Hi speakerman, is that your tv? Why is the VHS and CRT? The mid-woofer choice is also as romantic. If it is yours, I think you are a "romantic" person. I just joined a seminar about leadership, about things why a bad leader can be responsible with the fall of a company. One thing is arrogance and the inability to change and ask questions. Many leaders don't want to learn and do not realize that the world is changing and that the younger are learning faster with the new technology.
My expertise is in IT. Old generations in IT learned very hard and it took them a lot of time to hone the knowledge and skill, but what is happening now, most of the knowledge get obsoleted quickly and the newer generations learn the newer technology very quickly. The only thing the newer generations don't know better than I do is in business processes. I know how the manufacturing software works, I know about accounting, I know about sales&marketing, but when it comes down to new technology, ewww... I'm scared....
Patents are public documents and their teachings are meant to be discussed. I don't think you have to worry about Bose's lawyers. I also suspect that the patent in question is already expired.
Jay the picture is 10 years old. The current designs use the same values in Zeta. I have the crossover plans from owners of some of their newer models as well.
I have built numerous incarnations of the cabinet models. These enclosures used Carboneau, Focal, Vifa and anyonymous drives from several defunct companies.over the years. I know various people who were involved with the company including the deceased owner
.
I live very close to where the company is located.
The new owners can't use this cabinet design in the pictures it is owned by one of the former owners who is on a hiatus from audio and engaged in stock car racing for now.
The former owner had litigated this..
They also can't use the last oem drivers so they are using others.
Stating the values on a public forum will cause problems.
The drivers are not Kef. They are oem design much different then the stock versions.. They can play about 6db louder then any of the old Kef and Dalesford . The midbass 88db and .5mh voice coil inductance.the sub 89 db. The tweeters are Hiquphon. The coil used on the midbass driver has the same inductance value as the voice coil. That is the whole key in their design. For the sub it's not.
Fried Products ~ Transmissions Line Speakers | Series Crossovers | Transient Dynamic Linearity
Fried on Series Networks - IMF electronics
I have built numerous incarnations of the cabinet models. These enclosures used Carboneau, Focal, Vifa and anyonymous drives from several defunct companies.over the years. I know various people who were involved with the company including the deceased owner
.
I live very close to where the company is located.
The new owners can't use this cabinet design in the pictures it is owned by one of the former owners who is on a hiatus from audio and engaged in stock car racing for now.
The former owner had litigated this..
They also can't use the last oem drivers so they are using others.
Stating the values on a public forum will cause problems.
The drivers are not Kef. They are oem design much different then the stock versions.. They can play about 6db louder then any of the old Kef and Dalesford . The midbass 88db and .5mh voice coil inductance.the sub 89 db. The tweeters are Hiquphon. The coil used on the midbass driver has the same inductance value as the voice coil. That is the whole key in their design. For the sub it's not.
Fried Products ~ Transmissions Line Speakers | Series Crossovers | Transient Dynamic Linearity
Fried on Series Networks - IMF electronics
I backward engineered this look at the voice coil Mh of some drivers. Voice coil Mh determines transient response. Reading many of the papers on constant voltage theory and looking at driver specs gave me the idea. I know this is what was done.
Using the driver Mh for the inductor value.
ScanSpeak Classic 18W/8545 7" Mid Woofer Paper Cone: Madisound Speaker Store
Eton 7-300/A8 Symphony, 7" Mid/Bass with Phase Plug: Madisound Speaker Store
Seas Prestige U18RNX/P (H1571) 7" Curv Cone Woofer: Madisound Speaker Store
Using the driver Mh for the inductor value.
ScanSpeak Classic 18W/8545 7" Mid Woofer Paper Cone: Madisound Speaker Store
Eton 7-300/A8 Symphony, 7" Mid/Bass with Phase Plug: Madisound Speaker Store
Seas Prestige U18RNX/P (H1571) 7" Curv Cone Woofer: Madisound Speaker Store
You say it like controlling the issues is in fact a worthless pursuit and one that cannot be done satisfactorily.
Not true, the odd peak in the response that needs a notch filter to flatten it out, the humps in distortion at integer multiples below a metal cones bell mode resonance that necessitates a steeper and lower xover etc. Things like those are issues that need handling and can increase crossover complexity but should be within the designers capability for solving them. If you've got drivers that present so much of an issue in the first place, that they cannot be solved, then you don't use them. Happily however there are so many good drivers out there that this doesn't have to be the case.
In a loudspeakers terms issues don't tend to arise from complexity. The biggest issues you ever see are designers trying to maintain the 'simpler is better' ethos and a botching the design by leaving obvious issues uncorrected.
Yes, but you made it sound like these 'losses' are losing critical musical information and hence will sound worse. This isn't the case, so a bit of extra series resistance in your crossover wont deteriorate the overall sound quality if the xover is properly designed to account for it.
