That's the answer I expected. My finding too. Dynamic speakers anyway. I do have some stainless mesh plate, poly sheet and the parts for a ladder voltage multiplier from a little project that I shelved a while back.. 😀
If you fix up a system using "small" speakers to give quality sound at high levels then it also works at the other end - you can run at it max, and then steadily drop it down and down and down in volume, until it literally is almost inaudible - and it still has dynamic "punch"! That is, up close and on top of the speakers, the "big" sound presentation is still there, nothing has been lost - just, that you're a long way away from it now ...
Powercompression gets obvious, using headphones.
To minimize the problem, you need speakers rated more than 10dB above listening level.
Keeping the motor cool is essential.
To minimize the problem, you need speakers rated more than 10dB above listening level.
Keeping the motor cool is essential.
I mentioned thermal compression earlier. Maybe I can't prove it personally but it's one of those things where if you assume it is true and follow all the guidelines, you get results. That's how I came to a couple of my current beliefs.. a leap of faith if you will. It's relevant at all levels and related to copper quantity and efficiency.
You wouldn't consider divulging the name of that manufacturer, would you?
At a guess I'd say probably ME Geithain.
Fas, call me cynical but I think you've developed a way to find a synergystical (is that a word?) combination. I once built an amp of a couple of hundred watts (multiple push-pull 6550s), that seemed to open up the speakers I was using (85dB ish), almost as if they were producing something inverse to what was giving them a compressed feel.
And that's not a bad thing Fas, I'm sure we both want (and maybe have) some of the same things. For the purposes of this thread we are in agreement.
I have this issue I suppose, based upon past frustrations, in having a system that does what I want but which doesn't have repeatability. Ie I can't touch it or I'll screw it up. This is what has kept me moving, not satisfied if I can't make a calculated improvement.
Fortunately for me my definition of dynamic performance is simply that the system sounds the same at all levels (as I believe is yours), and this helps to keep all the issues separable.
@snup, it's good to see proof of these things.
I have this issue I suppose, based upon past frustrations, in having a system that does what I want but which doesn't have repeatability. Ie I can't touch it or I'll screw it up. This is what has kept me moving, not satisfied if I can't make a calculated improvement.
Fortunately for me my definition of dynamic performance is simply that the system sounds the same at all levels (as I believe is yours), and this helps to keep all the issues separable.
@snup, it's good to see proof of these things.
I don't know why cynical has to come into the equation, 🙂 ... I just came to the realisation a long time ago as to where the bottlenecks in sound reproduction occur, and they certainly weren't in the speakers! That "opening up" of the speakers is what I'm always working towards, and I've figured out an approach that works - I actually delight in producing impressive sound from "mediocre" speakers, as a sort of "proof of concept" exercise, 😉.
Compressed feeling sound is crap, never worth listening to - the trick is knowing where to look, what to do to overcome that ...
Yes, sounding the same at all levels is one of the markers.
I certainly understand the problem of repeatability - this can be a nightmare, in my earliest efforts this factor was overwhelming, and caused me to chuck it in for many years because I couldn't work out what was going on. It's been a slow, painful process getting on top of some of the issues, and there are still factors which I haven't got satisfactory explanations for. But, I'm now at a point where I'm pretty comfortable about being able to drag a system up to an acceptable level, and I know that superb sound will always be obtainable if enough further effort is thrown at it .
Since he didn't say that it was a trade secret I don't have any problems mentioning who it is. Here you can even see someone assembling those tweeters:
Assembly | PSIAudio
Regards
Charles
What do you mean by not having repeatability? This system did what you want "sound-wise" or by "numbers"?
Because if you mean "by numbers", you have so many kinds of "numbers" that you have to trade-off. So "calculated improvement" is a fuzzy concept.
But if it is "sound-wise", once you can relate it with numbers, it will be repeatable. Or may be not. Because in my experience, there are just a lot of things that is possible only when it is done by ears...!
Here is a case example... You cannot change one component and assume that the change in the sound is caused by that very component change, right? Usually you have to maintain other parameters unaffected by changing other components too...
In my latest crossover fix, I sat down for hours in front of a high quality piano at work, listening to D6/D6# key that my speaker has a problem with. I knew what the problem was, but it couldn't be done without introducing another problem, which is "fatigue" (damn, I have no idea why such a change can introduce fatigue!). What change was it that can create imbalance? Changing a resistance from 7.47 to 7.43. "You're kidding!" that's what you will say, right? Of course. Because then the question is, how can anyone find out something like this by only using measurement tools?
I have never set objective like "it must be dynamic". Dynamics is not an objective for me. It is simply side effect. But yes, I agree that you can voice/tune your crossover such that it is very clear and balance at the lowest volume, and making sure the tweeter is clean running with woofer disconnected, with 15W amp at full volume (it's beyond the level that I listen to normally).
But here is my objective, if I want to achieve a quality that is not achievable by ordinary speakers: Use a stiff and lightweight cone. Believe me. Challenge yourself.
In most cases of such implementation, usually you will hear comment like "it is cleaner, low distortion, BUT... (often followed by: not as cool as paper)". Believe me, such is a flawed implementation.
Jay, I don't think this is about whether I do it by ear or by measurement. The point is knowing what factors cause a desired result. With regards to using stiff and light cones I use horns, as you know. Repeatability means I can use the known factors to build a new but different amp and speaker and achieve good results.
thats what i do.
Changing too many components at the time, doesnt leave much room for judgement.
Changing too many components at the time, doesnt leave much room for judgement.
What I meant was, there are a lot of things to measure. These "numbers" are in trade-off, meaning that you can improve one number but degrade another number. Sometimes the "numbers" is even meaningless. Say, you have to choose from different impulse/step responses. How do you know that they even sound different? Or, many people think that the flatter the FR the better. Of course I agree, but FR is not the only thing in a speaker. What if the less flat one has better performance in other parameter, which happen to be more important?
And measurement-wise, and this is the problem actually, the thresholds often do not make sense. Because you can measure slight differences but sound-wise the difference is not slight but huge.
Is it irrelevant? (I don't do horn). I believe you have to find the strongest motor you can find for the driver.
Why do discussions at diyaudio always turn into a statement of some dogma or preference of style with no real examples given? 😕
Is it all just a big secret? I don't think so.
The Wharfedale E70 was definitely a dynamic speaker. The twin mids wired in series must have far less heating issues than a single. Hence less compression. Also the 6dB power gain from twin drives.
Anybody buy high QTs and non-metallic former?
JA8008-HMQ
These sort of drivers sound good at low level in some mysterious way.
In fact I notice the seriously unusual Celestion HF1300 tweeter has a paper former:
Spendor BC1
Troels often takes the ferrofluid out of modern tweeters too.
So it may be that aluminium formers and ferrofluid and damped rubber surrounds, which on paper improve power handling and bass extension, may be a double edged sword. And that may be why people get so nostalgic for old speakers.
Is it all just a big secret? I don't think so.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The Wharfedale E70 was definitely a dynamic speaker. The twin mids wired in series must have far less heating issues than a single. Hence less compression. Also the 6dB power gain from twin drives.
Anybody buy high QTs and non-metallic former?
JA8008-HMQ
These sort of drivers sound good at low level in some mysterious way.
In fact I notice the seriously unusual Celestion HF1300 tweeter has a paper former:
Spendor BC1
Troels often takes the ferrofluid out of modern tweeters too.
So it may be that aluminium formers and ferrofluid and damped rubber surrounds, which on paper improve power handling and bass extension, may be a double edged sword. And that may be why people get so nostalgic for old speakers.
Its not just nostalgia with old speakers. Many of them sound really good and with minimum of fiddling and expense, you can have fine sound for little money.
I have a thing for 8"papercones, but I need foamsurround.
The Janzen 8008 and "audionote" Seasdrivers can hardly get any better.
I have a thing for 8"papercones, but I need foamsurround.
The Janzen 8008 and "audionote" Seasdrivers can hardly get any better.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.