Hi,
I'm completely new to Speaker design. I'm a producer/mixer hobbyist. But I've studied physics almost 20 years ago, so it should easier to understand things here.
About my project: I need good nearfield studio monitors. Studio Monitors are not like Hifi Speakers, they don't have to sound nice, they have to sound neutral,, objective, linear with low THD over all freqs.
A guy I know (who's really a good sound engineer pro) said, I have to pay at least 10'000.- Euro inkl. Amp. He has the Strauss se-nf-3 nearfields: https://strauss-elektroakustik.de/se-nf-3
they cost about 3'500.- Euro/piece.
He has also the bigger ones (midfields): SE-MF4 or 2.1.
They are all passive and 2.way. He says also, the nearfields are by far the best in this price league, and below that price, nothing is serious.
I searched a bit in the internet, and this Strauss speakers are just these few models, all 2-way and passive. I watched also vids on youtube, with Jürgen Strauss talking.
As I read for the se-nf-3: it's a 5" Mid/Woofer with 1" Tweeter, Crossover-f @1.2k
I've read, it seems to be a Scanspeak 5": 15w-8530k00 or 8531
And could be a wavecore or a Scanspeak D3004/660000 Tweeter.
When I calculate the components, a box will cost max. 800.- Euro for a box.
I will definitley not buy these boxes.
During the last days, I read all day long things about building loudspeakers, mainly the "loudspeaker-design-cookbook" and "high-performance-loudspeakers-optimising-high-fidelity-loudspeaker-systems" (Martin Colloms). I've also watched measurement-Vids on youtube and checked some online/calc. Software (vituix.cad).
As I see it: you can just calculate some very simple things (e.g. fb of vented box), but already for the baffle step, simulation will not fit sufficiently to the reality.
Is this true?
I don't want to build these se-nf3 because dimensions don't fit to my room/place. I want to build my own.
Also very strange: I've measured the dimensions of these se-nf-3, tried to get inner vol.. When I calculate the vent length I come to a length of about 50cm, which is quite long.
When I take a look at these se-nf-3 with my knowledge after a few days, I have the impression that this shape isn't the best for a box. All these Strauss boxes look like he took just the simplest shape.
Perhaps you can give me some input.
Tom
I'm completely new to Speaker design. I'm a producer/mixer hobbyist. But I've studied physics almost 20 years ago, so it should easier to understand things here.
About my project: I need good nearfield studio monitors. Studio Monitors are not like Hifi Speakers, they don't have to sound nice, they have to sound neutral,, objective, linear with low THD over all freqs.
A guy I know (who's really a good sound engineer pro) said, I have to pay at least 10'000.- Euro inkl. Amp. He has the Strauss se-nf-3 nearfields: https://strauss-elektroakustik.de/se-nf-3
they cost about 3'500.- Euro/piece.
He has also the bigger ones (midfields): SE-MF4 or 2.1.
They are all passive and 2.way. He says also, the nearfields are by far the best in this price league, and below that price, nothing is serious.
I searched a bit in the internet, and this Strauss speakers are just these few models, all 2-way and passive. I watched also vids on youtube, with Jürgen Strauss talking.
As I read for the se-nf-3: it's a 5" Mid/Woofer with 1" Tweeter, Crossover-f @1.2k
I've read, it seems to be a Scanspeak 5": 15w-8530k00 or 8531
And could be a wavecore or a Scanspeak D3004/660000 Tweeter.
When I calculate the components, a box will cost max. 800.- Euro for a box.
I will definitley not buy these boxes.
During the last days, I read all day long things about building loudspeakers, mainly the "loudspeaker-design-cookbook" and "high-performance-loudspeakers-optimising-high-fidelity-loudspeaker-systems" (Martin Colloms). I've also watched measurement-Vids on youtube and checked some online/calc. Software (vituix.cad).
As I see it: you can just calculate some very simple things (e.g. fb of vented box), but already for the baffle step, simulation will not fit sufficiently to the reality.
Is this true?
I don't want to build these se-nf3 because dimensions don't fit to my room/place. I want to build my own.
Also very strange: I've measured the dimensions of these se-nf-3, tried to get inner vol.. When I calculate the vent length I come to a length of about 50cm, which is quite long.
When I take a look at these se-nf-3 with my knowledge after a few days, I have the impression that this shape isn't the best for a box. All these Strauss boxes look like he took just the simplest shape.
Perhaps you can give me some input.
Tom
A fair amount of the advice knocking about concerning speakers is nonsense as I suspect you might be coming to realise. If you want to get a feel for high quality studio monitors then look to the larger established studio monitor companies that shift product based more on engineering (technical performance) rather than marketing. Examples would be Genelec, Neumann, and similar. Following the physics is leading to them all having active crossovers, all having waveguides to control directivity, often having curved baffles to help in this respect, using better materials than wood for the cabinet,...
Someone new to DIY having their first go is almost certainly not going to match the performance of such speakers but with luck should have some fun trying to get close. You are including subs for the low frequencies because 5" midwoofers are not going to defeat the laws of physics?
Someone new to DIY having their first go is almost certainly not going to match the performance of such speakers but with luck should have some fun trying to get close. You are including subs for the low frequencies because 5" midwoofers are not going to defeat the laws of physics?
Hey thanks a lot for your interesting responses, and links!
It's not true that active crossovers are really better when it comes e.g. to the depth of a mix. I can also understand, that the sound is different when it goes only through 1 Amp an then through passive crossovers instead of 2 different amps. Off Topic e.g.: the sound of a tape machine gives the mix some depth. It is the truth, that you can't emulate a real tape-machine with a digital device. That's shows you the limitations of the digital techniques.
For active Crossovers you need also a AD-DA-Converter. In Studios, a good ADDA-Converter costs you easily more than 2000.- (and converting always changes the sound). So it's understandable that also the big companies can't make really good boxes for 1500.-/piece. They have also expensive ones, if they could do it for only 1500.-, no one would buy anymore the expensives. The boxes of Mr. Strauss are good, they have them in the Sony Mastering Studios in Tokyo e.g. But I doubt that they are that good as some people (e.g. also the guy I know) say.
What I've recognised is, that on youtube Mr. Strauss told, that it was difficult to develop the Bass Driver of his big boxes and that the Mid/Woofer Driver of the Se-nf-3 was also very difficult to develop for them. But at the end, they are all normal drivers everyone can buy. It's obvious, that such a small firm who sells a few boxes every year, cant develop their own drivers (also not in collab with a big driver cxompany), that are even better than all other drivers from the big companies.
Placement of subwoofers is very difficult when the possibilities of room treatment is limited. I have also other boxes in my room I can use to check bass.
It's not true that active crossovers are really better when it comes e.g. to the depth of a mix. I can also understand, that the sound is different when it goes only through 1 Amp an then through passive crossovers instead of 2 different amps. Off Topic e.g.: the sound of a tape machine gives the mix some depth. It is the truth, that you can't emulate a real tape-machine with a digital device. That's shows you the limitations of the digital techniques.
For active Crossovers you need also a AD-DA-Converter. In Studios, a good ADDA-Converter costs you easily more than 2000.- (and converting always changes the sound). So it's understandable that also the big companies can't make really good boxes for 1500.-/piece. They have also expensive ones, if they could do it for only 1500.-, no one would buy anymore the expensives. The boxes of Mr. Strauss are good, they have them in the Sony Mastering Studios in Tokyo e.g. But I doubt that they are that good as some people (e.g. also the guy I know) say.
What I've recognised is, that on youtube Mr. Strauss told, that it was difficult to develop the Bass Driver of his big boxes and that the Mid/Woofer Driver of the Se-nf-3 was also very difficult to develop for them. But at the end, they are all normal drivers everyone can buy. It's obvious, that such a small firm who sells a few boxes every year, cant develop their own drivers (also not in collab with a big driver cxompany), that are even better than all other drivers from the big companies.
Placement of subwoofers is very difficult when the possibilities of room treatment is limited. I have also other boxes in my room I can use to check bass.
Not true. While many newer active speakers use DSP/converters because it's often cheaper and more flexible, analog versions of active speakers were the norm previously. And some are still available:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/genelec-g-three-active-loudspeaker
"the active Genelec G Three is a 100% all-analog, powered two-way monitor."
You're also overlooking these angles:
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm
"I have a strong preference for line level active dividing networks ahead of the power amplifiers (Ref. 2, 12, 17). In this approach the power amplifier output is connected directly - except for a very low resistance speaker cable - to the voice coil of the driver. The amplifier takes maximum control over the motion of the speaker cone which gives a greater sense of clarity and dynamism compared to a passive dividing network between amplifier and driver. Active crossovers make much more effective use of amplifier power. A clipping woofer amplifier is not seen by the tweeter, which has its own amplifier. The clipping of the woofer amplifier may not even be noticed in this case. It would surely be heard with a passive crossover, where it might even overheat and damage the tweeter, because of the large amount of high frequency energy in the clipped signal."
Why would you trust someone that uses speakers of which the company falls short to publish relevant data? Look at the way Neumann and Genelec document their designs. And ask yourself why important info is missing. How do you know these Strauss systems are neutral?
Furthermore there's quite a lot of assumptions on that website that aren't backed up by our knowledge of audio (from the electric source signal to the ear drum). So why again would you fare on such -forgive my bluntness- hearsay?
Come to think of it, I suspect Strauss uses quite regular off the shelf drivers and horns. Nothing wrong with that, but what's so special?
Furthermore there's quite a lot of assumptions on that website that aren't backed up by our knowledge of audio (from the electric source signal to the ear drum). So why again would you fare on such -forgive my bluntness- hearsay?
Come to think of it, I suspect Strauss uses quite regular off the shelf drivers and horns. Nothing wrong with that, but what's so special?
There is nothing particularly wrong with rejecting physics and engineering in favour of "alternative" thinking when it comes to a hobby and it might make the specs for your speaker interesting. So to confirm we have:
What else? Does something like a Rogers LS3/5A or clone come close to meeting the spec?
BTW drivers are pretty low tech devices that even we as individual DIYers can design and have built for modest cost. Here is an example. The reason many loudspeaker companies don't opt to manufacture their own drivers is that the higher cost and effort wouldn't add sufficient value to the product. Good drivers are pretty much commodities with expensive exotic drivers being almost exclusively marketing features for high margin products with little engineering purpose.
- 5" 2 way monitor
- expensive is desirable
- low linear distortion from signal processing undesirable
- high nonlinear distortion from tape machines and passive crossovers desirable
- no subs?
What else? Does something like a Rogers LS3/5A or clone come close to meeting the spec?
BTW drivers are pretty low tech devices that even we as individual DIYers can design and have built for modest cost. Here is an example. The reason many loudspeaker companies don't opt to manufacture their own drivers is that the higher cost and effort wouldn't add sufficient value to the product. Good drivers are pretty much commodities with expensive exotic drivers being almost exclusively marketing features for high margin products with little engineering purpose.
Yes you're right, you don't need ADDA Convertion for active speakers, sure not, but that's what is done normally today. You should understand that today cheap "studio" electronic has become a big business. Brands who did only quality stuff back in the days, makes today also **** (not only but also). A famous brand with a long history doesn't mean, that everything what they are doing today is still good.
I let everything open if you can make a better Speaker with AD-DA and multiple amps or only one amp, I don't have the epxerience in that.
The reason why I'm here is, that I'm trying not to reject all of my engineering thinking. Perhaps I should write the guy who has recommended me these nearfields and listen to them. Like at the beginning said: a lot of the things I see on the Strauss contruction, doesn't seem to make sense to me. And I am here to have your opinion.
I let everything open if you can make a better Speaker with AD-DA and multiple amps or only one amp, I don't have the epxerience in that.
The reason why I'm here is, that I'm trying not to reject all of my engineering thinking. Perhaps I should write the guy who has recommended me these nearfields and listen to them. Like at the beginning said: a lot of the things I see on the Strauss contruction, doesn't seem to make sense to me. And I am here to have your opinion.
Why do you seem so fascinated by this man Strauss and his business? And why not try and build a Heissmann design instead of contemplating, dreaming and lingering till who knows? Chances are a KEF LS50 will do more than fine for you. Go ahead and listen, compare, measure (get yourself a cheap measuring mike). Learn and don’t let salesmen fool you too easily.
A tricky question I know but as an engineer I am curious about what you consider to be the basis of engineering thinking? To me you appear to be coming from the opposite end of the spectrum to an engineer. Nothing wrong with that in itself and it is interesting but it is the other end.
I have heard the older versions of the larger and the smaller Strauss midfield monitors. I have also seen (but not heard) the nearfield ones at the same event and my assumption is also that this one uses standard Scan-Speak drivers. I don't know what kind of tuning the OP was envisioning but 50 cm tubes look overly long to me for such a box with the tube cross-section needed for a driver with this low Vd..
As to the larger monitors I can say that they sound unobtrusive in the best sense. They sounded neutral - and with authority when asked for. This older version was equipped with TAD drivers.
They newer MF variants use custom made drivers not because no one could build better ones (these ones are also made by some driver manufacturer after all) but because the typical large studio monitor drivers are hard to get nowadays. Most 12" and 15" drivers are made for PA nowadays where the emphasis is on high SPL with compact sized speakers. But this comes at the cost of LF extension which needs TSPs that are different from those for high SPL PA. The issue is not that no driver manufacturers could build these things but there is much less demand so they usually dont build them unless someone is ordering a large enough batch. Thirty years ago there were lots of typical 12" and 15" drivers available that were used for studio and HiFi. But since HiFi has to be almost invisible nowadays a big part of the market for such drivers has disappeared.
If you'd like to go for smaller Swiss-made active non-DSP monitors then have a look ar PSI.
Regards
Charles
As to the larger monitors I can say that they sound unobtrusive in the best sense. They sounded neutral - and with authority when asked for. This older version was equipped with TAD drivers.
They newer MF variants use custom made drivers not because no one could build better ones (these ones are also made by some driver manufacturer after all) but because the typical large studio monitor drivers are hard to get nowadays. Most 12" and 15" drivers are made for PA nowadays where the emphasis is on high SPL with compact sized speakers. But this comes at the cost of LF extension which needs TSPs that are different from those for high SPL PA. The issue is not that no driver manufacturers could build these things but there is much less demand so they usually dont build them unless someone is ordering a large enough batch. Thirty years ago there were lots of typical 12" and 15" drivers available that were used for studio and HiFi. But since HiFi has to be almost invisible nowadays a big part of the market for such drivers has disappeared.
If you'd like to go for smaller Swiss-made active non-DSP monitors then have a look ar PSI.
Regards
Charles
Hey again, thanks a lot for all your inputs!
I actually wanted to buy the KEF LS50 before I asked this guy with the Hi End Studio (I mentioned above).
About my engineering thinking: In a lot of cases (in subject that exists since 1 dacade or more) you can calculate things and they fit quite good with the reality. In Mecanical design e.g. FEM. For this material parameter, measured in the past, nonlinearities,... are integrated in simulation models. Sure, at the end you always have to test and measure, but normally it's just to get the last few % out of a construction. But what I experienced in the last days, when I read parts of the literature I menioned above, is, that you can calculate (with the methods you have today?) a perfect loudspeaker and it sounds worse, than one that violates basic rules. E.g. as I understood, it seems to be clear, that streamlined vents increase linearity - that makes absolute sense (and before I read that, I had already this idea). But how many famous brands (also boxes for 2k above / piece) you see, that have no streamlined vents? It makes just no sense to me. Do you understand, that this confues me totally? As I've said: I've studied physics (experimental physics). I did my master thesis in connection with a phd-thesis which was in the nature magazine (what I want to say: these people were in the highest league). I had top grade in my thesis work. I did also computer simulation in nanooptics (FDTD). Since I'm a child, technic is my passion. I'm not a idiot. But I've never seen a subject that is that old like loudspeaker design, that have that bad simulation models and software. That's what confuses me.
Thanks also a lot Charles, very interesting facts! So it seems that these Strauss are not that good, as my "friend" said.
