You're absolutely right when you say some of my (earlier) statements are not engineer like. They are also quotes (definitive ideas) from other people.
About money: that's also what I don't understand: How is it possible that Scanspeak modifies their speakers only for Strauss, when they sell only a few units per year compared to well known brands? How is it possible for Strauss to develop the modifications for such a driver only for a few units per year. It makes all no sense to me.
Scanspeak will modify anything you want as long as you'll accept to pay for it.
Minimum Order can be a break but as long as you accept to pay for it... you are a customer.
Have you played with simulation software ( you already told you did 😉 )? Then you spoted they are based upon TS driver's parameters. If you know what to change to adapt your driver to your T/S needs, then Scanspeak know what to change on a design.
All this is if it's not blah blah... it's easy to have smoke curtain with statements like 'custom engineered' or things like that.
Minimum Order can be a break but as long as you accept to pay for it... you are a customer.
Have you played with simulation software ( you already told you did 😉 )? Then you spoted they are based upon TS driver's parameters. If you know what to change to adapt your driver to your T/S needs, then Scanspeak know what to change on a design.
All this is if it's not blah blah... it's easy to have smoke curtain with statements like 'custom engineered' or things like that.
Beyond Thiele/Small parameters, if you know you like the sound of a fiberglass cone, or a particular paper one, they would typically have other cone material options to easily select from if you're leaving most of the design alone. That would be a relatively low cost/low risk change. You're still going to pay more for a custom unit, but it wouldn't necessarily involve a lot of sophisticated testing.
No it is a hobby. I am an engineer with a research focus who works with high and medium tech industries. Areas are acoustical and mechanical engineering. Low tech industries like loudspeakers don't have the time or money to do research in the scientific sense with the possible occasional exception of one or two of the really big corporations. What they do is development for their products which certainly involves engineering but is not really my thing. In the 70s I was close to working for KEF and invited to consider the BBC. At the time I was a youngster studying acoustical engineering while off and on developing an active speaker with a cylindrical cast enclosure with a possible view to do something commercial with it. Then the audiophile thing happened and I and many like me dropped an interest in home audio in disgust. I'm older and a lot more tolerant these days.
I don't know what world class quality means? As an engineer one designs to meet objectives. It is more a job for marketing to convince consumers that the products are world class quality.
I don't understand the connection between the two sentences. There is nothing wrong with your way of thinking if you are happy with it and it gets the results you want. My point was that it is not how an engineer thinks.
Engineers are trained to reason about problems by using maths to apply scientific laws. It is logical, methodical and evidence based. Spotting what is true and relevant, connecting and building on it, taking the next step to get to a conclusion. Knowing the relevant engineering fundamentals is essential because without it one can't start the reasoning process. This makes it relatively easy to spot who is or is not reasoning like an engineer. For example, common interview questions for engineers are designed to see if a candidate can sift a given set of information for what is relevant, make reasonable estimates, do the numbers and come to reasonable conclusions.
I'm sure the Strauss speakers might be pretty decent, but their website is just full of marketing BS. What they write about passive / active is especially stupid and largely made up to make their products seem the only reasonable ones.
Lots of other variables, but little to do with the simplistic ways the surely very serious Jürgen Strauss has his marketing people try to convince us of.
Sooner or later someone here will mention some basic books to read, you can do worse than start with Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction". Also a good antidote to confusion through made-up claims is Ethan Winer's "The Audio Expert". As for simulation, why not have a look at VituixCad, and if you feel like it, have some fun with the rabbit hole that is AKABAK.
Good Hifi-speakers with a linear FR are perfectly fine as monitors. "Neutral, objective, linear with low THD" is pretty much the definition of of High-Fidelity, right? The difference to professional monitors is mostly in max SPL (for serious models) or in marketing efforts / design cues to signal "studio" rather than "living room" (for not-so-serious brands).
Lots of other variables, but little to do with the simplistic ways the surely very serious Jürgen Strauss has his marketing people try to convince us of.
Sooner or later someone here will mention some basic books to read, you can do worse than start with Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction". Also a good antidote to confusion through made-up claims is Ethan Winer's "The Audio Expert". As for simulation, why not have a look at VituixCad, and if you feel like it, have some fun with the rabbit hole that is AKABAK.
Hey Andy, great that you can judge that fast how other people are thinking. You must be a very intelligent person. Esp. when it's about other persons.
Didn't I mentioned that I've read some of the literaure and that I see, that big brands build speakers that are not equivalent to the things I've read? Is this not logical thinking for you? Do I believe anything without understanding it in a logical way? So why do you think I am here? Because I believe everything without understanding? Perhaps first you should look at your logical way of thinking. Sure you can define world class quality: this is when you reach the goal in a way that no one other can or only a few in the world. If you can make a bike as light as possible but with the same resilience. When you can make a cars engine more effective, using less of gas, when you can make the efficency of Powersupplies, Batteries,... on a very high level. I'm sure you don't understand that, because for you, I first have to define whats the price to increase the effiicency or whatever. Sorry I'm not here to make a phd esp. not in a correspondation with you. In speaker design you can also define world class quality: e.g. when you design a monitor that gives you a extremely detailed picture of a song, the depth, the stereo field, the room,... and when you make decisions on them, that they sound also good on other speakers.
So you're also hobbiyst about Speakers that what I've understood. I'm making music since years, and I was in touch with a lot of hobbyists. And they told a lot of things, how easy some parts of pieces are to play, but at the end, they were never able to play it like it should be played. They were not even able to hear, how it should be played. and then I went to the pros, and things looked completely different: they knew what they were talking about because they were also able to play it. Do you know what my way of logical thinking is: if someone is only telling you something and has never done it, why should I believe it's the whole story? Sorry I'm not here to fight with you andy, but your input didn't get me any further here. I'm sure you understand that because of your logical way of thinking, when you read what you've written here.
I've already tried vituix, that software gave me the length for about 50cm for 2 vents of 19.1cm2 each, one Driver: 15W8531, fB=39Hz, SBB4,VB=15L (about), Where can I find k for the vents for different geometry (correction factor or how you call it)? Already the baffle diffraction seem to be very primitive.
Didn't I mentioned that I've read some of the literaure and that I see, that big brands build speakers that are not equivalent to the things I've read? Is this not logical thinking for you? Do I believe anything without understanding it in a logical way? So why do you think I am here? Because I believe everything without understanding? Perhaps first you should look at your logical way of thinking. Sure you can define world class quality: this is when you reach the goal in a way that no one other can or only a few in the world. If you can make a bike as light as possible but with the same resilience. When you can make a cars engine more effective, using less of gas, when you can make the efficency of Powersupplies, Batteries,... on a very high level. I'm sure you don't understand that, because for you, I first have to define whats the price to increase the effiicency or whatever. Sorry I'm not here to make a phd esp. not in a correspondation with you. In speaker design you can also define world class quality: e.g. when you design a monitor that gives you a extremely detailed picture of a song, the depth, the stereo field, the room,... and when you make decisions on them, that they sound also good on other speakers.
So you're also hobbiyst about Speakers that what I've understood. I'm making music since years, and I was in touch with a lot of hobbyists. And they told a lot of things, how easy some parts of pieces are to play, but at the end, they were never able to play it like it should be played. They were not even able to hear, how it should be played. and then I went to the pros, and things looked completely different: they knew what they were talking about because they were also able to play it. Do you know what my way of logical thinking is: if someone is only telling you something and has never done it, why should I believe it's the whole story? Sorry I'm not here to fight with you andy, but your input didn't get me any further here. I'm sure you understand that because of your logical way of thinking, when you read what you've written here.
I've already tried vituix, that software gave me the length for about 50cm for 2 vents of 19.1cm2 each, one Driver: 15W8531, fB=39Hz, SBB4,VB=15L (about), Where can I find k for the vents for different geometry (correction factor or how you call it)? Already the baffle diffraction seem to be very primitive.
If anyone want to know what I understand under "professional speaker development" then read the white paper LS50 (link markbakk Page 1 on this thread).
Quite novel; it's like a class A amplifier had sex with a horizontal ATX case and a woofer 🤣
I'd stop listening to your friend and build one of the DXT-Mon variants
Maybe read the manual first and see what kind of tool you are using before sounding off. And yeah, surely everyone's going to read some white paper just in order to understand your thinking 😏
Bye!
Last edited:
This is going nowhere. @Tom79, it really, really is true the room is the weakest link. Next, your or anyone’s ears are.
I stopped years ago designing the perfect speaker, realized long ago it makes no sense. And I sure listened to a lot of good systems. But I’m not listening outside where room acoustics don’t ruin the perfect reproduction.
Go check out work on cardioid speakers like the D&D 8C and the reasoning behind them. Or have a look at Keele’s line sources. Or dive into the world of dipole speakers or MEH, all more or less well executed techniques to get the room to grips. That is so much more fulfilling than discussing details.
I stopped years ago designing the perfect speaker, realized long ago it makes no sense. And I sure listened to a lot of good systems. But I’m not listening outside where room acoustics don’t ruin the perfect reproduction.
Go check out work on cardioid speakers like the D&D 8C and the reasoning behind them. Or have a look at Keele’s line sources. Or dive into the world of dipole speakers or MEH, all more or less well executed techniques to get the room to grips. That is so much more fulfilling than discussing details.