The two have nothing to do with one another. You can have lots of energy loss but no net change in the phase response. The phase response is critical, but only to the point where the drivers are integrated properly and the designer has done a good job. The steepness of the filter and then the associate phase shift is pretty much inaudible. Someone a while back posted music clips that had been split digitally, filtered using 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th ordered filters etc and then recombined. In other words the music had been subjected to the standard phase shifts associated with standard crossovers, but you cannot hear it.
You are making things up now to suit your on purposes, you 'think' you can hear it and you 'think' making an amplifier lower THD introduces issues that make it sound worse. Yet as far as I am aware in every controlled test no one can tell one amplifier from the next. Do I think that I can hear it too? Oh yes, but I am sure that if put to the test I wouldn't be able to.
This is rubbish, if the engineer knows how to design then he knows all about the compromises too, he wouldn't be much of an engineer if he didn't.
You can say like that because you assumed that I don't know better than you do
Full rangers tend not to be okay without a filter but for some reason the full range crowd choose not to use them. Probably because the majority of them pick full range drivers because they are 'easy' to use so to speak and don't require any knowledge on how to design crossovers. Obviously this is a blanket statement and there will be lots of people who use full rangers who know what they are doing with a crossover, but the point still remains. Most full ranger drivers will absolutely require a filter to compensate for baffle step losses, but most people neglect to use one.
If you read my post you will see that I said a FAST implementation with a 1st order xover is a very good example of where a first order xover is appropriate.
Our job isn't to find 'it' even if it is few and far between. Our job is to take the drivers best suited to arriving at a specific goal and then use the filters necessary to make them sing together. If you think this is first order filters then so be it, you've got a heck of a job on your hands. I personally do not.
If a notch filter is required to flatten a peak in the frequency response then it is necessary by design and isn't open to negotiation. Leaving that peak in place adds inaccuracy into the loudspeakers reproduction and hence isn't something we want.
Personally I moved onto DSP for my main system a while ago where added complexity doesn't involve adding extra components. Here I use pretty complex filters but this is because the design necessitates and without the complexity the loudspeakers would sound worse.
When designing passive loudspeakers though I tend to pick drivers and crossover points that will reduce the chance that I will need to use things like notch filters. But when the situation arises where I need to use one, then one gets put into place. I also try my hardest to keep the crossovers simple but for one and one reason only, cost!
Yes and lots of them have horrible glaringly obvious issues.
Tweeter inductance used to determine capacitor value using 6db per octave. The Zeta value works but not in the manner most people think.
I was using Bose as an example. I don't think Bose is going to use the quality of drivers I use. I have used Bose drivers in series that cost about 4$ woofer 25 cent tweeter in series just to experiment with for am receiver listening. I am not going to play that through high end tweeters.
I was using Bose as an example. I don't think Bose is going to use the quality of drivers I use. I have used Bose drivers in series that cost about 4$ woofer 25 cent tweeter in series just to experiment with for am receiver listening. I am not going to play that through high end tweeters.
Last edited:
Hi,
This threads title is misleading. Though I'm prepared to "go at it"
with anyone capable of slinging a coherent technical argument
together, there is not much point dealing with someone who
seems to post exclusively about representing themselves.
This thread is pandering to nonsense, fair enough, ignore it.
rgds, sreten.
This threads title is misleading. Though I'm prepared to "go at it"
with anyone capable of slinging a coherent technical argument
together, there is not much point dealing with someone who
seems to post exclusively about representing themselves.
This thread is pandering to nonsense, fair enough, ignore it.
rgds, sreten.
I'm not sure I haven't missed the point either. Was it in the thread this one was split from?
I don't think that achieving a square wave in that location is actually a good thing.
Have you posted a link to your constant voltage theory or do you have a post describing it you can link to?
I don't think that achieving a square wave in that location is actually a good thing.
Have you posted a link to your constant voltage theory or do you have a post describing it you can link to?
Less components just means "issues" are shoved under the rug. If a perfect driver exist, sure. But it doesn't, and most of the time people just want to believe it does.
,,,That energy is lost by design. Just because it's lost, does not mean it was ever desired. Now of course you can always go active if this really bothers you, but I suspect it's the "idea" that bothers you, not the sound consequence.
And these are audible on real music content, in real life rooms? They are more audible than power compression, beaming treble(often to the point of high levels of destructive interference), soft material breakup, FMD, and uneven power response???
Do you measure an amplifier's quality by the number of components in its output stage?
The vice versa is true. You can make more simple circuits to acheive imaginary "better sound" but does it sound better? That doesn't mean THD is the determinant of amp sound, all it means is you have to figure out what correlates to better sound, and what doesn't contribute at all.
Of course there's no point in using more parts if they don't improve performance. But if there's serious compromises just to use less parts, that's a silly approach.
What if that good driver is only "just" good, but not great? What if a better driver needs a more complex filter? Are you afraid the filter is going to introduce some imaginary consequences, even though your ears tell you the driver with the more complex filter sounds better?
Are we looking to make acceptable speakers, or all-around great speakers? Beyond that, a first order filter will just about always create off axis issues, except in the bass. So even if the sound is perfect, what's the point if you need your head in a vice to hear it?
Maybe to you, but I'm sure that's guided by some degree of bias rather than extensive side-by-side listening to real audio content.
Last edited:
**Agree. Are you assuming that I am one of those people?
**Agree. But no, no "idea" is bothering me. I'm fine with simple or complex crossover. I was just trying to say that if you can go with 2nd order, no need to go with 8th order. As simple as that.
**No. Do you?
**Agree.
**Agree.
**If the driver needs more complex filter, go with complex filter. I know that the more complex the design, the more precise it (components value, etc) should be. I trust my ear. If to my ears it sounds better, I don't care even if it is 8th order. The point of my posts is: I don't want to miss a good 2nd order, or a good 3rd order, or a notch-filterless, or an integrated (with LPF) BSC circuit, and go with 8th order slope, 2 notch filters, 2 zobels, 1 L-PAD, dedicated BSC circuit, just because it was the "easiest theoretical" way to solve issues that were not really there.
***I have owned a Lowther. No such peaky fullrange is acceptable to my taste. Go figure, my standard of being not-too-simple is probably much higher than yours (due to my ears sensitivity to peaks and fatigue).
***I was talking about my existing design. My only one using first order filter. Which is acceptable only because it blends very well with the tweeter (this kind of filter has never been achievable with any other driver combo that I know). Actually I mentioned that the simple filter gave a bit of harm to the sound.
I agree this kind of design philosophy is less than optimal, to put it
mildly and it's understandable why these folks are pushing in that
direction.
I believe they did the research and found the most of their buyers
would not realize the difference between a superior design and a
less one. With all the costs of current fad parts, there really is no
need to waste money.
All the claims about series X-overs being superior to parallel ones
is nothing but pure marketing. Great results can be achived with either
type.
I'm an engineer. A programmer (used to be). I love precision. The word "simple/simpler" is subjective/relative. Something that is considered very simple by A may be considered very complex by B.
And people also like to make assumptions.
Why not become more precise. Put a schematic into the table and discuss if you think the design is unnecessarily (or stupidly) too simple.
Only like that you will learn about compromises.
Many good designers would agree that many commercial speakers are not well designed. Almost all of them use parallel crossover.
Now build a series one. Because an important characteristics of series crossover is the electrically matching drivers, you will easily achieve a speaker where woofer and tweeter blend nicely. You will hear a typical sound of wide soundstage, a feeling of "being there". This is indeed impressive. Many listeners, especially the inexperienced ones (who never heard such thing) will be immediately impressed.
But in audio world first impression means nothing, and statistics does not lie (in general). Certain audio products become legend for a reason which is not luck. And a fact that series crossover is not widely used is also for a reason.
Design your own series speaker and enter a loudspeaker competition. If you lose in the competition you may say that there are experts joining the competition. Well, then ask those experts why they don't use series crossover.
Dear All,
I did not take the time to read l of this thread, that contains the usual hoghwash about differences between series and parallel filter.
Series filters fans: I have some unpleasant news for you: In case the so called transfer function of a series filter plus drivers (acoustic output that is) combination is identical to a parallel filter+ same drivers combination, both systems will sound the same. Full stop. Period.
Same for active vs passives.
But, the devil is in detail: it is quite a job to implement all that, even with Calsod, Leap Soundeasy and LspCAD. If you do not have acces to such software and are not able to measure, do no even dare to draw any conclusions from listening to your home grown contraptions.
RANTI tried this experimental series filter and all in a sudden the sound stage became three dimensional with pinpoint imaging of al the musicians, and so forth bla bla bla, and no, of course I never measure my speakers and/or filters, but what is hear is right coz brand X als uses series filters)
Kind Regards,
Eelco
I did not take the time to read l of this thread, that contains the usual hoghwash about differences between series and parallel filter.
Series filters fans: I have some unpleasant news for you: In case the so called transfer function of a series filter plus drivers (acoustic output that is) combination is identical to a parallel filter+ same drivers combination, both systems will sound the same. Full stop. Period.
Same for active vs passives.
But, the devil is in detail: it is quite a job to implement all that, even with Calsod, Leap Soundeasy and LspCAD. If you do not have acces to such software and are not able to measure, do no even dare to draw any conclusions from listening to your home grown contraptions.
RANT
I tried this experimental series filter and all in a sudden the sound stage became three dimensional with pinpoint imaging of al the musicians, and so forth bla bla bla, and no, of course I never measure my speakers and/or filters, but what is hear is right coz brand X als uses series filters)Kind Regards,
Eelco
An old apples-apples comparison. Just because it is series doesn't mean its simple. (Click Impatient to bring up the web page.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20011202004918/http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/PSC-1.html
But it can be,
http://web.archive.org/web/20020211014823/http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/ar1.html
And it might help to remember that power is only dissipated in resistive components.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011202004918/http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/PSC-1.html
But it can be,
http://web.archive.org/web/20020211014823/http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/ar1.html
And it might help to remember that power is only dissipated in resistive components.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.