methinks you might starve! 😀
My main point is that many people here have a very good understanding of how things work, and if you want to go against the established concepts, you MUST be prepared to prove your point instead of just saying you are "right" and know more than guys who in reality have WAY more experience and knowledge.
My main point is that many people here have a very good understanding of how things work, and if you want to go against the established concepts, you MUST be prepared to prove your point instead of just saying you are "right" and know more than guys who in reality have WAY more experience and knowledge.
Andy Graddon said:
if they're so smart they can figure out what i'm telling them without any sims.
if not, then they aren't worthy of my ideas 🙂
It was a rather arrogant remark, intentional or no.
At the risk of seeming like an 'older person' (I'm 29 BTW) I beg to differ WRT to the notion that the Compression Chamber of an FLH doesn't do anything positive.
If you tune the volume of the compression chamber to either the same frequency as the front-horn, or, as Leach advises, to a slightly higher frequency on certain exponential types (he found it works best on the hyperbolic family), then you cancel out, as near as possible, throat reactance. So reactance annulling is hardly 'nothing positive.' Even if you don't hear the radiation from one side of the cone directly, it's doing something useful.
Given that you directly attacked Tom Danley WRT his tapped horn (a double tapped horn actually -if you position a drive-unit anywhere other than the throat then it's tapped) & which has certain origins in an old Jensen idea (the transflex), I'm not surprised people mentioned it. You did in the first place. Anyway, it's not simply marketing hype or anything else; it works, as many people who have built them have found out. What's there not to understand? The physics is perfectly plain. Akabak can model it, Hornresp can model it. MathCAD could, if Martin was interested in working up a sheet for them.
WRT your own notion, if you present an idea, as has already been noted, you might find it useful to provide additional information, simulations, and data, rather than simply stating 'I am right' & implying that many other people, including one of the top horn designers on the planet, are idiots & not worth bothering with. Oh yeah? Well I'm sorry we're not all at your exhalted level Mr Audio God. But on current evidence, you sound awfully like a bloke who thinks 'I've got an idea. Now I'll try to get some other mug to do all the work to check to see if it works or not, rather than bother to do it myself.' You will find people here like new ideas, but they don't appreciate being patronised, or used.
At the risk of seeming like an 'older person' (I'm 29 BTW) I beg to differ WRT to the notion that the Compression Chamber of an FLH doesn't do anything positive.
If you tune the volume of the compression chamber to either the same frequency as the front-horn, or, as Leach advises, to a slightly higher frequency on certain exponential types (he found it works best on the hyperbolic family), then you cancel out, as near as possible, throat reactance. So reactance annulling is hardly 'nothing positive.' Even if you don't hear the radiation from one side of the cone directly, it's doing something useful.
Given that you directly attacked Tom Danley WRT his tapped horn (a double tapped horn actually -if you position a drive-unit anywhere other than the throat then it's tapped) & which has certain origins in an old Jensen idea (the transflex), I'm not surprised people mentioned it. You did in the first place. Anyway, it's not simply marketing hype or anything else; it works, as many people who have built them have found out. What's there not to understand? The physics is perfectly plain. Akabak can model it, Hornresp can model it. MathCAD could, if Martin was interested in working up a sheet for them.
WRT your own notion, if you present an idea, as has already been noted, you might find it useful to provide additional information, simulations, and data, rather than simply stating 'I am right' & implying that many other people, including one of the top horn designers on the planet, are idiots & not worth bothering with. Oh yeah? Well I'm sorry we're not all at your exhalted level Mr Audio God. But on current evidence, you sound awfully like a bloke who thinks 'I've got an idea. Now I'll try to get some other mug to do all the work to check to see if it works or not, rather than bother to do it myself.' You will find people here like new ideas, but they don't appreciate being patronised, or used.
Tom Danley, marketing hype? I doubt it. He is a great engineer/designer and his subs have been tested independently on the Pro Sound boards and come within spec. Tom is also very helpful in sharing information with DIYers both here and on other fora.vasyachkin said:
There is a long TH thread here, and the one's built so far seem to meet spec as per the sims. I'm about to build a pair ATM using the LAB12 design until I get a bigger room and can use the 3015LF version.
