You guys are funny! 😊 What I want to know is, Do these companies actually become profitable? $39K/pair? Have any of you guys thought about entering the market? All I see is opportunity but maybe I'm foolish or unwise to the challenges? I look at Dr. Geddes monitor and I wonder if maybe it was too ahead of the crowd? The audio market place is one of the most delusional that I have ever seen. If a product is too advanced against current trends, it will not be received unless on the back of a giant using its reputation. We have not the reputation of JBL for example. Things have changed since Geddes was active with the NS15 but maybe I am just young and Naive. Docali tried his hand and things did not pan out.
Who are the last successful people to enter to the market? Tekton Loudspeakers and Dutch n Dutch?
Who are the last successful people to enter to the market? Tekton Loudspeakers and Dutch n Dutch?
Last edited:
Supposedly the Tariffs are to make American companies more marketable to americans, and increase business in the American Market. Supposedly. This ignores that some better products came from outside of America. Maybe this is opportunity for the little guy to produce them here. Genelec and Tom Danley are both American so I guess we aren't all bad. JBl, etc...
Genelec is not American, it's based in Iisalmi, Finland and founded by the Fins Ilpo Martikainen and and Topi Partanen in 1978 and is still owned by both families (one of the founders died). It's production is 100% finish in the factory of Luuniemi in Finland and drivers are from EU OEM builders build to their (Genelec) specs. In the US they got only a repair and support centre, franchised to a local company (who got all the necesairy info, parts and tooling).
There is no such thing as a 'coincidence of circumstances'.
Under the banner of neoliberalism, the US and in fact the entire West has long since given up autonomy.
Someone invoked a metaphor of a card game recently, in keeping with the role of joker this person has actually been playing all his life > distort reality.
Last edited:
I shall name my next 2-way speaker build:
Western Autonomy I
Prove you wrong all day long...
Western Autonomy I
Prove you wrong all day long...
Buchardt Audio, Radiant, and many many more?
And it also depends on your description of "successful" btw.
I suppose that can not really be called a 2-way design. Are those cones at the back passive radiators or bass drivers? Even if they are passive radiators, they'll contribute towards low-frequency extension; therefore, I'd call them an "at least" 2.5-way design (sans the provision in the crossover)
That topic has been here before. You are not wrong or right, in my opinion. I think most people would say this is a two way, if those are passive radiators. They would use a 2 way crossover. The passive woofer is a passive source similar to a resonating air column.
Last edited:
I would more compare a passive radiator to a horn, something that enchange the drivers response. But the end conclusion is the same as Camplo, a passive radiator is not an extra way, it's an extention of the bass driver judy like a horn can be (but different technically and in sound).
But i don't like them, they always seems to be wrong in sound. then i rather have a port, even a not optimal one.
But i don't like them, they always seems to be wrong in sound. then i rather have a port, even a not optimal one.
The parts, including 2x 6" passive radiators opposite a PTT6.5X long stroke woofer:
Last edited:
Higher moving mass may responds slower, it would be interesting to somehow measure the effect to get some evidence.
A diaphragm of a driver with lower Cms may requires more force to move but I think it's more complicated than that. Lower Cms also helps to slow down the driver near the ends of it's strokes (and to stop at the dead points) and help to stop the cone from moving when no signal is present, these may as important things as the ability to start to move.
Moreover we can have high Cms and high Rms at the same time, which means the suspension is easy to move but the complex electro-mechanical system (which a dynamic loudspeaker is) is not so much and vice versa.
I don't think that the resulted frequency response is the problem of high inductance. You can change the frequency response easily in many ways nowadays, counteracting frequency response tilt (if any) casued by high inductance.
Last edited:
Earlier in this thread I referred to a woofer comparison in a French forum.
Inductance (amount of magnetic field) depends on several factors, such as the wire (gauge), the number of turns used for the coil, the length, etc.
There are demodulation rings, (copper) Faraday cups that can be used to reduce Le.
In addition, non-linearities of the magnet structure and suspension parts (Kms(x)) also affect performance.
In general (a rule of thumb): excursion + Mms versus Bl + Cms are indicators of the intended purposes of a woofer.
In addition, there's Rms:
Inductance (amount of magnetic field) depends on several factors, such as the wire (gauge), the number of turns used for the coil, the length, etc.
There are demodulation rings, (copper) Faraday cups that can be used to reduce Le.
In addition, non-linearities of the magnet structure and suspension parts (Kms(x)) also affect performance.
In general (a rule of thumb): excursion + Mms versus Bl + Cms are indicators of the intended purposes of a woofer.
In addition, there's Rms:
Rms – Mechanical Resistance of Suspension
Rms, or mechanical resistance, describes how much damping the speaker’s suspension provides to control cone movement. Think of it like shock absorbers in a car—too much resistance, and the suspension is stiff and unyielding; too little, and it becomes too loose, leading to uncontrolled movement.
Rms is directly linked to Cms and Fs, as can be seen in the formula below:
What Does Rms Actually Do?
Rms affects how quickly the cone stops moving after being displaced. A higher Rms means more damping, which helps prevent unwanted resonances but can reduce efficiency. A lower Rms means less damping, allowing for more movement but potentially leading to excessive ringing or overshoot.
How Rms Affects Speaker Performance
- Higher Rms (More Damping) →
- The cone stops moving quickly after a signal ends
- Prevents excessive ringing and improves transient response
- Often found in PA and midrange drivers, where control is crucial
- Can reduce efficiency because more energy is absorbed
- Lower Rms (Less Damping) →
- The cone moves more freely, leading to longer decay times
- More efficient at converting electrical energy into sound
- Often found in subwoofers, where extended low-frequency response is desirable
- May require careful tuning to avoid unwanted resonances
How Rms Relates to Qms
Rms directly affects Qms, the mechanical quality factor of a driver.
For example:
- A low Rms results in a high Qms, meaning the driver has lower mechanical losses and rings for longer.
- A high Rms leads to a low Qms, meaning mechanical energy is dissipated more quickly, reducing ringing.
- A PA midrange driver may have Rms = 5 kg/s and Qms = 2-3 for precise, controlled response.
- A subwoofer may have Rms = 1.5 kg/s and Qms = 7-10 to allow for more free movement and extended bass.
Rms and Speaker Efficiency
Higher Rms means more energy is absorbed as heat in the suspension, making the driver less efficient. That’s why high-efficiency speakers (like horn-loaded designs) often have low Rms, reducing mechanical losses.
Real-World Example of Rms in Different Drivers
Driver Type Typical Rms (kg/s) Effect on Performance PA Midrange 4 – 6 Tight control, minimal ringing Hi-Fi Woofer 2 – 4 Balanced damping for clarity and bass extension Subwoofer 1 – 2 More excursion, deeper bass, less damping
Last edited:
All wrong. Do not mix up "flat anechoic response" with "flat in-room response". Good loudspeakers with flat anechoic response have downward in-room response.
That is "in-room response" and it should go downward from 1 kHz.
Of course it will be too forward in treble - you turned your loudspeaker frequency response from good "downward in-room response" into "flat in-room response" - which is totally wrong.
I don't know what you're trying so say.
I equalized the sound that was arriving to the microphone from the speakers so the white noise coming from the speakers exhibited a flat frequency response as displayed in the equalizer's frequency spectrum analyzer display.
Nothing about anechoic chamber.. strictly an in room measurement from my listening seat.
And, as I noted, I had set up the room, speakers and couch rather well to begin with, no nodes, no room modes, no strange things happening.
Also, this was the 80s, so we didn't do any quasi anechoic chamber measurement with short pulses as we can do today... we didn't have the technology unless you had access to stuff that cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, or more.
Just a plain in room frequency measurement.
And, again as I noted, with the white noise generator, microphone and spectrum analyzer and NO equalization I noted the default room response... which was what I preferred. So, I didn't need the equalizer at all and took it out of the system and gave it away.
Capisce?
I equalized the sound that was arriving to the microphone from the speakers so the white noise coming from the speakers exhibited a flat frequency response as displayed in the equalizer's frequency spectrum analyzer display.
Nothing about anechoic chamber.. strictly an in room measurement from my listening seat.
And, as I noted, I had set up the room, speakers and couch rather well to begin with, no nodes, no room modes, no strange things happening.
Also, this was the 80s, so we didn't do any quasi anechoic chamber measurement with short pulses as we can do today... we didn't have the technology unless you had access to stuff that cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, or more.
Just a plain in room frequency measurement.
And, again as I noted, with the white noise generator, microphone and spectrum analyzer and NO equalization I noted the default room response... which was what I preferred. So, I didn't need the equalizer at all and took it out of the system and gave it away.
Capisce?
Last edited:
@Sonce You revived this topic after we already went through the motions and moved on. Just read and you will see, plus, you are quoting me quoting someone else.
No one is confused about in room vs anechoic, we try to be very anal about terminology though its hard to keep up with the real pros.
Furthermore, the majority (2/3) of people you quoted want a tilted responses just like you, so you must not of read the thread...
To conclude, FR is more complicated than whats happening on axis, so without including off axis response and power response, into your position, your opinion isn't valid. What a person prefers is completely subjective and of personal choice, considering the crazy things people have chosen already, a Flat FR will never be an extreme option.
What I see is that a Flat FR on axis, with a Flat power response is unliked by more than a few. Flat FR on axis with a sloping power response is a completely different beast and I personally have no issues. Erin from Erins Audio corner doesn't even take this into conservation which puts his position in the invalid category along with any other person who has drawn a conclusion while remaining ignorant to all factors involved.
In some way it seems that the power response in contrast to HF is the culprit. Our ears process HF faster, cycle time is low for HF so with a flat power response I believe a perceived elongated decay is the main driving factor for the undesired trait. Burst Decay would show an increased ringing towards HF with a Flat on axis FR and Flat Power Response. Tilting the FR causing a slow roll off of HF also lowers the power response towards HF. Burst Decay would show a more balanced reading as well.
So the OnAxis FR isn't so much the problem as is the character of the decay. With a sloping power response a Flat FR is fine according to my ears at least. With a Flat FR and Flat power response some find the presentation too bright...
There is no "has to be" "should be" without stating, what the goal is. Are you aiming for Neutral? Just remember the decay in cycle time needs to be balanced as well and that if decays cycle time is elongated in one part of the spectrum, it won't sound good, in particular, towards HF where it will be perceived the most. A sloped FR with a more balanced cycle time decay is more desirable than a Flat FR with exaggerated cycle time Decay.
No one is confused about in room vs anechoic, we try to be very anal about terminology though its hard to keep up with the real pros.
Furthermore, the majority (2/3) of people you quoted want a tilted responses just like you, so you must not of read the thread...
To conclude, FR is more complicated than whats happening on axis, so without including off axis response and power response, into your position, your opinion isn't valid. What a person prefers is completely subjective and of personal choice, considering the crazy things people have chosen already, a Flat FR will never be an extreme option.
What I see is that a Flat FR on axis, with a Flat power response is unliked by more than a few. Flat FR on axis with a sloping power response is a completely different beast and I personally have no issues. Erin from Erins Audio corner doesn't even take this into conservation which puts his position in the invalid category along with any other person who has drawn a conclusion while remaining ignorant to all factors involved.
In some way it seems that the power response in contrast to HF is the culprit. Our ears process HF faster, cycle time is low for HF so with a flat power response I believe a perceived elongated decay is the main driving factor for the undesired trait. Burst Decay would show an increased ringing towards HF with a Flat on axis FR and Flat Power Response. Tilting the FR causing a slow roll off of HF also lowers the power response towards HF. Burst Decay would show a more balanced reading as well.
So the OnAxis FR isn't so much the problem as is the character of the decay. With a sloping power response a Flat FR is fine according to my ears at least. With a Flat FR and Flat power response some find the presentation too bright...
There is no "has to be" "should be" without stating, what the goal is. Are you aiming for Neutral? Just remember the decay in cycle time needs to be balanced as well and that if decays cycle time is elongated in one part of the spectrum, it won't sound good, in particular, towards HF where it will be perceived the most. A sloped FR with a more balanced cycle time decay is more desirable than a Flat FR with exaggerated cycle time Decay.
Last edited:
Some seem to prefer a downward slope all the way from the bass. I don't
Since sensitivity is most important below 1 kHz, you could "glue" a less sensitive dome tweeter to a more sensitive woofer (section) by using a waveguide.
Many tweeters have a rising response in the upper octave. A small waveguide that doesn't open all the way (~ slow or constant flare rate) - such as the one Joe Rasmussen uses for his Elsinore, would boost the tweeter's output in/unto the upper octave and facilitates a better match wrt directivity + output of the woofer(s). Such a waveguide can also be easily milled into the baffle.
Last edited:
Again: It is wrong to equalize in-room response to be flat! It should have downward slope above 1 kHz.