of considerable customer feedback.
w
Sorry, I haven’t read this thread for a while…
How could I have some personal issue with you? I’ve never met you, and I’ve no idea who you are. What could you possibly say in private that would make any difference? Offer me a bribe from Fostex?
I apologise for the somewhat offhand yeah, right, etc, but then on the other hand, who begs another persons pardon in a written exchange? Get the wax out of your eyeballs.
I posted the link to the review to provide some balance for other readers, not for your benefit.
You may find my objections to the way in which you express yourself trivial; but when you use words like ‘optimal’ in this context it appears to me to be an attempt to dress up ‘I don’t like them’ to give it some kind of scientific credibility which it at best only partially merits. If you don’t like them, I’m interested in that (but less so if it is based more on hearsay [or even educated guesswork] than experience.)
All speakers and enclosures involve some compromise in SQ and are sub-optimal in some sense. What then is contributed to the discourse by the use of this word? It’s just an unnecessary derogation.
If you were talking about the impedance matching of a transistor amplifier for low noise from the S-parameters, or other comparatively deterministic engineering solution then I would consider such language appropriate, but loudspeakers are not readily modelled, and anyway there is the human dimension.
Loudspeakers, in my experience and from what I have read, enjoy less correspondence between listener satisfaction and modelled (or measured) performance than any other component.
Where loudspeakers are concerned I am much more likely to be influenced by the reported impressions of those with direct experience of a piece of equipment, and particularly where they draw direct comparisons with other equipment, than an evaluation based largely on computation, given the current state of the art.
My impression is that your personal experience with these speakers is not great, and that anyway, for my taste, too much of your ‘listening’ is habitually done with some organ other than your ears. Perhaps you could disabuse me of this and suggest some speaker setup which in the past you have chosen for its overall sound quality (or any other factor) over the fact that it does not graph perfectly flat (or whatever is your personal flavour of the month) in simulation as does the author of the TNT article. I note that you do start to talk about your experience of the speakers later, but this only tends to reinforce my impression that this is of secondary importance to you. If you had started there, and then moved on to the graphs, perhaps my impression would have been different.
As far as ‘canny buys’ are concerned, David can ship a pair of Fostex speakers to the UK including $80 shipping and a free set of plans (which you can ignore) cheaper than you can buy them from Wilmslow Audio and probably cheaper than anywhere else.
The AN have a better Xmax than the Fostex (206) and the supers have a phase plug. There’s some reason to think they _may_ outperform the Fostex in a Big ugly Box
Without double-blind listening tests it’s all just a lot of hot air anyway, but David does have the advantage of considerable customer feedback.
w
I have no connection to Fostex so I couldn't offer you a bribe even if it was in my genetic makeup to stoop to such levels (and yes, I know your comment above was not meant to be taken literally. Neither was the above
). My reply: a simple query to ask if you had some kind of problem with me that merited responses like the one you had previously made, and if so, if you would care to discuss it like gentlemen, offline, rather than clutter a thread up, was based upon that. You will have noted I was not the only one to interpret your earlier remark in that fashion. 'I beg your pardon' is traditionally known as a polite question. You might not use it when writing -I happen to. No wax is in my eyeballs, & could you please cease the personal remarks?
In re the link, I am aware of that. My response was also generalised; incidentally, the data contained within it, sketchy though it is, merely underlines my point
Frankly, and with respect, I do consider your objection to my using the phrase 'sub-optimal' to be somewhat trivial. Let us again reflect on a few facts. The enclosures (which were not designed for the drive-units, having been around for several years before AN even existed) are misaligned for the drivers. Extension, smoothness & group-dealy aren't great, & their impedance is trickier too. I believe that is, by definition, what most people would call sub-optimal. One thing is for certain I dress nothing up -that is a highly offensive remark, given that I've never dressed anything up in my life, and I certainly don't need you to explain anything about speaker design to me thank you. I do know a little bit about it, believe it or not.
WRT software, they are cabinets: ergo they conform to the laws of physics. If you don't like MathCAD, LspCAD or whatever & object to such things, that's up to you. Most loudspeakers are in fact quite readily modelled in terms of their basic technical performance, and numerous conclusions can be drawn from such data, just as it would in an amplifier. However, before you decide to write a witty post implying that this means I only read & believe graphs, I suggest you read a) the next part below, and b)some of my wider posts WRT the utility and the limitations of computer modelling software.
