They stopped their strange shapes on the cones like the Illuminator or the revelator series.... ???
They make a conic voice coil but why the face plate has to be coned as well ? It must be seen ?
They make a conic voice coil but why the face plate has to be coned as well ? It must be seen ?
If only your friend bought 4 ohm version of SB17NAC:
Do you have measurement files for SB17CRC and 26ADC with offsets ? I'd like to play with it in my simulator to see what can i come up with. If it's ok...
I'm in the middle of building a small waveguide speaker (5" alu cone / 1"+wg), and i'll put your theory to the test. I'll make passive xover, and replicate it with DSP - to see if it is just sudden changes in impedance and phase. If it is, it should act exactly the same.
If i integrate BSC into xover, it results in very large series inductor on midwoofer - and, in my experience, that always makes the mids muddier than small series coil and series or parallel RLC as BSC.
Last edited:
SBA drivers have no appeal to me, the SS DNA being no excuse, need rrrisin rrresponses, not those flatish SBA domybest curves...😀
Dragonweed did mention 1.8KHz as xover frequency and 4 ohm version behaves a bit better than 8 ohm - for reasons unknown to me.
"Do you have measurement files for SB17CRC and 26ADC with offsets ? I'd like to play with it in my simulator to see what can i come up with. If it's ok..."
I've made only some crude measurements yet, will do the rest as soon as I get the finished boxes back from my cabinetmaker buddy (speed is not his main attribute...) You meant separate curves for the drivers with XO, or combined responses?
I've made only some crude measurements yet, will do the rest as soon as I get the finished boxes back from my cabinetmaker buddy (speed is not his main attribute...) You meant separate curves for the drivers with XO, or combined responses?
I meant separate curves in cabinet and combined curve - all without xover and at the same volume and distance.
First, my friend wanted a 4 ohm version for his amp, second the response looked a tad smoother for the 4 ohm version, also the TS parameters are better fit for the smaller box he asked for....
Yes the XO is at 1.8k, but let me tell you: to squeeze the 26ADC into any system is a real PITA, mostly due to the lack of any damping material in its resonant chamber. I had to put some (not much or dense) into it, otherwise at the low end was screaming too much. It is definitely not one easy tweeter to work with, but if you can get it singing it performs outrageously well.
Yes, there are extremely close simulations. But you have to simulate it. With measurements taken prior in the exact same enclosure or measurements in standard enviroment. The error you're making is, you're calculating just some of it - and there you are right, that will not work at all.
No. You need sometimes luck to get very rare drivers but speaker development got nothing to do with luck at all. Ofcourse will not everything you'd mash together magically become a great speaker, the development will also sometimes lead into realizing with the intended combination of drivers, enclosure etc. you will not reach your goal. Or you have to take some compromises. But that's not the fault of the simulation, that's your own fault for not choosing the right combination, a wrong setup or wrong expectations and goals. What you call 'intention needed' is maybe sometimes a shortcut in selecting and combining the right drivers but with experience there's no 6th sense needed. And especally no luck or intuition can ever change the factual part.
You can still develop speakers without any measurements, purely with just your ears. But any, really ANY knowledge and information about the drivers and physical interaction helps with it, speeds it up, solves problems. Why not use it?
What you do is to take a book, remove all the glossar and sidenotes, all of the punctuation and formatting and look at it from 3m away. Ofcourse then it looks like noone can understand it, "you'd have to be a wizard to make sense out of that".
You've learned some things and were on the way to understand it but then you just stopped and said "I don't need these formulas and simulations, the rest is art, noone will understand except the enlightened" and that's your biggest fault. You don't need to know all the formulas, you don't need to remember a huge number-desert but you need to connect the right things logically and understand the way it interacts. You use your half-knowledge and assumptions with your (correct!) logic to make up your mind about something. But that does not work that way, if half of the facts are not how the physics work or what some values really mean, the best, most correct logic will lead to wrong assumptions and fake 'facts'. You gave up to go ANY further and that means you will never go over these false facts. And to accept it that way and even defend it, that is actually and truely ignorant.
