"The color....Spoke to me...."
*L* Hard to catch with a pic, but they light up nicely. If they sound as nice as they look, I might have to figure out how to mount a LED inside them. Great for 'mood music'. 😉
Just above to hook 'em up for a test. And no, I didn't wait nor fall asleep, it's the glue that takes 24 hrs. to fully set. I may be a night owl, but watching glue dry is worst than watching paint dry. At least paint has that slight color shift going for it. *G*
I was thinking of asking 'when ya going to grow a pair', but I do realize the connotation Could be misinterpreted and you already own one's you're fond of. And ML's Are nice units...*smirk*
I strongly suggest doing 2 pairs in your preferred paper. I would really like to have Someone experience what I hear with mine 'out there'. It's really addictive, and you know how addicts are...we make used car salesmen and politicians almost understandable....
Well, kinda....*L*
Off to test...
*L* Hard to catch with a pic, but they light up nicely. If they sound as nice as they look, I might have to figure out how to mount a LED inside them. Great for 'mood music'. 😉
Just above to hook 'em up for a test. And no, I didn't wait nor fall asleep, it's the glue that takes 24 hrs. to fully set. I may be a night owl, but watching glue dry is worst than watching paint dry. At least paint has that slight color shift going for it. *G*
I was thinking of asking 'when ya going to grow a pair', but I do realize the connotation Could be misinterpreted and you already own one's you're fond of. And ML's Are nice units...*smirk*
I strongly suggest doing 2 pairs in your preferred paper. I would really like to have Someone experience what I hear with mine 'out there'. It's really addictive, and you know how addicts are...we make used car salesmen and politicians almost understandable....
Well, kinda....*L*
Off to test...
Oh tay...Fresh from the odditorium....
First off, they work. 🙂
Second, the cone 'honk' makes me crazy. 🙁
Third...I can see a definite advantage with the paper for high mids and highs. Even with the 1.5" vc's which should limit how high they can go. So there's a plus.
Fourth, they're a high compliance design. The spider is real 'loose', so the vc is using a lot of energy 'lifting' the cone, which is pretty large physically (weight unknown, but lighter than my typ. alum.).
But, I've got my 'moves'...😉
I'm going to flip them over, cone base down. If I sat on the floor, there was a definite improvement in what I heard. The radiation pattern is strongest at a right angle to the cone...
Next, a base of sorts... and a surround. I've got some dental dam sheets that didn't work on one of the V.1's, but just might be the ticket for a high compliance cone. The stuff is real stretchy, but not big (4" sq. sheets)...but I've got a lot of it. Maybe I can laminate it into something that can be cut into concentric circles...
I've been itching to try a near zero volume base. My V.2's sound best sitting on a flat surface, a close analog to the GP units. They have no 'enclosure' under them to speak of, and I'll bet that's on purpose. Think acoustic suspension...the old AR speakers got a lot of mileage with that.
So...that's what happened. *G* And that's what will happen next. Back to the labor-atory...
Igor! Light up the teslas! I need a cappuccino! *Rubs Hans with Glee* (And Glee Likes It) *evil laughter fades to Deadmau5 back beat*
First off, they work. 🙂
Second, the cone 'honk' makes me crazy. 🙁
Third...I can see a definite advantage with the paper for high mids and highs. Even with the 1.5" vc's which should limit how high they can go. So there's a plus.
Fourth, they're a high compliance design. The spider is real 'loose', so the vc is using a lot of energy 'lifting' the cone, which is pretty large physically (weight unknown, but lighter than my typ. alum.).
But, I've got my 'moves'...😉
I'm going to flip them over, cone base down. If I sat on the floor, there was a definite improvement in what I heard. The radiation pattern is strongest at a right angle to the cone...
Next, a base of sorts... and a surround. I've got some dental dam sheets that didn't work on one of the V.1's, but just might be the ticket for a high compliance cone. The stuff is real stretchy, but not big (4" sq. sheets)...but I've got a lot of it. Maybe I can laminate it into something that can be cut into concentric circles...
I've been itching to try a near zero volume base. My V.2's sound best sitting on a flat surface, a close analog to the GP units. They have no 'enclosure' under them to speak of, and I'll bet that's on purpose. Think acoustic suspension...the old AR speakers got a lot of mileage with that.
So...that's what happened. *G* And that's what will happen next. Back to the labor-atory...
Igor! Light up the teslas! I need a cappuccino! *Rubs Hans with Glee* (And Glee Likes It) *evil laughter fades to Deadmau5 back beat*
OK; so you are not physically restricting cone movement, just limiting the volume of air that cone is working into, correct?
Precisely. The V.2's base (a PVC toilet flange with modification) is only 3.5" i.d. x 4" h., a ridiculously small volume. But it sounds OK when sitting on a table. Pick it up, and all you hear is what's coming out From the interior.
The 4 V.3's are on 4" dia. PVC pipes, not 'tuned' to any particular length. But they generate a certain amount of mid-bass, until you take them off the pipe.
As for 'physically restricting cone movement', the EVA foam is relatively stiff compared to the typical surround. In one way that helps because it is supporting a heavy cone, taking that weight off the spider and the vc.
That occurred to me when I was fussing around with the V.3.75's 'mid' units. They sounded 'restricted' and wouldn't play very loud even when cranked. I inserted a washer into the 4 supports and it made a difference. They needed a little more 'compliance', I was strangling them with a 'too tight' tolerance height-wise.
The fact that they still don't play as well as the V.2's I'll chalk up to a cheap low wattage motor that's not terribly 'strong'.
I keep thinking about the patent's illustrations, and how the some of the depictions show a base that's not very large, much like the GP units. But that would make sense if the cone size is such that one is not trying to generate cone excursion to yield bass frequencies, as in the A's and F's. But that opens the can of worms...enclosure size/tuning, cone complexity, vc strength vs. heat issues, damping....
I'm just trying to keep the little buggers simple. I don't mind eq'ing the daylights out of them. With the heavyweight cones I'm running, I'm not surprised to have to do so. But as they've broken in, they've been able to handle more power as long as I don't get too enthusiastic. *G*
The addition of the 2mil alum tweets has been a pleasant addition. In retrospect, the cones need to be 1/3 to 1/2 larger on a better motor. Simple capacitor xover, nothing fancy as yet. But they show promise, and will be better than the dome tweets that are on the other pair, if only because they Are an true omni. Highs everywhere, instead of just straight on...
Back to your query, yeah, I want to hear what'll happen if I can vary the size of the base volume, starting with no volume at all. A base plate sitting on the table. Add a column under it, 1" at a go. I've got plenty of PVC to work with, and the stuff recycles nicely. *L*
As for the supports, I'm going to stop being 'pretty' for awhile and just go with naked all-thread and visible nuts. Treat it like torqueing the bolts on a car's cylinder head, a half-turn up and down to vary the spacing and see what that does. Should make for some interesting noises, if nothing else. *G*
And here's something to distract you and out friends and lurkers with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2NG-MgHqEk
Having grown up in L.A. with the 'original', and been there enough times to get 'abusive' with the experience ("What? The relatives want to go there? Do I HAVE to go?") and having been to Orlando (vicious flashbacks), That take is (as is said ad nauseum) "Priceless".
Visiting D.C. a few years ago, I was struck by the comparison/contrast of it all...it IS like an adult version that takes itself seriously. A strange place, IMHO...but, I'm like that...*shrug*
The 4 V.3's are on 4" dia. PVC pipes, not 'tuned' to any particular length. But they generate a certain amount of mid-bass, until you take them off the pipe.
As for 'physically restricting cone movement', the EVA foam is relatively stiff compared to the typical surround. In one way that helps because it is supporting a heavy cone, taking that weight off the spider and the vc.
