I have been following this thread with interest, and tend to agree with "EVERYTHING " being said; some of us are obsessed with perfection in one way or another but don't we all have valid veiwpoints??
It is after all the verbage just another way of expressing our selves.
I will never get it right but thats me and my aging ears and limited budget.
But I do and learn from all of you and some of it I will put into practice and other stuff I look at and say to myself ' looks good but the wife wants pretty' life is a compromise sometimes.
Hi Fi won't die but perhaps the definition of Hi-Fi itself changes with time and exposure to new techniques and technologies.
Just my two cents worth and that is all it's worth
It is after all the verbage just another way of expressing our selves.
I will never get it right but thats me and my aging ears and limited budget.
But I do and learn from all of you and some of it I will put into practice and other stuff I look at and say to myself ' looks good but the wife wants pretty' life is a compromise sometimes.
Hi Fi won't die but perhaps the definition of Hi-Fi itself changes with time and exposure to new techniques and technologies.
Just my two cents worth and that is all it's worth
NO !!! Beers here!!
😀
But most of you are over there, give me enough notice and I'll make a batch of home brew to go with my current project: my first open baffle, to be finished sometime; hopefully soon
😀 But most of you are over there, give me enough notice and I'll make a batch of home brew to go with my current project: my first open baffle, to be finished sometime; hopefully soon
gedlee said:
No gedlee, you are absolutely not wasting your life and I'm not sure that has been suggested - if it has I don't agree with that. In Patrick's initial post he says:
"Have you guys ever been caught up in the cycle of buying audio gear, obsessively looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, hoping that the next amplifier or the next speaker would get you to audio nirvana? If so, what was it that "broke the cycle" for you?"
I think the keyword here is "obsessively," which to me implies being driven by something other than enjoyment - it implies an inability to be satisfied. But most of us persue this hobby because we derive pleasure from it, whether we achieve "audio nirvana" or not.
As I've said previously, I don't think there is any "problem with high fidelity" and there is no cycle to break. There does not need to be some endpoint, at which one says "OK, I've built the perfect speaker so I will never need to build another one - I'm done." Need doesn't come into play - one can continue to design and build regardless of how successful the most recent project was. It is a process of continuous investigation, of continuous experimentation - the fact that there never is an end to the persuit, as long as one is enjoying the journey, is exactly what makes the hobby fun and worthwhile.
So gedlee, please don't leave the site - we need designers here - professionals, amateurs or otherwise - if there weren't any none of the rest of us would have anything to build!
gedlee said:
Am I coming across as upset? I'm not at all.
That is the problem with the Internet and forums. People perceive all kinds of unintended meanings. 🙂
In does seem quite interesting that in the beginning of the internet and on line services like Compuserve and AOL, it was said that since people cannot come face to face, most will probably be able to discuss things in an objective manner without getting emotional. Things really has changed since people are typing the way they normally talk rather than like writing a letter in the early days.Kevin Haskins said:
I just deep-sixed a lengthy rebuttal to some of what Earl has written. It seems those still posting in this thread don't want to watch another fight. Earl will no doubt react to this post, but I won't go another round out of respect for you all.
Earl exploded onto the web audio forum/list scene in 2004. He suddenly showed up on three groups I was on. This was around the time of his publications on higher order modes and his distortion metric. After a few months, he left one group in a huff, was kicked off another, and the third didn't end well either. In all cases, he elicited the same pushback. Several people I knew and myself had public and private conversations with him, the basic theme being that we'd like to learn from him, but a little humility would go a long way to making it easier and more fruitful. He once replied that "I blow my own horn in much the same way as Frank Lloyd Wright who once said 'I am torn between hypocritical humility and honest arrogance.'" And that was the end of that.
He's a smart guy, but not in one important respect: to see that the use of clever rhetorical ploys (like he tried in his non-responsive volleys with me in this thread) may win points in debating club, but doesn't win people over to your argument. His assertions about Linkwitz and SPL and his "challenge" were spin/self-promotion/strawman arguments that I took issue with so passers-by wouldn't be misled by his comments.
In this thread, he wrote that he finds stereo playback "kind of bland". He also wrote that the "disappointed listener is one who wants the 'auditorium' experience ... [it] will always be a disappointment". This tells us everything we need to know about the system he uses, presumably with his Summa Cum Laude speakers that manifest his ideas.
That's all I have to say on the subject of Earl. He can have the last word if he wants.
For those of you wringing your hands about all the kerfuffle and want us all to get along and be friends: it sure would be nice but it ain't gonna happen. Friction like this is the path to progress: whether ideas be true or false or transitioning from one or the other, airing them (honestly and/or otherwise) lets the truth rise to the top.
On a personal note, mostly to Kevin and SoftDome, forceful advocacy for the things we find that work doesn't necessarily mean that our lives are out of balance. It may be the case for you, for some, for others, but certainly not for me. I've been married once and continuously for nearly three decades, get along with my adult kids, have a joy of a grand-daughter, and even have some parts of my life that don't include bits and watts.
Back to the initial question, what broke the cycle and got you to audio nirvana? I can honestly say I'm pretty much done with the chase after many decades in the hobby, thanks mostly to the work of a speaker-building hobbyist named Siegfried Linkwitz. This guy has probably done more for our favorite past-time in his free time than many of the pros have.
Thank you all very much for bearing with this.
- Eric
PS - I would like to build a Ladegaard tonearm someday, but that would be a project done for the journey and not the destination. Maybe I'll build it with my grand-daughter when she's a bit older. Metalwork, the final frontier.
Earl exploded onto the web audio forum/list scene in 2004. He suddenly showed up on three groups I was on. This was around the time of his publications on higher order modes and his distortion metric. After a few months, he left one group in a huff, was kicked off another, and the third didn't end well either. In all cases, he elicited the same pushback. Several people I knew and myself had public and private conversations with him, the basic theme being that we'd like to learn from him, but a little humility would go a long way to making it easier and more fruitful. He once replied that "I blow my own horn in much the same way as Frank Lloyd Wright who once said 'I am torn between hypocritical humility and honest arrogance.'" And that was the end of that.
He's a smart guy, but not in one important respect: to see that the use of clever rhetorical ploys (like he tried in his non-responsive volleys with me in this thread) may win points in debating club, but doesn't win people over to your argument. His assertions about Linkwitz and SPL and his "challenge" were spin/self-promotion/strawman arguments that I took issue with so passers-by wouldn't be misled by his comments.
In this thread, he wrote that he finds stereo playback "kind of bland". He also wrote that the "disappointed listener is one who wants the 'auditorium' experience ... [it] will always be a disappointment". This tells us everything we need to know about the system he uses, presumably with his Summa Cum Laude speakers that manifest his ideas.
That's all I have to say on the subject of Earl. He can have the last word if he wants.
For those of you wringing your hands about all the kerfuffle and want us all to get along and be friends: it sure would be nice but it ain't gonna happen. Friction like this is the path to progress: whether ideas be true or false or transitioning from one or the other, airing them (honestly and/or otherwise) lets the truth rise to the top.
On a personal note, mostly to Kevin and SoftDome, forceful advocacy for the things we find that work doesn't necessarily mean that our lives are out of balance. It may be the case for you, for some, for others, but certainly not for me. I've been married once and continuously for nearly three decades, get along with my adult kids, have a joy of a grand-daughter, and even have some parts of my life that don't include bits and watts.
Back to the initial question, what broke the cycle and got you to audio nirvana? I can honestly say I'm pretty much done with the chase after many decades in the hobby, thanks mostly to the work of a speaker-building hobbyist named Siegfried Linkwitz. This guy has probably done more for our favorite past-time in his free time than many of the pros have.
Thank you all very much for bearing with this.
- Eric
PS - I would like to build a Ladegaard tonearm someday, but that would be a project done for the journey and not the destination. Maybe I'll build it with my grand-daughter when she's a bit older. Metalwork, the final frontier.
I have just been casting my mind back over my "hi-fi" journey to try and identify a few other perception changing events and realised there was one that preceded OBs and high quality vinyl playback. This was hearing high efficiency full range drivers and comparing them the other std 2 way systems I had at the time (4 in total). Now these were only 4 to 5 inch drivers but the thing that really struck me was they actually seemed to find detail and subtlety that all the other systems lacked. Sure there was less bass but they were very musical and didn't need to be played loud to get the excitement going.
The next revelation came out of the first, I found that these drivers meant that little improvements/changes to amps cables etc became audible which I guess means the speakers were reflecting more accurately what was in the music/recording.
I tried many other drivers but kept coming back to these tiddlers and ultimately decided this was the path to follow for me and since then have tried them in just about all the possible applications, but settled on OB after lots of experiments and some dissapointments.
I suppose it is fair to say that the journey for all of us is filled with many surprises ans some failures but overall the journey should be fun.
The next revelation came out of the first, I found that these drivers meant that little improvements/changes to amps cables etc became audible which I guess means the speakers were reflecting more accurately what was in the music/recording.
I tried many other drivers but kept coming back to these tiddlers and ultimately decided this was the path to follow for me and since then have tried them in just about all the possible applications, but settled on OB after lots of experiments and some dissapointments.
I suppose it is fair to say that the journey for all of us is filled with many surprises ans some failures but overall the journey should be fun.
I think Earl is honest with what he expresses. If a person is like that, I'm sure he will deliver what he says. Most people try to defend their postion, but what I have read from Earl is that he just expresses many issues attacking the issue. Personally I like this kind of approach.Eric Weitzman said:I just deep-sixed a lengthy rebuttal to some of what Earl has written. It seems those still posting in this thread don't want to watch another fight. Earl will no doubt react to this post, but I won't go another round out of respect for you all.
Earl exploded onto the web audio forum/list scene in 2004. He suddenly showed up on three groups I was on. This was around the time of his publications on higher order modes and his distortion metric. After a few months, he left one group in a huff, was kicked off another, and the third didn't end well either. In all cases, he elicited the same pushback. Several people I knew and myself had public and private conversations with him, the basic theme being that we'd like to learn from him, but a little humility would go a long way to making it easier and more fruitful. He once replied that "I blow my own horn in much the same way as Frank Lloyd Wright who once said 'I am torn between hypocritical humility and honest arrogance.'" And that was the end of that.
He's a smart guy, but not in one important respect: to see that the use of clever rhetorical ploys (like he tried in his non-responsive volleys with me in this thread) may win points in debating club, but doesn't win people over to your argument. His assertions about Linkwitz and SPL and his "challenge" were spin/self-promotion/strawman arguments that I took issue with so passers-by wouldn't be misled by his comments.
In this thread, he wrote that he finds stereo playback "kind of bland". He also wrote that the "disappointed listener is one who wants the 'auditorium' experience ... [it] will always be a disappointment". This tells us everything we need to know about the system he uses, presumably with his Summa Cum Laude speakers that manifest his ideas.
That's all I have to say on the subject of Earl. He can have the last word if he wants.
For those of you wringing your hands about all the kerfuffle and want us all to get along and be friends: it sure would be nice but it ain't gonna happen. Friction like this is the path to progress: whether ideas be true or false or transitioning from one or the other, airing them (honestly and/or otherwise) lets the truth rise to the top.
On a personal note, mostly to Kevin and SoftDome, forceful advocacy for the things we find that work doesn't necessarily mean that our lives are out of balance. It may be the case for you, for some, for others, but certainly not for me. I've been married once and continuously for nearly three decades, get along with my adult kids, have a joy of a grand-daughter, and even have some parts of my life that don't include bits and watts.
