Hi Sy,
So you are saying that when you wrote:
"A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source will certainly sound quite different (and worse) when driven by a current source and vice versa."
You where not saying "Speakers driven by a current source will sound worse"?
Then please WHAT did you say?
Let us analyse.
1) "A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source"
All modern speaker drivers and virtually all historical ones are designed for voltage drive.
If you are aware of any (excluding the Eckmiller Coaxials and the 8" Fullrange drivers of German Nazi Era "Peoples Radio's" that are designed for current drive and where made in series, please supply examples.
So, I would posit that 1) can be simply read as "Speakers" as in "All Speakers", given that included qualification does not qualify anything whatsoever, it merely adds noise.
2) "will certainly sound quite different (and worse)"
If something sounds "quite different (and worse)" the interpretation would be that the difference is sound quality is large and worse. I cannot see how any interpretation is possible. Putting something into parenthesis does not exclude it from the sentence.
3) " and vice versa."
Here you are implying that a speaker designed for current drive would sound worse with voltage drive. While this is true (and actually underscores the point that current drive reduces several imperfections in current electrodynamic speaker systems), there are no commercial speaker drivers designed for this. So again, your "qualifying" remark may be safely omitted as it qualifies nothing.
So, after analysis I still end up contending that the true meaning of:
"A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source will certainly sound quite different (and worse) when driven by a current source and vice versa."
after improving the S/N ratio is simply:
"A speaker ... will certainly sound ... worse when driven by a current source."
Do you contend that there is ANY added other actual MEANING (not just empty words) in your original quote? Please suggest what it is.
So kindly retract your accusation that I am making things up, unless you are able to show that my reduction strictly to meaning by removing empty verbiage is actually wrong.
Ciao T
So you are saying that when you wrote:
"A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source will certainly sound quite different (and worse) when driven by a current source and vice versa."
You where not saying "Speakers driven by a current source will sound worse"?
Then please WHAT did you say?
Let us analyse.
1) "A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source"
All modern speaker drivers and virtually all historical ones are designed for voltage drive.
If you are aware of any (excluding the Eckmiller Coaxials and the 8" Fullrange drivers of German Nazi Era "Peoples Radio's" that are designed for current drive and where made in series, please supply examples.
So, I would posit that 1) can be simply read as "Speakers" as in "All Speakers", given that included qualification does not qualify anything whatsoever, it merely adds noise.
2) "will certainly sound quite different (and worse)"
If something sounds "quite different (and worse)" the interpretation would be that the difference is sound quality is large and worse. I cannot see how any interpretation is possible. Putting something into parenthesis does not exclude it from the sentence.
3) " and vice versa."
Here you are implying that a speaker designed for current drive would sound worse with voltage drive. While this is true (and actually underscores the point that current drive reduces several imperfections in current electrodynamic speaker systems), there are no commercial speaker drivers designed for this. So again, your "qualifying" remark may be safely omitted as it qualifies nothing.
So, after analysis I still end up contending that the true meaning of:
"A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source will certainly sound quite different (and worse) when driven by a current source and vice versa."
after improving the S/N ratio is simply:
"A speaker ... will certainly sound ... worse when driven by a current source."
Do you contend that there is ANY added other actual MEANING (not just empty words) in your original quote? Please suggest what it is.
So kindly retract your accusation that I am making things up, unless you are able to show that my reduction strictly to meaning by removing empty verbiage is actually wrong.
Ciao T
Your point of view has already become clear. Challenge there may be seen, but the book is intended for those who are up to the challenge. It is better that those not up to the challenge have some forewarning lest they become upset by the unconventional disclosure and views.anatech said:
They (at AES) didn't imply that by some different wording the ad would qualify. Rather, it seemed to be the book message in general that they shunned. The "advertisement route" was not correct, and I was also said to be "interpreting things wrongly" (of course, without any elaboration).
History has already shown that presenting current-drive only as a nice little curiosity alternative doesn't lead to any awakening. Such is the citadel of myths and prejudices surrounding these issues.
No, the nonlinearity of inductance distorts the current and hence the sound only on voltage drive.
All the essentials that are known to me are covered in the book. So, what going over/further are you calling for?
I haven't referred to any material that should add much to the subject.
I'm having difficulty to figure out what is the point here. Anyhow, it is acceleration which determines the pressure generated, not displacement.
ETM, I suspect that the AES, in the back room, will continue to reject your work. This is standard procedure, these days. You see, new or revitalized explorations of new paths in audio design are considered a potential 'folly' and this must not be put into a 'journal of record' as quoted from the former secretary of the AES for many years.
How do I know, I was chairman of the SF Bay Area of the AES for about 10 years, off and on, before I finally gave up.
How do I know, I was chairman of the SF Bay Area of the AES for about 10 years, off and on, before I finally gave up.
Hi,
Okay, I will take your original statement then.
A) All currently designed speakers are designed for voltage drive.
B) This poses some challenges around the drivers resonance (and/or in crossover design), which are however solvable.
Given A & B current drive can be applied to drivers without any changes in frequency response, which of course would be the only way to make a fair comparison.
You clearly state that applying current drive to speakers designed for voltage drive (that is all currently manufactured drivers and speakers) certainly makes the sound different and worse. Yet the effect of current drive is to reduce the speaker distortion and thermal compression (if all else is made equal).
I find your claim that reducing distortion and compression makes the sound worse quite an extraordinary claim. Do you have data to substantiate it?
Ciao T
Okay, I will take your original statement then.
A) All currently designed speakers are designed for voltage drive.
B) This poses some challenges around the drivers resonance (and/or in crossover design), which are however solvable.
Given A & B current drive can be applied to drivers without any changes in frequency response, which of course would be the only way to make a fair comparison.
You clearly state that applying current drive to speakers designed for voltage drive (that is all currently manufactured drivers and speakers) certainly makes the sound different and worse. Yet the effect of current drive is to reduce the speaker distortion and thermal compression (if all else is made equal).
I find your claim that reducing distortion and compression makes the sound worse quite an extraordinary claim. Do you have data to substantiate it?
Ciao T
But if "all else is made equal," i.e. adding networks to address the frequency response aberrations that would otherwise result if you use a current source to drive a loudspeaker designed to be drive by a voltage source, then you no longer have a loudspeaker designed to be driven by a voltage source.
Your "argument" seems to come with a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty.
se
Hi,
My own experiments where carried out using an active speaker and for the drivers that where operated well above resonance (midrange and treble). Yet the drivers where designed for voltage drive and originally operated with voltage drive.
So "all else" was actually sufficiently equal without any changes.
Hardly. Sy made a blanket claim without sufficient qualification. I merely answered in kind.
And to get back to the point. The experiment may very well be made using a fullrange driver equipped speaker that is equalised to flat frequency response under both voltage and current drive. As equalisation would likely be required in either mode we can again posit "all else equal" without changing the design as such.
So, many ways exist to actually carry out such an experiment without such design changes as you suggest. And of course a serious experimenter reasonably educated in the subject would select such ways to make the comparison, unless of course he had an agenda to per sue, instead of actually ascertaining the facts of the subject.
Ciao T
My own experiments where carried out using an active speaker and for the drivers that where operated well above resonance (midrange and treble). Yet the drivers where designed for voltage drive and originally operated with voltage drive.
So "all else" was actually sufficiently equal without any changes.
Hardly. Sy made a blanket claim without sufficient qualification. I merely answered in kind.
And to get back to the point. The experiment may very well be made using a fullrange driver equipped speaker that is equalised to flat frequency response under both voltage and current drive. As equalisation would likely be required in either mode we can again posit "all else equal" without changing the design as such.
So, many ways exist to actually carry out such an experiment without such design changes as you suggest. And of course a serious experimenter reasonably educated in the subject would select such ways to make the comparison, unless of course he had an agenda to per sue, instead of actually ascertaining the facts of the subject.
Ciao T
First, I believe SY was speaking of loudspeaker systems, not individual drivers.
Second, I'm not sure that whatever reduced distortion or thermal compression you'd achieve from current drive would necessarily sound better than a speaker with no bass.
se
Hi,
Well, he did not refer to complete systems of speakers and crossover etc.
Sadly english is quite imprecise in this regard.
????
The LF section in my experimental speaker used motional feedback and reduced distortion and compression that way. It was in fact the subjective mismatch between the much cleaner LF section and the rest that led to my experimentation at the time.