Sadly that reminds me a lot on how things go with certain people, on topics that are much more serious than speakers.
Whaa.. 😱 You've got to be kidding! SEVENTEEN parts for a crossover of 6dB? 😱 Yeah, that really must be state of the art drivers. 🙄
Yepp! And I can bet at least 12 out of the 17 parts are busy with killing those nasty -but unavoidable 🙂D)- resonances. Great work SS!
In my country there is a saying that tells: the baby is getting lost among a dozen of midwives....
In my country there is a saying that tells: the baby is getting lost among a dozen of midwives....
Well... now I got my education class about ignorance and other serious wisdom.
Earlier I've decided not to enter into any ego induced arguments with anyone, but this is an exception.
Now you think you have a rather well contoured picture of a person who you never met, or know anything about his work, based on a few comments posted here.
I must admit I am not really a master of words, I rather express my feelings in a way I feel appropriate. True I might have less lexical knowledge than many of you here, but I take this subject very seriously, and spent thousands of hours trying to find correlation between scientifically established and "proven" facts, simulated circuits, and the way these devices work in real life situations.
To cut a long story short I found very little evidence that massive knowledge and simulations were leading me closer to my goals, i.e. creating natural sounding loudspeakers that can interpret the essence of music.
I am doing measurements on a regular basis, -mostly at the initial XO setup, to avoid major deviations- also listening a lot to music I know well, and whenever I must choose between a perfectly measuring or a better sounding option I always go for the second, because the two seldomly correspond.
In the final "voicing" stage of a given design I use my ears exclusively, not because I don't trust measurements, but at this phase the changes are so minuscule that they fall below the resolution treshold of my (and most) measuring setup.
I am not willing to judge you -or anyone believing in the omnipotence of science and knowledge- but this kind of attitude you represent is just as blindfolded and dangerous as you think about mine....
Then possibly you did not rely on knowledge relevant to this field (up to know).
The "essence of music" btw. is not (even) a known term in audio engineering, it is more like a marketing term IMO (LOL), when used in this particular field.
(Read Toole)
Last edited:
@Eldam
"As you please."
(And btw. "Thanks to France" ... coming right from my heart
, but this is referring to "something completely different")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU
"As you please."
(And btw. "Thanks to France" ... coming right from my heart
, but this is referring to "something completely different")https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU
Last edited:
Well, I do the same. There is also some part of my own taste in sound in volved so my ears do have the last say.
Well, that's exactly a judgement, and I have to say, a wrong one. And as you've told me, I should not come to conclusions. How about you? No, I'm not mad or reach out for a backlash. You seem not to understand that I am not such a blindfolded slave of measurements and data like you think I am. You most likely assume, all measurements have to be super linear etc. but that's not true. And no, I do not assume myself to be fault free or perfectly knowledgeable, I do not see myself as a reference or something similar at all. Unlike you, on the other hand, I do not only look at one side, I allow and use science to get a more complete picture, to get to know, what's the reason for x or y and what can be done about x without affecting y or if it's reasonable to expect z in conjunction with x and y.
But the most valuable thing I draw out of this knowledge is to analyze and recognize advantages and problems out of datasheets and pictures, technical descriptions of drivers I haven't had in hands yet. For me, that's extremely important because I don't have much money and I can't afford to buy most drivers just to see how good they are. And I don't post about it here to show off but to mention things I've noticed to prevent others to spend money and become disappointed because they probably didn't notice the same. And to dampen the excitement, the hype of something seemingly sensational with a bit more realistic view of the drawbacks. But mostly because there are some claims with totally wrong reasoning and I try to explain why such conclusions or assumptions are wrong. I listen to arguments too though and I try to solve and correct it if I made a mistake.
Despite a lot of details and issues I've mentioned here, read some of my former replys in this thread, I mentioned several times that I can't make a final judgement about these drivers because I haven't heard them and not all issues will be severe because that also very much depends on how you deal with the problems and how you use the drivers. Ignoring facts doesn't help anyone though.