Hi,
I'm simply asking if it is possible to audition one or some of Ingvars creations?
If so, how, where and when?
Please enlighten me.
I'm simply asking if it is possible to audition one or some of Ingvars creations?
If so, how, where and when?
Please enlighten me.
ShinOBIWAN said:
I gues that would be step response, not impulse (typo?).
Anyway, late John Dunlavy's speakers were famous for their coherence (I don't know of any other spekars coming even close to their step/impulse response), but as we all know, that wasn't enough to make them anything more than a modest success. Mumbo-jumbo from Von Schweikert for example sells many, many more speakers than all of the perfectionist engineering from likes like Dunlavy.
Just another (annoying) fact of life.
In any case I'm more than intrigued by Guru's. Shame that I don't visit Sweden as often as I did in the past, but if I do, I'll definitely add them to the list of "must see/hear".
The other of course is Perfect8 😉
/Bratislav
planet10 said:
Phew, I thought I was going crazy and missing out on some useful type of measurement that I wasn't aware of.
About the image size, sorry about that, I use a high resolution display so everything looks tiny unless I give it enough pixels to eat up. Invariably this means photo's and pictures tend to look a reasonable size to me, yet are oversized on other displays. I'll be more mindful of that in future.
The X axis on the graph does cover from around 200hz upto 10Khz but that's already beyond the ATC's capabilities so didn't measure any higher or lower.
Yes, I haven't had a midrange that measures as well as the ATC did. Especially considering that's at 90dB/2m.
Bratislav said:
Measured from where? IIRC, those were vertical stacks of decorrelated drivers. Here is something a bit more point source
http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Site05/PDF_files/PDF_tech_papers/techpaper_general1.pdf
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf
Earls non-coax Summa
Bratislav said:
Based on what? The fact that it took years of research to come up with a 2 way ported ledge/sharp edged box?
cheers,
AJ
Ok folk's, I use this as an example of the difficulties to have a fruitful discussion on an internet fora...
I read the above posting three times, but yet, I failed to see the questions asked in it.
But I can help you with that! 🙂
Q: What do you mean with directions and to sculp them?
A: Hi MaVo! When i wrote "direction", I meant different directions from which the loudspeakers can be auditioned - direct or via reflections. The “sculpting” mentioned was regarding the timbral properties of the sound radiated in different directions.
Q: What does your speakers themselves do about directivity control?
A: Good question MaVo!
In the horizontal plane, I'm aiming at preserving a linear frequency response* above 500 Hz or so, within a fairly large window of about +/- 20 degrees. That might not sound as much of an opening, but in fact, it covers all listening positions when the speakers are placed as they are meant to be placed, i.e. with a toe in slightly larger than the angle between the speakers themselves.
Now you probably saw that I wrote "above 500 kHz", and the reason for that is that I prefer to have the speakers somewhat directive above 500 Hz, to create a tool that can counteract the Haas-effect, i.e. giving the further away speaker a slight upper hand to work within the boundaries of the T/I-trading. And no - I do not aim for 100% compensation which is both physically impossible and unwanted. I only want to keep the soundstage matrix in balance.
Regarding the vertical dispersion properties, it is more complicated, but simply put - a loudspeaker needs to show some quite significant deviations in the frequency response, when looked at in directions above axis, to prevent the ears (or rather our brain) to be able to detect the bluff of trying to recreate a 3-dimensional acoustic field with only two sound sources in the listening room. Simply put - the loudspeakers task is to make themselves disappear as sounding objects, and our hearing ability makes that a difficult task. The clue is to research and eventually understand the mechanisms of vertical sound source detection, and make the speakers counteract that very mechanism. We find the answer by looking at the effects of the pinna, and of shoulder reflections as well. Luckily, the timbral modulation caused by pinna och shoulders are situated in frequency, so that the crossover region behaviour becomes a useful tool. Without going into detail - its all about timbral sculpting by interference! 😎
Thank you for the questions by the way!
Best regards, Ingvar
- - - - -
*Actually, that is an modifyed truth... I do not aim at a linear respons as in "unechoicly single speaker at the time linear" - but a response that will (integrated over the sound stage) will be equivalent to a linear reponse of a true sound source (as opposed to at panned phantom source) moving from left to right (or in the other direction, and sligthly up and down to) when being measured at the eardrum! Not the same thing at all.
(And my guess is: It is also the main reason why loudspeakers engineered the "squared way", will allways sound harsh. They measure harsh too! (If analyzed psycho acoustically, i.e. via a significant enough part of our hearing mechanism).)
MaVo said:
I read the above posting three times, but yet, I failed to see the questions asked in it.
But I can help you with that! 🙂
Q: What do you mean with directions and to sculp them?
A: Hi MaVo! When i wrote "direction", I meant different directions from which the loudspeakers can be auditioned - direct or via reflections. The “sculpting” mentioned was regarding the timbral properties of the sound radiated in different directions.
Q: What does your speakers themselves do about directivity control?
A: Good question MaVo!
In the horizontal plane, I'm aiming at preserving a linear frequency response* above 500 Hz or so, within a fairly large window of about +/- 20 degrees. That might not sound as much of an opening, but in fact, it covers all listening positions when the speakers are placed as they are meant to be placed, i.e. with a toe in slightly larger than the angle between the speakers themselves.
Now you probably saw that I wrote "above 500 kHz", and the reason for that is that I prefer to have the speakers somewhat directive above 500 Hz, to create a tool that can counteract the Haas-effect, i.e. giving the further away speaker a slight upper hand to work within the boundaries of the T/I-trading. And no - I do not aim for 100% compensation which is both physically impossible and unwanted. I only want to keep the soundstage matrix in balance.
Regarding the vertical dispersion properties, it is more complicated, but simply put - a loudspeaker needs to show some quite significant deviations in the frequency response, when looked at in directions above axis, to prevent the ears (or rather our brain) to be able to detect the bluff of trying to recreate a 3-dimensional acoustic field with only two sound sources in the listening room. Simply put - the loudspeakers task is to make themselves disappear as sounding objects, and our hearing ability makes that a difficult task. The clue is to research and eventually understand the mechanisms of vertical sound source detection, and make the speakers counteract that very mechanism. We find the answer by looking at the effects of the pinna, and of shoulder reflections as well. Luckily, the timbral modulation caused by pinna och shoulders are situated in frequency, so that the crossover region behaviour becomes a useful tool. Without going into detail - its all about timbral sculpting by interference! 😎
Thank you for the questions by the way!
Best regards, Ingvar
- - - - -
*Actually, that is an modifyed truth... I do not aim at a linear respons as in "unechoicly single speaker at the time linear" - but a response that will (integrated over the sound stage) will be equivalent to a linear reponse of a true sound source (as opposed to at panned phantom source) moving from left to right (or in the other direction, and sligthly up and down to) when being measured at the eardrum! Not the same thing at all.
(And my guess is: It is also the main reason why loudspeakers engineered the "squared way", will allways sound harsh. They measure harsh too! (If analyzed psycho acoustically, i.e. via a significant enough part of our hearing mechanism).)
AJinFLA said:
Measured from designed position (typically 3m from the speaker, on tweeter axis). What else could you expect from a symmetrical array ?
Based on fact that Swedish audiophiles are typically less gullible than US counterparts, and if people from skeptic forum are raving about something, there is usually a good reason for it.
I did say usually. I reserve my conclusions until I hear it 😎
Hi, i have som questions regarding IngOehmans statements🙂
If no one else has issued this problem, how does it sound? And what is the "scientifical" explanation on how a certain loudspeaker behaviour influence listening experience in this aspect?
What do you mean by "stereo-system" when you claim that "stereo-system being very sensitive for relation between listeners and loudspeakers height"?
"Compensation"..?
"transparent music reproduction"..?
Would it be possible to get some kind of scientifical or non-marketing reference to the issue of problems with "transparency" of the stereo-system depending of the fact that the sound is transmitted from two sources?IngOehman said:
If no one else has issued this problem, how does it sound? And what is the "scientifical" explanation on how a certain loudspeaker behaviour influence listening experience in this aspect?
How is the listener able to "detect the sound source by comparing timbral properties of sound arriving from different angles" in a normal listening-situation?IngOehman said:
What do you mean by "stereo-system" when you claim that "stereo-system being very sensitive for relation between listeners and loudspeakers height"?
IngOehman said:
"Compensation"..?
"transparent music reproduction"..?
IngOehman said:
Hi Ingvar
Are you saying loudspeakers that measure accurately and designed for accuracy are inherently harsh? There are many studio monitors used to create and shape the music we listen to - are you saying these should only be used as tools and not for enjoyment. And a coloured(whatever that might be) loudspeaker offers a more rewarding experience?
I'd be very interested to hear why you think these to be so. You don't have to go into great detail but just your general thoughts.
My intention for starting this thread was to draw attention to the need for both objective and subjective considerations when designing speakers, even in the DIY kingdom. I believe I was successful to some extent, especially in my desire to demonstrate that there are a lot of people on this forum who put too much stock in graphs and charts to the point of making impolite demands for data, when such data hardly tells half the story. Sure, simulations and measurements represent a good jumping-off point, but without extensive subjective testing and comparison the initial design process is practically worthless. ShinOBIWAN's speaker-building thread was good, but where were the demands for extensive documentation of proper long term subjective evaluation? How would he have reacted to rude demands by someone who has shown nothing of his own? I don't think he would have felt a pressing need to make sure this data was made available.
The GURU speakers simply represented an excellent example of the culmination of a successful long-term process of comprehensive speaker-design practice.
I will have to say it is an unexpected pleasure to have Ingvar take part. It's funny how cockroaches scatter off to their hiding places when the light is turned on.