That occurred to me when I was fussing around with the V.3.75's 'mid' units. They sounded 'restricted' and wouldn't play very loud even when cranked. I inserted a washer into the 4 supports and it made a difference. They needed a little more 'compliance', I was strangling them with a 'too tight' tolerance height-wise.
The fact that they still don't play as well as the V.2's I'll chalk up to a cheap low wattage motor that's not terribly 'strong'.
I keep thinking about the patent's illustrations, and how the some of the depictions show a base that's not very large, much like the GP units. But that would make sense if the cone size is such that one is not trying to generate cone excursion to yield bass frequencies, as in the A's and F's. But that opens the can of worms...enclosure size/tuning, cone complexity, vc strength vs. heat issues, damping....
I'm just trying to keep the little buggers simple. I don't mind eq'ing the daylights out of them. With the heavyweight cones I'm running, I'm not surprised to have to do so. But as they've broken in, they've been able to handle more power as long as I don't get too enthusiastic. *G*
The addition of the 2mil alum tweets has been a pleasant addition. In retrospect, the cones need to be 1/3 to 1/2 larger on a better motor. Simple capacitor xover, nothing fancy as yet. But they show promise, and will be better than the dome tweets that are on the other pair, if only because they Are an true omni. Highs everywhere, instead of just straight on...
Back to your query, yeah, I want to hear what'll happen if I can vary the size of the base volume, starting with no volume at all. A base plate sitting on the table. Add a column under it, 1" at a go. I've got plenty of PVC to work with, and the stuff recycles nicely. *L*
As for the supports, I'm going to stop being 'pretty' for awhile and just go with naked all-thread and visible nuts. Treat it like torqueing the bolts on a car's cylinder head, a half-turn up and down to vary the spacing and see what that does. Should make for some interesting noises, if nothing else. *G*
And here's something to distract you and out friends and lurkers with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2NG-MgHqEk
Having grown up in L.A. with the 'original', and been there enough times to get 'abusive' with the experience ("What? The relatives want to go there? Do I HAVE to go?") and having been to Orlando (vicious flashbacks), That take is (as is said ad nauseum) "Priceless".
Visiting D.C. a few years ago, I was struck by the comparison/contrast of it all...it IS like an adult version that takes itself seriously. A strange place, IMHO...but, I'm like that...*shrug*
Now that's my kinda theme park... reality at it's best 😱
But that's what you listen to 24/7 with 'regular' speakers 😉 Of course not so pronounced, but still...
But that's what you listen to 24/7 with 'regular' speakers 😉 Of course not so pronounced, but still...
The all Elusive Walsh Driver/Speaker
Gentlemen,
Please forgive me for crashing your thread. I was up all night as usual working, stumbled upon your Thread and read the full 60 plus pages with unabated enthusiasm. 🙂
I have to admit, I have not seen such effort since I stepped into this myself in 1972, and after 12 years of research and back engineering, I finally built my first working pair of True Walsh speakers. I was hooked and I have been building them for 42 years now.
After reading your beginnings, you stated a few times that this looked fairly simple and you could not understand why Dale Harder and HHR Exotic Speakers was charging so much for these things. Further, I noted that as the thread went on over the years you gained a rather healthy respect for the complexity of this unique speaker and perhaps could understand why these things could do what they do and cost so much.
I can tell you that while the design looks rather simplistic that it is anything but,...The current state-of-the-art Walsh drivers that we produce, (currently 6 models) represent 4 1/2 decades of intense research and millions in outlay to produce speakers that are of world class capability.
I can fully understand that you want to make these speakers simply and inexpensively. I too wish that were possible, but alas, not gonna happen. At least not good ones anyway.
As you have found the materials tend to be somewhat special, are not readily available off the shelf, require buying minimum orders, etc. In fact, I will tell you this, the glues that are used between each joint and on each part are different. Did you know that it takes us 250 + man hours to assemble 1 set of our drivers? I have come to realize that they are probably without a doubt one of the most sophisticated and difficult drivers/speakers to build on the face of the planet.
Then their is the cabinets. These are not just boxes. They are indeed part of the driver and designed to terminate the wave front as it leaves the speaker cone. Proper termination is everything, or the wave-front is reflected back up the cone 180 degrees out of phase when it hits the cone/air boundry layer. This is also a function of the surround. Not only does it hold and center the cone, but it also absorbs some of the wave-front. That is why they are not an off the shelf surround. These must work together.
I see you have also begun to understand the complex relationship between the voice coil mass and the cone mass. This is a biggie. In fact the entire suspension is a real pain in the #@^& and somewhat defies physics. (gravity)
On another thread, I noticed that a fellow was so obsessed with the MBL 101 E MKII designs that he spent years and lots of money to fully understand and build a duplicate set of speakers for his own use. Side by side you could not tell them apart. Most impressive. I can fully appreciate your need to know and desire to understand. I applaud your efforts. I kind of wonder, If I gave you our 500 page step-by-step build process, what would you do then?
I guess what I am asking is what is your desire? What are all of you trying to do? Is it the trip, just getting there, or the intense desire to know, or the desire to do it as cheaply as possible?
Further, I would ask,...do you all really think our pricing is way out of line for a set of speakers that can easily compete with and even blow away speakers that are 6 figures from other manufactures? Our prices range from $2,500 to $30,000.00. Yet, we are considered to be some of the lowest priced ultra-fi in the industry.
We have grown by listening to our clients and being open to valuable constructive criticism. So gentlemen, without giving away the company, how can I possibly help you. 🙂
Most sincerely,
Dale Harder
HHR Exotic Speakers
Gentlemen,
Please forgive me for crashing your thread. I was up all night as usual working, stumbled upon your Thread and read the full 60 plus pages with unabated enthusiasm. 🙂
I have to admit, I have not seen such effort since I stepped into this myself in 1972, and after 12 years of research and back engineering, I finally built my first working pair of True Walsh speakers. I was hooked and I have been building them for 42 years now.
After reading your beginnings, you stated a few times that this looked fairly simple and you could not understand why Dale Harder and HHR Exotic Speakers was charging so much for these things. Further, I noted that as the thread went on over the years you gained a rather healthy respect for the complexity of this unique speaker and perhaps could understand why these things could do what they do and cost so much.
I can tell you that while the design looks rather simplistic that it is anything but,...The current state-of-the-art Walsh drivers that we produce, (currently 6 models) represent 4 1/2 decades of intense research and millions in outlay to produce speakers that are of world class capability.
I can fully understand that you want to make these speakers simply and inexpensively. I too wish that were possible, but alas, not gonna happen. At least not good ones anyway.
As you have found the materials tend to be somewhat special, are not readily available off the shelf, require buying minimum orders, etc. In fact, I will tell you this, the glues that are used between each joint and on each part are different. Did you know that it takes us 250 + man hours to assemble 1 set of our drivers? I have come to realize that they are probably without a doubt one of the most sophisticated and difficult drivers/speakers to build on the face of the planet.
Then their is the cabinets. These are not just boxes. They are indeed part of the driver and designed to terminate the wave front as it leaves the speaker cone. Proper termination is everything, or the wave-front is reflected back up the cone 180 degrees out of phase when it hits the cone/air boundry layer. This is also a function of the surround. Not only does it hold and center the cone, but it also absorbs some of the wave-front. That is why they are not an off the shelf surround. These must work together.
I see you have also begun to understand the complex relationship between the voice coil mass and the cone mass. This is a biggie. In fact the entire suspension is a real pain in the #@^& and somewhat defies physics. (gravity)
On another thread, I noticed that a fellow was so obsessed with the MBL 101 E MKII designs that he spent years and lots of money to fully understand and build a duplicate set of speakers for his own use. Side by side you could not tell them apart. Most impressive. I can fully appreciate your need to know and desire to understand. I applaud your efforts. I kind of wonder, If I gave you our 500 page step-by-step build process, what would you do then?
I guess what I am asking is what is your desire? What are all of you trying to do? Is it the trip, just getting there, or the intense desire to know, or the desire to do it as cheaply as possible?
Further, I would ask,...do you all really think our pricing is way out of line for a set of speakers that can easily compete with and even blow away speakers that are 6 figures from other manufactures? Our prices range from $2,500 to $30,000.00. Yet, we are considered to be some of the lowest priced ultra-fi in the industry.
We have grown by listening to our clients and being open to valuable constructive criticism. So gentlemen, without giving away the company, how can I possibly help you. 🙂
Most sincerely,
Dale Harder
HHR Exotic Speakers
Hi Dale. thanks for crashing our thread!
My first Walsh driver was built in the mid seventies, it spurred me on to make more. Eventually, I built a pair of all aluminum 6" cones on transmission line enclosures, which were a 'success'.
Picked it back up again a few years ago, and have done quite a bit of experimenting with cones and enclosures. I had really great success in some areas, and not so much in others.
Fast forward to now; I got involved in this thread to try and debunk the 'black art' myths around these things. But, that has came around and bit me squarely on the *ss
So, I do appreciate the art and science of making Walsh drivers and conventional drivers as well.
I do have a commercial interest in these things, but at this point I'm just trying to arrive at a bare minimum, a DIYer frieindly version to share with the masses.
It's tempting to 'share it all', so I understand wanting to help. I, for one would be happy to establish a knock down version with just the essentials.
Almost there, but got a ways to go yet...but that's the fun part for me. So, anything you feel you could share would be received with gratitude, I'm sure.
peace
My first Walsh driver was built in the mid seventies, it spurred me on to make more. Eventually, I built a pair of all aluminum 6" cones on transmission line enclosures, which were a 'success'.
Picked it back up again a few years ago, and have done quite a bit of experimenting with cones and enclosures. I had really great success in some areas, and not so much in others.
Fast forward to now; I got involved in this thread to try and debunk the 'black art' myths around these things. But, that has came around and bit me squarely on the *ss
So, I do appreciate the art and science of making Walsh drivers and conventional drivers as well.I do have a commercial interest in these things, but at this point I'm just trying to arrive at a bare minimum, a DIYer frieindly version to share with the masses.
It's tempting to 'share it all', so I understand wanting to help. I, for one would be happy to establish a knock down version with just the essentials.
Almost there, but got a ways to go yet...but that's the fun part for me. So, anything you feel you could share would be received with gratitude, I'm sure.
peace
Dale you just said what ive been saying this whole time but a little more bold. Ive already done some footwork To get something going. I understand the things you said about suspension and termination. I think the focus should be on the cone or motor those other things are a bit more experimental.
*A deep breath*
Greetings, Mr.Harder...and pardon me if I will be bold enough to call you Dale. 😉 And no, it's an honor and a pleasure for you to 'crash the party'. And thanks for acknowledging our enthusiasm re the Walsh design. IMHO it's the only omni previous to the MBL's that actually Worked...
I think I can 'speak' for us that are the regulars here that we recognize the years of effort and focus on making the original concept of the Ohm speaker a fully developed object of function and technical sophistication. You've made a legend not only stay alive, but move on into the new century. No small feat, that. As for what you consider proper to charge for that, you're well within your rights and desires. Commitment and dedication deserve their due.
(I can see that Cochleus beat me to the 'welcome wagon'. *L* That's OK with me...I've got a good excuse. I'm posting from a hospital room on a laptop. No, I'm not in dire straits; just a 'mystery ailment' that seemed like appendicitis, but isn't. True to my nature, I've got the medical types wondering 'what it is'. *sigh* Restricted to liquids, no smoking, ehh coffee.. ..and food ads on the tube....🙁 )
Personally, I'm interested in exploring Walsh drivers that are limited to the mid and high frequencies, variants of the German Physiks units and the 'ice cream cones' found on the old Infinity speakers. I'll let a subwoofer take care of the bottom, since those frequencies are omni by nature. My current set of drivers (referred to as V.3 in previous pages) lead me to believe that I've a concept worth pursuing, if only for bragging rights. *G* And doing it on a 'shoestring budget' is just a constraint that I need to live with for the time being....
One question that comes to mind to ask is:
Have you ever set up 4 of your units in a front/rear array? Is so, what did you hear? Anything 'unusual'?
Another question to pose is:
There seems to be an upper limit as to how loud a Walsh driver seems to generate vs. conventional drivers. I suspect it's due to the nature of an omni's radiation pattern; within my array of 4, I can generate substantial volume by just sheer multiplication of drivers. This seems to be echoed by GP; their 'higher end' units multiply the DDD drivers. Does this seem to be the case IYO?
Meanwhile, I'm going to show unusual restraint and Not ramble on the keys.
Dale, thanks again. Drop by Anytime. *S*
Now, if we can only get Linkwitz to stop messing around with his Plutos....*snicker*
Greetings, Mr.Harder...and pardon me if I will be bold enough to call you Dale. 😉 And no, it's an honor and a pleasure for you to 'crash the party'. And thanks for acknowledging our enthusiasm re the Walsh design. IMHO it's the only omni previous to the MBL's that actually Worked...
I think I can 'speak' for us that are the regulars here that we recognize the years of effort and focus on making the original concept of the Ohm speaker a fully developed object of function and technical sophistication. You've made a legend not only stay alive, but move on into the new century. No small feat, that. As for what you consider proper to charge for that, you're well within your rights and desires. Commitment and dedication deserve their due.
(I can see that Cochleus beat me to the 'welcome wagon'. *L* That's OK with me...I've got a good excuse. I'm posting from a hospital room on a laptop. No, I'm not in dire straits; just a 'mystery ailment' that seemed like appendicitis, but isn't. True to my nature, I've got the medical types wondering 'what it is'. *sigh* Restricted to liquids, no smoking, ehh coffee.. ..and food ads on the tube....🙁 )
Personally, I'm interested in exploring Walsh drivers that are limited to the mid and high frequencies, variants of the German Physiks units and the 'ice cream cones' found on the old Infinity speakers. I'll let a subwoofer take care of the bottom, since those frequencies are omni by nature. My current set of drivers (referred to as V.3 in previous pages) lead me to believe that I've a concept worth pursuing, if only for bragging rights. *G* And doing it on a 'shoestring budget' is just a constraint that I need to live with for the time being....
One question that comes to mind to ask is:
Have you ever set up 4 of your units in a front/rear array? Is so, what did you hear? Anything 'unusual'?
Another question to pose is:
There seems to be an upper limit as to how loud a Walsh driver seems to generate vs. conventional drivers. I suspect it's due to the nature of an omni's radiation pattern; within my array of 4, I can generate substantial volume by just sheer multiplication of drivers. This seems to be echoed by GP; their 'higher end' units multiply the DDD drivers. Does this seem to be the case IYO?
Meanwhile, I'm going to show unusual restraint and Not ramble on the keys.
Dale, thanks again. Drop by Anytime. *S*
Now, if we can only get Linkwitz to stop messing around with his Plutos....*snicker*
Thank you for the welcome guys.
I will interject a few comments here and there and tell you what I can, save some of the proprietary info that relates to our products.
I will begin by addressing some of the comments/questions from each of you.
Cochleus
Probably the best way to look at the Walsh principal is to treat it more like a bad transmission line based in antenna theory than to ever consider it a piston trying to move air. Walsh drivers are elegant bending wave speakers and do very well what Piston driver engineers have been trying to eradicate from there products for years.
Lincoln said,..."it finally occurred to me one day, why not allow a piston driver to be what it is instead of what we want it to be. A bad transmission line and not the ideal piston with infinite stiffness and zero mass."