So now about the facts: why is it still that difficult to design a really good loudspeaker, and why are there only (?) these Thiele-Small parameter to desribe the characteristics of a driver? Let's say you have 100 or 200 Parameters for a driver, you can measure and use for your very precise simulation model? And at the end, you have also a speaker that fits to the simluation. Is it that difficult? Sure, to the simulation also belongs mecanical FEM, vibrations of the enclosure that are also influenced by the vibration modes of the driver, the mounting of the driver on the enclosure... Let's simulate the precise air turbulences of the vent, the interaction of the air of the vent and the speaker... Let's go pro people. Wouldn't be such a model be much easier at the end for everybody, than thousends of people around the world still trying to make fundamental measurements, build prototypes and have to realize, that altough they are based on these (few) parameters and basics they don't seem to work at all as expected?
BTW: Our ear is not a simple device and because of that my conclusion is, that a really good driver is difficult to design, simulate and describe by parameters. That's my way of engineering thinking. Most things are much more complex, than a lot of people think, but they are not completely impossible to simulate in an numerical way, if you have the right parameters and models (that base all on measurements and experience of the past).
I actually wanted to buy the KEF LS50 before I asked this guy with the Hi End Studio (I mentioned above).
About my engineering thinking: In a lot of cases (in subject that exists since 1 dacade or more) you can calculate things and they fit quite good with the reality. In Mecanical design e.g. FEM. For this material parameter, measured in the past, nonlinearities,... are integrated in simulation models. Sure, at the end you always have to test and measure, but normally it's just to get the last few % out of a construction. But what I experienced in the last days, when I read parts of the literature I menioned above, is, that you can calculate (with the methods you have today?) a perfect loudspeaker and it sounds worse, than one that violates basic rules. E.g. as I understood, it seems to be clear, that streamlined vents increase linearity - that makes absolute sense (and before I read that, I had already this idea). But how many famous brands (also boxes for 2k above / piece) you see, that have no streamlined vents? It makes just no sense to me. Do you understand, that this confues me totally? As I've said: I've studied physics (experimental physics). I did my master thesis in connection with a phd-thesis which was in the nature magazine (what I want to say: these people were in the highest league). I had top grade in my thesis work. I did also computer simulation in nanooptics (FDTD). Since I'm a child, technic is my passion. I'm not a idiot. But I've never seen a subject that is that old like loudspeaker design, that have that bad simulation models and software. That's what confuses me.
Thanks also a lot Charles, very interesting facts! So it seems that these Strauss are not that good, as my "friend" said.
So now about the facts: why is it still that difficult to design a really good loudspeaker, and why are there only (?) these Thiele-Small parameter to desribe the characteristics of a driver? Let's say you have 100 or 200 Parameters for a driver, you can measure and use for your very precise simulation model? And at the end, you have also a speaker that fits to the simluation. Is it that difficult? Sure, to the simulation also belongs mecanical FEM, vibrations of the enclosure that are also influenced by the vibration modes of the driver, the mounting of the driver on the enclosure... Let's simulate the precise air turbulences of the vent, the interaction of the air of the vent and the speaker... Let's go pro people. Wouldn't be such a model be much easier at the end for everybody, than thousends of people around the world still trying to make fundamental measurements, build prototypes and have to realize, that altough they are based on these (few) parameters and basics they don't seem to work at all as expected?
BTW: Our ear is not a simple device and because of that my conclusion is, that a really good driver is difficult to design, simulate and describe by parameters. That's my way of engineering thinking. Most things are much more complex, than a lot of people think, but they are not completely impossible to simulate in an numerical way, if you have the right parameters and models (that base all on measurements and experience of the past).
You must have heard of 'effective theory'. Loudspeakers are limited not by themselves but by the room they are in. And in that context simple modelling suffices all of the time. at least wrt low frequency reproduction. If you get into midrange and highs, it becomes another cup of soup, but still the techniques to meet or exceed the sensitivity of the human hearing aren't that complicated.
Since you seem to have the heart of an engineer, I throw in the (commercial!) white paper of the LS50. An old friend of mine did a part of his academic courses at KEF long ago (mid eighties) and even then their modelling and measuring capabilities exceeded what most small scale firms like Strauss can even dream of nowadays. You could look up the story of the RR104.2 or KM1, which were quite nice engineering masterpieces back then.