Vasy, while in durance vile, may I suggest a journey? On your same coast is a Russian born horn fanatic of infamous popularity.
Romy is just plain nuts about good horns and has spared no effort and very little expense in obtaining the best he can engineer, abduct, or imprison, in his search for "tone".
See here for a web site http://www.goodsoundclub.com/ know his alias is "Romy the Cat".
Bud
Romy is just plain nuts about good horns and has spared no effort and very little expense in obtaining the best he can engineer, abduct, or imprison, in his search for "tone".
See here for a web site http://www.goodsoundclub.com/ know his alias is "Romy the Cat".
Bud
Brett,
Nope, I have not seen fit to travel across the country, just to be harassed and gently insulted, by a very good friend.
Clark Johnson has and says it is way too highly defined, and meticulously revealing for his taste. Of course, Clark is a musicologist and is satisfied with his kitchen table radio. Another mutual friend also says that the sound is intolerably detailed and overwhelmingly powerful. Romy's benchmark is the BSO, live in concert.
Just as an indication, he uses only amorphous core transformers in the upper five channels of his new 6 channel amps. I am pretty certain he will go amorphous core for the bass channel too. Each of those amp channels drives a seperate horn, or ribbon tweeter or stack of sealed box, 10 inch woofers, for one channel.
I might not like the quality of sound either, but who knows without hearing it.
Bud
Nope, I have not seen fit to travel across the country, just to be harassed and gently insulted, by a very good friend.
Clark Johnson has and says it is way too highly defined, and meticulously revealing for his taste. Of course, Clark is a musicologist and is satisfied with his kitchen table radio. Another mutual friend also says that the sound is intolerably detailed and overwhelmingly powerful. Romy's benchmark is the BSO, live in concert.
Just as an indication, he uses only amorphous core transformers in the upper five channels of his new 6 channel amps. I am pretty certain he will go amorphous core for the bass channel too. Each of those amp channels drives a seperate horn, or ribbon tweeter or stack of sealed box, 10 inch woofers, for one channel.
I might not like the quality of sound either, but who knows without hearing it.
Bud
Thanks. I was just curious after reading about it before and wondered if someone else had heard it.BudP said:
I'm a big horn fan (used to have a fullrange 5 way frontloaded system) and would like another when I get back to my home in about 5 years.
Brett said:
Romy is "entertaining" to read, but judging by the one post i read from him, he has absolutely no clue about audio.
thats the post:
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=5488
quoted from this post:
"I should not even stress more that I do not like people at DIYAudio.com. The domination majority of them incredible idiots and the brightest among them… do not really have any perspective what audio is all about."
🙄
Scott, et all
An OT ramble here.
Romy is any thing but charming. I refuse to discuss audio with him. I will answer general technical questions, from my point of view as a transformer designer, but "Audio", never.
Other than that he is a highly intelligent person, a great story teller and a musicologist and discographer of considerable ability.
On his web site, he is extremely abrasive, but his comments do come from a consistent viewpoint about music, tone, speaker placement, amplifier types and speaker types. He is notoriously contemptuous of commercial audio and has had most of his system built by absolute top notch independent designers and fabricators.
His attitude about DIY in general is based upon his view that the majority of DIY people are not engaged in actual directed exploration. Rather, that they just build the next in a long list of projects for superficial reasons.
I don't agree with him, in a general sense, but he does have a point. What he has not quite grasped is that, while it is a "process" oriented activity in many cases, the goals are similar to his own. But, are often lacking that quintessential Russian absolutism, of his own pursuits. Much of that absolutist attitude, I think, comes from growing up with a purpose built language that is fanatically logical in it's structure.
In his opinion, random exploration of Audio is an insult to the music it replays. He does argue that the very first thing a serious DIY person should engage in, is the construction of a philosophical viewpoint, concerning what is relevant in the pursuit of the reproduction of music. Then work from that unifying viewpoint, with every facet of design and implementation governed by a rather ruthless adherence to that viewpoint. He truly does not understand that for most of us, music is a relaxation, not a reason for even more intense intellectualism.
