Would this reshaping be a matter of fancy, curvy construction, or more like carving a BiB with a chainsaw? Thank you in advance, sir!
No, its simply an application of physics which includes a greater end expansion to allow a lower horn effect to occur which combimes with the TL action at a given point in the FR curve which overlaps. The curved mouth does little more than produce a spherical wave front which is natural in nature. The problem is the reflection from the roof which changes the shape of reflected energy. Its still a calculated waveform.
Or just say to hell with all of this and use a decent sealed or BVR to around 250 Hz and XO to either a FLH or OB and let the system do its thing.
ron
No, its simply an application of physics which includes a greater end expansion to allow a lower horn effect to occur which combimes with the TL action at a given point in the FR curve which overlaps. The curved mouth does little more than produce a spherical wave front which is natural in nature. The problem is the reflection from the roof which changes the shape of reflected energy. Its still a calculated waveform.
Or just say to hell with all of this and use a decent sealed or BVR to around 250 Hz and XO to either a FLH or OB and let the system do its thing.
ron
It's interesting how full range believers will try so hard to get their little drivers to produce the low end frequencies that others say are simply impossible.
I think the major reason for such different opinions is personal taste. This is why you will never see me post plots or graphs regarding frequency response and amplitude.
For some people, a sub that pumps out everything up to 50-60- or even 120 hz is perfectly fine and they can listen to multi way speaker cabinets with sealed enclosures, ported, or even compression drivers and love it. For others this would be blasphemy. Most full range people are after a coherent sound that most people have never heard at all. When a full range speaker works the way it was intended, most times the sound is so clean that other flaws are immediately evident. Very few people who do full range speakers will say that their speakers are "forgiving". Over the years I have learned that each room, equipment combination, and personal taste requires a completely different approach.
As Ron just said, you could use a sealed or BVR up to 250 and then an FLH or OB from there up. Even this combo could be up for interpretation. the question becomes what differences are there between different approaches. (The first post in the thread asks "What will the Sachiko offer that the BIB won't?". No measurement will really tell that story. We could discuss it all day and come up with a hundred different solutions that might work, but in the end, it is the trying to achieve the listener's hoped for results that matter.
So after all the deliberation, I will pose a question for the original posters. What type of sound would you prefer? Coherent and clean with a wide listening position? A smaller sweet spot with even better clarity and imaging? More output and higher SPLs. If you can be extremely specific on what type of sound you like or if you have had experiences listening to someone elses speakers that stands out, it can be far easier to try and match that. I love to get a reference and then try to make a suggestion for what might achieve that goal in a given space. There are lots of factors to achieving those goals.
Keep up the conversation guys, this is what makes DIY the fun and exciting sport that it is.
Take care,
Robert
I think the major reason for such different opinions is personal taste. This is why you will never see me post plots or graphs regarding frequency response and amplitude.
For some people, a sub that pumps out everything up to 50-60- or even 120 hz is perfectly fine and they can listen to multi way speaker cabinets with sealed enclosures, ported, or even compression drivers and love it. For others this would be blasphemy. Most full range people are after a coherent sound that most people have never heard at all. When a full range speaker works the way it was intended, most times the sound is so clean that other flaws are immediately evident. Very few people who do full range speakers will say that their speakers are "forgiving". Over the years I have learned that each room, equipment combination, and personal taste requires a completely different approach.
As Ron just said, you could use a sealed or BVR up to 250 and then an FLH or OB from there up. Even this combo could be up for interpretation. the question becomes what differences are there between different approaches. (The first post in the thread asks "What will the Sachiko offer that the BIB won't?". No measurement will really tell that story. We could discuss it all day and come up with a hundred different solutions that might work, but in the end, it is the trying to achieve the listener's hoped for results that matter.
