pinkmouse said::Fireproof suit on:
Perhaps by the time you are old enough to be able to afford a system with Lowthers and a SET, your hearing has deteriorated so much that you can't hear the troublesome HF problems anyway?🙂
Nope - they aren't that high in freq. 😉
OK, lets suppose I do this. What differences should I be listening for and what causes the different methods of resistance to sound different. Please no voodoo, what is the real physics that causes the difference. How do you know that the wound "coils" are the same resistance as the manufactured ones? A difference of 1 or 2 tenths of an ohm is audible. The question is if the manufacturing method is even more audible and swamps the impact of the difference in magnitudes. Afraid I am very skeptical.
Yesterday I spent 4 hours deciding if I will use a 2R or 2R2 in a 500Hz split for a double box 3way. Yes .1 or .2 is very much audible when balancing a crossover.
MJK said:
I never claimed to know the physics behind something that *should* be equivilant.
I simply posed an alternate viewpoint AND a relativly simple method for you to check. Compare any normal low value comercial resistor with one that you have wound from copper (or silver). In this respect *you* have control over the variables so that you can match to a commercial resistor (..for reasonably matched electrical parameters). I could give you subjective hyperbole - but whats the point?
Skepticism is good, but pointless without personal discovery. (..not unlike discovering that indeed the more expensive lowther's sound better than the less expensive varieties - with little difference in measured performance.)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21920&highlight=
Apparently it doesn't have to be a low value resistor either..
http://www.intactaudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=11
Guys its all salt n' peppa. There are ways and ways. Some very sophisticated Japanese tube guy named Sakuma, esoteric to the bone, says that he does not use special quality caps and resistors and wire. Just Nichicon or Nikkemi caps, normal Japanese code AC wire and cheap metal oxide resistors.
''Through the experience of building many amplifiers, you learn the tone of individual parts.
If you need more high frequency, the best way is by your changing ohms and microfarads.
Someone may change the parts another company made. Even if the new capacitor gives him fine frequency, that capacitor brings a new sound into his amplifier's tone. His method will take him into deep woods.'' - Sakuma.
So if someone has the designing command can use good stable normal parts and wire, and play with the tone. So its playing with solid parametres vs polishing parametres. Its not incidental that engineers like MJK and Zaph dont bother much. Cause if you can tune tone why risk polishing tone?
''Through the experience of building many amplifiers, you learn the tone of individual parts.
If you need more high frequency, the best way is by your changing ohms and microfarads.
Someone may change the parts another company made. Even if the new capacitor gives him fine frequency, that capacitor brings a new sound into his amplifier's tone. His method will take him into deep woods.'' - Sakuma.
So if someone has the designing command can use good stable normal parts and wire, and play with the tone. So its playing with solid parametres vs polishing parametres. Its not incidental that engineers like MJK and Zaph dont bother much. Cause if you can tune tone why risk polishing tone?
Attachments
This is a great discussion, but talk about thread-jacking.
let's recall the original post:
let's recall the original post:
jirka said:
Excellen discussion.
I know nearly all measurements of Lowther drivers that can be found on the net. The most complete measurements are here http://www.aes-kassel.de/bd-reference.htm
Still it is not enough for sufficient standpoint. So I am looking for other waterfall plots etc.
I predict that the stronger the motor the worse the waterfall of the nearly the same paper membrane. And this is what some people like very much. The "detailed and live" sound of Lowther is not only due to the rising highs, but also due to the specific decay character.
I feel that the sound of front loaded Lowther is better than the sound of direct radiating Lowther and it is not only due to the equalisation. The less the driver moves, the less coloured and distorted sound it emits.
Good front horn should improve decay, but the character of Lowther is still there.
Even the worse compression driver has much better waterfall than Lowther and I predict that this is the reason why DB-Design like the sound of the Orphean more than the sound of AER units.
I am not able to do my own measurements of any driver, so I am trying to find it here.
I know nearly all measurements of Lowther drivers that can be found on the net. The most complete measurements are here http://www.aes-kassel.de/bd-reference.htm
Still it is not enough for sufficient standpoint. So I am looking for other waterfall plots etc.
I predict that the stronger the motor the worse the waterfall of the nearly the same paper membrane. And this is what some people like very much. The "detailed and live" sound of Lowther is not only due to the rising highs, but also due to the specific decay character.
I feel that the sound of front loaded Lowther is better than the sound of direct radiating Lowther and it is not only due to the equalisation. The less the driver moves, the less coloured and distorted sound it emits.