Nice to be thought of as intelligent but being able to spot who reasons like an engineer is more to do with being trained as an engineer rather than intelligence. Similarly a lawyer will be able to spot pretty much immediately other lawyers in a way we can't. I think you are saying you can spot others that are not trained musicians. It's a pretty normal outcome of prolonged training in a field.
But what if it is straightforward to provide sufficient in a technical sense using straightforward engineering and common materials? A good example of this would be audio amplifiers which have been effectively audibly neutral (competent ones with this as an objective) since the 70s and so have been pretty much commodities for decades. Price matters, reliability, size and efficiency but world class quality for a commodity?
This is also pretty much the case for speakers with respect to the direct sound. Audibly neutral (inaudible linear and nonlinear distortion) is achievable using common engineering understood by many engineers. The indirect sound and it's interaction with the room with stereo recordings both adds and subtracts to our perception of sound. There isn't a correct sound radiation pattern for a speaker given the influence of the room, the recording and peoples expectations of the kind of music. The options though are reasonably well understood and can be designed for to a fair extent. So what does world class quality mean?
What tends to happen is that marketing is used to add value and distinguish products often at the expense of the engineering. If people buy the product and are happy with it then fine it is a good product whatever the engineering and technical performance. If it's done well then some may well recognise world class quality. It seems this might be the case with your colleague and Strauss loudspeakers but clearly this isn't the case for some others and Strauss loudspeakers. Is world class quality vague and subjective and perhaps best avoided or is it solid and objective?
What is your result for the length of the vents for the given parameter? You can also calc it here, it's the same result as in vituix: http://www.mh-audio.nl/Calculators/WVC.html#info
@markbakk: you're right about the room. Situation is, that I just wanted to understand these Strauss stuff. But if he really produces his own Drivers and had a great idea for crossovers, then perhaps it's possible, that he does better speakers than big brands have ever done. The I guy who told me about these speakers wrote in his last email, that the drivers of the SE-NF-3 are better than everything Gaithein ever did. (he mentioned gaithein, because I'm mentioned the MO-2 as a reference in a earlier mail). You should know, that this guy is not just anybody. His mixes and Masters are respected by the world's best (sorry Andy) mix engineers in the world.
Possible, hardly. The concept of any 5”-1” has its limitations. How good the modified (…) 15W may be, it still suffers from surround resonances. The motor system is quite good, but if you allow this driver to make big excursions to bring enough SPL, the midrange IS compromised. I wonder if the directivity of this design is that well controlled and I know that if you put a tweeter in a box like that, it ruins your sound power vs sound pressure level balance, because of steep directivity changes. Been there done that. The length of the vents: I really don’t care. A passive radiator would have been a far wiser choice because of port resonances (see the LS50 paper). I can think of a few other aspects (driver decoupling and other measures to keep the cabinet resonances down for instance). So all I think I see is a flawed design.
[Edit] Threw the 15W in a sim (Basta!). A good alignment would be a 13l enclosure with a vent 50mm diameter and 200mm long. Giving you a nice port resonance at 850Hz...
[Edit] Threw the 15W in a sim (Basta!). A good alignment would be a 13l enclosure with a vent 50mm diameter and 200mm long. Giving you a nice port resonance at 850Hz...
Last edited:
Thanks markbakk.
What I've found out: it seams that Scanpeak modifies their speakers for Strauss. I have a response from Scanspeak, they just say, that they often modify speakers for customer, but they can't give any details. So if Strauss really have special Drivers and crossovers, it really seems to be possible, that they can reach a higher level of accuracy than others (who perhaps care more about feeding the market). Strauss makes also custom made speakers, that looks very "normal". So it seems that it's not a really special enclosure design, more the drivers and crossovers.
What I've found out: it seams that Scanpeak modifies their speakers for Strauss. I have a response from Scanspeak, they just say, that they often modify speakers for customer, but they can't give any details. So if Strauss really have special Drivers and crossovers, it really seems to be possible, that they can reach a higher level of accuracy than others (who perhaps care more about feeding the market). Strauss makes also custom made speakers, that looks very "normal". So it seems that it's not a really special enclosure design, more the drivers and crossovers.
I think you attribute 'voodoo' power to what a driver manufacturer can do. Don't take me wrong i'm not saying drivers are unimportant (neither crossover especially passive one) but there is other factors which have as much importance.
Anyway, i don't get exactly what is your goal? Do you want to clone a Strauss nearfield or develop something for a purpose? Or for a purpose but inspired by this particular model?
Once you have defined your goal there is 3 options:
_ clone: get a Strauss model. Measure it: acoustical, electrical ( drivers, filter). Source the used drivers. Reverse engineer the xover schematic, source the same kind of components, copy box dimension and build technique. Costly and without access to original parts...
