I'm not used to this forum. Every time I see PLL XO I think Phase Locked Loop Crystal Oscillator (which is a little funny itself) but that's what XO and PLL mean where I hail from
So every time, I have to pause, sometimes for much too long, and think Passive Line Level cross-over. maybe I'll go write that on the chalkboard a few dozen times now.
ok, sorry for the aside...
hahah I thought the same when i first started posting and reading this forum
I hear ya....
Ditto.
Can't get rid of my High School physics formulae either....
Ditto.
Can't get rid of my High School physics formulae either....
those 1880's do look interesting. more than I'd spend right now though.
1661? do you mean the W5-1611? Have you tried them out? seem a cheap enough way to play around a bit ...
Scott and i are working a twist on the "classic" Chang for these 2. Relatively compact and called Mallard.
dave
No doubt perfect for reproducing discussions of autopsies starting with "Did I ever tell you...." and sounds of barking corgis.
Andy
Last edited:
How good must 2-ways have to get to replace full rangers?
It's personal preference of course, but I would have posed the question differently: How good must 2-ways have to get to replace full rangers? Actually I enjoy multiway and full range. Neither will ever replace the other. What they do best is different pretty consistently. I suspect that this is due to how they are used /designed. I find that the 'full range' qualities are preserved if there are no crossovers in the voice range (from somewhere around 150 to at least 5kHz).
Regards,
Bob
It's personal preference of course, but I would have posed the question differently: How good must 2-ways have to get to replace full rangers? Actually I enjoy multiway and full range. Neither will ever replace the other. What they do best is different pretty consistently. I suspect that this is due to how they are used /designed. I find that the 'full range' qualities are preserved if there are no crossovers in the voice range (from somewhere around 150 to at least 5kHz).
Regards,
Bob
This question really comes down to how we rate what we are hearing as a representation of what we want to hear. What full-rangers can do is relay all the 'information' that is in the original recording. Music is very much of a fractal nature and if you can relay it coherently you preserve alot of the details (which tend to be unintentially 'designed out' using multi-way speakers). Now we must understand that the mechanics of the ear is effectively a full-range design and is designed to tune in to the 'musical information' rather than some 'representation'. The brain can in many instances compensate for some shortfalls such as lack of extreme volume bass or treble dispersion - these are really secondary characteristics of music, but we have been conditioned to see them as primary requirements. I know that when I am really enjoying music on a deep level I am listening to the musical message (mainly in the mid-area of the spectrum), not the extremes of presentation.
It's an interesting that a good full range design put up against a good multi-way may sound less impressive to begin with as the brain is more in tune with the presentation layer than the real musical 'information'. A trained ear will often then prefer the full-ranger as it reveals alot of information that is irretrievably lost in the other design. We all like an 'overblown' representation of 'sound' but probably also have the ability to appreciate an honest representation of music on a depper level, given some time. This is where a good full-range design shines.
It's an interesting that a good full range design put up against a good multi-way may sound less impressive to begin with as the brain is more in tune with the presentation layer than the real musical 'information'. A trained ear will often then prefer the full-ranger as it reveals alot of information that is irretrievably lost in the other design. We all like an 'overblown' representation of 'sound' but probably also have the ability to appreciate an honest representation of music on a depper level, given some time. This is where a good full-range design shines.
Kevin; one pedantic little point that's always got under my skin is the "trained" ear thing.
it's the brain that (hopefully) gets trained while doing all the work, and every time this subject comes up, I'm reminded of 2 excellent recent books on the subject ; "Musicophilia" (Oliver Sacks) and "This is your brain on music" (Daniel Levitin)
"The World in Six Songs" is a bit more controversial - i.e. "how the musical brain created human nature"
it's the brain that (hopefully) gets trained while doing all the work, and every time this subject comes up, I'm reminded of 2 excellent recent books on the subject ; "Musicophilia" (Oliver Sacks) and "This is your brain on music" (Daniel Levitin)
"The World in Six Songs" is a bit more controversial - i.e. "how the musical brain created human nature"
on a tangent but not completely unrelated note, I found the following little "tune" sounded perfectly enjoyable on my iMac's built in speakers:
Google doodle plays beatles
this is linked from and credited to these guys:
How to Play The Beatles on the Les Paul Google Doodle | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
there is so much wrong with that, but I still hear music
As for FR's - I took the plunge. I ordered the TB's on sale from PE. I normally shy away from plastic cones, but I thought I'd just give the 1611's a shot and if I get sucked in maybe buy a nicer set or Mark Audio or TB's someday later.
