Sorry it wasn't my intention to derail this thread.
I came to this thread because I searched for GR-Research and I also saw Danny's videos. And I read all the comments in this thread. And that inspired the rest of my comment.
If anybody wants to answer to my comment, fine. Otherwise I will open a new thread.
I'd agree that this will be best in a new thread, but a mod. will be able to sort that (guys?). In the meantime, some quality designs:
Zaph|Audio (some kits available from Madisound)
Paul Carmody's DIY Speaker Pages
Meniscus Audio (look particularly for designs by the late and much-missed Jeff Bagby)
DIY Loudspeaker Projects Troels Gravesen
Pi Speakers - unmatched quality and state-of-the-art performance
http://seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=66&Itemid=250 (I'd be a bit careful about Froy and Thor -both are capable of superb performance, but you may wish to consider alternative crossovers to the originals which some have found issues with)
There are many superb DIY designs in many different places, but you haven't mentioned objectives, budget, size of speaker etc., so not much point in making random recommendations -the above all have a variety of different designs so cover a good number of bases.
SL would bristle at the thought of "exalted" and/or his designs being above improvement. He ALWAYS encouraged folks to learn from his work and modify/experiment with them. Many folks (myself included) have modified some of the speaker designs to try and improve them.
But he always recommended you 'start' with his implementation so you had that as a reference.
That said, he WOULD have an issue if somebody who clearly didn't know what they were doing started mucking about with one of the designs and then sounding off publicly about it. 🙂
Dave.
Yes, like these Constant directivity loudspeaker designs
Siegfried "bristle", nar, he was above such egotistical, reactionary behaviour 🙂
SL WAS open to DIY changes after listening to the originals and I have old emails from him that prove that. That has never been in question.
I do not believe he would have endorsed though public mods for commercial reasons that claimed an improvement when changing the frequency bandwidth of the back tweeter etc; or just a plain criticism of the baffle width (it is not like Danny cut a new LX521-like baffle and added a driver to improve on Orion; to me the baffle looked the same after his mods so all that was left was pointing out the design trade offs with a 10+8+1 driver config with a constant width baffle which is almost a standard across all speakers who share in the same functional trade offs.
I do not believe he would have endorsed though public mods for commercial reasons that claimed an improvement when changing the frequency bandwidth of the back tweeter etc; or just a plain criticism of the baffle width (it is not like Danny cut a new LX521-like baffle and added a driver to improve on Orion; to me the baffle looked the same after his mods so all that was left was pointing out the design trade offs with a 10+8+1 driver config with a constant width baffle which is almost a standard across all speakers who share in the same functional trade offs.
Last edited:
Danny has his opinions on speaker design. His products line up with his opinions. He likes passive crossovers and dislikes DSP. He mentions it is based on past experiences, but doesn't mention what he tried in the past. It doesn't line up with his product lineup.
I dislike speaker binding posts. So I did use tube connectors and Speakons for a set of speakers I built to see if I could notice any difference between them. Still have to perform that test. I used no-rez on my subs and one of my speakers, seemed to work well.
I dislike speaker binding posts. So I did use tube connectors and Speakons for a set of speakers I built to see if I could notice any difference between them. Still have to perform that test. I used no-rez on my subs and one of my speakers, seemed to work well.
Technology is advancing and younger folk's interests tend to advance with it more than old folk's. Hi-fi shrines in the living room may be attractive to old folk but much less so the young. Active crossovers replaced passive decades ago enabling tighter control over the transfer function and beamwidth. 3D design via CAD, FEM, CFD, CAA enables superior optimisation of detailed design and tends to be something younger folk are more comfortable with. CNC replacing hand tools for many operations enabling more complex shapes and materials other than wood. Small computers in the speakers controlling the DSP, room correction, streaming,... Etc...
How to design and manufacture high quality speakers for the living room has moved on but many quite understandably want to stick with what they know and are comfortable with. This is fine since it is a hobby for pleasure but it is inevitably gradually fading away in the form of traditional passive speakers connected to a traditional stack of hi-fi boxes.
..but is that the case here? 😉
(I've already gone over why I think it's not, nor do I think that most of the alterations for a given context/user are anything that's particularly "special" - or that someone needs some a "towering" skill-set to have thought through. In fact most of what Danny is proposing leans toward the: "well, DUH" conclusions.)
Last edited:
Well that claim had a context: specifically that when changing to a passive design (for the mid-treble portion) AS REQUESTED BY THE OWNER, that the change in operation for the rear tweeter made more sense (in this particular instance).
The baffle shape was NEVER a good idea (..and the "grill" a disaster knowing that many users would keep it on during use), nor was moving the tweeter that far away from the midrange. It obviously was done for SL's particular aesthetic - and an aesthetic he didn't want to deviate from at that time. Of course that changed later. Moreover there have been many *studies on using felt to help ameliorate diffraction - which at this point is just obvious (..and obviously there have been many commercial speakers that use it).
Danny talks big about his "no-res." because he sells it, but he also mentions that ANYONE could just use foam/felt to do the same (at least with respect to diffraction). From someone hawking product: that's a more than reasonable admission (..because he's effectively saying you can get comparable results without having to spend nearly as much purchasing "no-res." from him).
As far as cutting a new baffle and adding drivers - he rightly points out that at some point it's just not worth it, either as a business for him or to the owner of the loudspeaker. The owner bought it, probably doesn't want to spend a lot of money, doesn't want huge aesthetic changes, and are just looking for a few changes that could offer an improvement for their use.
*I always liked DLR's..
Last edited:
Buy a pair of JBL 305/8Ps, unless you can afford JBL 705/8Ps. Those speakers will teach you what good speakers sound like and that will keep you from chasing your tail in the future. You'll also have a reference if you choose to DIY.
You'll never be able to DIY speakers better than those but you might be able to match them. Meaning, you matched them but emphasized different characteristics in radiation pattern or increased playback level.
If you have those speakers (or a commercial equivalent) you can decide if you like chasing different types of soundfields or not. Or maybe you'll love their sound but want to make them in wood or something.
Sean Olive tested younger folks and found they prefer neutral speakers -- which means everyone does, they've just lost some of their hearing over the years.
Guys who tell you to trust their ears over established science are bad news. That's different from someone who trusts the science but then trusts their ears in the areas that science hasn't nailed down yet.
This is drifting towards a new (very interesting) topic on the future of this hobby: and expectations of the young audiophiles vs the older ones.
I always remember how at one point I got my cousins at the right (teen)age all excited over things I was doing in my shop (building amps back then), so they started considering bagging some parts for them to take home etc., and then 10min into it I get the question: "And how much does it cost to buy that (meaning a finished amp)?". Well as you can imagine that burst my bubble 🙁. The younger ones just do not seem to enjoy using their personal creativity and want instant gratification.
Their dream is just to have money to buy stuff like this:
Listen to a ONE MILLION DOLLAR hi-fi system from Aries Cerat! - YouTube
I always remember how at one point I got my cousins at the right (teen)age all excited over things I was doing in my shop (building amps back then), so they started considering bagging some parts for them to take home etc., and then 10min into it I get the question: "And how much does it cost to buy that (meaning a finished amp)?". Well as you can imagine that burst my bubble 🙁. The younger ones just do not seem to enjoy using their personal creativity and want instant gratification.
Their dream is just to have money to buy stuff like this:
Listen to a ONE MILLION DOLLAR hi-fi system from Aries Cerat! - YouTube
-if you can provide some substantive evidence to the contrary - then I might well change my opinion.
Last edited:
You never know what is coming next at diyaudio.com.
Curiously my Brother-in-Law is quite the HiFi fanatic. Owns 25 Kilowattts of Chord amplification. He thinks nothing of passing his old "Hand me downs" to lesser members of the family:
I had fun with this Radford STA-25 one:
Excellent Amplifier. Apparently ended up on eBay for £2000. 😱
Curiously my Brother-in-Law is quite the HiFi fanatic. Owns 25 Kilowattts of Chord amplification. He thinks nothing of passing his old "Hand me downs" to lesser members of the family:
I had fun with this Radford STA-25 one:
Excellent Amplifier. Apparently ended up on eBay for £2000. 😱
-well in the video this thread was created for: a good bit of it is mentioning an obvious problem and then showing measurements verifying that problem with solutions ameliorating that problem.
IF anyone is having the same problems that Edgar77 is having: trust issues,
..the solution is fairly obvious: don't trust any particular thing/statement that doesn't have some credible proof to it (or isn't obvious to viewer).
Again, this goes back to that notion of putting "faith" into a particular person and accepting their statements (ALL THEIR STATEMENTS) as being correct.
Don't Do it. No matter how knowledgeable they seem.
That doesn't however mean that what they are saying (even with no proof) is going to be wrong for you.
Instead, look at it as something you might want to explore for yourself (both intellectually and DIY) - without spending serious money doing so (..if possible).
Sort of a: "sure it might be snake-oil, but it might also provide a meaningful improvement for me, and as long as I'm spending only a modest amount to do so.." AKA: proceed (potentially), with extreme caution/scepticism; if it's a product then absolutely ask about the refund policy.
Ex. The whole "sound of cap.s" in a passive network falls under this. Just about anyone will immediately tell you that if the microfarad value (measured) of different cap's are equal, that the result (measured) will be the same and so should the sound. Still, other's persist in saying that often (in the right position and relative to the rest of the system) that different cap.s of the same (measured) value do sound different.
It's easy to say that in the Ex. above those hearing differences are simply buying into snake-oil treatments. Still, it doesn't mean you won't experience a difference.
IF anyone is having the same problems that Edgar77 is having: trust issues,
..the solution is fairly obvious: don't trust any particular thing/statement that doesn't have some credible proof to it (or isn't obvious to viewer).
Again, this goes back to that notion of putting "faith" into a particular person and accepting their statements (ALL THEIR STATEMENTS) as being correct.
Don't Do it. No matter how knowledgeable they seem.
That doesn't however mean that what they are saying (even with no proof) is going to be wrong for you.
Instead, look at it as something you might want to explore for yourself (both intellectually and DIY) - without spending serious money doing so (..if possible).
Sort of a: "sure it might be snake-oil, but it might also provide a meaningful improvement for me, and as long as I'm spending only a modest amount to do so.." AKA: proceed (potentially), with extreme caution/scepticism; if it's a product then absolutely ask about the refund policy.
Ex. The whole "sound of cap.s" in a passive network falls under this. Just about anyone will immediately tell you that if the microfarad value (measured) of different cap's are equal, that the result (measured) will be the same and so should the sound. Still, other's persist in saying that often (in the right position and relative to the rest of the system) that different cap.s of the same (measured) value do sound different.
It's easy to say that in the Ex. above those hearing differences are simply buying into snake-oil treatments. Still, it doesn't mean you won't experience a difference.
Last edited:
@ Edgar77,
The idea of you starting a new thread helps you. It lets us focus on your questions, you are most welcome to do that.
I chose not to move your post here because half of it is on the topic of this thread. There is no problem with letting it be.
The idea of you starting a new thread helps you. It lets us focus on your questions, you are most welcome to do that.
I chose not to move your post here because half of it is on the topic of this thread. There is no problem with letting it be.