Beranek and Olson surely stand their own. Nowadays I’d pick works that offer more on the perceptual plane. Toole of course gave a fine resume.True!
It seems that some don't get what we want to say here, so i will make an analogy to cars:
It seems that some think we can only build ferraris and lamborghinis and so here, and that all others are not worth it. But many don't care about those supercars and just want a toyota because it fits their goal better. And then those supercar people should not cuss them for that. Yes, the research to make a better supercar is very interesting and can give usefull info for those toyota people also, but their standards are not unversal and they should not attack people who have other standards.
There should be place for all on this forum. And that does not happen here, and steer many away from this forum. I know many diy'ers who don't visit this forum anymore for that to be honest... Some diy facebook groups are way more popular than this forum now alone because they are more looking at the goal of the projects discussed there and the level and tools the diy'er has, and use science in function of the goals and wishes of the project. And not everybody here is on the same (sometimes very high) level of science and engineering, or does understand all the math behind it (yet).
It seems that some think we can only build ferraris and lamborghinis and so here, and that all others are not worth it. But many don't care about those supercars and just want a toyota because it fits their goal better. And then those supercar people should not cuss them for that. Yes, the research to make a better supercar is very interesting and can give usefull info for those toyota people also, but their standards are not unversal and they should not attack people who have other standards.
There should be place for all on this forum. And that does not happen here, and steer many away from this forum. I know many diy'ers who don't visit this forum anymore for that to be honest... Some diy facebook groups are way more popular than this forum now alone because they are more looking at the goal of the projects discussed there and the level and tools the diy'er has, and use science in function of the goals and wishes of the project. And not everybody here is on the same (sometimes very high) level of science and engineering, or does understand all the math behind it (yet).
Embrace progress, why not? Much of it is relatively easy to implement for the DIYer at every level.
Preface: the following is my opinion and could be wrong.
Thanks to accumulated knowledge (i.e. science, technology, economics) companies like Harman sell Ferraris at Toyota prices. All the DIY kits that were designed a decade or more ago can't touch the speakers a company like JBL sells now.
Conversely, if someone said they wanted to modify their Toyota with a body kit or exhaust mods then I'd say they came to the right place.
Even DIY fits into a niche in terms of generating value.
This is a very important point and the one that almost everyone misses. The starting point in speaker selection should be your room, its size, its acoustic signature, where the speakers will be located, where you will sit, and how many people will be listening at once. All of that will determine to a large extent what type of directionality you need and therefore the speaker type.
That's followed by the type of music you will be playing and how loud you want it to be.
Then you can narrow it down further to the type of speaker enclosures: sealed, ported, open baffle, horns, transmission lines, etc. And further what size and type of woofer you need in order to get the bass performance you want.
Now when you've answered all those questions you can start to identify specific speakers that might be good candidates for your needs.
So to start with tmuikku’s suggestion that:
“If one wants to make the best audio quality loudspeaker in the world, like many do, all trade-offs possible should be chosen from the cost, size, and aesthetics categories and in this order.”
is simply not true.
It’s starting with the entirely wrong set of parameters. Cost, size, and aesthetics are the last thing to worry about if you want the best audio quality. Not the first things.
You have to separate compromises into 2 camps:
1. Personal preference
2. Measurable and consistent trade-off in design
Re #1 - if we all had $1m to spend on speakers and we all agreed on the perfect speaker costing $100k. There's no guarantee we'd all buy that speaker. Some of us would prioritise other things, a holiday, cancer treatment or 8K TV etc.. .over the speaker purchase.
That is why #1 is pretty much a useless set of categories. Someone's small speaker is too large for someone else. too expensive, too cheap etc...
Even when it comes to recommending a speaker. It comes down to that person's bias on "All full range and OB speakers are crap" or whatever misinformation they might have.
Lastly - what is their goal? