AllenB has has done a sim of the measurements in his last post. Do you wnat to PM copy and paste it. If you read the previous posts and didn't see the graphs? I don't know.
Doing A and B comparisons it sounds more real. Perhaps you should build one and listen. But you would also have to use it the t-line enclosures you dont have the plans for ha,ha.
The graphs clearly shows that series is better and it should be audible. But isn't this comparing 2 different designs where one is series and the other is parallel?
I don't understand yet about your project (I read quickly all the threads but not the external links), but I have a feeling it is something very feasible. I will read again from the beginning of the thread...
Jay I m not confrontational but a message to other forum users, you need to be respectfull to each other.
One word of advice. The technology is legally owned if any one has any thoughts of profiting by it
There is case law. Do any attorneys want to comment. If so I want your attorney I.D. no.etc.
I have revealled who I am by my posts and links.
Are any of you willing to do the same.
One word of advice. The technology is legally owned if any one has any thoughts of profiting by it
There is case law. Do any attorneys want to comment. If so I want your attorney I.D. no.etc.
I have revealled who I am by my posts and links.
Are any of you willing to do the same.
What technology is legally owned by who? THey'd have to have a patent, which is public... what is the patent #.
dave
There is case law. One by Bose on cabinet design loading. . The speaker company that developed the technology has the right of royalties by case law over their design.
If someone like myself figured out the technology to bad. They own it. Not much different then another company using a different formula to final result the same chemical formula.
There are copyright laws which protects designs, not just patent laws.
Case law is very complicated and expensive to defend. The newest owners of the company has made posts on AUDIO ASYLUM they wiil engage litigation on any infringements over the years in the discussion of this brand of speakers.
.
To copy and paste WESTLAW case low involves paying them for their search services . Case law is legal precident.
Only a very small percentage of case law on the internet. Only higher court rulings. In my state commonwealth court, superior court. state supreme court. rulings on their archived sites. How many forum users have the verdicts of civil litigation that has occurred in the municipal courts where they live? Answer none unless they were in one of the cases being the PERTITIONER or RESPONDER ha ,ha.
If someone like myself figured out the technology to bad. They own it. Not much different then another company using a different formula to final result the same chemical formula.
There are copyright laws which protects designs, not just patent laws.
Case law is very complicated and expensive to defend. The newest owners of the company has made posts on AUDIO ASYLUM they wiil engage litigation on any infringements over the years in the discussion of this brand of speakers.
.
To copy and paste WESTLAW case low involves paying them for their search services . Case law is legal precident.
Only a very small percentage of case law on the internet. Only higher court rulings. In my state commonwealth court, superior court. state supreme court. rulings on their archived sites. How many forum users have the verdicts of civil litigation that has occurred in the municipal courts where they live? Answer none unless they were in one of the cases being the PERTITIONER or RESPONDER ha ,ha.
Only as long as their patent lasts. And if a patent, it is public.
I don't see how that could be. Perfectly legal to reverse engineer something.
Copyright protects a book, an article, a drawing, piece of art, computer code, but it does not protect a design.
dave
It's ironic speakerman, but I was considering some of the things Fried had used in defence of series networks in a couple of places here.
I'm not sure what you were referring to here, why did you mention it?
There was enough difference in the frequency response to be audible even before you go trying each of the circuits in turn. Yes, I agree.Jay said:
@ Sreten,
I usually agree with your point of view.
But in post 108 I cannot follow your reasoning.
Could you please explain how 2 identical midwoof/tweeter combo's in identical cabinets having the exactly same acoustic LP and HP outputs, and therefore having an identical summed acoustical (SPL) response, could sound differently?
Mind you, I am specifically talking about real life speaker+filter outputs? Actually what I am talking about is real 1 on 1 cloning.
Looking forward to your explanation
Kind Regards,
Eelco
I usually agree with your point of view.
But in post 108 I cannot follow your reasoning.
Could you please explain how 2 identical midwoof/tweeter combo's in identical cabinets having the exactly same acoustic LP and HP outputs, and therefore having an identical summed acoustical (SPL) response, could sound differently?
Mind you, I am specifically talking about real life speaker+filter outputs? Actually what I am talking about is real 1 on 1 cloning.
Looking forward to your explanation
Kind Regards,
Eelco
The AR-SXO design has been implemented by some folks in another series xo tread here. Check out post #85.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/27969-series-crossover-2.html#post2711135
I found with carefully chosen drivers, a simple crossover yields very musical, non-fatiguing speakers.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/27969-series-crossover-2.html#post2711135
I found with carefully chosen drivers, a simple crossover yields very musical, non-fatiguing speakers.
Planet10 challenging a corporation will only get the lawyers rich . There is one seires circuit design using just one L1, C1 and R1.
Speakerdoctor is very wise.
Speakerdoctor is very wise.
I'm very familiar with ARSXO and series crossover in general. I think it is already clear to everyone regarding the strength of a series crossover. No one can object that. But I feel uncomfortable because nobody seems to be able to technically describe it's weaknesses compared to parallel crossover.