All piston drivers are really Walsh drivers just trying to get out. That being said, it is also worth noting that not all T & S parameters apply to Walsh speakers. My philosophy is very different from most speaker manufactures. Certainly we rely on various tests, but I realized long ago, that a lot of these tests really are a bunch of BS and simply do not have any real bearing on real world practice. Besides, there are no real standards in the industry. I can take any curve, any measurement and massage it this way and that and make it look great, but in reality, it doesn't mean a damn thing.
For example, many people ask me about our frequency response curves and SPL's. I can tell you that no matter how hard we try to make a flat curve over the entire range, and it may indeed be so in our Anechoic chamber, but the minute a client purchases our product and places it in their room, Poof all that changes and becomes meaningless.
I, we, do not voice our speakers either. My methods are a little more empirical. I do use standard tests, such as square waves, sine waves, complex wave groups etc, but voicing, No,...for that implies that my ears are infallible standards and I can assure you they are not.
After I complete a set of cones and hand tune them, if they pass a near perfect square wave at any frequency, or sine wave, or set of complex waves such as music, then I know that they will remain faithful to the original source.
My final listening tests are critical, but if I can sit down with a finished pair of speakers after their initial 40 hour burn in and listen to some of my favorite music and gently nod off to sleep, then I know that the speakers have performed as intended. Now this may sound silly, but what this tells me is that the sound has made me that relaxed, that content, that I can fall asleep, then I know I have a winner, unlike a set that makes me grab my
ears in pain and run for the off switch.
Obviously there is more to it than that, but you get the idea.
Now I have explored the cheap route and looked into having the parts cookie cutter stamped out and assembled in China super cheap, but what I quickly learned was that you can not build a Stradivarius Violin in such fashion, nor can you do it on-mass as Ohm Acoustics attempted to do. (This was eventually part of their downfall.) The cheaper you try to make it, the cheaper it sounds and the more it resembles a transistor radio than a high fidelity speaker.
I have designed drivers with Titanium, Beryllium, Diamond-like films, Carbon fiber, and even experimented with Graphene. Still, finding the right materials, with the best stiffness, density and Young's modulus to provide the best possible speed characteristics, can be challenging to say the least. Further, if several materials are used in a cascading sequence, such as in the original "F" or our TLS-1 Hybrid and TLS-1, (TLS-1 has 2.26 sq. ft. radiating surface) then it becomes quite another challenge to find adhesives that will work to bond the materials together and maintain the transitions. Our TLS-2 Flagship product uses an 18" driver that has 4.86 sq. ft. of radiating surface and is made with just two materials, i.e. Titanium and Aluminum. Though it is a convoluted cone and also a cone within a cone. Indeed, it is two cones in one, an inner and an outer cone separated and bonded to one another by a special damping material. The rib marks on the cones control nodal break-up, add stiffness and run counter to each other.
Each material represents a change in stiffness, density and modulus to either speed up or slow down a wave front. Or it can be accomplished by using the same material for the entire cone, and forcing the waves to leave the surfaces (front and back) by controlling the cone properties using various means of damping materials with varying thickness and densities. BTW, our cones are the fastest drivers on the face of the planet with the wavefront propagating through the cone at just under 6,000 feet per second. Try that with a piston driver.
Still another approach would be to use varying thickness of the cone material from the throat to the annulus.
Magnasanti:
Our motor is a real beast and is 11 lbs of powerhouse. I redesigned the magnet to produce a higher available energy in the gap than the previous OA versions, to gain more efficiency, have better control and have a high damping factor. (The latter, definitely assists with tube amplifiers and damping factor is not an issue.) Our average gap energy is 11,000 guass instead of the original 9,200 to 9,500. Our magnets are a Alnico/Nd 50 Hybrid.
In addition our new products use 3" edge wound Aluminum wire and Titanium Voice coil formers that can operate up to 600 degrees. Yet weigh only 3.7 grams.
Jerryrigged:
So sorry you are under the weather. Hopefully, they will get you tuned up and running tip top ASAP. 😀
Our TLS-4 Modules our an outgrowth of the original ice-cream cone infinity models. After much consideration and 4 years of research, I developed this little module which I originally was going to aim at the DIY market, but ran into complications with that vision. Producing them inexpensively is just not an option. While they are marvelous and perform extremely well, with a range of 200 Hz to 22KHz, (actually up to 40KHz, but we do not spec them beyond 22) an enterprising individual probably could duplicate something similar, but would still expend a great deal of time, energy and money to make the parts, assembly jigs etc. Pretty much like the fellow that duplicated a set of the MBL101 E MKII
I would offer some of my experience here for what it is worth. After 42 years of working with the Walsh style driver, it became fairly obvious to me that trying to mix and match drivers was just not a viable option. For example,...mixing stats or ribbons with pistons always results in discontinuity somewhere or mismatch in efficiency and tonal colors.
Now, I always heard that the lower registers are essentially Omni in nature, but I can tell you from experience, they are not. In fact, using one sub and summing L and R is by far the worst option, closely followed by two subs one for L and one for R. The piston sub can always be heard and does not blend very well, especially with an Omni speaker. My lesson has been that if you are going to use more than one driver in a system, it had damn well better be the same kind of driver or you will end up with serious issues.
The best combination would be a True Walsh style sub mated to a true Walsh style cone driver. X-over in my opinion should be as low as possible at 40 to 50 HZ. In fact, we will be introducing the Worlds only true Walsh style Subs shortly. Trying to get 15" to 18" dual subs with built in 500+ watt amps, phase and x-over controls to market for a reasonable price, say under $4,000.00 a pair has proven to be quite a challenge also.
Personally, I HATE x-overs and I finally broke my own rule when I designed the TLS-5 Towers. (This fine little speaker I designed for clients that have rather limited space as in apartments or condos.) The TLS-5 is a logical conclusion to the TLS-4 module and completing the entire speaker which was originally the DIY special. I took the guess work out of the equation and designed the complete speaker system. I consoled myself by using an absolutely minimal crossover consisting of the finest parts money can buy and adding a highly modified piston driver to act as a Walsh driver to handle the lower register.
The secret to this speakers operation is the fact that the two drivers are mounted one on top of the other and separated by only 1 inch, which allows the two to act like one.
In answer to your question about setting up front and rear speakers, while I have not seriously done so, I have several clients that have set their systems up this way and dearly love them. It does take some work to get it right, but it can be done.
Remember, these speakers are brutal. They are the closest thing I have ever found to a true live event, as all events in life are Omni-directional and act as a true point source. They will reveal poor recordings and poor equipment in a heartbeat. However, if you have quality recordings, a properly designed single piece Walsh style speaker will blow away everything else.
The only limitation we still have is that our speakers can not play at an ear splitting volume level. We can do 95 to 98 db at 12 feet listening position all day, but, if you want 105 to 110 db levels, I politely suggest you buy a set of JBL’s or Makkies and proceed to blow yourself away. Lets face it, the only thing all the look alike pistonic driven speakers of today can do that we can't is play loudly, but then, if w had 4 or 5 drivers, just imagine what we could do.
One of my ideas to create a full blown sound experience would be to have say half dozen speakers like the TLS-5's set up as if on a stage and each speaker would play only one instrument or performer from the recording.
Imagine the sound stage one might accomplish.
I will interject a few comments here and there and tell you what I can, save some of the proprietary info that relates to our products.
I will begin by addressing some of the comments/questions from each of you.
Cochleus
Probably the best way to look at the Walsh principal is to treat it more like a bad transmission line based in antenna theory than to ever consider it a piston trying to move air. Walsh drivers are elegant bending wave speakers and do very well what Piston driver engineers have been trying to eradicate from there products for years.
Lincoln said,..."it finally occurred to me one day, why not allow a piston driver to be what it is instead of what we want it to be. A bad transmission line and not the ideal piston with infinite stiffness and zero mass."