Repeating what I wrote in an earlier post: I have heard several of these CSA cabinets over the past few years, with numerous drivers & amps, in numerous situations. So I have plenty of experience with them. They were mediocre at best, an impression shared by the other people present. The drivers provided far superior performance in a better optimised enclosure. I know, because I, and several other people, tried it. And no -I didn't design the latter. I've also had several pairs of the drivers here for a few months to listen to & use. I think that might count as personal experience. Personally, I attach less credence to reports about the sound than a software model: the latter isn't affected by taste. However, you can to a considerable extent infer taste from it.
Me? Bother with a cabinet that doesn't provide a pretty graph? Well, yes, actually, which I dare say will disappoint you. The BIB pipe-horn would be a good start -a cabinet that models apallingly, due to software limitations, measures rather well if used correctly, and one that I and a couple of others have put a huge amount of work into over the past 3 years or so. An excellent type of simple enclosure & highly recommended, if you can cope with the height & have a couple of corners spare. I've lost count of the number I've built, either for main system use, or prototyping new variations etc. If you've a pair of 8in ANs & want to hear them flat to 30Hz & solid into the high 20Hz regions, that's the way to do it.
To that, we could add at least 4 of my own recent designs which do not model attractively, again due to limitations in the software, which cannot accurately show the upper corner frequency, or display the response above this point. In each case however, we are not dealing with simple box MLTLs, which are a doddle for MathCAD et al to model, but with corner-horns, and much more complicated QW / horn variations. In the former case, the software cannot as yet simulate the effects of corner-loading a horn, in the latter, that of an Olson-inspired folding scheme on attenuating midrange frequencies.
Yes indeed & I should hope so too, although remember you also have to factor import duty & VAT into this, plus handling fees by Parcel-Force or whoever into the final price. Been there, done that, got the badge, although I get my units from David Dlugos in Canada rather than David Dicks in the 'States.
Actually, the the 8in Audio Nirvanas have a lower X-max than the FE206E 1.0mm for the ANs, 1.5mm for the Fostex. On paper, that's a bit of a disadvantage for use in a BR / MLTL; having said that, I'm notorious for my cynicism about X-max as a guide, as you are no-doubt aware.
I still rate the equivalent Fostex as the superior drivers (better build, detailing & extension at both ends), having run examples of both in numerous configurations, though as I've said, I consider the equivalent ANs to be decent units. However, if you want a balanced response (which has nothing to do with personal preference), they'll still need correction, or loading into a lengthy horn. Same applies to the FE166E & FE206E (less so to the 167 & 207, which have a flatter overall FR). Of the AN range, I find the cast frame & 10in models the most interesting, because they have no rivals.
ABX = useful, though you have to be as careful with that as a guide as anything else, especially the test conditions, or results can be severely skewed. I like them; they're another valuable tool, but no more. In re customer feedback, nice, though speaking personally, I regard any site with large amounts of un-referenced feedback and no basic measurements of the product, with a somewhat jaundiced eye. YMMV of course.
Qucik addendum to the above, lest you still think I'm praising Fostex to the stars & rubbishing the AN drivers (which hopefully you'll have gathered that I'm not). The former certainly benefit from the addition of a phase plug, I wholeheartedly agree. Generally, this has it's most dramatic effect on the FExx6E series units, which have a rising response similar to the AN drivers, because they were designed to be used in horns. Improves the midrange & takes a nice shot of sibilence away at a stroke. Well worth doing. The FExx7E units also benefit significantly, albeit not to the same extent as their sister models. I'm running my 167s plugged, for example & fell in love with Loreena McKennitt all over again.
The Fostex units also benefit greatly from magnet & basket damping, and some cone modifications -strategic damping & stiffening etc., to kill spurious resonances. I haven't tried it, as the drivers I've had here didn't belong to me, but the AN units should also benefit from the same (most FR units do). Not tried EnABLing any of my drive units yet -that's next on the to-do list. From the data my friend Ron has generated, & Dave's extensive experience, it should be very interesting.
Regards
Scott
The Fostex units also benefit greatly from magnet & basket damping, and some cone modifications -strategic damping & stiffening etc., to kill spurious resonances. I haven't tried it, as the drivers I've had here didn't belong to me, but the AN units should also benefit from the same (most FR units do). Not tried EnABLing any of my drive units yet -that's next on the to-do list. From the data my friend Ron has generated, & Dave's extensive experience, it should be very interesting.