_ inspired by : close enough drivers and xover frequency, close enough xover and box alignement, overall shape,... by a bit of reverse engineering it can be done. Not a Strauss but close enough ( or not at all if all the magic is in the 'special drivers' crossover or whatever not possible to reverse engineer).
_ develop: define design target: spl needed at a given distance ( including headroom if needed), bandwidth requirements, expected condition of use ( located on a bargraph meter- wrong idea!-, close to a wall, further into the room, etc,etc,), prefered directivity and how it is managed ( narrow or wide 'spread' giving different rendering as the early reflection can affect things like imaging and sounstage- it's a mater of preference about rendering and rooms) , prefered cabinet loading ( sealed, bass reflex, transmission line,...),...
From there you have a number of options which will already define some compromise to be made, this will narrow your field of options allowed and slowly define some design as some parameters will be dictate by physics law/real world feasability ( eg don't expect a 5" driver to generate 30hz at 100db @ 1m if box need reasonable size), other by availability, etc,etc,...
If you plzn to design a nearfield i would first take a look at what was historically used and why. I'm not saying Strauss doesn't do wonderful monitors but this is a tool above all.
Why not starting with the most widely known and study their strength ( and the thing that could be bettered?).
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story
Then as suggested before studying what is offered by standard brands? Genelec, Amphion, Barefoot,D&D, Strauss, whatever...
You'll see different trends too each being a way to approach things....
Anyway, i don't get exactly what is your goal? Do you want to clone a Strauss nearfield or develop something for a purpose? Or for a purpose but inspired by this particular model?
Once you have defined your goal there is 3 options:
_ clone: get a Strauss model. Measure it: acoustical, electrical ( drivers, filter). Source the used drivers. Reverse engineer the xover schematic, source the same kind of components, copy box dimension and build technique. Costly and without access to original parts...
_ inspired by : close enough drivers and xover frequency, close enough xover and box alignement, overall shape,... by a bit of reverse engineering it can be done. Not a Strauss but close enough ( or not at all if all the magic is in the 'special drivers' crossover or whatever not possible to reverse engineer).
_ develop: define design target: spl needed at a given distance ( including headroom if needed), bandwidth requirements, expected condition of use ( located on a bargraph meter- wrong idea!-, close to a wall, further into the room, etc,etc,), prefered directivity and how it is managed ( narrow or wide 'spread' giving different rendering as the early reflection can affect things like imaging and sounstage- it's a mater of preference about rendering and rooms) , prefered cabinet loading ( sealed, bass reflex, transmission line,...),...
From there you have a number of options which will already define some compromise to be made, this will narrow your field of options allowed and slowly define some design as some parameters will be dictate by physics law/real world feasability ( eg don't expect a 5" driver to generate 30hz at 100db @ 1m if box need reasonable size), other by availability, etc,etc,...
If you plzn to design a nearfield i would first take a look at what was historically used and why. I'm not saying Strauss doesn't do wonderful monitors but this is a tool above all.
Why not starting with the most widely known and study their strength ( and the thing that could be bettered?).
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story
Then as suggested before studying what is offered by standard brands? Genelec, Amphion, Barefoot,D&D, Strauss, whatever...
You'll see different trends too each being a way to approach things....
Last edited:
Thanks for your question and inputs. First of all I want to understand why these speakers are that good. I mean: there must be a reason, when a guy, who is respected by the worlds best sound engineers, tells, that these speakers are much better than everything else genelec and all the others ever have developed. In the moment it's not to make a clone, and also not the monitor for my special purpose.
I know that Strauss mentioned the first model of the B&W 801 where really good monitors: https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/tas-legacy-bowers-wilkins-801-loudspeaker/
The Strauss have all group delay compensation (very simple by just but the tweeter more back). But other things seem to be different: 2 Way instead of 3 Way, Vented instead of closed.
I know that Strauss mentioned the first model of the B&W 801 where really good monitors: https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/tas-legacy-bowers-wilkins-801-loudspeaker/
The Strauss have all group delay compensation (very simple by just but the tweeter more back). But other things seem to be different: 2 Way instead of 3 Way, Vented instead of closed.
No offence, but a top sound engineer isn't a top loudspeaker designer or an established scientist on aural perception. He likes the speakers and cannot tell your engineering mind why so. The most obvious explanation (Occam's razor) for this is that sheer emotion is into play. The choice is yours, follow his belief or bring yourself to a better understanding of aural perception.
BTW if the 'special custom made Scans' have more durable litzes (or less aggressive glue) than the off the shelf stuff, at least something is an improvement. 🤣
BTW if the 'special custom made Scans' have more durable litzes (or less aggressive glue) than the off the shelf stuff, at least something is an improvement. 🤣