All piston drivers are really Walsh drivers just trying to get out. That being said, it is also worth noting that not all T & S parameters apply to Walsh speakers. My philosophy is very different from most speaker manufactures. Certainly we rely on various tests, but I realized long ago, that a lot of these tests really are a bunch of BS and simply do not have any real bearing on real world practice. Besides, there are no real standards in the industry. I can take any curve, any measurement and massage it this way and that and make it look great, but in reality, it doesn't mean a damn thing.
For example, many people ask me about our frequency response curves and SPL's. I can tell you that no matter how hard we try to make a flat curve over the entire range, and it may indeed be so in our Anechoic chamber, but the minute a client purchases our product and places it in their room, Poof all that changes and becomes meaningless.
I, we, do not voice our speakers either. My methods are a little more empirical. I do use standard tests, such as square waves, sine waves, complex wave groups etc, but voicing, No,...for that implies that my ears are infallible standards and I can assure you they are not.
After I complete a set of cones and hand tune them, if they pass a near perfect square wave at any frequency, or sine wave, or set of complex waves such as music, then I know that they will remain faithful to the original source.
My final listening tests are critical, but if I can sit down with a finished pair of speakers after their initial 40 hour burn in and listen to some of my favorite music and gently nod off to sleep, then I know that the speakers have performed as intended. Now this may sound silly, but what this tells me is that the sound has made me that relaxed, that content, that I can fall asleep, then I know I have a winner, unlike a set that makes me grab my
ears in pain and run for the off switch.
Obviously there is more to it than that, but you get the idea.
Now I have explored the cheap route and looked into having the parts cookie cutter stamped out and assembled in China super cheap, but what I quickly learned was that you can not build a Stradivarius Violin in such fashion, nor can you do it on-mass as Ohm Acoustics attempted to do. (This was eventually part of their downfall.) The cheaper you try to make it, the cheaper it sounds and the more it resembles a transistor radio than a high fidelity speaker.
I have designed drivers with Titanium, Beryllium, Diamond-like films, Carbon fiber, and even experimented with Graphene. Still, finding the right materials, with the best stiffness, density and Young's modulus to provide the best possible speed characteristics, can be challenging to say the least. Further, if several materials are used in a cascading sequence, such as in the original "F" or our TLS-1 Hybrid and TLS-1, (TLS-1 has 2.26 sq. ft. radiating surface) then it becomes quite another challenge to find adhesives that will work to bond the materials together and maintain the transitions. Our TLS-2 Flagship product uses an 18" driver that has 4.86 sq. ft. of radiating surface and is made with just two materials, i.e. Titanium and Aluminum. Though it is a convoluted cone and also a cone within a cone. Indeed, it is two cones in one, an inner and an outer cone separated and bonded to one another by a special damping material. The rib marks on the cones control nodal break-up, add stiffness and run counter to each other.
Each material represents a change in stiffness, density and modulus to either speed up or slow down a wave front. Or it can be accomplished by using the same material for the entire cone, and forcing the waves to leave the surfaces (front and back) by controlling the cone properties using various means of damping materials with varying thickness and densities. BTW, our cones are the fastest drivers on the face of the planet with the wavefront propagating through the cone at just under 6,000 feet per second. Try that with a piston driver.
Still another approach would be to use varying thickness of the cone material from the throat to the annulus.
Magnasanti:
Our motor is a real beast and is 11 lbs of powerhouse. I redesigned the magnet to produce a higher available energy in the gap than the previous OA versions, to gain more efficiency, have better control and have a high damping factor. (The latter, definitely assists with tube amplifiers and damping factor is not an issue.) Our average gap energy is 11,000 guass instead of the original 9,200 to 9,500. Our magnets are a Alnico/Nd 50 Hybrid.
In addition our new products use 3" edge wound Aluminum wire and Titanium Voice coil formers that can operate up to 600 degrees. Yet weigh only 3.7 grams.
Jerryrigged:
So sorry you are under the weather. Hopefully, they will get you tuned up and running tip top ASAP. 😀
Our TLS-4 Modules our an outgrowth of the original ice-cream cone infinity models. After much consideration and 4 years of research, I developed this little module which I originally was going to aim at the DIY market, but ran into complications with that vision. Producing them inexpensively is just not an option. While they are marvelous and perform extremely well, with a range of 200 Hz to 22KHz, (actually up to 40KHz, but we do not spec them beyond 22) an enterprising individual probably could duplicate something similar, but would still expend a great deal of time, energy and money to make the parts, assembly jigs etc. Pretty much like the fellow that duplicated a set of the MBL101 E MKII
I would offer some of my experience here for what it is worth. After 42 years of working with the Walsh style driver, it became fairly obvious to me that trying to mix and match drivers was just not a viable option. For example,...mixing stats or ribbons with pistons always results in discontinuity somewhere or mismatch in efficiency and tonal colors.
Now, I always heard that the lower registers are essentially Omni in nature, but I can tell you from experience, they are not. In fact, using one sub and summing L and R is by far the worst option, closely followed by two subs one for L and one for R. The piston sub can always be heard and does not blend very well, especially with an Omni speaker. My lesson has been that if you are going to use more than one driver in a system, it had damn well better be the same kind of driver or you will end up with serious issues.
The best combination would be a True Walsh style sub mated to a true Walsh style cone driver. X-over in my opinion should be as low as possible at 40 to 50 HZ. In fact, we will be introducing the Worlds only true Walsh style Subs shortly. Trying to get 15" to 18" dual subs with built in 500+ watt amps, phase and x-over controls to market for a reasonable price, say under $4,000.00 a pair has proven to be quite a challenge also.
Personally, I HATE x-overs and I finally broke my own rule when I designed the TLS-5 Towers. (This fine little speaker I designed for clients that have rather limited space as in apartments or condos.) The TLS-5 is a logical conclusion to the TLS-4 module and completing the entire speaker which was originally the DIY special. I took the guess work out of the equation and designed the complete speaker system. I consoled myself by using an absolutely minimal crossover consisting of the finest parts money can buy and adding a highly modified piston driver to act as a Walsh driver to handle the lower register.
The secret to this speakers operation is the fact that the two drivers are mounted one on top of the other and separated by only 1 inch, which allows the two to act like one.
In answer to your question about setting up front and rear speakers, while I have not seriously done so, I have several clients that have set their systems up this way and dearly love them. It does take some work to get it right, but it can be done.
Remember, these speakers are brutal. They are the closest thing I have ever found to a true live event, as all events in life are Omni-directional and act as a true point source. They will reveal poor recordings and poor equipment in a heartbeat. However, if you have quality recordings, a properly designed single piece Walsh style speaker will blow away everything else.
The only limitation we still have is that our speakers can not play at an ear splitting volume level. We can do 95 to 98 db at 12 feet listening position all day, but, if you want 105 to 110 db levels, I politely suggest you buy a set of JBL’s or Makkies and proceed to blow yourself away. Lets face it, the only thing all the look alike pistonic driven speakers of today can do that we can't is play loudly, but then, if w had 4 or 5 drivers, just imagine what we could do.
One of my ideas to create a full blown sound experience would be to have say half dozen speakers like the TLS-5's set up as if on a stage and each speaker would play only one instrument or performer from the recording.
Imagine the sound stage one might accomplish.
from Dale
Sorry the last portion of my reply was cut off. Guess that is the computers way of telling me too long... 🙂
Anyway, hope this helps.
Dale
Sorry the last portion of my reply was cut off. Guess that is the computers way of telling me too long... 🙂
Anyway, hope this helps.
Dale
Still under 'house arrest'...kinda...
...and since I'm committed to remaining in the hospital to keep my diet under control (and there are those that might say they're controlling the wrong thing, but I'll ignore them *L*), I've got the relative luxury to spend time 'here'. *S*
...and better food for thought than what I'm getting here. I can have anything I want as long as I can see through it. Charming...*sigh* And a colonoscopy Mon. early morning. Well, I won't be able to say that this particular Monday sucks....*L* I'm still being medically mysterious, but everyone's still curious, and I'd like to get back to work. So, onward and upward, no pun intended....