Back to the initial question, what broke the cycle and got you to audio nirvana? I can honestly say I'm pretty much done with the chase after many decades in the hobby, thanks mostly to the work of a speaker-building hobbyist named Siegfried Linkwitz. This guy has probably done more for our favorite past-time in his free time than many of the pros have.
Thank you all very much for bearing with this.
- Eric
PS - I would like to build a Ladegaard tonearm someday, but that would be a project done for the journey and not the destination. Maybe I'll build it with my grand-daughter when she's a bit older. Metalwork, the final frontier.
There are two people that I know whom seem to have covered almost all aspects of determining how good sound reproduction can be determined before you hear it. One is Siegfried Linkwitz, and the other is Steen Duelund. However, I have never been able to listen to systems built by either, which is something I look forward to in the future.
I think if one person is asking the other to be humble, it becomes questionable as to whom actually needs to be humble.
Eric Weitzman said:
I doubt that this will be the final word.
The above is incorrect, I have never been kicked off of any forum. In each case I left when people failed to be polite, courteous and respectful - there is no place in these forums for that kind of behavior.
I find it very interesting that when someone, like Eric, jump on me for my statements, and then later turn the argument arround, like Eric where he later agreed with my first statement, that it is me who has an attitude. Go back and read what I wrote - that OB could never achieve the kinds of SPLs that a system like mine does - and then Eric's discussion where he admits that OB will loose in an SPL race, which agrees with what I said and what he was criticizing me for - but I have an attitude. Whether OBs have enough SPL for a particular situation, as Eric later decided to argue, was never the argument.
I am a magnet for attack, I know that and accept it, and I will defend my claims and my position and when I am wrong I will admit it. But I will not accept disrespect and this and only this is the reason that I left those other forums. I will usually discuss my position with anyone no matter how contentious as long as it is polite and respectful. Although I will not argue when the basis for the argument is subjective because there is little point in that.
Eric likes OB and Linkwitz designs, that's fine, it's subjective and I don't see any reason to argue about it. But my statement was not subjective, it was simple science, and it was not incorrect. A careful look at what happens in many of these discussions is a disgrement on some point of engineering or science and then the disussion swings into the subjective as soon as it is going badly. This is classic and done for obvious reasons - one can never lose a subjective argument.
Note the tack above - instead of adressing the issue impersonal and technical (which apparantly was deleted) it became personal and subjective.
I am sure that Eric is a nice guy and I apparantly hit a nerve, but why this prevents a non personal discussion of the issues is beyond me.
Enough please gentlemen. This is not a forum to discuss perceptions of one another. Let's move on.
gedlee said:
Hi Earl,
Why would an OB not be able to achieve the kinds of SPLs that a system like yours does anywhere above Fequal?
Below, obviously. There will be a 6db/oct loss.
But then again, that is the region where a monopole like yours is less optimal from a modal, rather than SPL standpoint. Or do you disagree? Also note that the lower efficiency bandwidth below fequal can be reduced even further by transitioning from dipole through cardioid to a monopole in the 40-50hz region as Linkwitz advocates.
cheers,
AJ
Indeed, there are obviously limitations in OB design, but in some ways, their max output is not one, except for the deep stuff. At all frequencies, all other things being equal, an OB will have some advantages, in that they'll have better coil cooling, if only marginally in most cases.
AJinFLA said:
If the system is flat then it doesn't matter where the SPL limitation is, low, mid, high, its still the limitation.
What is usually done is to use a dome tweeter, or two, because this is all the more sensitivity that is required to match the low effciency of the system at about 100 Hz. I have measured dome tweeters - good ones - for thermal power compression and it is a very serious problem. A compression driver has at least 20 dB more headroom before compression than even two 1" tweeters. There simply is no contest in this regard. Just look at them and you can tell which will handle heat better.
And the modal argument for dipoles is incorrect. Dipoles excite the same number of modes that monopoles do, there is no difference. One excites the pressure nodes and the other excites the velocity nodes, but there are exactly the same number of them. I did a paper on this some years back in JAES. It is a common misconception that dipoles produce a smoother bass response - it just doesn't happen. The smoothest bass is produced with multiple monopoles. This is almost universally agreed to by those who study the problem.
gedlee said:
I'm not sure what that is the answer to, but I'll answer my own question. There is no reason why an OB would be unable to achieve the kinds of SPLs that a system like yours does anywhere above Fequal.
gedlee said:
Agreed. But where did I mention anything about dome tweeters? What would prevent one from using compression drivers with an OB system?
gedlee said:
With equal strength?
gedlee said:
The studies that I have seen were of subwoofer frequencies. Are you suggesting multiple monopole sources to 300hz for stereophonic material?
gedlee said:
Using your ESP15 as an example and raising the tweeter height about a foot or so, to seated level as one would at home, yields a baffle 558mm w x 1265mm h (965 + 300). I will negate depth for this example. Fequal would be 123 hz. If you use multiple subs below 80hz, as you advocate, the efficiency loss/"SPL limitation" will be between 123-80 hz, less than an octave. Plus unless brick wall filters are used, there will be combined output cardioid operation at these frequencies.
All designs involve compromises, but I think you overstate the SPL limitations of OB systems. There are always tradeoffs.
You've said so yourself 😉 .
gedlee said:
cheers,
AJ
AJinFLA said:
I misunderstood your question to a certain extent, but the efficiency at 100 Hz from a dipole is low and this sets the efficiency level possible at all frequencies.
If you want to get technical, the probability distribution of the modal excitation levels is different for dipoles and monopoles, but the mean excitation level is about the same. The bottom line is that dipoles just do not produce a smoother response, only a lower response. Nothing, and I repeat nothing, can beat the LF smoothness in the modal region of a set of distributed monopoles. I've studied this problem to death - ever since I did my PhD thesis on it - and this is the reality.
Wherever one has "modal" behavior which is room dependent. But the distributed sub solution is no worse than anything else even above the Schroeder frequency, its just no better above the modal region. I suggest blending the sub into the main channels up until about 150 Hz in a typical living room. I overlap the sources - I don't cross them over.
I think that my point is that I just don't see any advantages in the tradeoffs with OB. If in the end you argue that OB CAN achieve the SPLs, etc. of other approaches, I still say, but where is the advantage - why do it? All I ever hear are subjective rationalizations but I haven't seen any real scientific advantages or objective data.
Let me say that I am learning heaps from and enjoy reading the posts by Dr. Earl Geddes, and others.
The modal region may well be between 25Hz and 200Hz in a typical room.
If multiple distributed subs are used to cover this region, would we perceive multiple sound sources because we can localise the sound source at 200Hz for sure?
What XO order do you use for the subs when the subs are covering up to 150Hz? 2nd or 4th would make a huge difference.
Regards,
Bill
HiFiNutNut said:
Even in a car the sound field is becoming pretty statistical at 200 Hz. I doubt that there are any real rooms that are modal to 200 Hz.
I would never take a sub that high, about 150 Hz. is as high as I would ever go. 2nd order is the more common LP for the bandpass subs that I use - but remember these subs have an inherent acoustic LP filter function so the final result is more like 4th order minimum. You need to LP fairly sharp to control the port resonance of the bandpass which can be quite pronounced. But I don't think that "2nd or 4th would make a huge difference". Its just not that critical. Remember there are three subs and two or three woofers in the mains. No one LF source is all that audible and I tune the LP points to be different in all of the subs. "Blend" thats the way to do it.
gedlee said:
I have also measured some good dome tweeters and I'd say in most situations they are just fine. I thought the thermal compression would be much worse but for normal use there is no problem. Typical program material have low power in the area above 1-2kHz. Would you mind telling how serious you found the compression to be?
I can't see how that can be true. A dipole put out less energy in the room for a given on axis output hence it must excite standing waves to a lesser degree than a monopole. I agree though that multiple monpoles makes sense in the low bass area.. say below 80Hz.
/Peter
- Status
- Not open for further replies.