Regards
Scott
The bass in the single AN Super 10 in the 2.8 Series 1 enclosure made of birch using the single 6" port hole was not to my liking. Not enough low end bass. That had me wishing I had built the enclosure using the twin 3" port holes. After talking to David, he informed me that by adding a 5" long port tube would be almost the same as twin 3" port holes. So I bought a couple and put them in. Awh.... Much better.
Listening from the sweet spot, the low end bass was very good.
But as you know, the bass will vary from different listening postisions. So their were other parts of my room, that still didn't have enough low end bass.
The solution is the Ambience which gives better bass all around.
For an extra $118 for the regular 8, it's worth it.
So my advice: If you only are going to listen to them from the sweet spot, than the single 10" are fine. If you want the bass to be distributed more evenly around the room, then the Ambience is your best bet.
'cut scott a bit of slack'
Cut scott a bit of slack.
I don’t think so.
David Dicks is a public person with both professional and private reputations at stake and ultimately livelihood.
‘scottmoose’ is an anonymous writer with only his self-image at stake who can change his alias any time it gets too hot in the kitchen.
As to the guy who wants to argue logic. Butt out. Anyone can google a latin phrase. It’s close enough for folk music.
Cut scott a bit of slack.
I don’t think so.
David Dicks is a public person with both professional and private reputations at stake and ultimately livelihood.
‘scottmoose’ is an anonymous writer with only his self-image at stake who can change his alias any time it gets too hot in the kitchen.
As to the guy who wants to argue logic. Butt out. Anyone can google a latin phrase. It’s close enough for folk music.
What you are suggesting about my integrity is offensive in the extreme. HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT I AM A LIAR, THAT I HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES OR WOULD EVEN CONTEMPLATE ENGAGING IN SOCK-PUPPETING. I've asked politely several times that if you have a problem with me, for you to contact me via PM to sort it out like gentlemen. You have decided not to do that, but to publically insult me.
I, matey, have spent the best part of 5 years attempting as best I can to help other people, here, on other forums, and in designs on the frugal-horn site that I have done, for nothing, with no thought of personal gain. Plenty of people are now in a position to benefit from my work financially, should they wish. I'm not. As you would know if you bothered to look. So, until such time as you have done an equal amount for the community for nothing whatsoever in return, you are hardly in a place to question my integrity. I believe an immediate and unconditional apology is not an unreasonable request.
As for your attitude toward other people with your foul 'butt out' remarks and comments like 'yeah, right, whatever' (to a fairly detailed response I made addressing your previous post), sort yourself out. Both your language, and attitude toward other forum users, who are entitled to their views without being patronised & insulted by yourself. It is people like you who are increasingly making me question my participation on forums, or bothering to help other people at all. Frankly, at the rate things are going, I can't be bothered. And I know several other people who feel the same way.
I, matey, have spent the best part of 5 years attempting as best I can to help other people, here, on other forums, and in designs on the frugal-horn site that I have done, for nothing, with no thought of personal gain. Plenty of people are now in a position to benefit from my work financially, should they wish. I'm not. As you would know if you bothered to look. So, until such time as you have done an equal amount for the community for nothing whatsoever in return, you are hardly in a place to question my integrity. I believe an immediate and unconditional apology is not an unreasonable request.
As for your attitude toward other people with your foul 'butt out' remarks and comments like 'yeah, right, whatever' (to a fairly detailed response I made addressing your previous post), sort yourself out. Both your language, and attitude toward other forum users, who are entitled to their views without being patronised & insulted by yourself. It is people like you who are increasingly making me question my participation on forums, or bothering to help other people at all. Frankly, at the rate things are going, I can't be bothered. And I know several other people who feel the same way.
Scottmoose, Please Stay
Scottmoose, even when you are using upper-case and italics, your gentleman's disposition still comes through.
Many people world-wide log in every day specifically to read your entertaining and enlightening posts. I hope you will stay. It's incredibly unfair that you would be one of the most helpful, generous contributors and then get little but grief in return.
But you may not realize the extent of your appreciative readership, sir.
Scottmoose, even when you are using upper-case and italics, your gentleman's disposition still comes through.
Many people world-wide log in every day specifically to read your entertaining and enlightening posts. I hope you will stay. It's incredibly unfair that you would be one of the most helpful, generous contributors and then get little but grief in return.
But you may not realize the extent of your appreciative readership, sir.
We all learn from you people, Scott , MJK etc,, that is what keeps us ticking & building & I'm sure in appreciated by most all who learn from here. For anyone to come on any forum & know it all ..says all. One acception I make is Romy's site & then must be carefull to just grab info, bank it & get the f.. out. Actaully the only reason I DIY is because I beat nice production gear with study & time & lotsa of persistance. Without this hard cor DIY forums I would be stuck in commercial hell... a very bad place to be. I have seen many a top flight DIYer get chased away from good places as this,, very sad & bad for everyone.
Scott I'm sorry to see someone as honest and knowledgeable as you personally attacked for simply being honest, as everything that you said makes perfect sense.
Anyways back on subject as SY said...
Scott, the mass loaded transmission line you were talking about earlier for the AN10, would that require a BSC circuit? I am honestly totally new to DIY speaker design and know nothing about the circuit or actual cabinet design. I am an accomplished woodworker and have a lot of experience with soldering and circuits. Basically, I have come to diyaudio.com to be shown what to build and be told why I'm building it so that I can be set on the right path (to audio enlightenment, hehe). However I know that the reason that I am attracted to full range speakers is the single point source, and as much as I was originally attracted to BLH designs it would seem to me that the frequencies radiating out of the horn would blur the image. Maybe it would just be worth while to ask what your favorite speaker/cabinet combination is?
-Justin
Anyways back on subject as SY said...
Scott, the mass loaded transmission line you were talking about earlier for the AN10, would that require a BSC circuit? I am honestly totally new to DIY speaker design and know nothing about the circuit or actual cabinet design. I am an accomplished woodworker and have a lot of experience with soldering and circuits. Basically, I have come to diyaudio.com to be shown what to build and be told why I'm building it so that I can be set on the right path (to audio enlightenment, hehe). However I know that the reason that I am attracted to full range speakers is the single point source, and as much as I was originally attracted to BLH designs it would seem to me that the frequencies radiating out of the horn would blur the image. Maybe it would just be worth while to ask what your favorite speaker/cabinet combination is?
-Justin
Assuming I am the person Wakibaki was referring to with the 'butt out' comment (it is difficult to know), I guess a brief response is in order, though I doubt it will serve any real purpose...
Waki', you conveniently missed the point of my post, focussing on one small element, taken out of context, ignoring the rest. I am not even sure what you meant by your comment. So that you understand my intentions, I was simply, and without personally attacking you, refuting a couple of details you used in your personal attack on Scott, a long-time highly-regarded most-helpful and unselfish contributor to this forum.
Waki, as you raised the issue of logic, of sorts, I suggest you check your assumptions (what are they based on, are they valid, etc?) and rationalisation; your inductive reasoning, with regards to many topics you raised, especially Scott’s motivations, are also way off. And no, I don’t need to Google these terms, for what that is worth to you. You seem a smart(ish) guy, but until you can engage in discussion without resorting to merely personal attacks when someone offers a different perspective, you are rather limited...
On a more positive note: Scott, you’ve gotta stay mate. Your contributions to this forum have helped bring real music into people’s homes for reasonable cost – music means a lot to these people. Your contributions are most worthwhile – don’t let a couple of detractors (an euphemism in this context) change what you like to do; many will be worse off for it. Also, just copy some of your responses to personal attacks into a document, ready for cutting and pasting into a post for next time – time saved.
Okay, signing off.
Waki', you conveniently missed the point of my post, focussing on one small element, taken out of context, ignoring the rest. I am not even sure what you meant by your comment. So that you understand my intentions, I was simply, and without personally attacking you, refuting a couple of details you used in your personal attack on Scott, a long-time highly-regarded most-helpful and unselfish contributor to this forum.
Waki, as you raised the issue of logic, of sorts, I suggest you check your assumptions (what are they based on, are they valid, etc?) and rationalisation; your inductive reasoning, with regards to many topics you raised, especially Scott’s motivations, are also way off. And no, I don’t need to Google these terms, for what that is worth to you. You seem a smart(ish) guy, but until you can engage in discussion without resorting to merely personal attacks when someone offers a different perspective, you are rather limited...
On a more positive note: Scott, you’ve gotta stay mate. Your contributions to this forum have helped bring real music into people’s homes for reasonable cost – music means a lot to these people. Your contributions are most worthwhile – don’t let a couple of detractors (an euphemism in this context) change what you like to do; many will be worse off for it. Also, just copy some of your responses to personal attacks into a document, ready for cutting and pasting into a post for next time – time saved.
