With my very basic knowledge of speaker design, enough to fill a thimble I'm hoping to increase my terminology at least enough to describe speakers eloquently... After that some questions to expand my understanding of characteristics...
If you have a speaker that's detailed, crisp and accurate, could the opposite of that be considered buttery, smooth ?
If that's reasonably close, Im going to go out on a limb and pose a hypothesis that is looking for affirmation...
A speaker that is crisp, accurate and detailed has a better chance of being altered to sound more smooth or buttery.
Conversely, a speaker that is already smooth and buttery may take much more work to become crisp.
In my mind (What a troubled place it is!) I imagine a crisp sounding speaker as one that can accurately reproduce any instrument thrown its way. That its cone has the ability to move when and where it needs to, reactive and with purpose. Now, I imagine the smoother speaker as one that more or less averages the signals sent to it at some level so that it might not hit every frequency tossed its way, but can reproduce a reasonably close average of them....
Transformation from one to another, from crisp to smooth is what interests me... How does an experienced speaker builder remove some of the resolution and design in a little more mellow ?
If you have a speaker that's detailed, crisp and accurate, could the opposite of that be considered buttery, smooth ?
If that's reasonably close, Im going to go out on a limb and pose a hypothesis that is looking for affirmation...
A speaker that is crisp, accurate and detailed has a better chance of being altered to sound more smooth or buttery.
Conversely, a speaker that is already smooth and buttery may take much more work to become crisp.
In my mind (What a troubled place it is!) I imagine a crisp sounding speaker as one that can accurately reproduce any instrument thrown its way. That its cone has the ability to move when and where it needs to, reactive and with purpose. Now, I imagine the smoother speaker as one that more or less averages the signals sent to it at some level so that it might not hit every frequency tossed its way, but can reproduce a reasonably close average of them....
Transformation from one to another, from crisp to smooth is what interests me... How does an experienced speaker builder remove some of the resolution and design in a little more mellow ?
Maybe "laid back"?
I can't design speakers but have built several pairs of DIYs by a range of designers.
To compare two, I'd describe Paul Carmody's Classix II (Dayton DC160, VIFA BC25TG) as slightly 'laid back' and Curt Campbell's "Slapshots" (Dayton RS180P, Morel CAT378) as 'detailed'. Both sound great, in different ways.
These are designed by people who really know their stuff and 'voice' their designs to get the most from the drivers and get the sound they want.
I daresay the designers could , if they wanted, change crossover parts to change the sound, but having designed such great sounding speakers, why bother?
It would be an expensive exercise but you could build two pairs of speakers, use the same drivers, but different crossovers, and try to understand how and why they sound different?
Paul did that in his first version of the Classix: "Hi Fi" and "Relaxed" versions:
Classix - undefinition
HTH
Geoff
I can't design speakers but have built several pairs of DIYs by a range of designers.
To compare two, I'd describe Paul Carmody's Classix II (Dayton DC160, VIFA BC25TG) as slightly 'laid back' and Curt Campbell's "Slapshots" (Dayton RS180P, Morel CAT378) as 'detailed'. Both sound great, in different ways.
These are designed by people who really know their stuff and 'voice' their designs to get the most from the drivers and get the sound they want.
I daresay the designers could , if they wanted, change crossover parts to change the sound, but having designed such great sounding speakers, why bother?
It would be an expensive exercise but you could build two pairs of speakers, use the same drivers, but different crossovers, and try to understand how and why they sound different?
Paul did that in his first version of the Classix: "Hi Fi" and "Relaxed" versions:
Classix - undefinition
HTH
Geoff
Would something like H2 generator be worth experimenting ? Probably One can have both crisp and smooth sound at the flick of the switch.
Regards.
Regards.
It might be something as simple as tonal balance / level matching between midbass and tweeter.
(Instruments often have a range that goes from the midbass driver right through to the top end of the tweeter. Having the tweeter too quiet makes everything sound lacking in detail/sparkle etc) Drums lose their 'snap' for example.
Easy to test if you have a DSP style xo.
Rob.
(Instruments often have a range that goes from the midbass driver right through to the top end of the tweeter. Having the tweeter too quiet makes everything sound lacking in detail/sparkle etc) Drums lose their 'snap' for example.
Easy to test if you have a DSP style xo.
Rob.
Research "Transient Response" that would probably cover it. Anything else is subjective preference.
I'd suggest that if you could use any of these 'special' words to describe it, then it probably isn't accurate.
These two images might help a little on the tone and hearing sensitivity side of things. As already said read up on transient response particularly related to magnet strength and cone weight (vs. Bass extension) and also amplifier damping factor. The speaker and amp need to be considered as a system (plus the preamp and source) and then add in room effects that can highlight or muffle certain frequencies depending on size/measure the and furnishing (read up on room treatment).
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
These are not the things that relate to transient response. Magnet strength and cone weight do not directly affect frequency response.
It may be time to define what transient response means. There is more than one usage (one less formal) with regard to speakers, and does it relate to the original question?