Good front horn should improve decay, but the character of Lowther is still there.
Even the worse compression driver has much better waterfall than Lowther and I predict that this is the reason why DB-Design like the sound of the Orphean more than the sound of AER units.
I am not able to do my own measurements of any driver, so I am trying to find it here.
http://www.decware.com/paper30.htm
Though its scaled poorly, notice the decay behaviour below 3kHz..
The stronger the motor does not (in an of itself) indicate poorer decay behaviour. This is strictly stored energy here so it has to do with the cavity resonance near the VC and the surround (and twin cone if there is one), as well as the diaphram itself and those attached boundries.
For instance note the supravox 165-2000 EXC:
http://www.supravox.fr/anglais/haut_parleurs/165_EXC.htm
Here you actually have the ability to increase the field strength with the exact same driver. Now notice the difference in decay when the magnet is increased from 6v supply to the 8v supply - stored energy goes down (..the mechanical behaviour "Qm" essentially remains unchanged but the electrical behaviour "Qe" does change). Here then the extra field strength better controls the driver's motion and is reflected in a "cleaner" CSD.
Most of the time though with more conventional drivers the reason why the stonger motor driver has a poorer CSD is lower mechanical dampening of the driver (not just the basic "Qm"). I.E. the manufacturer wants to achieve higher eff. as broad-band as possible with as little additional treble "rise" as possible - the way to do that is with lower mms and THAT likely means poorer dampening character which usually leads to a poorer CSD.
Though its scaled poorly, notice the decay behaviour below 3kHz..
The stronger the motor does not (in an of itself) indicate poorer decay behaviour. This is strictly stored energy here so it has to do with the cavity resonance near the VC and the surround (and twin cone if there is one), as well as the diaphram itself and those attached boundries.
For instance note the supravox 165-2000 EXC:
http://www.supravox.fr/anglais/haut_parleurs/165_EXC.htm
Here you actually have the ability to increase the field strength with the exact same driver. Now notice the difference in decay when the magnet is increased from 6v supply to the 8v supply - stored energy goes down (..the mechanical behaviour "Qm" essentially remains unchanged but the electrical behaviour "Qe" does change). Here then the extra field strength better controls the driver's motion and is reflected in a "cleaner" CSD.
Most of the time though with more conventional drivers the reason why the stonger motor driver has a poorer CSD is lower mechanical dampening of the driver (not just the basic "Qm"). I.E. the manufacturer wants to achieve higher eff. as broad-band as possible with as little additional treble "rise" as possible - the way to do that is with lower mms and THAT likely means poorer dampening character which usually leads to a poorer CSD.
Interesting discussion. I use Lowther PM6Cs (modified by Mr Stamm of Loth-X fame) in self-designed horns (I strictly fall into MJK's category of Lowther stereotypes).
However, I used AJHorn for the sims and measurements of response and TS params taken by a German DIY magazine, so I should not be too far off. The result is a very detailed midrange, and they do not sound thin either.
The worst part was tackling the mentioned 10KHz peak, and I tried resonant circuits in various combinations. My result so far: too much resistance in such a circuit 'deadens' the sound considerably. Amps used were a GainClone (with a bit more capacitance) and an amp3 with a lead acid battery. Removing the too-resistive RC was like letting a beast off the chain.
At this point, I think it might be wise to use a RC with moderate resistance and accept a slight peak; in return, the typical Lowther 'live' feeling is still there.
My hearing is still quite OK, BTW. Maybe it's reproduction of the shrillness of jazz trumpets that stuns me with these drivers. Or the impression of speed they give (in beech ply enclosures).
Sorry, I just wanted to throw in an alternative POV, please continue the bashing procedures. 😉
Best,
Oliver
However, I used AJHorn for the sims and measurements of response and TS params taken by a German DIY magazine, so I should not be too far off. The result is a very detailed midrange, and they do not sound thin either.
The worst part was tackling the mentioned 10KHz peak, and I tried resonant circuits in various combinations. My result so far: too much resistance in such a circuit 'deadens' the sound considerably. Amps used were a GainClone (with a bit more capacitance) and an amp3 with a lead acid battery. Removing the too-resistive RC was like letting a beast off the chain.
At this point, I think it might be wise to use a RC with moderate resistance and accept a slight peak; in return, the typical Lowther 'live' feeling is still there.
My hearing is still quite OK, BTW. Maybe it's reproduction of the shrillness of jazz trumpets that stuns me with these drivers. Or the impression of speed they give (in beech ply enclosures).