So after all the deliberation, I will pose a question for the original posters. What type of sound would you prefer? Coherent and clean with a wide listening position? A smaller sweet spot with even better clarity and imaging? More output and higher SPLs. If you can be extremely specific on what type of sound you like or if you have had experiences listening to someone elses speakers that stands out, it can be far easier to try and match that. I love to get a reference and then try to make a suggestion for what might achieve that goal in a given space. There are lots of factors to achieving those goals.
Keep up the conversation guys, this is what makes DIY the fun and exciting sport that it is.
Take care,
Robert
musgofasa
Hello,
"It's interesting how full range believers will try so hard to get their little drivers to produce the low end frequencies that others say are simply impossible.
I think the major reason for such different opinions is personal taste." ---------No facts.
sorry i don´t agree, look for example my KORNETT measurement with simulation and explanation on the bottom, there you can get a information to understand the construction, in comparison to other measurements you can check differences.
http://www.hm-moreart.de/104.htm
This i didn´t found for so much constructions also here in this forum,
i pay for my measurements, so it never take more than 30 min.
i think this manageable for every developer.
For me unbelievable to offer untested things!
Hello,
"It's interesting how full range believers will try so hard to get their little drivers to produce the low end frequencies that others say are simply impossible.
I think the major reason for such different opinions is personal taste." ---------No facts.
sorry i don´t agree, look for example my KORNETT measurement with simulation and explanation on the bottom, there you can get a information to understand the construction, in comparison to other measurements you can check differences.
http://www.hm-moreart.de/104.htm
This i didn´t found for so much constructions also here in this forum,
i pay for my measurements, so it never take more than 30 min.
i think this manageable for every developer.
For me unbelievable to offer untested things!
As I've suggested before, your measurements are only 'facts' if you happen to listen in an anechoic chamber, at the same distance they were taken. Useful for a designer (assuming the speaker can actually work properly in an anechoic chamber). For the end user? Not really, because the conditions they listen in are completely different. As such, your 'facts' can be misleading because of what the room does to the response -in practice, it will look almost nothing like your graphs. And as all rooms are different, taking in-room measurements is of little value to anyone other than the person who's room it is either. Would that it were otherwise.
Which brings us on to the next little problem: you, I, or anyone else, can utterly change the response of a pair of speakers, simply by swapping the amplifier. Example: here, taken from one of Nelson's papers, is the anechoic FR of a Fostex FE166E in a 0.7ft^3 sealed test box. The dotted line represents the frequency response when powered by a conventional voltage source amplifier. The solid line is what happens when you use a current source amplifer, like Nelson's F1 & F2. Bit of a difference. Now, when testing, I would use a voltage source, but (leaving the effect the room has upon the response aside) what use would the graph be to a person with a current source amp? Very little. OK, that's deliberately an extreme example, but the amp does affect the response of a loudspeaker.
So, graphs are not the be-all & end all. Some people swear by them & some don't. From my POV, they certainly have their uses, but they don't really tell you what a speaker will sound like, any more than a computer simulation will, and their relevance to an end user is usually moderate at best. They're a tool, no more. Besides, as Nelson pointed out WRT his excellent J-lo cabinets, the most important things are a) are you having fun, and b) do you like how they sound? If the answer is 'yes' to both of those questions, then they've achieved their purpose.
Which brings us on to the next little problem: you, I, or anyone else, can utterly change the response of a pair of speakers, simply by swapping the amplifier. Example: here, taken from one of Nelson's papers, is the anechoic FR of a Fostex FE166E in a 0.7ft^3 sealed test box. The dotted line represents the frequency response when powered by a conventional voltage source amplifier. The solid line is what happens when you use a current source amplifer, like Nelson's F1 & F2. Bit of a difference. Now, when testing, I would use a voltage source, but (leaving the effect the room has upon the response aside) what use would the graph be to a person with a current source amp? Very little. OK, that's deliberately an extreme example, but the amp does affect the response of a loudspeaker.