Thanks, Dale... Responding 'in reverse', so to speak, I agree that your approach to a woofer/subwoofer for a (perhaps) TLS-4 combination is the sort of approach I've been considering and generally attempting. It would allow 'sidestepping' to some degree the complexity of a single cone approach which on a diy level is...well, daunting is putting it mildly. A 500 page 'how to' would be nice, but no...we shouldn't have that, it negates your work. I would do it for your archives, though. Don't be like Ohm and allow anyone to forget what they're about...
As Merlin was supposed to have said to the Round Table, "The problem with men is that they forget." And we certainly do...*sigh*
Please let us know when the sub is ready for us public types. I can imagine approximately what it will entail, but reality is always so much better. *G*
As for self, I've been pursuing the 2 driver approach. I have an active Behringer Xover that can be put to use to (at least) have more control over that aspect than normal. At this time, I'm working on 'build quality' as I play with various cone materials, surrounds, and base enclosures. I find the 'alien elegance' of the MBL's as something to be emulated to some degree. And therein lies another question...
Since you've perused this forum front to back, I trust you've noticed that I find the lack of an enclosure beneath German P's cones intriguing. I've noticed that in my units, the absence of one does not seem to be a huge issue, unless one chooses to utilize it. The original patent seems to allude to it as well. And you have made the point that we're trying to get away from pistonic motion, except when one reaches the frequencies that require it on a simple physical level. One of my next experiments is to try a pair with essentially no base enclosure at all, just because I don't see a reason why not. Just a ring supporting the surround...
Any thoughts? Or have you 'been there, done that'?
Loudness: I have an ersatz 'line array' that can give me all the db I'd care to subject myself too. *L* I've just noticed that multiple drivers generates a 'perceived loudness'...I chalk it up to the convergence of the radiated fields of the driver. You note an upper limit; GP claims one slightly higher. I suspect it's just an inherent limit to the design. More exotica (i.e., more $) might yield additional, but what price is that last db....
You might try for grins a 4 unit array. I can't think of someone would could do this easier, and certainly with higher quality drivers than mine. A simple F/R, stereo only, nothing discrete or 'surround anything'. Same wattage and volume, same eq.
I'm hearing, depending upon the selection and it's 'mix', instruments from different locations. Now, this could be subject to the potential 'sweet spot' (there still is one) effect, room acoustics (mine are gawdawful), or the potential brain damage of the listener (I'm typically sober and/or 'straight'), but it seems to 'be there'. It shouldn't be occurring, right...one would think.
But I'll swear to your favorite deity, I hear it...
Please try it, and get back to me on it. I'm either right, or it's time for some sort of 'other' medical attention. *L* Mother didn't raise fools, but this crop did come out a little different. 😉
...and since I'm committed to remaining in the hospital to keep my diet under control (and there are those that might say they're controlling the wrong thing, but I'll ignore them *L*), I've got the relative luxury to spend time 'here'. *S*
...and better food for thought than what I'm getting here. I can have anything I want as long as I can see through it. Charming...*sigh* And a colonoscopy Mon. early morning. Well, I won't be able to say that this particular Monday sucks....*L* I'm still being medically mysterious, but everyone's still curious, and I'd like to get back to work. So, onward and upward, no pun intended....
Thanks, Dale... Responding 'in reverse', so to speak, I agree that your approach to a woofer/subwoofer for a (perhaps) TLS-4 combination is the sort of approach I've been considering and generally attempting. It would allow 'sidestepping' to some degree the complexity of a single cone approach which on a diy level is...well, daunting is putting it mildly. A 500 page 'how to' would be nice, but no...we shouldn't have that, it negates your work. I would do it for your archives, though. Don't be like Ohm and allow anyone to forget what they're about...
As Merlin was supposed to have said to the Round Table, "The problem with men is that they forget." And we certainly do...*sigh*
Please let us know when the sub is ready for us public types. I can imagine approximately what it will entail, but reality is always so much better. *G*
As for self, I've been pursuing the 2 driver approach. I have an active Behringer Xover that can be put to use to (at least) have more control over that aspect than normal. At this time, I'm working on 'build quality' as I play with various cone materials, surrounds, and base enclosures. I find the 'alien elegance' of the MBL's as something to be emulated to some degree. And therein lies another question...
Since you've perused this forum front to back, I trust you've noticed that I find the lack of an enclosure beneath German P's cones intriguing. I've noticed that in my units, the absence of one does not seem to be a huge issue, unless one chooses to utilize it. The original patent seems to allude to it as well. And you have made the point that we're trying to get away from pistonic motion, except when one reaches the frequencies that require it on a simple physical level. One of my next experiments is to try a pair with essentially no base enclosure at all, just because I don't see a reason why not. Just a ring supporting the surround...
Any thoughts? Or have you 'been there, done that'?
Loudness: I have an ersatz 'line array' that can give me all the db I'd care to subject myself too. *L* I've just noticed that multiple drivers generates a 'perceived loudness'...I chalk it up to the convergence of the radiated fields of the driver. You note an upper limit; GP claims one slightly higher. I suspect it's just an inherent limit to the design. More exotica (i.e., more $) might yield additional, but what price is that last db....
You might try for grins a 4 unit array. I can't think of someone would could do this easier, and certainly with higher quality drivers than mine. A simple F/R, stereo only, nothing discrete or 'surround anything'. Same wattage and volume, same eq.
I'm hearing, depending upon the selection and it's 'mix', instruments from different locations. Now, this could be subject to the potential 'sweet spot' (there still is one) effect, room acoustics (mine are gawdawful), or the potential brain damage of the listener (I'm typically sober and/or 'straight'), but it seems to 'be there'. It shouldn't be occurring, right...one would think.
But I'll swear to your favorite deity, I hear it...
Please try it, and get back to me on it. I'm either right, or it's time for some sort of 'other' medical attention. *L* Mother didn't raise fools, but this crop did come out a little different. 😉
One day in the hospital is too long!
Sorry your not feeling well. I was going through that last year this time, as you know.
If I lived closer I would come and break you outta there...
Grab your shoes and undies and Let's go!!!
If they don't treat you nice just pick up the phone and act like your going to call someone...it worked for me. 😀
Thanks for that, but I really need to stay and find out what it's all about. I've got the laptop, Spotify, a book, a drawing pad and the utensils for that...and all the staff to amuse self with my sparking wit and memorable personality...*L* They'll be lucky to escape with mild bain gamage... 😉
...and the spouse left me with just the underwear...I'd head uphill to one of AVL's microbreweries, but I'd have to convince them that I'm a harmless mental patient looking for a quick one for the road, which probably wouldn't be too difficult to pull off. Then they'd come and take me away...*G*
BTB, 'they' just released a top 10 of 'hippie havens'...AVL tops the list. That, and we've now got more microbrewers per capita then anywhere. Great...another reason not to drive anywhere, and more scooters to dodge if I do...
...and the spouse left me with just the underwear...I'd head uphill to one of AVL's microbreweries, but I'd have to convince them that I'm a harmless mental patient looking for a quick one for the road, which probably wouldn't be too difficult to pull off. Then they'd come and take me away...*G*
BTB, 'they' just released a top 10 of 'hippie havens'...AVL tops the list. That, and we've now got more microbrewers per capita then anywhere. Great...another reason not to drive anywhere, and more scooters to dodge if I do...
jerry I don't think a zero volume is the way to go not in the sense of just terminating at the surround. you might need to allow for some dissipation or simply breakup the internal wave.