Sorry, I just wanted to throw in an alternative POV, please continue the bashing procedures. 😉
Best,
Oliver
I think, Oliver, you're experience illustrates Marti's point. Neither of your amps are likely to have enough current-swinging ability or outright power to compensate for the additional resistance in the circuit. With more grunt, the liveliness of the sound will be back, but the response will be smoother.
Line level passive Eq between pre & power amps is something I keep meaning to look into, though obbviously, passive pre amps are out! Active Eq in the digital domain is also highly effective.
Line level passive Eq between pre & power amps is something I keep meaning to look into, though obbviously, passive pre amps are out! Active Eq in the digital domain is also highly effective.
ScottG
Than you for the Supravox links, I have not been there for longer time. It seem that many manufacturers complete their web sites with measurements and it is very good.
I see only minor changes in Supravox waterfall plots and think that if the driver had wizzer cone, the ringing with stronger motor should be stronger. Maybe also minor change.
What do you think about orcadesign.com RAVEN waterfall plots? I think this should also be better. On the other hand I dont think the RAAL 140-15D waterfall plot is truthful.
Than you for the Supravox links, I have not been there for longer time. It seem that many manufacturers complete their web sites with measurements and it is very good.
I see only minor changes in Supravox waterfall plots and think that if the driver had wizzer cone, the ringing with stronger motor should be stronger. Maybe also minor change.
What do you think about orcadesign.com RAVEN waterfall plots? I think this should also be better. On the other hand I dont think the RAAL 140-15D waterfall plot is truthful.
very interesting thread.. and well off track.. had a quick read through and not sure if most these posts are pro or anti lowther...
i'm one of the many build it and see types and have had quite a few years experence of lowther drivers..
my limited experence of mostly ( biggish) back loaded horns makes me realise that a lowther driver on it own is way off..
any installation without a suitable (horn) load needs electical loading to compensate
lowthers are expensive yes.. good value is a matter of opinon
with a big horn and lowthers you can get true full range..
so add the cost up of any supporting drivers required when using without a horn... and lesser speakers....
the amp can have as much effect as the cabs.. they must be a good match.. i've not heard a new production valve that sounds like some of the old valves can,.... bass and top end...
with all hi fi it's what your used to .. there are lots of other full range speakers out there.. but i've not heard any thing that beats the detail, smoothness, lack of hardness and the old 'life like sound'.... as they all say.. yet...
at a recent meet it was difficult to tell the difference between ob and the horns... but the horns have that forward room filling quality that only horns have..
some like it others don't... i know a few who like p/p amps better than se...
thats the great thing about hi fi....
my experence of lowthers is that they are easy to get wrong..
and very difficult to get a balanced sound .. but it is possible.
and when you do.. well you know understand the claims on there website...
i'm one of the many build it and see types and have had quite a few years experence of lowther drivers..
my limited experence of mostly ( biggish) back loaded horns makes me realise that a lowther driver on it own is way off..
any installation without a suitable (horn) load needs electical loading to compensate
lowthers are expensive yes.. good value is a matter of opinon
with a big horn and lowthers you can get true full range..
so add the cost up of any supporting drivers required when using without a horn... and lesser speakers....
the amp can have as much effect as the cabs.. they must be a good match.. i've not heard a new production valve that sounds like some of the old valves can,.... bass and top end...
with all hi fi it's what your used to .. there are lots of other full range speakers out there.. but i've not heard any thing that beats the detail, smoothness, lack of hardness and the old 'life like sound'.... as they all say.. yet...
at a recent meet it was difficult to tell the difference between ob and the horns... but the horns have that forward room filling quality that only horns have..
some like it others don't... i know a few who like p/p amps better than se...
thats the great thing about hi fi....
my experence of lowthers is that they are easy to get wrong..
and very difficult to get a balanced sound .. but it is possible.
and when you do.. well you know understand the claims on there website...
Oh it's pro Lowther all right Steve, don't worry about that. Both Martin & Bob for example are enthusiastic owners & builders -in Bob's case he sells Lowther MLTLs commercially.
Blast this keyboard -half of the keys are sticking so if there are missing or displaced letters in my posts for a day or two, until I get time to strip it down, you'll know why. From my own perspective, your EX4s were the best drivers I've ever heard. Mechanically (horn) corrected, & fed by your valve amps (also the best I've heard) the synergy is astonishing. The MLTL etc cabinets with their small vents need the electrical correction though, so to kick the life back into the drivers, you need SS or PP power. Both ways have their own merits & negative aspects, so it boils down to whichever suits a system best I think.
