@Eldam
"As you please."
(And btw. "Thanks to France" ... coming right from my heart, but this is referring to "something completely different")
😀.... if we can not laugh... why to be alive ! Petit fripon !
I even add concerning myself than the light was turned off at the beginning of the tunnel,... just after the first slap by a guy in white suit ! Maybe a friend of the guy at the end of the tunnel !
What a stupid comment. Sorry "Charles Darwin". The real Charles Darwin was a lot brighter than YOU. He knew you were descended from a Monkey. 😱
See an elliptical cone with a round voicecoil is just a mathematical translation of the inverse. It's not hard to prove. 😀
It's all the same thing. What I find tiring about you so-called EXPERTS at diyaudio.com is that you've never done enough Maths to understand that all loudspeakers are a vague and distorted version of reality.
No loudspeaker actually successfully imitates the original sound. You can always tell the difference. IMO, headphones get close. But really, why keep lying about this? Stop LYING! You really don't have a clue! 😀
Last edited:
Well i feel that feeling bored in HiFi forums may correspond to feeling tired about human communication or even life in general ... (i truly know how that feels like too ...)
But nevertheless:
That afore mentioned Tweeter has "elliptical" diaphragm and VC as well.
Last edited:
.... yes : "Welcome : boum!" 😀 (same profession indeed)
Hey System 7 , nice to see you there !
I 100% agree with you... and even 102 % as my math are not good as well ! The thing I would like to know, or at least to meet is the guy behind the name of the ScanSpeak Lines : "Elpti....cor, what ?" is a great one 😀
And to proove than Hifi is not a serious thing, let us read that one from Stereophiles, lol, du grand ART, near from the Genius
(about the last stuff of PS Audio ""Let be."
Those two words, from Shakespeare's Hamlet, express an entire philosophy of life in one of the shortest sentences possible. The quotation may not be familiar, but the concept certainly is—contemporary equivalents, each with its own inflections of meaning, include: **** happens. Let the game come to you. Keep calm and carry on. (I hate that one.) Paul McCartney wrote something similar, and only slightly less concise, in a late Beatles song."
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ps-audio-bhk-signature-preamplifier
(i want some too if any left !)
Hey System 7 , nice to see you there !
I 100% agree with you... and even 102 % as my math are not good as well ! The thing I would like to know, or at least to meet is the guy behind the name of the ScanSpeak Lines : "Elpti....cor, what ?" is a great one 😀
And to proove than Hifi is not a serious thing, let us read that one from Stereophiles, lol, du grand ART, near from the Genius
(about the last stuff of PS Audio ""Let be."
Those two words, from Shakespeare's Hamlet, express an entire philosophy of life in one of the shortest sentences possible. The quotation may not be familiar, but the concept certainly is—contemporary equivalents, each with its own inflections of meaning, include: **** happens. Let the game come to you. Keep calm and carry on. (I hate that one.) Paul McCartney wrote something similar, and only slightly less concise, in a late Beatles song."
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ps-audio-bhk-signature-preamplifier
(i want some too if any left !)
Last edited:
About "human hearing" (or "expectation driven perception")
Here: "misunderstandings in pop songs"
(poor german native speaker's point of view/hearing ...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBTHee7Z-e4
Examples:
"Almighurt" = is a yoghurt brand
"Zahnweh" = "toothache"
"Hau' auf die Leberwurst" = "beat that liver sausage..."
"Oh Anneliese popel nicht" = "oh 'Anneliese' (girl's name) don't pick your nose ..." (my favourite one of course)
...
Here: "misunderstandings in pop songs"
(poor german native speaker's point of view/hearing ...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBTHee7Z-e4
Examples:
"Almighurt" = is a yoghurt brand
"Zahnweh" = "toothache"
"Hau' auf die Leberwurst" = "beat that liver sausage..."
"Oh Anneliese popel nicht" = "oh 'Anneliese' (girl's name) don't pick your nose ..." (my favourite one of course)
...
Last edited:
No imitation needed. You don't even need high-end speakers for that. Just throw the speaker out of the window, it will absoultely perfect sound like the speaker hits the ground.
Guys, thank-you for your support. I expected to take a lot of flak for my outspoken views on the maths of loudspeakers. IMO, always compromised.
Here's something I find interesting:
This is the interesting and observable, real-world Universe resonance of Jupiter's moons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
What rocks my boat is the 13:8 orbital resonance between Earth and Venus. Funny how a 13:8 loudspeaker can work well too. 😀
What on Earth has this to do with loudspeakers? IMO, it's all maths. Even Dick Feynman knew about interference patterns. Even if he got a bit vague about the Quantum. BW3 or LR4. Below.
Here's something I find interesting:
This is the interesting and observable, real-world Universe resonance of Jupiter's moons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
What rocks my boat is the 13:8 orbital resonance between Earth and Venus. Funny how a 13:8 loudspeaker can work well too. 😀
https://plus.maths.org/content/chaos-numberland-secret-life-continued-fractions
What on Earth has this to do with loudspeakers? IMO, it's all maths. Even Dick Feynman knew about interference patterns. Even if he got a bit vague about the Quantum. BW3 or LR4. Below.
Attachments
This one is worth noticing IMO:
https://www.google.com/patents/US20050195982
The way to "HiFi" begins IMO with overcoming (in some ways at least ...) the (individual) listener and his/her "opinions" ...
https://www.google.com/patents/US20050195982
The way to "HiFi" begins IMO with overcoming (in some ways at least ...) the (individual) listener and his/her "opinions" ...
Last edited:
Coldn't stop laughing for a while.....
Returning to the conversation (last time, I promise) we had...
Actually I think no realistically thinking person will ever assume that a loudspeaker is capable (or will be capable) of reproducing all aspects of any real life acoustical event (including myself). We both have thoughts and opinios worth to consider, but the truth (if there is such thing at all) is "on the other side".
Music (and its faithful reproduction) in human life creates almost as many controversies and arguments as women do.... The problem seems to originate from the same root in both cases, we are trying to find scientifically proveable evidence, facts, formulas and descriptions for emotions. Because the main attribute or effect of music is exactly this, what kind and type of feelings it can create in your heart (or soul if you prefer).
I am not talking about the technical aspects and procedures absolutely necessary for creating the tools that are able to interpret or transfer these emotions to you, because that part is based mostly on science, accurately performed calculations, measurements. During the design process there is a point however, where you have to (or should) switch from the scientist "mode" to the observer, and see, or rather feel, what kind and how much emotion and feeling they can induce in you. Should the observer owerwrite the scientist, or the opposite? I think neither choice is wise, they sould listen to each other with patience trying to understand each other's wievpoints,and act in accordance with the result of the conversation (continue developement, measure more, redesign, fine tune by ear, or throw the whole thing out)
Not easy I know, doing it often myself.
This is exactly the point what rises the cornerstone of most arguments on the field: how much science, dry knowledge, and how much subjectivism is needed, how you can fuse them, when and where you need to flip the imaginary switch? (Again, this is the designers wievpoint, not the listeners, but unfortunately most of us are both in this forum).
Any time I have doubts or think too much about the progress I achieved, I walk over to the nearby conservatory (have a few friends there) and sit in one the rehearsal rooms for a half an hour... I like those days, because after them usually do not even turn on my system for a while..... 🙂
Last edited:
A possible variation on the light at the end of the tunnel theme:
What does the pessimist see in the tunnel? the darkness
The optimist? the light at the end of the tunnel
The realist? the lights of the approaching train
The driver of the train? three idiots on the tracks
What does the pessimist see in the tunnel? the darkness
The optimist? the light at the end of the tunnel
The realist? the lights of the approaching train
The driver of the train? three idiots on the tracks
Those "debates on principles" seem to be quite useless to me, as there are by far more professions involved in the recording/reproduction process than just (e.g.) the "designer of that reproducing loudspeaker(s)" ... 🙂
So not not narrowing any discussion to the topic at hand has little chance in gaining any knowledge in that field of "designing loudspeakers".
Furthermore a reproduction of any abstract "original soundfield" (if it was existent at all with regard to e.g. studio production of certain music genres) to detail IS NOT NECESSARY for most listeners to experience a "close to the real thing" reproduction, although that experience might not closely resemble all aspects of that "original soundfield":
Stereo and other multichannel approaches rely on an illusion and that particular illusion works astonishingly well for most of the listeners most of the time, if those approaches are "setup with care".