You may be right, Mags. I'm just going to start @ zero and add segments. Temporary @ first (rubber cement. likely), PVC cement if I want it permanent. Just a whim....if nobody's tried it, then it's due to be done. *G*
But I've got to escape this hospital first...I'm getting to feel like the Michelin Man from all this liquid I'm getting, orally and IV...*gurgle*L*
But I've got to escape this hospital first...I'm getting to feel like the Michelin Man from all this liquid I'm getting, orally and IV...*gurgle*L*
Hi Jerryrigged,
I think you misunderstand me...I meant that you only need to add one driver to complete the TLS-4 system. Essentially, you could use a 12" piston driver instead of an 8" as we use on the 5's, modified to act like a Walsh driver and couple this with the TLS-4. You should be able to get (30 to 32Hz) to 22Khz range with this combo. Now if you want to use a sub to get into the mud, you could add one, but not really necessary.
Too many drivers and too many x-overs. Lots of distortion and lots of discontinuity unless done just right.
The best choice would be of course a single 12" Walsh driver that will go down to 24Hz and then Cross to a Walsh sub if you really gotta have that low bass. X-over around 40 or 50 Hz from the main driver just to take the edge off the main and prevent exceeding X-max while in pistonic mode. Of course, the sub should be a Walsh style sub in order to blend properly.
The DDD driver as with ours has a low range of 200 to 300 Hz and while they both operate in pistonic mode the VC travel for a wave in the 2-300 Hz range is relatively small, so the wave propagation can be controlled by damping the cone and therefore one can avoid using a large cabinet. Still the DDD does have a small damped enclosure at the bottom. Ours a little less so. It is not done with rubber cement however, that won't work.
Finally the GP DDD is matched with a downward firing woofer and a Helmholtz radiator. IMHO, this was not a good choice as the low end of the GP offerings lack solid tuneful bass without any sense of discontinuity.
Remember, the magic of a Walsh cone is that it can and does operate in a bending wave mode, dipole mode, pistonic mode and coincidence mode all at the same time.
Now you asked about multiple drivers or stacking for more volume. You can, but in order to gain more volume one must sacrifice something somewhere else. There are no free lunches. If two drivers are mounted end to end so that the magnets meet in the middle as some have attempted with the "F" mounting one on top of the other, you end up with several issues to address.
One,... the top or the bottom driver must be driven 180 degrees out of phase from the other to prevent cancellation. This causes a problem because the Walsh driver essentially works best on the downward stroke only. A bending wave driver does not produce wave forms very well on the upward stroke or return to rest position.
Second,... this would require some minimal crossovers be devised and that means more "Junk" in the signal path.
Third,... The Walsh driver is designed to produce a completely coherent 360 degree expanding wave-front. The angle of the cone is calculated to give that wave-front a perfect time and phase relationship at all frequencies in the audio range, making it a cylindrical wave-front. The expanding doughnut of sound is also increasing in height as it leaves the cone at approximately a 67 degree angle both above and below. Now that means that the expanding cylinders of sound will be crashing into each other and causing both destructive and constructive reinforcement of some frequencies. As you know, that is bad. 😕 In fact this happens with the MBL speakers and it is very tricky to prevent them from interfering with their own multiple drivers. In addition, they must have some very complicated crossover networks. But hey, they will play louder!
Still, if one were to compare the quality of the sound field produced by the Single piece Walsh driver to the MBL 101E it would become readily apparent that the Walsh driver is far more coherent over the entire audio range.
Fourth,... the Old "F's" mounted in this way scare the hell out of me since there is a lot of weight up in the air supported on some pretty flimsy 2 x 2's or 2 x 4's. This poor mounting, “shaky” arrangement is also going to introduce Doppler shift and make the sound kinda slur similar to the approaching and receding train whistle analogy. Again not good.
Stacking Drivers in the upright positions again causes several of the prior mentioned issues. In any case not pretty.
As for multiple arrays like four speakers you mentioned, the best way I can describe this is to imagine a single pebble dropped into a still pond. It produces beautiful concentric coherent waves. If however, a handful of pebbles were dropped into that still pond, one would observe a multitude of of similar waves all crashing into one another and producing constructive and destructive reinforcement. This is exactly what happens with all multiple driver piston driven speakers, or any other multi-driver system for that matter.
Now here is another rub, 🙂 In real life, all events are essentially a point source and as you know, there can be many, many events at one time, yet our ears seem to be able to sort this out and tell if the events are real or staged as it were. This occurs because of the timing cues and phase that our brain receives from each event. Even if there are multitudes of events at one time. Our brains are the most marvelous phase discriminators in existence. Only a speaker that can reproduce these time and phase events exactly can "fool" the brain into believing that the perceived events are "Real" or not.
Ah the sweet spot! In my experience there can be a very small sweet spot with Walsh systems, however, there are a few reasons for this that I have encountered.
Most of the reasons are because the rooms we place our speakers in, albeit by extension, are actually part of the loudspeaker system. And few rooms if any have accurate response and therefore introduce some discrepancies into the "Mix". Another reason is that few systems are perfectly balanced electrically, both in response and in function. Some of this can be due to just poor set-up and not taking the requisite time to measure everything accurately. Still another reason is that while positioning the speakers is not as critical as say a piston driven system, i.e. no toe-in, no edge diffraction, no comb filtering, no first reflections etc. to deal with, ...one can take some time to move the speakers forward and back, side to side and experiment with separation to produce the absolute finest results.
Even with all the prior mentioned situations, I find that the Walsh style speakers are the Least demanding of all the speakers to set up. You can certainly pay attention to all the above, and the more you do the less of a sweet spot you will find, but even if you don't you still will have a very good sounding system.
So, I guess what I am saying is that the sweet spot results form discrepancies. Remember that perfect Time and phase discriminator between your ears.
Geez, I hope that I have made some sense. Sounds like the ramblings of a mad man. Hmm, maybe working on these speakers for so long has turned me into one.
Dale
I think you misunderstand me...I meant that you only need to add one driver to complete the TLS-4 system. Essentially, you could use a 12" piston driver instead of an 8" as we use on the 5's, modified to act like a Walsh driver and couple this with the TLS-4. You should be able to get (30 to 32Hz) to 22Khz range with this combo. Now if you want to use a sub to get into the mud, you could add one, but not really necessary.
Too many drivers and too many x-overs. Lots of distortion and lots of discontinuity unless done just right.
The best choice would be of course a single 12" Walsh driver that will go down to 24Hz and then Cross to a Walsh sub if you really gotta have that low bass. X-over around 40 or 50 Hz from the main driver just to take the edge off the main and prevent exceeding X-max while in pistonic mode. Of course, the sub should be a Walsh style sub in order to blend properly.
The DDD driver as with ours has a low range of 200 to 300 Hz and while they both operate in pistonic mode the VC travel for a wave in the 2-300 Hz range is relatively small, so the wave propagation can be controlled by damping the cone and therefore one can avoid using a large cabinet. Still the DDD does have a small damped enclosure at the bottom. Ours a little less so. It is not done with rubber cement however, that won't work.
Finally the GP DDD is matched with a downward firing woofer and a Helmholtz radiator. IMHO, this was not a good choice as the low end of the GP offerings lack solid tuneful bass without any sense of discontinuity.
Remember, the magic of a Walsh cone is that it can and does operate in a bending wave mode, dipole mode, pistonic mode and coincidence mode all at the same time.
Now you asked about multiple drivers or stacking for more volume. You can, but in order to gain more volume one must sacrifice something somewhere else. There are no free lunches. If two drivers are mounted end to end so that the magnets meet in the middle as some have attempted with the "F" mounting one on top of the other, you end up with several issues to address.
One,... the top or the bottom driver must be driven 180 degrees out of phase from the other to prevent cancellation. This causes a problem because the Walsh driver essentially works best on the downward stroke only. A bending wave driver does not produce wave forms very well on the upward stroke or return to rest position.
Second,... this would require some minimal crossovers be devised and that means more "Junk" in the signal path.
Third,... The Walsh driver is designed to produce a completely coherent 360 degree expanding wave-front. The angle of the cone is calculated to give that wave-front a perfect time and phase relationship at all frequencies in the audio range, making it a cylindrical wave-front. The expanding doughnut of sound is also increasing in height as it leaves the cone at approximately a 67 degree angle both above and below. Now that means that the expanding cylinders of sound will be crashing into each other and causing both destructive and constructive reinforcement of some frequencies. As you know, that is bad. 😕 In fact this happens with the MBL speakers and it is very tricky to prevent them from interfering with their own multiple drivers. In addition, they must have some very complicated crossover networks. But hey, they will play louder!
Still, if one were to compare the quality of the sound field produced by the Single piece Walsh driver to the MBL 101E it would become readily apparent that the Walsh driver is far more coherent over the entire audio range.
Fourth,... the Old "F's" mounted in this way scare the hell out of me since there is a lot of weight up in the air supported on some pretty flimsy 2 x 2's or 2 x 4's. This poor mounting, “shaky” arrangement is also going to introduce Doppler shift and make the sound kinda slur similar to the approaching and receding train whistle analogy. Again not good.
Stacking Drivers in the upright positions again causes several of the prior mentioned issues. In any case not pretty.
As for multiple arrays like four speakers you mentioned, the best way I can describe this is to imagine a single pebble dropped into a still pond. It produces beautiful concentric coherent waves. If however, a handful of pebbles were dropped into that still pond, one would observe a multitude of of similar waves all crashing into one another and producing constructive and destructive reinforcement. This is exactly what happens with all multiple driver piston driven speakers, or any other multi-driver system for that matter.
Now here is another rub, 🙂 In real life, all events are essentially a point source and as you know, there can be many, many events at one time, yet our ears seem to be able to sort this out and tell if the events are real or staged as it were. This occurs because of the timing cues and phase that our brain receives from each event. Even if there are multitudes of events at one time. Our brains are the most marvelous phase discriminators in existence. Only a speaker that can reproduce these time and phase events exactly can "fool" the brain into believing that the perceived events are "Real" or not.
Ah the sweet spot! In my experience there can be a very small sweet spot with Walsh systems, however, there are a few reasons for this that I have encountered.
Most of the reasons are because the rooms we place our speakers in, albeit by extension, are actually part of the loudspeaker system. And few rooms if any have accurate response and therefore introduce some discrepancies into the "Mix". Another reason is that few systems are perfectly balanced electrically, both in response and in function. Some of this can be due to just poor set-up and not taking the requisite time to measure everything accurately. Still another reason is that while positioning the speakers is not as critical as say a piston driven system, i.e. no toe-in, no edge diffraction, no comb filtering, no first reflections etc. to deal with, ...one can take some time to move the speakers forward and back, side to side and experiment with separation to produce the absolute finest results.
Even with all the prior mentioned situations, I find that the Walsh style speakers are the Least demanding of all the speakers to set up. You can certainly pay attention to all the above, and the more you do the less of a sweet spot you will find, but even if you don't you still will have a very good sounding system.
So, I guess what I am saying is that the sweet spot results form discrepancies. Remember that perfect Time and phase discriminator between your ears.
Geez, I hope that I have made some sense. Sounds like the ramblings of a mad man. Hmm, maybe working on these speakers for so long has turned me into one.
Dale
Hey Dale thanks so much for shariing a tiny part of your knowledge here.
When I was researching speakers and came across Lincolns A and F speakers I chased down everything I could find on them (including Dales website) and read the patent many time. I figured it was too much for me to have a go at but its great what is happening on this thread.... thanks guys.
Dean.
When I was researching speakers and came across Lincolns A and F speakers I chased down everything I could find on them (including Dales website) and read the patent many time. I figured it was too much for me to have a go at but its great what is happening on this thread.... thanks guys.
Dean.
Still on the mortal coil...
...no comment on moral coils, or whatever makes for a good xover...🙄
Hi, Dean...yes it is, and we will continue to try to have a high standard of standardness....or whatever we're up to around here...*smirk*
Mmmm, no misunderstanding really, Dale. I'm sure that combo would work beautifully...IF I could Afford a TLS-4, much less 2. Not to be snide, but there's the reason and rationale for my 'rebooting' this forum....
Champagne taste, tap water budget. Nasty reality intrudes. I'm stuck with rolling my own, straw into gold or at least something better than lead. I don't feel I'm doing too badly, what's left of my hearing (I'm 64) implies that at least they don't croak, and the few that have actually gotten to hear them seem to agree. But I'm certainly open to suggestion as long as it doesn't include or require hypnosis. 😉
Anyway, back to topic...
I'll let you have the 12" turf...the larger cones (as you well know) start getting real complex real quick, so I'm going to continue with a smaller cone. Staying with a cone base dia. of 5~7", height adjusting by vertical angle. Better vc/magnets that can handle heat and the limited excursion. It's an approach....
Rubber cement, temporarily...*G* Although the thought of a 'jack in the box' Walsh is somewhat amusing...a vertical Leslie....
One-With matched drivers, why a xover? Between a mid and tweet, yes, and as simple/elegant as possible unless bi-amped. I'm 'talking' about a driver(s) flipped, but Not close together vertically....
Personally, I'm fascinated by the Possibilities posed by wavefront reinforcement/cancellation. What if one could manipulate it? Music is now in the digital realm anyway, processor speeds are being pushed by the VR crowd if not 'us' and everyone else.
And we're messing about with one of the few speakers that could make it really work. Soundbars? I don't think so. Conventional drivers? 'They' have been working on that longer then I've been alive, with +/- results.
The preceding is blurring Two thru 'Sweet" a bit, but I think you get My drift.
Besides....I'm 'just an amateur amusing myself'....perhaps wrong-headed, but man wasn't meant to fly, either....😉
So...when's the sub coming out? *S*
...no comment on moral coils, or whatever makes for a good xover...🙄
Hi, Dean...yes it is, and we will continue to try to have a high standard of standardness....or whatever we're up to around here...*smirk*
Mmmm, no misunderstanding really, Dale. I'm sure that combo would work beautifully...IF I could Afford a TLS-4, much less 2. Not to be snide, but there's the reason and rationale for my 'rebooting' this forum....
Champagne taste, tap water budget. Nasty reality intrudes. I'm stuck with rolling my own, straw into gold or at least something better than lead. I don't feel I'm doing too badly, what's left of my hearing (I'm 64) implies that at least they don't croak, and the few that have actually gotten to hear them seem to agree. But I'm certainly open to suggestion as long as it doesn't include or require hypnosis. 😉
Anyway, back to topic...
I'll let you have the 12" turf...the larger cones (as you well know) start getting real complex real quick, so I'm going to continue with a smaller cone. Staying with a cone base dia. of 5~7", height adjusting by vertical angle. Better vc/magnets that can handle heat and the limited excursion. It's an approach....
Rubber cement, temporarily...*G* Although the thought of a 'jack in the box' Walsh is somewhat amusing...a vertical Leslie....
One-With matched drivers, why a xover? Between a mid and tweet, yes, and as simple/elegant as possible unless bi-amped. I'm 'talking' about a driver(s) flipped, but Not close together vertically....
Personally, I'm fascinated by the Possibilities posed by wavefront reinforcement/cancellation. What if one could manipulate it? Music is now in the digital realm anyway, processor speeds are being pushed by the VR crowd if not 'us' and everyone else.
And we're messing about with one of the few speakers that could make it really work. Soundbars? I don't think so. Conventional drivers? 'They' have been working on that longer then I've been alive, with +/- results.
The preceding is blurring Two thru 'Sweet" a bit, but I think you get My drift.
Besides....I'm 'just an amateur amusing myself'....perhaps wrong-headed, but man wasn't meant to fly, either....😉
So...when's the sub coming out? *S*