I think a day later, in reflection, I should have started with,
"How does an experienced speaker builder remove some of the resolution and design in a little more mellow ?"
I think to even consider that question, I need a better understanding what a detailed, crisp, speakers properties are and conversely what buttery, smooth, speakers properties are.
Thinking out loud... Hypothetically, if a cones job was to only reproduce a very narrow frequency range, and again, with a hypothetically perfect crossover, many speakers managed the entire range of frequency's for that cabinet, it could be fair to assume its reproduction might be crisp as compared to a speaker with one single driver. The one driver might be asked to have its cone in two places (or ten) at once so is forced to act more on the signal's with the highest energy.
If the single to multi analogy above holds true...
What could an experienced speaker builder do to go from crisp to smooth.. Could it be in the crossover, cabinet, both or something else ? Most importantly, I wonder, WHAT things could be done ?
"How does an experienced speaker builder remove some of the resolution and design in a little more mellow ?"
I think to even consider that question, I need a better understanding what a detailed, crisp, speakers properties are and conversely what buttery, smooth, speakers properties are.
Thinking out loud... Hypothetically, if a cones job was to only reproduce a very narrow frequency range, and again, with a hypothetically perfect crossover, many speakers managed the entire range of frequency's for that cabinet, it could be fair to assume its reproduction might be crisp as compared to a speaker with one single driver. The one driver might be asked to have its cone in two places (or ten) at once so is forced to act more on the signal's with the highest energy.
If the single to multi analogy above holds true...
What could an experienced speaker builder do to go from crisp to smooth.. Could it be in the crossover, cabinet, both or something else ? Most importantly, I wonder, WHAT things could be done ?
The problem is that 'detail', 'crisp' and 'buttery smooth' have no technical meaning. They are entirely subjective terms that
a/ vary between people who use them (i.e. different people mean different things), and
b/ There is no single cause for any such characteristics unless a very specific definition is applied. Rather, there can be a multitude of causes. Wildly inferring (so I may have interpreted your intention incorrectly -I rest my case about subjective terminology) it may be, for example, caused by a very low distortion system with a flat or B&K type EQ curve. Or it might be a narrowing power response with frequency. Or perhaps a heavy BBC midband EQ. Or possibly elevated levels of HD2 through a given bandwidth that you key into, likely somewhere in the octaves 500Hz - 2KHz. Or a combination of any or none of these, with other factors.
a/ vary between people who use them (i.e. different people mean different things), and
b/ There is no single cause for any such characteristics unless a very specific definition is applied. Rather, there can be a multitude of causes. Wildly inferring (so I may have interpreted your intention incorrectly -I rest my case about subjective terminology) it may be, for example, caused by a very low distortion system with a flat or B&K type EQ curve. Or it might be a narrowing power response with frequency. Or perhaps a heavy BBC midband EQ. Or possibly elevated levels of HD2 through a given bandwidth that you key into, likely somewhere in the octaves 500Hz - 2KHz. Or a combination of any or none of these, with other factors.
Sound Reproduction, Floyd Toole
and...
You can identify most of your loudspeaker performance quality in measurements. If you want a speaker to sound "crisp" you can generally take measurements and people with experience can tell you how to make your speakers do what you want. They'll call it something other than "crisp" but they'll know what you're talking about if they see the measurements.
There's also the indisputable fact that if you make speakers prettier they sound crisper.
and...
You can identify most of your loudspeaker performance quality in measurements. If you want a speaker to sound "crisp" you can generally take measurements and people with experience can tell you how to make your speakers do what you want. They'll call it something other than "crisp" but they'll know what you're talking about if they see the measurements.
There's also the indisputable fact that if you make speakers prettier they sound crisper.
Understood, and thank you for that response. May be I need to dig in deeper, than pose the question in way that is agreeable 😀
Let me try this first, if you were to describe two different speaker pairs (Call it Manufacturer 1 and Manufacturer 2) to someone and you used the words to describe them both as detailed and crisp what measurements might be similar between them both?
Thank you for that response. I will look into them, hopefully there a high level explanation for the differences between those crossovers. I also already imagine that some of this may be specific to those drivers and cabinet...
I know the very basics but not enough to grasp it all..
Paul explains his design goals well, and if you look at the XO circuit diagrams, it makes sense. For example, the larger 1.2mH inductor in the 'relaxed' version provides more baffle step compensation, i.e. more bass, than the 'Hi Fi 1.0mH inductor in the 'hi fi' version.
As I understand it - which isn't much - these ideas aren't unique to those drivers and cabinets. Designers could and would do that sort of thing - swapping XO components to change the sound and 'voice' the speakers - with projects. They would listen, swap, listen, compare etc etc for many hours until they got the sound they wanted.
Geoff
As I understand it - which isn't much - these ideas aren't unique to those drivers and cabinets. Designers could and would do that sort of thing - swapping XO components to change the sound and 'voice' the speakers - with projects. They would listen, swap, listen, compare etc etc for many hours until they got the sound they wanted.
