Thanks, I will experiment a bit more just for fun 🙂Regarding your driver's ability to reproduce a square wave....
There is only one place to measure... on the axis you are listening and excluding the room influences..... meaning near-field measurement... 3 feet might be OK.
Dont expect to see a square wave. Very few speakers can do it. Use a mid range freq,,, 400-1 Khz.
Since you dont have any control of the signal ampl and phase.. it is what it is.
There just happens to be an article on this ability to reproduce a square wave....
A Loudspeaker That Can Play Square Waves? | audioXpress
Using DSP technology, it can get the phase etal pretty good on a sample speaker.
THx-RNMarsh
It would have been interesting to see it at other frequencies. Some traces I've seen are at very precise frequencies and places which makes me suspicious 😉an example of a speaker that can do square waves without DSP.
newer Quad --> hard to beat this. making it a useful tool for analyzing audio.
View attachment 815804
View attachment 815805
View attachment 815806
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I seems a useful way to time align, have you looked for square waves at other frequencies and/or places?All my speakers are time aligned since 1970. KEF, Elipson, home made.
For subs, it is not an issue, The wavelength is long enough.
For low-high crossover, the way I do:
- Align the speakers vertically and horizontally (if no DSP) to get the center of the moving coils on a vertical line.
- Put your measurement mic at 1m. in the center of the line between the center of two ways. This line has to point to the ears at listening position.
- Set the frequency generator at the crossing frequency.
- Align your speaker back and forth to get the best square wave as possible. Ot play with the delay if you prefer to use a DSP.
As an example, in the KEF LS50 wireless (coaxial drivers equipped with a DSP) the delay is optional (on/off). The difference is obvious.
The graphs he showed even had scales, which was a pleasant bonus. (probably because they weren't his 🙂)As he stated "an example of a speaker that can do square waves without DSP"and showed the graph of a reproduced square wave, in which way is it "half baked" ?
Obviously you know a lot about mathematics, semiconductors and circuit theory/design, so could contribute a lot in the discussions, if you could just stop to follow your bias and imaginations about other members agenda.
You must have missed the serious work done on low noise phono stages and debunking LEDs and solar panels as a fancy power supply. Things made and measured and learnings shared amongst the community. I for one am very grateful for the experience imparted (and from Hans, Scott and others in this area). Jusrt becuase the lounge is not considered a place for serious design by some doesn't mean they don't do it in the relevant forum!
yep
-RM
Richard,
I still think it’s good practice to always mention the source for two reasons:
1) it enables others to find out how these recordings where made and how to interpret the information.
2) it prevents from being accused of showing off with other peoples feathers.
Hans
P.s. interesting audioXpress link that you gave
Last edited:
nothing home theatre about any of it......the yamaha is a 2.1 integrated with dsp.....it stomps the parasound halo integrated head to head.
actually for the money I couldn't recommend it enough.
Yamaha is great, however, they heavily rely on actually engineering their products. This may not be enough for the discerning audiophile.
May be your knowledge do not enough to find the vibration. If vibration is constant and always there then it won't be called one of source of dynamic distortion
Dr. Arto Kolinummi is not as dumb as you.
I rest my case. Just personal insults no attempt to answer or understand the question, as usual.
I wonder if Jakob still thinks it's a "language issue"I rest my case. Just personal insults no attempt to answer or understand the question, as usual.
Here’s really some good advice. And at our stage of life, my goodness we need it!
Not sure I ever thought I was going to do any of those. I realised I wasn't going to be Tony Stark at about 20!
Richard,
I still think it’s good practice to always mention the source for two reasons:
1) it enables others to find out how these recordings where made and how to interpret the information.
2) it prevents from being accused of showing off with other peoples feathers.
Hans
P.s. interesting audioXpress link that you gave
I show a link when it is helpful to show how something was done in detail which is a more "modern" approach in contrast to my all analog approach.
I showed a weak diode plot without link only to show the diode model is real re copper oxide. It never occured to me that others would think i am claiming credit for the data or photo. Why would taking credit be important. It wasnt something new (to me anyway). It is there only to show you it really, measurably exists. Least one is accused of imaginary physics.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
It would have been interesting to see it at other frequencies. Some traces I've seen are at very precise frequencies and places which makes me suspicious 😉
yes, that is true of many other speaker types.... esp cone drivers. It may look great at one fortuitous freq and not so good other places. From experience, the new QUADs are very good over a wide range of freqs.
Creating a time accurate speaker that will reproduce a square wave is only a matter of finding engineering solutions to the problem.
The difficulty is not in doing it but in realising it is necessary.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Yes, I can get some good looking traces, if I find a good position then move the mic away whilst keeping it in the same vertical and horizontal planes the shape comes and goes, it makes me wonder how useful it is as a measure, other possibly for crossover alignment.
???Time and polarity are different critters than phase.
Polarity is just moving the phase of 180°. All the purpose of time alignment is both speakers of a two way speaker move in phase at the crossing frequency so their acoustic pressure can be added with no loss. Or subtracted if you set one of the speakers out of phase of 180°.
Your tip has this advantage, it is easier to find a null or a minimum than a max by listening.
if I showed group delay, it is because with the time the signal takes to travel from the source to the ears, phases are turning, but the relative phases between the two speakers don't.
Yes, I can get some good looking traces, if I find a good position then move the mic away whilst keeping it in the same vertical and horizontal planes the shape comes and goes, it makes me wonder how useful it is as a measure, other possibly for crossover alignment.
Moving out of the near field will cause a lot of room reflections to interfer with the direct sound from the driver. You wont be able to tell much about the driver out in the far field. Windowing techniques to block reflections are needed... Now you need more sophisicated measuring equipment.
THx-RNMarsh
???
Polarity is just moving the phase of 180°.
It often hase the same effect,but it depends on the signals. Asymmetrical wave forms will be mirrored wrt the time axis when the polarity is switched while that does not happen when moving the phase by 180 degrees.
Not sure I ever thought I was going to do any of those. I realised I wasn't going to be Tony Stark at about 20!
I automatically get 2 lottery tickets every week (you sign up on the website). I'm £14.80 ahead.
I know the chances of winning are about 14 million to one but I tell myself its for a good cause. Well, at least that's my excuse!
I've toyed with the idea from time to time but have managed to resist so far.🙂 In my case I don't see it serving much purpose, I could use DSP and EQ the phase to my listening position but to what end, would it make that much difference? So long as the sound from the speaker is accurate the room effects are something else with a different level of relevance?Now you need more sophisicated measuring equipment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part IV