Regards
Scott
Blast this keyboard -half of the keys are sticking so if there are missing or displaced letters in my posts for a day or two, until I get time to strip it down, you'll know why. From my own perspective, your EX4s were the best drivers I've ever heard. Mechanically (horn) corrected, & fed by your valve amps (also the best I've heard) the synergy is astonishing. The MLTL etc cabinets with their small vents need the electrical correction though, so to kick the life back into the drivers, you need SS or PP power. Both ways have their own merits & negative aspects, so it boils down to whichever suits a system best I think.
Regards
Scott
Just to pile on, here is an interesting article:
Lowthers & Diatones
I think there is still a time and place for back of napkin, off the cuff speaker design and tweaking, but if you own big-buck drivers with big-buck enclosures and are still looking for that elusive tweak that will magically transform your system from shout to nirvana . . . well, I guess some people just like p*ssing into the wind.
I want Ron Clarke to design a rear-loaded horn for a DX series Lowther. Prolly could fine-tune his Dallas II for that.
I've also been curious to hear a Big Fun or Beauhorn implementation. They allegedly have real bass.
Lowthers & Diatones
I think there is still a time and place for back of napkin, off the cuff speaker design and tweaking, but if you own big-buck drivers with big-buck enclosures and are still looking for that elusive tweak that will magically transform your system from shout to nirvana . . . well, I guess some people just like p*ssing into the wind.
I want Ron Clarke to design a rear-loaded horn for a DX series Lowther. Prolly could fine-tune his Dallas II for that.
I've also been curious to hear a Big Fun or Beauhorn implementation. They allegedly have real bass.
jirka said:
The changes may look minor, but there are pretty major. IF they had a whizer cone (depending on the structure) then yes, it could well have more resonances, (beyond the cavity resonance of the two cones), beacuse there is little dampening of the whizzer cone exterior "edge".
I like both the RAVEN and the RAAL tweeters (from a purely technical viewpoint). There is very little dampening for these drivers (internal loss) and an excellent reactance to change. I don't know how truthfull or not the RAAL is and the only measurements I've seen besides their own are from member Tenson's here (and note that differences in freq. response are largerly due to the baffle):
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80653&perpage=10&pagenumber=5
Much benefit in BIB vs MLTL for DX2
The MJK MLTL with a DX-2 is great, with a BSC.
But, I would like to know if anyone has built this and a BIB for ths driver, which works best, does the BIB need BSC?
Failing that, has anyone compared the sims?
Thanks
The MJK MLTL with a DX-2 is great, with a BSC.
But, I would like to know if anyone has built this and a BIB for ths driver, which works best, does the BIB need BSC?
Failing that, has anyone compared the sims?
Thanks
I want Ron Clarke to design a rear-loaded horn for a DX series Lowther. Prolly could fine-tune his Dallas II for that.
To be honest i have never even looked into that app.
ron
To be honest i have never even looked into that app.
ron
I have this ominous feeling that if you don't at some point soon Ron, some Lowther fanatics are going to lock you up in a room with your software etc & not let you out until you do.
I have heard several Lowthers throught the years and while they sound very detailed and lifelike they havent really impressed me for the price.
I currently have the 208 in my old original Dallas with ribbon tweets with a wopping 5 watts/channel of battery PS GC amplification and they do just fine.
If i was to design for the Lowther DX series it probably would be on the Austin operation principal and not the Dallas as the Austin provides more LF response and provides more cone control for a given SPL which i believe the Lowthers need. The design would adapt for better diffraction as well as no need for a rear deflector as it would be primarly down firing with the deflector built in instead of a seperate unit.
Let me think on this.
ron
I currently have the 208 in my old original Dallas with ribbon tweets with a wopping 5 watts/channel of battery PS GC amplification and they do just fine.
If i was to design for the Lowther DX series it probably would be on the Austin operation principal and not the Dallas as the Austin provides more LF response and provides more cone control for a given SPL which i believe the Lowthers need. The design would adapt for better diffraction as well as no need for a rear deflector as it would be primarly down firing with the deflector built in instead of a seperate unit.
Let me think on this.
ron
Hi!
What about these, look interesting reg the filtered backside. Anyone have or heard them?
Cheers/Peter
http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.co.uk/EXseries.html
What about these, look interesting reg the filtered backside. Anyone have or heard them?
Cheers/Peter
http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.co.uk/EXseries.html
- Status
- Not open for further replies.