The biggest challenge with parallel crossover is to blend the drivers, where with series crossover it is almost given. Then what is the biggest challenge with series crossover?? I don't know, not sure, I just can not make a series version as good as a parallel one soundwise.
I know that this is very subtle for most people. If you know that Krell KSA50 can never sound good enough, then may be you know what I feel regarding the series crossover. Less sonic, boring. Almost always musical, but a well executed parallel one is always more musical.
I think you missed Dave's point entirely- patents have limited terms. They are public documents. They may be freely discussed and experimented with- that's the law. So be explicit about what you're trying to say, or people will assume that you don't have anything. The "patent" thing is a boogeyman.
I don't think that in passive crossover there is something that can be patented. You cannot hide a circuit, but you can hide your understanding about the circuit. If there is invention in this area and it will be commercialized, better is to custom order new drivers and implement the "invention" with the drivers. This way everyone can see the circuit but can hardly see the "secret".
It wouldn't matter if it was. The whole PURPOSE of patents is to allow free discussion and experimentation in exchange for a period of exclusivity in the market.
I have stated technical terms and been bashed by other forum users lack of understanding. I wonder what AllenB's EXPERT observations are in the sub crossover.
I appreciate the amount of time you put into this. A good teacher like you is always willing to learn.
The use of seires circuits was first used around 1983 by the company. I made the switch in early 90's.
Doppler effect is the reason they sound different. The closet way to get full range driver sound with a crossover.
.
Using woofers with underhung voice coils in 1/4 W t-lines also make a difference.
I appreciate the amount of time you put into this. A good teacher like you is always willing to learn.
The use of seires circuits was first used around 1983 by the company. I made the switch in early 90's.
Doppler effect is the reason they sound different. The closet way to get full range driver sound with a crossover.
.
Using woofers with underhung voice coils in 1/4 W t-lines also make a difference.
I mean it is just a passive filter consisting of very limited common components. We have seen battery on the crossover for sure. But if you have 6SN7 in the crossover, that surely can be patented 😀
Hi,
I'm saying for many real midbass + tweeter cominations you can't make a
1st order series x/o and a 1st order parallel x/o that will measure the same, so they cannot sound the same. How different they sound will be due to
the nature of how the two types interact with the drivers impedance profiles.
You can make them the same by zobelling and impedance compensation,
but what is the point of actually doing that ? the point of 1st order series
or 1st order parallel is to exploit the simple topology and low parts count.
rgds, sreten.
Hi,
The biggest challenge with a series x/o is its inflexibility regarding the x/o point.
If your building a simple 2 way with a first order electrical
x/o you actually don't implement a 1st order acoustic x/o.
You nearly always use parallel and :
The bass inductor is sized for baffle step compensation. Your looking
for a nice in box response with this fitted otherwise you can't use
1st order anyway. You want a smooth rolloff at the top end.
The tweeter must also be carefully chosen, a well damped (ferrofluid)
Fs eases matters, and due to excursion issues it needs to be quite
restricted its low end frequency response, with a high Fs and / or
overdamped Fs. Fitted with a capacitor acoustically it will have
some form of 3rd order high pass response.
You would obviously L-pad the tweeter to a suitable level if needed.
If your lucky and it all falls into place you can get the two drivers
roll-offs to match reasonably well at a reasonable x/o point. What
you get isn't a first order acoustic x/o, its only 1st order electrical.
The values of L and C are usually not related to the actual x/o point,
in any meaningful textbook way. Using the two values for a series
arrangement would be an unmitigated disaster area, very wrong.
That is what limits the use of 1st order series, you can't offset
the "-3dB" electrical points by lots like you can with parallel.
IMO 1st order series is the only series arrangement you can take
seriously, and can work well, with advantages for 3 scenarios :
1) A FAST arrangement with BSC done by differences in the driver
sensitivities, and text book values can work well as both drivers
will be fairly near their resistive regions at the x/o point.
1st order series will give different results to 1st order parallel.
2) Mid unit to treble x/o. Here there are no BSC issues and
1st order series will give different results to 1st order parallel.
Which is preferable depends on the drivers, as does the
suitability of going for 1st order electrical in the first place.
3) Lash ups. Generally cheap stuff with "textbook" component
values, ignoring BSC, driver inductance etc. Very generally
speaking 1st order series should work better than parallel.
A series 2nd order electrical x/o (for whatever acoustic x/o
function you are after) is just a pointless headache compared
to parallel and generally you must zobel the drivers, unlike
2nd order electrical parallel, where generally you don't zobel.
Its a quirk and an option that may or may not work better
than parallel for simple x/o's, but its not used that much
because its simply generally not that useful.
As an option its valid part of your toolbox, but only an
option, its no panacae, and is not "better" than parallel.
rgds, sreten.
You seem bent on finding some minutaed fault with series XO's because you don't think they are as good as parallel. Well, that's a subjective opinion that you are certainly entitled to have. Others here feel otherwise and as such, no one is going to be able to provide a convincing, subjective, argument one way or the other. It's like audiophile speaker builders arguing over whether Mundorf or Duelund caps 'sound' the best.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.