So, graphs are not the be-all & end all. Some people swear by them & some don't. From my POV, they certainly have their uses, but they don't really tell you what a speaker will sound like, any more than a computer simulation will, and their relevance to an end user is usually moderate at best. They're a tool, no more. Besides, as Nelson pointed out WRT his excellent J-lo cabinets, the most important things are a) are you having fun, and b) do you like how they sound? If the answer is 'yes' to both of those questions, then they've achieved their purpose.
Oops,
Looks like I stirred the pot a little bit lol.
I think that many people get hung up on measurements. Measurements and graphs can only tell anybody part of a story. Even when measurements are taken in the listening environment in question and with the equipment in use, they only tell part of the story.
One standard set by people who love measurements is the "flat frequency response". Like Scott said, unless you can stand to listen to a speaker in an Anechoic chamber (which btw will make even the best speaker sound absolutely terrible) the measurements won't give you any idea of how the speaker will react with the room, the wires, the amp, or your tastes (most important).
That is why I always pose the question, "What do YOU like?". What have you heard that you liked?
BTW Scott, I love your signature! lol
I don't want to turn this into a debate about measurements. I totally agree that measurements and graphs can help a designer/ developer to understand what one speaker will do in any given environment when that same designer/ developer has a reference in that same environment. It is especially helpful when looking at bass frequencies, room nodes, cancellation, and standing wave issues.
Most of the people who ask questions here will ask what is "better" or which will work "better" or even what will something sound like. You can't answer that question with a picture of a graph or simulation. It has to be a subjective statement describing the "openness" or the "focus" or the "ambiance" or any of another thousand adjectives. And through those adjectives given by the "customer" or in this case the "curious" then more experienced (note I did not say educated) people can offer subjective feedback.
Audio is about pleasure. We listen to music because we enjoy it. Can you measure how much you enjoy listening to music without a reference? I like one artist better than another, but does that mean one is mechanically better than another? Does it mean that one can't get better or improve? both sides of the argument can be valid, but the end result is dependent on the person who wants to experience the pleasure. I could take that conversation way to far, but I will withdraw now.
Back to the post at hand. It sounds like a decent sized room and you already have good drivers for either cabinet in question. I think the Sachiko would likely provide a bit cleaner and well defined sound, but the build complexity would make it a hard choice considering the minor level of difference in the likely sound.
I am sure Scott could tell you more about how the two would interact with the room and why one would be better than the other. I personally would opt for either a modified BIB with a lot of Ron's help (if he was willing to offer it) or the Sachiko as is.
Take care,
Robert
Looks like I stirred the pot a little bit lol.
I think that many people get hung up on measurements. Measurements and graphs can only tell anybody part of a story. Even when measurements are taken in the listening environment in question and with the equipment in use, they only tell part of the story.
One standard set by people who love measurements is the "flat frequency response". Like Scott said, unless you can stand to listen to a speaker in an Anechoic chamber (which btw will make even the best speaker sound absolutely terrible) the measurements won't give you any idea of how the speaker will react with the room, the wires, the amp, or your tastes (most important).
That is why I always pose the question, "What do YOU like?". What have you heard that you liked?
BTW Scott, I love your signature! lol
I don't want to turn this into a debate about measurements. I totally agree that measurements and graphs can help a designer/ developer to understand what one speaker will do in any given environment when that same designer/ developer has a reference in that same environment. It is especially helpful when looking at bass frequencies, room nodes, cancellation, and standing wave issues.
Most of the people who ask questions here will ask what is "better" or which will work "better" or even what will something sound like. You can't answer that question with a picture of a graph or simulation. It has to be a subjective statement describing the "openness" or the "focus" or the "ambiance" or any of another thousand adjectives. And through those adjectives given by the "customer" or in this case the "curious" then more experienced (note I did not say educated) people can offer subjective feedback.
Audio is about pleasure. We listen to music because we enjoy it. Can you measure how much you enjoy listening to music without a reference? I like one artist better than another, but does that mean one is mechanically better than another? Does it mean that one can't get better or improve? both sides of the argument can be valid, but the end result is dependent on the person who wants to experience the pleasure. I could take that conversation way to far, but I will withdraw now.
Back to the post at hand. It sounds like a decent sized room and you already have good drivers for either cabinet in question. I think the Sachiko would likely provide a bit cleaner and well defined sound, but the build complexity would make it a hard choice considering the minor level of difference in the likely sound.
I am sure Scott could tell you more about how the two would interact with the room and why one would be better than the other. I personally would opt for either a modified BIB with a lot of Ron's help (if he was willing to offer it) or the Sachiko as is.
Take care,
Robert
Drat. Forgot to post that graph, for interest's sake. See below.
Anyway, agreed. I'm no pure subjectivist, or objectivist. The above is simply my take on publishing measurements & some of the reasons why I'm wary of it. I don't want this to go turn into a debate on measurements either, so from my POV, I've nothing further to add on the subject here. Back on topic, as you say, it'll depend on the room, system & taste as to which you might prefer, so if you can tell us a bit more, we can probably guide you more effectively.
The Fisher quote? He did have a good turn of phrase didn't he. 😀
Anyway, agreed. I'm no pure subjectivist, or objectivist. The above is simply my take on publishing measurements & some of the reasons why I'm wary of it. I don't want this to go turn into a debate on measurements either, so from my POV, I've nothing further to add on the subject here. Back on topic, as you say, it'll depend on the room, system & taste as to which you might prefer, so if you can tell us a bit more, we can probably guide you more effectively.
The Fisher quote? He did have a good turn of phrase didn't he. 😀
Attachments
sorry,
you answers shows more or less no measurement experience.
nearfield helps, impedanz helps, step response helps this you can make in every room.
I take 100 of measurements during 1992-98, i know what is
possible to measure and what is listenable.
you answers shows more or less no measurement experience.
nearfield helps, impedanz helps, step response helps this you can make in every room.
I take 100 of measurements during 1992-98, i know what is
possible to measure and what is listenable.
hm said:
Please do us all a favor and write the definitive textbook on the subject (and get a competent translator / proof-reader - I think Steven Colbert might be available for the right price)
This could save us all the cognitive dissonance encountered trying to reconcile what we think we're perceiving with what the numbers tell us must be "really happening".
Here's a thought: "all the science" is never finished, and some is ultimately found to be wrong.
hm, why not create a new thread for this topic? Then people who wish to participate are free to do so.
Thanks for all the opinions.I know nothing about horn theory or graghs&measurments nor do I have much time for it.It's all for having fun and listening to the music so I think I'll start with your Sachiko Scott and go from there.
Thanks!
Thanks!
That's the spirit Crick!
Build something and listen. How do you feel about the complexity of the Sachiko build? I am looking at a build right now that is fairly difficult myself although it involves less wood and more angles, lol.
Here's hoping you love it!
Take care,
Robert
Build something and listen. How do you feel about the complexity of the Sachiko build? I am looking at a build right now that is fairly difficult myself although it involves less wood and more angles, lol.
Here's hoping you love it!
Take care,
Robert
I'm not scared.Worst case I keep cutting,that's if I can get my new belt on my ancient Delta.
Cheers!
Cheers!
BTY musgofasa,I assume that means must go faster.I can't....I need to measure four times,then cut!
Question about the Sachiko build ...
I'm not entirely clear about the dimensions. Are the bottom half and top half the same, or do they differ? I've heard that some designs tune the two halfs differently by adjusting the expansion (if that's the right term). Just want to double check!
I'm not entirely clear about the dimensions. Are the bottom half and top half the same, or do they differ? I've heard that some designs tune the two halfs differently by adjusting the expansion (if that's the right term). Just want to double check!
Just out of curiosity, are these similar to Terry Cain's Bens on the inside or did his look more like the Chang?
Neither. I have a pretty good idea of what the internals of the BEN cabinets are, but it's not something I feel is appropriate for me to talk about.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.