We often forget:
- the earbrain acts as a (very complex) mediator (governed by inherent principles, processing mechanisms, rules, experiences, ....) between the objective properties of any "homemade" (reproduced) soundfield and the perceived (musical) sound
- perception is not determined in all aspects by the objective physical properties of any soundfield
- many aspects of perception are based on abstraction, neglection, complementation, extraction, ... which predominantly take place on levels of perception that are hidden from the conscious mind of the perceiver: What we hear is NOT a (close) mental correlate of the (any) soundfield itself, but an abstract and actively constructed impression at the perceiver, which is just partly based on "what is physically going on".
It should be made clear, that those processes in human perception have to be understood to some extent at least, to make up "music reproduction systems" that are capable of delivering an "appropriate illusion".
Neglecting such aspects in a discussion about music reproduction in general or even about "loudspeaker's design" in particular, will IMO lead to nowhere but a random discussion, which especially in HiFi forums tend to enter the personal or "ad hominem" level after some time (posts) has (have) passed ...
So not not narrowing any discussion to the topic at hand has little chance in gaining any knowledge in that field of "designing loudspeakers".
Furthermore a reproduction of any abstract "original soundfield" (if it was existent at all with regard to e.g. studio production of certain music genres) to detail IS NOT NECESSARY for most listeners to experience a "close to the real thing" reproduction, although that experience might not closely resemble all aspects of that "original soundfield":
Stereo and other multichannel approaches rely on an illusion and that particular illusion works astonishingly well for most of the listeners most of the time, if those approaches are "setup with care".
We often forget:
- the earbrain acts as a (very complex) mediator (governed by inherent principles, processing mechanisms, rules, experiences, ....) between the objective properties of any "homemade" (reproduced) soundfield and the perceived (musical) sound
- perception is not determined in all aspects by the objective physical properties of any soundfield
- many aspects of perception are based on abstraction, neglection, complementation, extraction, ... which predominantly take place on levels of perception that are hidden from the conscious mind of the perceiver: What we hear is NOT a (close) mental correlate of the (any) soundfield itself, but an abstract and actively constructed impression at the perceiver, which is just partly based on "what is physically going on".
It should be made clear, that those processes in human perception have to be understood to some extent at least, to make up "music reproduction systems" that are capable of delivering an "appropriate illusion".
Neglecting such aspects in a discussion about music reproduction in general or even about "loudspeaker's design" in particular, will IMO lead to nowhere but a random discussion, which especially in HiFi forums tend to enter the personal or "ad hominem" level after some time (posts) has (have) passed ...
Last edited:
Dr. Floyd Toole at CIRMMT:
"Sound reproduction - art and acience/opinions and facts"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM
I recommend that lecture to anyone sticking with loudspeakers in some ways, being it in a "professional" or even in a "hobbyist" manner ...
Edit: I did not mention - up to now - that "what we hear" might also be largely affected e.g. by "what we see", if we don't do listening tests blind. The above lecture also gives astonishing insights into these effects.
"Sound reproduction - art and acience/opinions and facts"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM
I recommend that lecture to anyone sticking with loudspeakers in some ways, being it in a "professional" or even in a "hobbyist" manner ...
Edit: I did not mention - up to now - that "what we hear" might also be largely affected e.g. by "what we see", if we don't do listening tests blind. The above lecture also gives astonishing insights into these effects.
Last edited:
And just to add some fuel to the fire:
"The Great Audiophile Debate - John Atkinson vs Arny Krueger"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyaWMpnhusA
"Golden Ear Audiophiles - Can you really hear the difference?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtlTJkbUqkA
"The Great Audiophile Debate - John Atkinson vs Arny Krueger"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyaWMpnhusA
"Golden Ear Audiophiles - Can you really hear the difference?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtlTJkbUqkA
Last edited:
We won't know anything for sure until someone measures them. I'm really interested in CSD of that tweeter.
Woofer...??? FR measures like Satori MW16P, only a bit worse judging by the Troels measurements. When other measurements see the light of day, i think that they'll show that there might be much more suited midwoofers for that tweeter in the existing SS or SB lines. But we'll just have to wait and see...
Woofer...??? FR measures like Satori MW16P, only a bit worse judging by the Troels measurements. When other measurements see the light of day, i think that they'll show that there might be much more suited midwoofers for that tweeter in the existing SS or SB lines. But we'll just have to wait and see...
Last edited:
Dispersion is one thing that goes in favor for that tweeter. Guys who don't like wg/horns had to live with axisymetric dispersion or to get ribbons. These have flawour they want but (if distortion is low and no resonance ridges from 1.5KHz up) can have low xover point.
Last edited: