Great Vandersteen article

Hi David, (sorry for my english)
Very interesting article . The 5 seems to me very impressive.
Why people not clone it? People clone wilson ,avalon,proac,etc.......
A Mistery?
About your nice Diy speakers, why a Audio Technology 95cmq with a very big magnet instead a good 45cmq like Mr. Vandersteen ?
If I well understood , your speakers is placed "to the wall" (half-space).
Am I right?
regards,
 
I fully agree with this:

'If you are using second- or third-order crossovers and one of the better computer programs for speaker design, you can plug in stock drivers with the right specifications and assemble a crossover that that works well with the drivers and end up with something pretty close to a finished product. First-order crossover designs aren’t that easy. It takes a lot more work and incredible demands on the drivers themselves. It isn’t that doing the work on a good first-order speaker design is impossible or anything, but it is expensive and takes a lot more time than designing loudspeakers with second-, third-, or fourth-order crossovers. I look at this as another thing that separates high-end designs from other products: True high-end designs, to be worthy of being called that, should be paying attention to the difficult details.'
 
Very right:

'Stop trying to quantitatively analyze the bass, the midrange, the dynamics, the transparency and all that and concentrate on your emotional response to the music being played. Remember your feelings about the music and you’ll find that all of a sudden, differences exist where they did not exist a few minutes ago. If you keep trying to be objective about the sound quality, everything just runs together and you find yourself unable to form an opinion.'
 
inertial said:
Hi David, (sorry for my english)
Very interesting article . The 5 seems to me very impressive.
Why people not clone it? People clone wilson ,avalon,proac,etc.......
A Mistery?
About your nice Diy speakers, why a Audio Technology 95cmq with a very big magnet instead a good 45cmq like Mr. Vandersteen ?
If I well understood , your speakers is placed "to the wall" (half-space).
Am I right?
regards,
Yes, I did design mine for proximity to a rear wall. Like most people, I just don't have the space to put my speakers 1 or 2 metres away from a wall.
Yes, they are interesting comments regarding internal reflections off the driver magnet. I have no idea of the magnitude of this phenomenon. In Vandersteen's case a small magnet is critical because his enclosure is so narrow, so he must have a small magnet to allow some air flow around it.
 
superiority of passive over active crossovers, and dealing with rear-wave energy.

Thats a rather outragous claim to make. Il start reading
;)

The problem with everyone claiming that their crossovers sound best,is who do you listen to? Id prefer to see what the majority enjoy

Linkwitz couldnt hear the time distortion from a 4th order LR.

In this case, "natural" refers to how accurately the driver or drivers under test reproduced sounds and music we recorded. Besides musical instruments and voice, we would record things like a shovel scraping on concrete or shaking car keys. We’d then use the same shovel on the same bit of concrete in the test area, live, to compare how drivers (and crossovers) sounded playing the recordings of the same sounds. It was really helpful to be able to duplicate these recorded sounds live right in the same space where the drivers and crossovers were being tested
:D
 
I don't mind if Linkwitz heard the phase-distortion or not. Regarding the waveshape it is the most extreme distortion we do to our signal in the whole chain, so it would be good to do something against it IMO .
I also like Vandersteen's mentioning of the problems regarding multichannel sound using speakers with differing phase distortion.

Smearing from back reflections isn't that new and he is not the only/first one mentioning it.

But some parts are definitely marketing BS, and the one about active crossovers definitely is.
Active crossovers are the only possibility to make phase accurate speakers with low IMD.

Regards

Charles
 
Originally posted by mike.e


Thats a rather outragous claim to make.
````````````````````````````````````````

more outragous may be the clam of starting something

"in the western suburbs of san francisco"

in the water no doubt
````````````````````````````````````````````````````

The problem with everyone claiming that their crossovers sound best,is who do you listen to? Id prefer to see what the majority enjoy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

what the majority enjoy...

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/50157827/Aluminum_Electrolitic_Capacitor.jpg
 
I think active vs passive crossovers might be confusing the issue some, alot of the discussion is more low order vs higher order. You can make an active or passive line level 1st order filter equivilent to a passive one on the speaker, and have the advantages of biamping too. OTOH, good luck getting a passive 4rth order filter to beat an active one designed for that speaker.