Also, a special thanks to Pinkmouse.🙂
John
jlsem said:
I guess anyone posting a project on here gets off light because we aren't commercial and we don't have a website claims. You'll find a good proportion of DIY'ers are less than tolerant of commercial designs, not because of their worth but because of the techniques used for marketing and the claims made about performance and exclusivity of design and materials - oh and maybe the prices too. This is a DIY website so naturally anything commercial will be treated a little differently. Posting a commercial design on commercial related forum and its business as usual. Its the same for DIY designs here.
Since you mention it, from my own perspective the LGT went through two complete redesigns as a direct result of posting the design on this forum and subsequently bouncing ideas off others so as to listening to what they had to say on aspects they considered good or bad. I went through quite a bit of agonising over choices and compromises but had a good idea of direction I wanted to head. Thankfully others recognised this direction and, like I said before, they pointed out the follies as and when I'd made them.
So because there was a lot of documented thoughts and reasons for choices, people mostly understood the design even if it wasn't what they considered to be a good loudspeaker topology.
Now consider this, if I'd gone and built the speakers, never posted a word about it and then suddenly one day posted with a couple pictures and a few claims about bass 18hz bass extension from a ported 8" and 0.05% distortion throughout the treble range then you can be sure people would have asked for measurements or at least the conditions in which that data was obtained. And if I'd not posted anything but continued to stress the claims then I wouldn't last two minutes because of the very inquisitive nature of this forums - its the reason why we all come here to learn and understand.
You might not agree with me on any of this but that's just what I've seen in this thread until Ingvar stepped in and offered some insights. I might not agree with them but I'm more inclined to shut up about measurements because I understand better where he's coming from.
I don't believe I or others are Cockroaches. I asked because I wanted to understand and provide a counter perspective to the claims being made that had no context other than to lift this design upto the usual level of consumer feel good factor and given that this is a DIY forum I don't think it was unreasonable to take such a stance either.
Things may have got a little heated at times but by no stretch of the imagination does that warrant calling people Cockroaches. You seem to think you've been vindicated by Ingvar but you've contributed so little to this thread that a quick told you so as its dying down seems somewhat off to me.
Well, you still don't get my point, do you? The person who posted those numbers apparently did so to confirm his own subjective evaluation. He'd already purchased the speakers and so obviously didn't need those figures to influence his decision. What I was getting at is this: If someone posts his opinion that he and many others agree that a speaker has low distortion and low bass extension, why is he required to post objective proof any more than someone who posts measurement test results needs to post comprehensive subjective testing results? I certainly would be unhappy if I embarked on an extensive DIY project based on white paper write-ups only to find that upon completion the damned things sucked.
I've posted nothing here that I feel needs vindication. Most of the posts here, including your own were either criticisms of the physical appearance (irrelevant) or demands of "I NEED PROOF!". I simply don't behave like that. The cockroach comment served to show what the reaction would be when the shoe was on the other foot. My own experience has shown that people who are insensitive to others are overly sensitive about themselves.
John
John
jlsem said:
Because objective measurements are the only way one can communicate about those devices in question. Subjective impressions are important on a individual base, but for intersubjective comprehensibility, objective ways of communication are necessary. That is how science works, this is how engineering works. As a subjective communication uses words as for example "fast bass" etc. which can have different meanings to different people, they are not usefull to get to a consense. A distortion graph cannot have different meanings. It is only one thing what it shows, namely the distortion vs frequency.
If you would posts measurements, so everyone here could see what you talk about, we certainly would appreciate hearing about your personal impressions. but those alone are meaningless.
Objective results are necessary, subjective are a nice addon.
On a completely different level, your approach is certainly criticised so hard, because the system in question is not a DIY system. If i build a loudspeaker which is only for me and i say i like the sound, nobody will object. If i say it has ungodly low distortion, they will only believe me if i post measurements. If say this and dont post the measurements AND sell this thing for lots of money, people might think i am a swindler.
OK Ingvar,
Lets go to the QM10 on your web site.
Some more details please.
1.. 30Hz, 4" driver ????
2. cross-over function 2-7kHz Non-school book function
come on, you at a DIY site now, lets get some sense please.
A real description of the x-o, type, roll-offs, x-o point etc
3. Hermholtz resonator.. could cover a multitude of things, is it just a vented box or is there more to it.
Lets go to the QM10 on your web site.
Some more details please.
1.. 30Hz, 4" driver ????
2. cross-over function 2-7kHz Non-school book function
come on, you at a DIY site now, lets get some sense please.
A real description of the x-o, type, roll-offs, x-o point etc
3. Hermholtz resonator.. could cover a multitude of things, is it just a vented box or is there more to it.
MaVo said:
I have what happens to be the worlds best speakers, and I cant even sell them
I had them on sale fore 1000-1200USD, and when a buyer offered me 700USD I told him to...well, I still have them
I dont think people in general buy quality...we buy dreams
I dont really understand the negative behaviour in this thread...reminds me of some fanatic religion...behaviour from what you call trolls by name
Personally I dont care whether this speaker is one or the other...I make my own😉
I'm not being negative at all.
Just interested how they get their speakers to do what they say they do.
Its called seeking information.
Just interested how they get their speakers to do what they say they do.
Its called seeking information.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.