Hi Joe,
Hey John,
No one is under attack. I'd say you are overstating what is going on.
There are many very bright members here and you have to give them their due.
Best, Chris
Sure, no problem there. I was merely answering your statement:
There was no malice intended at all.
I did, thank you. I hope you did as well.
??
Hey John,
No one is under attack. I'd say you are overstating what is going on.
This is more of a correction. When someone, anyone, makes a statement that is diametrically opposed to proved science and experience, you will see a resistance and maybe even frustration among those members that know better. Typically the proof for these statements boils down to "it could happen, how do you know it can't?" This isn't an acceptable backup as you well know from your own education and real world experience. You have noticed that you are well received when discussing your circuits or helping someone understand why you did things the way you did. Saying something like "it sounded better to me" is perfectly fine. Whereas using an isolated incident without backup data to challenge what is known isn't going to fly. Neither is putting members down in a general way over your assumed superior knowledge. That's going to rub people the wrong way every single time.
There are many very bright members here and you have to give them their due.
Best, Chris
Yes, about right. Passive/acoustic rather than active cardiod solution. Cardiod down to 100 hz if I'm not mistaken. Other differences from the Kiis is that they use larger drivers, a larger and stiffer cabinet and more powerful amps which leads to higher spl capabilities and thus more dynamic headroom. The crossover frequency to the tweeter is lower (1200 instead of somewhere in the 2000s), and a different waveguide design for the tweeter.
There are also substantial differences in the DSP capabilities for the user: They can be volume controlled directly through an app (the Kiis necessitate a remote control box which must be purchased extra), have onboard eq capabilities for dealing with room modes in the bass, and an adjustable sub output which can be used for installing an extra sub in a mode-canceling source sink configuration for example.
And they will be Roon ready as endpoints in the future. Pretty neat package.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone would intentionally use an undamped speaker, but I get the idea.
In my nonlinear driver simulation with only Bl droop enabled I got 2.1 ohms at 22Hz (using a lot of educated guesses for driver geometry). At 44Hz it needed 8 ohms. It looks like you want drive impedance to rise by 12db/oct or so, with low impedance around Fs.
Yep, pure current drive seldom is a good choice, for AMT tweeter with their flat impedance it works great, as well as for a cone driver when it has a rather resistive airload in its whole passband, well damped system resonance(s).
And your sim truly points in the right direction. For cone drivers a profile that often works well is synthesizing typically a few ohms amp Zout at resonance to have it properly damped (~aperiodic cone move to rest position after external exitation), then rising quickly to 20ohms++ on either side, and finaly going back to 0 at DC and HF extremes. The lower the Qes to begin with, the higher the impedance level can be which helps for power compression and Le(x) variations.
In ported designs, I found the impedance should remain low and flat through the whole region of and around the two driver impedance peaks. Here we want to control the port Q as well, the port (Helmholtz-) resonance should be strong while not too narrowband to really help the driver reducing it's excursion and to have low ringing from error signals.
The values found in both cases may or may not conincide with the ones for quickest and cleanest recovery from overdrive and best overdrive behaviour to start with, so it's a compromise as always.
This mixed impedance drive thing I found to be helpful on lesser quality woofers. With real excellent drivers, sticking to voltage drive is typically "good enough" when used in a reasonable box alignment for this driver. Drive impedance change can help to make better use of the driver in extreme alignments, though.
And your sim truly points in the right direction. For cone drivers a profile that often works well is synthesizing typically a few ohms amp Zout at resonance to have it properly damped (~aperiodic cone move to rest position after external exitation), then rising quickly to 20ohms++ on either side, and finaly going back to 0 at DC and HF extremes. The lower the Qes to begin with, the higher the impedance level can be which helps for power compression and Le(x) variations.
In ported designs, I found the impedance should remain low and flat through the whole region of and around the two driver impedance peaks. Here we want to control the port Q as well, the port (Helmholtz-) resonance should be strong while not too narrowband to really help the driver reducing it's excursion and to have low ringing from error signals.
The values found in both cases may or may not conincide with the ones for quickest and cleanest recovery from overdrive and best overdrive behaviour to start with, so it's a compromise as always.
This mixed impedance drive thing I found to be helpful on lesser quality woofers. With real excellent drivers, sticking to voltage drive is typically "good enough" when used in a reasonable box alignment for this driver. Drive impedance change can help to make better use of the driver in extreme alignments, though.
You have this completely backwards, but why am I not surprised? The final authority on any audio related component are human ears and what they hear. Only then can you try to invent science in hopes of an explanation and engineer audio equipment in hopes that it sounds good to those ears.
When audio engineers bully audiophiles, it shows their inferiority complex. Oh no, what they hear doesn't correlate to the scope screen, or doesn't align to the known sliver of psychoacoustic science, they must be wrong! There must be bias! Let's put them in a completely unknown environment and DBT them to death.
Why don't you guys focus this energy into engineering better sounding gear.
Why say someone has it backwards? Why not say you disagree instead? To say someone else is completely backwards is likely to be taken as an insult whether you intend it that way or not. And when people feel insulted, whether or not they should, if they just do feel that way, then they feel like fighting back. Then the arguments get more and more heated and angry. Is that what you are trying to make happen?
Last edited:
I've voiced subjective opinions and haven't been attacked, at least, I don't think so, perhaps I'm so self centred and deluded I didn't notice......
It wasn't meant as an insult. But constantly marginalizing the audiophiles, the people who listen and give valuable feedback, that's an ongoing insult that has been going back hundreds of pages.
That's why no peeking ears only is so important. You keep adding qualifications to discredit the process like unfamiliar environment, ABX, etc. The only requirement is you don't know. Sitting down in your own environment, with your own music, and taking all the time you want is OK.
We've had no luck for years in getting anyone to participate once they realized that they truly would not know what A or B are.
Most often if you say something is an opinion then you won't get too much if any blow back. On the other hand, if you say something is a fact, or fail to make clear it is an opinion, then people may take exception if they believe there is good reason to believe it is not a fact, particularly if there is science to back up their position.
I thought that might be the case, but you made your point much more effectively this time.
As you may know if you talk to a lot of audiophiles, there are some who are way out in left field so to speak. Have you ever seen someone like that, an audiophile who is just kind of nuts about what he says?
I've done hundreds of these test in the past 20 years. In my own system, with my music samples, and as much time as I need, I nail these tests, if there's a difference to be heard of course. In a system I'm hearing for the first time, I don't do so good. In a friend's system I've heard many times, I do very well. Just last week a friend double blind tested me with two power cables (power cables!) in his system and I scored 100%, 20 samples. So go ahead and use science to explain this.
It probably helps filter out some HF hash on the local power lines before it gets inside the amp. Something like that. If you can nail it every time, there has to be some reason. If one is equipped and motivated to investigate it should be measurable. However, if it is because of a local power problem any testing might have to be done right then and there.
It's all possible. But in that system, power cables made a repeatable definitive difference. And people who are able to hear that are called ignorant on a daily basis, on this forum as well as others.
Your choice of words shows bias. Do you think out of hand science can't explain it?
Current science? Who knows? It's possible. I'm open minded though. I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface on what we can explain and measure. I think we'll all know more when we know more about quantum physics.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.