Dear Dr Geddes,
I'm wondering with your crossover a bit. From raw ESP waveguide we have 3dB/oct fall from 2kHz. Best approximation for that is shelving active highpass filter but yours is passive as far as I know. One approach I have in my mind - RC in series plus 3rd highpass plus Zobel.
I'm wondering with your crossover a bit. From raw ESP waveguide we have 3dB/oct fall from 2kHz. Best approximation for that is shelving active highpass filter but yours is passive as far as I know. One approach I have in my mind - RC in series plus 3rd highpass plus Zobel.
Attachments
Not far from correct, but there are actually two "Zobel" legs (its not really a Zobel, but more an EQ).
audiokinesis said:
Duke
Thanks.
In thinking about this, I decided to quit being so "politically correct" and simply state my "opinion" instead of just the science. Everyone else does it why can't I? Actually thats never an excuse for doing something unprofessional, but I will say that I was honest in my statements - I'm not just saying what I "hoped" is the case. I wish there was a way for people to hear for themselves.
I've always invited people to come here and listen, but since in three years only one person has ever actually done that I guess that approach is not too effective.
Earl,
Would you please enlighten us about the things you learned in the last three years you mentioned a few posts ago?
Would you please enlighten us about the things you learned in the last three years you mentioned a few posts ago?
pooge said:
Wow - that's a book not a post! All I can say is that you should reread this post from the begining and maybe my other ones. I give away the secrets because I can do that while having these discussions, but to set down and comile it all in one post - I may as well just do the book.
The Summa whitepaper is a good start, but it cannot be attached because it is too big. You can get it from my website www.gedlee.com\summa.htm
(Note: it may take a day to get this link working since my server is down from the weather.)
There are more recent things - many in fact, but as I said, its just not in me to think it through to a cohesive discussion in a simple post like this.
If you want to extend on what you've read you need to get our two papers on the perception of distortion - both from AES (some on my web site). Then you should find the info on the use of multiple subs, there was an AES letter on that. My web site also has some papers on small room acoustics - this turns out to be quite valid based on some later work.
The very latest stuff I need to iron out and see if there are patent potentials before I get into in any depth.
If you've read all that and understand it then you are very far along, and if there are any further questions please just ask.
If you want to extend on what you've read you need to get our two papers on the perception of distortion - both from AES (some on my web site). Then you should find the info on the use of multiple subs, there was an AES letter on that. My web site also has some papers on small room acoustics - this turns out to be quite valid based on some later work.
The very latest stuff I need to iron out and see if there are patent potentials before I get into in any depth.
If you've read all that and understand it then you are very far along, and if there are any further questions please just ask.
Here's the direct link to the summa whitepaper. I think there was a typo in the link above.
Summa Whitepaper
Summa Whitepaper
It seems that technically we have the same aim, just taking different routes to get to market.gedlee said:
soongsc said:
From your previuos post you said:
"Technically, it may not be the best design, but if we want to raise the bar on audio quality, we need to first determine what is best for a specific market sector and price range. "
This is certainly not the same approach at all - you are putting marketing first NOT technology and I put technology first NOT marketing.
It's a different route.😉 Claiming "I am the best" versus "I want to share my best with as many people as possible" are two different attitudes, and thus different routes are taken. We can give spit to another by a kiss, through a handshake, or just rub it on their face. The meaning is totally different. Trying to bring production technology into the process to meet a certain price range cannot be acheived in one step. Production facilities are just too much investment. This certainly does not mean performance technology goals are ignored. When most investements are put into product development and sound improvement. I think that means putting technology first.gedlee said:
Looking at the picture of your speaker, it certainly does not seem costly to produce. Especially if produced in Thailand. The only thing I can think of that makes it difficult is driver production if it does not use common production process. Wave guide may require some mold investment unless it can be produced by turning.
One the other hand, I'm sure everyone would like a free pair of "best speakers". Shall we start a line?
Excuse me a stupid question - do we measure power response rotating at the cone plane or mouth plane with normalisation? (if microphone is fixed)
soongsc said:
To give away loudspeakers - no thanks.
I already have a production line in place in Bangkok - why start over? The problem in BKK is that my partner ran out of money just as we were able to produce a quality product in quantity. A lot of bad timing and bad decisions. At this point, that factory could proably be bought at a % of investment.
But I think that you are seriuosly mistaken to think that the cabinet of my speaker "does not seem costly to produce". With the large edge radi and the waveguide molded in, the cabinets have to be made in a mold. Several attempts at a cost effective wood approach failed. (They have to be cut with a numerical mill - not cheap!!) The fiberglass work that we do, as well as the paint, makes a superior looking product, but it is far more costly than the standard "flat black wood box". The cabinet costs dwarf the driver costs. But they are exceptionally stiff and resonant free.
That said, I do believe that we have the lowest "cost" product in its class - assuming there is anything else in its class. I'm not about to quote our costs, but lets just say that they are stageringly low for the quality of the product. If you know me then you know that I am a "value" nut. I do not believe in system designs that are not "cost effective". In the product line that we have in BKK that goal was met with honors. Unforunately the finacial situation is out of my hands. I own all the designs, but not the production.
jzagaja said:
If they are not the same - as they are in my designs - then there is a problem because of this ambiguity. There is no "right" answer only a bunch of approximate ones.
True power response requires a detailed knowledge of the polar response at all locations. This is impractical to impossible so we make some simplifications. There is an art to these simplifications as it is not trivial.
Patrick Bateman said:
Unfortunately it only takes a minutes to tell a good Tv from a bad. A good ear however need to be train to tell what is a good music, and that takes time. With the way that compress music is going, it is hard to see taste of bad music will improve.
Btw Earl, any possibility of having your wave guard photo and price listed on your web site? I am quite sure a lot of people are interested but it is hard to commit without 1st seeing what they are buying.
Thanks 😀
SamL said:
Two points:
Actually TV's in the showroom are often set poorly just to draw in customers who jump at the excentuated TV faster than they do the more natural one. The situation is similar to audio, but not as extreme. We all have everyday experiences with what we see, but seldom experinces with sound that we want to listen to on our systems - so the comparison base is much much narrower. That and the "expectation" factor. People will judge what they expect to be better than what is accurate - and seldom are the two things the same.
My source for the waveguides and other parts that I proposed selling is in Thailand. To have them made here would quadruple the prices. To get them shipped here means buying a bulk, which is a big commitment given that so few (one) have actually stepped up with cash. If I am going to import anything, I'd rather import the full speaker cabinets than just the waveguides. I used to simply bring back the parts on my regular trips, but I haven't been in awhile.
O/T. I wnt looking for a plasma earlier in the year, and drove the salesman to a breakdown by correctly adjusting every unit I was interested in. I was in broadcast for ages and can't stand monitors set incorrectly.gedlee said:
Magnetar said:
I sense sarcasm here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And no I "Can't find a dealer for 'best speaker' in the world?" because there really isn't that much demand.
I said that I won't quote "costs", not "prices", they are not the same thing. And "prices" where? Here in the US? With no dealers here I would not want to quote a price that some future dealer would have to live with.
FOB Bangkok, the Retail prices would be in the $3000 (plus or minus 25%) range, with the dealer taking away a "standard to attractive" markup - thats for the ESP15. The ESP12 is about 25% less and the ESP10 about 40% less. The subs tend to be around $800 retail. On shore to the US, the dealer price would be very very volume dependent so you can see why I can't really commit to anything.
With substantial volume even the above prices could come down a lot.
Compare that to Avante-Garde, or Edgarhorn or any hi-end speaker with this kind of output, sensitivity, and flat out engineering.