Okay, signing off.
I know it is a bit late but I will second what others have said. I never would have been where I am in my designing without Scott and others like him such as Martin, Dave and Ron. These people are very important to the livelihood of this forum as well as bring it vibrancy and character. Fools like Wikidiki or whatever he calls himself need to just be ignored. They are not useful to the dialog nor is it useful getting upset when they come around to cause trouble.
Thank you Scott for everything and I hope you won't let silliness like this ward you away. I think I am safe in saying we all enjoy your presence and would be greatly upset if you chose not to come around.
Tom
Thank you Scott for everything and I hope you won't let silliness like this ward you away. I think I am safe in saying we all enjoy your presence and would be greatly upset if you chose not to come around.
Tom
Cheers Tom. Impressive horn designs BTW -been meaning to mention them for a day or two. Nice work.
Hi Justin,
Good question in re the circuit & MLTL. It'll depend on your room, where you position them, and the character of the rest of your system (especially your amplifier) to be honest.
The box I outlined for the AN Super10 earlier, assuming 3/4in build material, is 15in wide externally, so step loss will occur at a relatively low frequency (-3db point at ~304Hz) which is approaching the point at which room-gain will start to kick in and flatten the response out. If they're near a rear wall or corners, you're unlikely to need a circuit to correct for step-loss, though you might want to add a notch-filter to flatten the naturally rising response of the driver out a bit if you find things a little bright sounding. If you have the boxes pulled out into the room, then you might like to experiment with a BSC circuit -a 1.6mH inductor paralleled with a 3ohm resistor should do the job. Adjust the level of HF attenuation by adjusting the value of the resistor.
Regarding BLH's, again, interesting question. Most tend to operate over a wider passband than a regular reflex cabinet, and you can get colourations / blurring of the midrange in badly designed cabinets. A well-designed one shouldn't have this issue; its simply a case that you don't want the horn operating up too high -about 300Hz, give or take, is about the limit.
In the case of the AN10in, given it's considerable size, my personal preference would be to either use it in an MLTL, or, a BVR type of cabinet (BR or MLTL with short horns, rather than a regular port-tube or slot). YMMV as always.
despotic931 said:
Hi Justin,
Good question in re the circuit & MLTL. It'll depend on your room, where you position them, and the character of the rest of your system (especially your amplifier) to be honest.
The box I outlined for the AN Super10 earlier, assuming 3/4in build material, is 15in wide externally, so step loss will occur at a relatively low frequency (-3db point at ~304Hz) which is approaching the point at which room-gain will start to kick in and flatten the response out. If they're near a rear wall or corners, you're unlikely to need a circuit to correct for step-loss, though you might want to add a notch-filter to flatten the naturally rising response of the driver out a bit if you find things a little bright sounding. If you have the boxes pulled out into the room, then you might like to experiment with a BSC circuit -a 1.6mH inductor paralleled with a 3ohm resistor should do the job. Adjust the level of HF attenuation by adjusting the value of the resistor.
Regarding BLH's, again, interesting question. Most tend to operate over a wider passband than a regular reflex cabinet, and you can get colourations / blurring of the midrange in badly designed cabinets. A well-designed one shouldn't have this issue; its simply a case that you don't want the horn operating up too high -about 300Hz, give or take, is about the limit.
In the case of the AN10in, given it's considerable size, my personal preference would be to either use it in an MLTL, or, a BVR type of cabinet (BR or MLTL with short horns, rather than a regular port-tube or slot). YMMV as always.
Scott,
First of all, let me add my voice to the many who have posted in support of you and the considerable help that you provide to these forums. Thank you for your advice and seemingly limitless patience that you despence upon us poor noobs in our quest of diy nirvanva.
Second, Is there a general characteristc that a "short horn" vent adds over a normal port? Does it resonate over a wider frequency? How would one go about modeling one?
Thanks again for all your help.
First of all, let me add my voice to the many who have posted in support of you and the considerable help that you provide to these forums. Thank you for your advice and seemingly limitless patience that you despence upon us poor noobs in our quest of diy nirvanva.
Second, Is there a general characteristc that a "short horn" vent adds over a normal port? Does it resonate over a wider frequency? How would one go about modeling one?
Thanks again for all your help.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.