Mine are on the break-in bench now. They have come highly recommended by a couple people including Scottmoose. I like the plastic frame. Alctual construction is a little crude after working thru a couple dozen Alpairs, but they are cheaper. The poly cone looks a bit stark without its spots, but i'll fix that
dave
You really put this very well. I've been searching for words for ages to say exactly this. It's why we can listen to a kitchen radio and get more out of it than a complex 5 way speaker, and why cartoons often grab more of the essence of a person than a photograph does. I think I'd use a word like "essence" instead of "information" but I'm sure we're describing the same thing, and it's not the same as "representation" in terms of accurate frequency response or photo realism. In fact, the essence of things is where art lies.
A doctor once said to me "Tell me - what is the main function of the brain?" I knew some smart-assed reply was on its way. The answer was "Ignoring things". Picasso said of his work "I don't create - I destroy. I may have 50 ideas for a work and I need only 5 to capture the essence".
We don't need to see or hear everything - the brain is good at ignoring things and filling in for missing information. But the brain and our whole survival depends on an accurate perception of the information we really need amongst the "noise" of what we don't.
andy
Last edited:
Mine are on the break-in bench now. They have come highly recommended by a couple people including Scottmoose. I like the plastic frame. Alctual construction is a little crude after working thru a couple dozen Alpairs, but they are cheaper. The poly cone looks a bit stark without its spots, but i'll fix that
dave
Dave, since MA comes up in the discussion, the 5" TB 1611 would be comparable to which MA driver most closely?
-Zia
That was an excellent post by Kevin.
If you remove the start and end of a 1 kHz note on say, a guitar, it should sound the same as a 1 kHz note on a piano whose start and end have also been removed. So, what would diffierentiate the piano from the guitar is the start and decay. Therefore, to correctly recreate different instrument sounds, a speaker has to be able to rise and fall very quickly. That tells me that temporal behavior is more important that spectral behavior. Or in other words, flatness of frequency response is not as important as step response and coherance in the time domain.
This is exactly where full range drivers excel. Sensitive full range drivers even more so.
If you remove the start and end of a 1 kHz note on say, a guitar, it should sound the same as a 1 kHz note on a piano whose start and end have also been removed. So, what would diffierentiate the piano from the guitar is the start and decay. Therefore, to correctly recreate different instrument sounds, a speaker has to be able to rise and fall very quickly. That tells me that temporal behavior is more important that spectral behavior. Or in other words, flatness of frequency response is not as important as step response and coherance in the time domain.
This is exactly where full range drivers excel. Sensitive full range drivers even more so.
Dear ra7,
After reading the last few posts here I entirely agree with you and Kevin.
I would add that these parameters [is that the right word?] have been addressed by Mark Fenlon, his CHP-70 in my very humble opinion is the epitome of drive unit design, as is its partner the Frugel Horn Mk3.
If ever something was greater than the sum of its parts then this combination must be it.
Jim
After reading the last few posts here I entirely agree with you and Kevin.
I would add that these parameters [is that the right word?] have been addressed by Mark Fenlon, his CHP-70 in my very humble opinion is the epitome of drive unit design, as is its partner the Frugel Horn Mk3.
If ever something was greater than the sum of its parts then this combination must be it.
Jim
I'll let you know after i hear it. Visual inspection of attention to detail on the physical build would have it not up to any of them. But it is how it works, not how it looks that is important.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.