Geoff
Sorry, there are a few typos in my post. I should also have added that designers would get the sound they wanted from those drivers, that is, because different drivers sound different. For example, a Dayton DC160 is unlikely to be able to be coaxed to sound like a Dayton RS180 or vice versa, for all sorts of reasons.
Geoff
Geoff
ScottG
You wrote, Motor-run Oil cap's in the tweeter's crossover..
For the life of me I have been trying to decipher this lol.....
Is it a toung in cheek or are you actually suggesting that Oil caps in the
tweeters crossover might mellow out the sound ?
I understand caps impart tonal qualities, and in my circumstance I followed Joe's instructions as closely as I was able to. I used Jantzen Superior Z-Cap's..
Would you have a suggestion on which ones to try ?????? 😀
You wrote, Motor-run Oil cap's in the tweeter's crossover..
For the life of me I have been trying to decipher this lol.....
Is it a toung in cheek or are you actually suggesting that Oil caps in the
tweeters crossover might mellow out the sound ?
I understand caps impart tonal qualities, and in my circumstance I followed Joe's instructions as closely as I was able to. I used Jantzen Superior Z-Cap's..
Would you have a suggestion on which ones to try ?????? 😀
Here's the interactive version that's much more helpful: Interactive Frequency Chart from Independent Recording Network
GM
-yes, large oil caps in the signal path tend to smooth-out the character of a harsh tweeter.
They can also do something similar in an amplifier's signal path (like a DC block for a signal transformer), and even when replacing an amplifier's power supply cap's (..assuming it uses small electrolytic cap.s).
Elsinore's:
I recommended the True Copper Max (from Audyne), though I'm not sure that would smooth things out enough for you. (..they tend to favor transparency and spacial recovery over "smooth", basically a better Superior Z.)
I can understand why you would want to lower the "crisp" behavior of the Peerless/Scan-Speak though.. To my hearing it's both a bit too crisp/articulate while also being a bit over-damped (..not allowing long decay's).
Ideally he would have chosen a different tweeter (..despite it's stellar objective performance). ..and unfortunately, I don't know of a drop-in replacement that would do the job properly.
(..the "sound" you are looking for is epitomized by the Dynaudio/Morel tweeters (soft membrane vs rigid impregnated cloth) which are a bit larger in diameter than the tweeter that Joe uses - and won't fit in the waveguide.)
-also, consider looking at the amplification that Joe uses: that might give you a better path to move forward than trying to alter the Elsinore's..
They can also do something similar in an amplifier's signal path (like a DC block for a signal transformer), and even when replacing an amplifier's power supply cap's (..assuming it uses small electrolytic cap.s).
Elsinore's:
I recommended the True Copper Max (from Audyne), though I'm not sure that would smooth things out enough for you. (..they tend to favor transparency and spacial recovery over "smooth", basically a better Superior Z.)
I can understand why you would want to lower the "crisp" behavior of the Peerless/Scan-Speak though.. To my hearing it's both a bit too crisp/articulate while also being a bit over-damped (..not allowing long decay's).
Ideally he would have chosen a different tweeter (..despite it's stellar objective performance). ..and unfortunately, I don't know of a drop-in replacement that would do the job properly.
(..the "sound" you are looking for is epitomized by the Dynaudio/Morel tweeters (soft membrane vs rigid impregnated cloth) which are a bit larger in diameter than the tweeter that Joe uses - and won't fit in the waveguide.)
-also, consider looking at the amplification that Joe uses: that might give you a better path to move forward than trying to alter the Elsinore's..
Last edited:
Tone down sibilance for starters, hover your cursor over the active chart I posted and a dialog will pop up in the upper R.H. corner, which also corrects your opposite of 'crisp'. 😉 But that's not enough for what you want, so hovering over the others you basically want to tone down [shelve] the entire 2-20 kHz BW, hence ScottG's seeming cryptic response of using a PIO cap [my fave], though for recordings with any useful top end 'air' and have the hearing, recommend a bypass cap for up high or just EQ boost it.
Not fair to assume at all since a single driver can have a mid, HF speaker coupled with acoustical/mechanical XOs that minimize distortion, maintain phase much better than all but a few [complex XOs] multi-ways, though DSP renders this moot nowadays; and when it comes to 'crisp', most 'FR' drivers are so crisp they must be listened [way] off axis to tone them down if not tweaked or passive/active frequency shaping.
Obviously, to compete ~'full range' it must be big [the pioneers chose 15" as the practical limit] to handle the bass plus in general needs a larger cab to boost the lowest 1-1.5 octaves and up against a well done 2/3 way won't have quite as much clarity from top to bottom and that's where true co/tri-ax point source drivers come into play to ~level the playing field.
Regardless, if your Elsinores perform like it measures here, then if not hard against the wall it needs some baffle step compensation [BSC] to tonally balance it out, i.e. speaker design is about maintaining PRaT [ pace, rhythm and timing] from one end to the other:
Elsinore Speakers DIY
BSC: General Speaker Related Articles
GM