Since you seem to have the heart of an engineer, I throw in the (commercial!) white paper of the LS50. An old friend of mine did a part of his academic courses at KEF long ago (mid eighties) and even then their modelling and measuring capabilities exceeded what most small scale firms like Strauss can even dream of nowadays. You could look up the story of the RR104.2 or KM1, which were quite nice engineering masterpieces back then.
Wow thanks a lot for this LS50 Paper! I will read this for sure. I heard only good things about this speakers, and if you think how cheap these are...
Hi Tom
I guess I was either unclear or you did completely misinterpret my statement. Of course are they very good. They are very neutral and effortless.
Do you have the possibility to have a listen to them at the studio that you mentioned ?
Regards
Charles
So back to your original question. If you want to start on a journey of discovery in speaker design/construction, that is great... it is a very rewarding activity. Each speaker you design and construct will be better than the previous, and you skills and knowledge will grow with each one. It is possible that, eventually, you will be designing and constructing speakers which are the equal of anything being offered commercially.... eventually.
On the other hand, if you want to build one set of speakers for use as a nearfield studio monitor, you want to save money by building it yourself, and you are not interested in the learning process which stretches over years, then I suggest you build a good kit. The Heissmann DXT-Mon looks very promising to me.
Thanks for the reply which has helped me to understand what you are associating with engineering thinking. If I may be blunt you are not familiar with the basic scientific and engineering knowledge in the relevant fields that would enable you to reason like an engineer about loudspeakers. Nothing wrong with that and indeed few on this forum are because it requires years of appropriate study normally leading to it being how one earns a living. What is wrong (assuming you are seeking engineering information rather than, say, audiophile information) is where you have looked to pickup knowledge about loudspeakers and your somewhat bizarre (but interesting) approach to sorting out what is true or false and what is important and what not.
Loudspeakers are pretty straightforward to design and manufacture in terms of engineering but this forms only a small part of the value in a commercial home loudspeaker. Indeed appropriately chosen poor engineering can add more value if the marketing of the product and brand is well aligned with the wants and expectations of a particular subset of consumers. Home audio is so strongly marketing and marketing feature lead that most engineering leaning companies have pulled out of the market (e.g. Sennheisser, Philips,...). It is less the case with the consumer and pro audio sectors but even with pro audio many of the smaller companies pursue a home audio approach where the margins can be higher and the products cheaper and easier to manufacture. Your Strauss company being an example of this. Doesn't mean the product is poor just that most of the value lies in things other than engineering/technical performance and this value is going to vary significantly from person to person.
Like a loudspeaker a good driver is easy to design and to manufacture. This is good for us because it means that parts are cheap and widely available and after some study and practise we can design and build speakers to a pretty competitive standard in our garages.
BEM, FEM, CFD, CAA software suitable for simulating loudspeakers has been freely available for many decades in a research form but is very rarely used by DIYers or I strongly suspect many of the smaller loudspeaker companies that would struggle to justify the cost of commercial software. There seems to be a bit of BEM starting as you can see in one or two threads here but almost no FEM. A consequence of the lack of FEM is some pretty strange ideas knocking around about the roles of mass, stiffness and damping in cabinet design.
Loudspeakers are pretty straightforward to design and manufacture in terms of engineering but this forms only a small part of the value in a commercial home loudspeaker. Indeed appropriately chosen poor engineering can add more value if the marketing of the product and brand is well aligned with the wants and expectations of a particular subset of consumers. Home audio is so strongly marketing and marketing feature lead that most engineering leaning companies have pulled out of the market (e.g. Sennheisser, Philips,...). It is less the case with the consumer and pro audio sectors but even with pro audio many of the smaller companies pursue a home audio approach where the margins can be higher and the products cheaper and easier to manufacture. Your Strauss company being an example of this. Doesn't mean the product is poor just that most of the value lies in things other than engineering/technical performance and this value is going to vary significantly from person to person.
Like a loudspeaker a good driver is easy to design and to manufacture. This is good for us because it means that parts are cheap and widely available and after some study and practise we can design and build speakers to a pretty competitive standard in our garages.
BEM, FEM, CFD, CAA software suitable for simulating loudspeakers has been freely available for many decades in a research form but is very rarely used by DIYers or I strongly suspect many of the smaller loudspeaker companies that would struggle to justify the cost of commercial software. There seems to be a bit of BEM starting as you can see in one or two threads here but almost no FEM. A consequence of the lack of FEM is some pretty strange ideas knocking around about the roles of mass, stiffness and damping in cabinet design.
OK thanks to correct my missunderstanding. Perhaps I could listen to them, but I wrote to the guy, who owns these speakers, what I've read about them in the Forums - this doesn't make him so happy, and he never has time, it's a hard business. Perhaps I can try it in another studio.
What I "know" now (because I know it from the guy, who owns this speakers): the Mid/Woofers drivers in the SE-NF-3 are from scanspeak, but they are modified for them, so they are much better than the original. (I just don't understand why scanspeak isn't able to do this by themself and sell these better speakers to everyone). They have nothing to do with the original ones anymore. Strauss produces the Woofers for the bigger Speakers by themselves. One of the tricks is also: The energy that comes from the speakers back to the amp is already "destroyed" in the crossover that Strauss developed. This was also confirmed by the ETH Lausanne. That's at least what I've heard.
@Andy: Do you make a living on Loudspeaker and driver Design? Did you design Drivers and speakers with world class quality? I've never done simulations for speakers. But what's wrong with my way of thinking? What's your idea of engineering thinking? Please explain.
Hi,
'Modified by Scan Speak to be much better than original'.
Ok it doesn't really make sense worded this way imo. To have a custom designed driver to adapt to some design choices makes more sense in my view.
A passive filter which stop back emf energy. Ok they incorporated a diode in the design?
I'm not Andy but some of the statements you made are much (too much) definitive: passive better than active filtering/ multiamp, dac and adc as well as you gauge everything by rrp...
There is no such things as definitive answers but choices implying compromise and trade off. Loudspeaker design is in my view the most revealing practice about this: you constantly have to make choices about compromises, implying other one and it goes on and on...
RRP: we ard in capitalist world. End price is not ( rarely?) defined by the product cost or R&D but by what consummer are ok to pay to have access to a product.
This include irational things like scarcity or showing off.
And it's true even in pro circle: there is partnership anc endorsment.
Ever heard about Abbey Road? Some years ago there was a deal between B&W and the studio owner. Loads of pictures taken and... not all engineer working there happy to have to lest go the Quested they used. 😉
'Modified by Scan Speak to be much better than original'.
Ok it doesn't really make sense worded this way imo. To have a custom designed driver to adapt to some design choices makes more sense in my view.
A passive filter which stop back emf energy. Ok they incorporated a diode in the design?
I'm not Andy but some of the statements you made are much (too much) definitive: passive better than active filtering/ multiamp, dac and adc as well as you gauge everything by rrp...
There is no such things as definitive answers but choices implying compromise and trade off. Loudspeaker design is in my view the most revealing practice about this: you constantly have to make choices about compromises, implying other one and it goes on and on...
RRP: we ard in capitalist world. End price is not ( rarely?) defined by the product cost or R&D but by what consummer are ok to pay to have access to a product.
This include irational things like scarcity or showing off.
And it's true even in pro circle: there is partnership anc endorsment.
Ever heard about Abbey Road? Some years ago there was a deal between B&W and the studio owner. Loads of pictures taken and... not all engineer working there happy to have to lest go the Quested they used. 😉
I think you're overestimating the amount of money that can be made on a speaker. A rough estimate is to take the manufacturing cost and multiply it by 10 to arrive at the retail price. In a $2000 speaker, you still have to be careful about where you spend money and how much bang for the buck you get for each thing you add to the design.
Small volume manufacturing is even worse (no matter the field). It's hard to make money even at prices that seem exorbitant to an outsider.
Because not every application needs the same driver. Each designer may have their own preferences in cone materials, formers, breakup behavior, dustcaps, surrounds, etc. As stated earlier, it's a series of trade-offs. And ScanSpeak is in the business trying to make money too. They can't inventory every possible driver combination. They're doing their best to make the most broadly appealing driver at a price the market will bear. If you want something different, they will make a custom version.