If you read his writings with these hints in mind, what he has to say makes a lot more sense. But, you still don't have to agree with his particular views. If you are going to challenge him on his views, on his web site, you must do your intellectual homework first and come with a coherent viewpoint in mind.
Hope this helps in understanding an often misunderstood thinker in our audio/music reproduction realm.
Bud
An OT ramble here.
Romy is any thing but charming. I refuse to discuss audio with him. I will answer general technical questions, from my point of view as a transformer designer, but "Audio", never.
Other than that he is a highly intelligent person, a great story teller and a musicologist and discographer of considerable ability.
On his web site, he is extremely abrasive, but his comments do come from a consistent viewpoint about music, tone, speaker placement, amplifier types and speaker types. He is notoriously contemptuous of commercial audio and has had most of his system built by absolute top notch independent designers and fabricators.
His attitude about DIY in general is based upon his view that the majority of DIY people are not engaged in actual directed exploration. Rather, that they just build the next in a long list of projects for superficial reasons.
I don't agree with him, in a general sense, but he does have a point. What he has not quite grasped is that, while it is a "process" oriented activity in many cases, the goals are similar to his own. But, are often lacking that quintessential Russian absolutism, of his own pursuits. Much of that absolutist attitude, I think, comes from growing up with a purpose built language that is fanatically logical in it's structure.
In his opinion, random exploration of Audio is an insult to the music it replays. He does argue that the very first thing a serious DIY person should engage in, is the construction of a philosophical viewpoint, concerning what is relevant in the pursuit of the reproduction of music. Then work from that unifying viewpoint, with every facet of design and implementation governed by a rather ruthless adherence to that viewpoint. He truly does not understand that for most of us, music is a relaxation, not a reason for even more intense intellectualism.
If you read his writings with these hints in mind, what he has to say makes a lot more sense. But, you still don't have to agree with his particular views. If you are going to challenge him on his views, on his web site, you must do your intellectual homework first and come with a coherent viewpoint in mind.
Hope this helps in understanding an often misunderstood thinker in our audio/music reproduction realm.
Bud
to cut it short, he has a metaphysical point of view on a field thats purely technical. lots of people have this problem. but you cant argue with them, since it boils down to believ.
but it is, for sure, amusing 🙂
but it is, for sure, amusing 🙂
MaVo,
It is for sure amusing.
But, a purely technical field? Well, if you never play music through it, I suppose that would be true. The moment you let a human variable, like the reproduction of "Art" onto the scene, then a metaphysical viewpoint is axiomatic. When matters of enjoyment of that "Art" show up, the purely technical underpinnings of the reproduction, do seem to get trampled near to death.
Bud
It is for sure amusing.
But, a purely technical field? Well, if you never play music through it, I suppose that would be true. The moment you let a human variable, like the reproduction of "Art" onto the scene, then a metaphysical viewpoint is axiomatic. When matters of enjoyment of that "Art" show up, the purely technical underpinnings of the reproduction, do seem to get trampled near to death.
Bud
I would say, the engeneering of speakers is definitely technical and nothing more. But i agree with you, that the perception brings a subjective note into the mix. Both, the perception of music and the design of speakers are speperate things and should not be mixed.
But of course, that is highly dependant on the individuum, since everyone can do as he or she likes.
But of course, that is highly dependant on the individuum, since everyone can do as he or she likes.
MaVo said:
I think I would have to totally disagree with that. I tend to think that you cannot separate one from the other.
The design of speakers is all about the perception of music. !!!!
Well, I would agree with MaVo that the goals for speaker design (and including the room it will play in) are quite objective: no distortion (linear and nonlinear, off-axis, power etc) of any kind. As the "perfect speaker" is way out of sight, there always are compromises and trade-offs to be made. That is where the subjective weighting comes into play. "Which errors of a speaker are more benign than others?" is the question, and the answer will be quite a subjective one.
- Klaus
- Klaus
???????????
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.