Even the wire connecting the driver to the crossover is part of this entity and has to be accounted for in the design. You can actually surpass what you can do with biamplifying and an outboard electronic crossover.

This is an extremely bold claim. What can be done passively at the speaker level that cant be done with an active / line level XO (with maybe some components on the speaker) asides from have the back EMF from the speakers interact with each other. Is this a good thing?

Active Versus Passive Crossovers.
 
Tweeker said:
This is an extremely bold claim. What can be done passively at the speaker level that cant be done with an active / line level XO (with maybe some components on the speaker) asides from have the back EMF from the speakers interact with each other. Is this a good thing?

If you read again he says AND, not OR:
"You can actually surpass what you can do with biamplifying and an outboard electronic crossover".

Actually I also think that if you can use a (good) single cap in series with the tweeter (1st order) it will sound better than using an active crossover for that, even if it's 1st order too.
Cascading active stages is not good. Unless you make your pre to be also an active crossover, without further active stages.
Of course, to use 1st order the drivers must be top quality, and, specially, designed to be used that way.
Because there are many 'top quality' drivers with horrible peaks, bad dispersion characteristics, etc.
Finding the appropriate units for this can be very expensive and a lifetime research. If possible, better make them, really.
As Epos and Vandersteen do.
 
Have any of you commenting ever owned Vandersteen speakers?

I have and I took a peek inside. The drivers were from, Vifa, Peerless, and Audax. The Audax tweeter had the original Polydax part number. The Peerless mid looked stock, but the rear chamber was coated in something that looked like automotive undercoating and the part number was not visible. The woofer was a modification on one of the stock 8" units and had a part number specific to Vandersteen. The Acoustic coupler was a cheap looking stamped frame 10" driver, they claimed in later literature to use a cast frame unit and that might be true.

Let's just say that the engineering was very basic.

That write up is mostly marketing hype.

Pete B.
 
Have you ever opened an Epos ES11, 14, 22?

The woofer (actually it's almost a fullrange) IS Epos, and is integral part of the front panel.
The tweeter is claimed to be Epos, but says "made in Germany". Anyway, for a dome tweeter it has the biggest rear chamber I've seen, and it's spherical (makes sense, doesn't it?).
I've opened a tweeter once, it's very well build.
And you can cross it first order very low and still it doesn't distort and spit on you as 99.9% of the other tweeters do.
Clean, detailed, neutral.
 

ruerose

Member
2005-08-28 5:49 am
The article is from 98, and since then IMO a LOT has changed in the active crossover realm. Back in 98, there was no DEQ2496, 24 bit was a studio-only proposition, and there was no consumer-priced active XOver modules out there. Computer modeling has grown in the DIY and even using active crossovers in HT and Home stereo is not as niche as it once was (though it still is to restricted to mainly DIY)

An article from 98 is sure to be a out of date with the current state of affairs. But besides from having vested interest in a speaker company, he does means well and I agree with most of his opinions.
 
ruerose said:
The article is from 98, and since then IMO a LOT has changed in the active crossover realm. Back in 98, there was no DEQ2496, 24 bit was a studio-only proposition, and there was no consumer-priced active XOver modules out there. Computer modeling has grown in the DIY and even using active crossovers in HT and Home stereo is not as niche as it once was (though it still is to restricted to mainly DIY)

An article from 98 is sure to be a out of date with the current state of affairs. But besides from having vested interest in a speaker company, he does means well and I agree with most of his opinions.

That the article is from 1998 is no excuse. I was building 1st order systems around 1978 and the passive crossover topology that I used was very similar to the Vandersteen that I looked at. I knew that I was not compensating for the acoustical response of the drivers other than to use acoustical delay to compensate for phase shift and that this was a compromise. I never claimed that my system was true first order or that it preserved waveshape. I used passive line level crossovers for the bass to upper range XO in order to biamp the system. None of this is new or exotic. I now use higher order crossovers.
Active XOs have been around for a very long time Linkwitz's article from 1978 is just one example:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/graphics/sb2-12.gif
It was many years ago when I looked at those Vandersteens, took many measurements and built a similar design. I know the design well.

Pete B.