With current drive on the midrange and treble drivers and motional feedback on the woofer section the whole speaker showed a much improved subjective and objective performance over the original incarnation which used straight voltage drive on all drivers.
Ciao T
Well, he did not refer to complete systems of speakers and crossover etc.
Sadly english is quite imprecise in this regard.
????
The LF section in my experimental speaker used motional feedback and reduced distortion and compression that way. It was in fact the subjective mismatch between the much cleaner LF section and the rest that led to my experimentation at the time.
With current drive on the midrange and treble drivers and motional feedback on the woofer section the whole speaker showed a much improved subjective and objective performance over the original incarnation which used straight voltage drive on all drivers.
Ciao T
For many of us, a speaker system is a single driver in a box.
I am actually working on such a system, that i hope will be happy with current or voltage drive with no EQ (it may need a zobel to flatten HF impedance)
dave
You said that, not me. Yet you attribute that to me.
You said that, not me. Yet you attribute that to me.
You said that, not me. Yet you attribute that to me.
Misquoting, changing meanings, attributing false positions, and making stuff up... I'm sorry, I will not have discussions with you on that basis.
I would take issue with the words "certain amount." This is, IMO, thoroughly dishonest.
Hi Sy,
I did not anywhere attribute "All speakers are designed for Voltage drive" to you. And that is very clear. I merely stated a fact and one you are well aware of. And yes, I said that, very clearly.
It is laughable what you are trying here...
I did not attribute it to you. I simply suggested that if the effects of current drive are reduced compression and distortion (which is obvious to anyone who understands the basics of how speaker drivers work and of electromagnetics) then your claim of:
"A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source will certainly sound quite different (and worse) when driven by a current source and vice versa."
(sorry to everyone for the verbiage, but Sy insists)
Amounts effectively to saying: Reducing compression and distortion make the sound worse. Note, I am not claiming you said this exact line, I am asserting however that what you have claimed effectively if indirectly claims it.
Fine. You have again shown your typical behaviour of eventually shutting down any debate when called out over a false statement you have made.
Hmm. One party in this certainly is.
I will leave it to the reader to make her or his own determination which.
Ciao T
I did not anywhere attribute "All speakers are designed for Voltage drive" to you. And that is very clear. I merely stated a fact and one you are well aware of. And yes, I said that, very clearly.
It is laughable what you are trying here...
I did not attribute it to you. I simply suggested that if the effects of current drive are reduced compression and distortion (which is obvious to anyone who understands the basics of how speaker drivers work and of electromagnetics) then your claim of:
"A speaker that's designed to be driven by a voltage source will certainly sound quite different (and worse) when driven by a current source and vice versa."
(sorry to everyone for the verbiage, but Sy insists)
Amounts effectively to saying: Reducing compression and distortion make the sound worse. Note, I am not claiming you said this exact line, I am asserting however that what you have claimed effectively if indirectly claims it.
Fine. You have again shown your typical behaviour of eventually shutting down any debate when called out over a false statement you have made.
Hmm. One party in this certainly is.
I will leave it to the reader to make her or his own determination which.
Ciao T
Nelson Pass has written extensively about systems optimized for current drive, including much speaker and driver data. These can be found at his website. Additionally, you can see Morgan Jones' speaker design that, while not constant current, does depend on a source impedance considerably higher than a voltage source amplifier for proper operation. It's in last month's articles section on this site.
Hi ETM,
I understand current drive. I have played with current drive with single drivers as that is the easiest way to begin. I found that it works okay, and I was considering some use as a high driver in a multi-amped system. Your thread attracted my attention, but I was worried that it was merely an ad for your book. In fact, it is beginning to look like it. To be honest with you, using a standard voltage source model amplifier also worked well. Your viewpoint on how we should be driving dynamic loudspeakers is exaggerated from what I have seen so far. The thing is, I'm willing to be open to other ideas on how maybe to improve the performance of a current drive amplifier. It is a fact that you have avoided any clear technical discussions so far, and that makes me wonder if you have really developed this concept much further than I have. Maybe on paper, but I wonder about a working system.
Understand this. If your ideas had any commercial promise what-so-ever, there would be corporate interest in what you have to say. It would be spun as "the new, improved way to drive a loudspeaker", championed by the likes of B&O or other companies that could take a different idea and run with it. Lifestyle products would be the early adopters. Think of a Bose system using current drive. They are the hotbed of single driver, extended range products. I'm guessing you haven't been approached by anyone so far.
You are oversimplifying the situation for the purpose of being able to argue your point.
So what you are saying is that you will not discuss anything that is in your book I guess. This means the thread is in fact an advertisement, or you are short on real knowledge. Fine.
You know, and other people who have authored any technical works will discuss related material openly. They will not go through everything chapter and verse, but that is clearly unfair to them. Discussing the ideas and theories behind their work has not reduced their sales, but rather encouraged further sales. On top of that, discussion will often extend the author's own understanding of the subject as well as suggest directions for study and experimentation.
Enough though. Just advertise on Amazon.
-Chris
Well, now isn't that insulting? Really, the way you just made that statement is about as close to a public put down as possible without coming right out and making a clear statement. Good lord man, have some respect for some of those around you please!
I understand current drive. I have played with current drive with single drivers as that is the easiest way to begin. I found that it works okay, and I was considering some use as a high driver in a multi-amped system. Your thread attracted my attention, but I was worried that it was merely an ad for your book. In fact, it is beginning to look like it. To be honest with you, using a standard voltage source model amplifier also worked well. Your viewpoint on how we should be driving dynamic loudspeakers is exaggerated from what I have seen so far. The thing is, I'm willing to be open to other ideas on how maybe to improve the performance of a current drive amplifier. It is a fact that you have avoided any clear technical discussions so far, and that makes me wonder if you have really developed this concept much further than I have. Maybe on paper, but I wonder about a working system.
Well, did you bother to inquire further? It doesn't surprise me at all that they rejected your material on the basis of the tone it took. I can't remember, but did you say that you had a patent on this yet - or not? Otherwise, your work can't stand as strongly, especially when attacking the current state of the art. Yes, I am aware that the AES is political beyond what is normal. All the more reason to approach this without confronting what has been proved to work. Note that I have not said anywhere that your ideas do not function. What I did say is that you are attacking the status quo, and for that you do need a strong position backed up by cold hard facts. This is simply a fact of life.
No, actually your statement isn't correct at all. That is more a way to justify to yourself the reason for your inability to have your ideas accepted.
Understand this. If your ideas had any commercial promise what-so-ever, there would be corporate interest in what you have to say. It would be spun as "the new, improved way to drive a loudspeaker", championed by the likes of B&O or other companies that could take a different idea and run with it. Lifestyle products would be the early adopters. Think of a Bose system using current drive. They are the hotbed of single driver, extended range products. I'm guessing you haven't been approached by anyone so far.
Actually, this is not true when you consider real world systems. Remember, your amplifier has a finite voltage compliance. It could cause the current amp equivalent to clipping with a voltage amplifier.
You are oversimplifying the situation for the purpose of being able to argue your point.
Oh please!
So what you are saying is that you will not discuss anything that is in your book I guess. This means the thread is in fact an advertisement, or you are short on real knowledge. Fine.
You know, and other people who have authored any technical works will discuss related material openly. They will not go through everything chapter and verse, but that is clearly unfair to them. Discussing the ideas and theories behind their work has not reduced their sales, but rather encouraged further sales. On top of that, discussion will often extend the author's own understanding of the subject as well as suggest directions for study and experimentation.
Did you notice that ...
I addressed both yourself and Dave. Also, you had referred to this earlier work - as well as diminished it's completeness. You shouldn't trash other peoples works really. Especially on the same subject as your stuff.
Ahhh, no. Acceleration is one part of the equation while displacement is the other. Displacement allows one to figure out the volume of air displaced, along with the piston area. Acceleration determines how quickly this occurs and may relate to frequency. That's how I would think of the process anyway. You can not eliminate the displacement term, that's the distance that the air mass is accelerated over.
Enough though. Just advertise on Amazon.
-Chris
ETM, looking at preview pages of your book, shows the amount of effort that you have made to convey a more thorough understanding of loudspeakers, their flaws and potential directions for improvement. This is the wrong place to talk details, or to get into any depth, as most here are not loudspeaker designers, audio engineers, or even engineers at all. However, I have referred your book to other audio designers and they are excited.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.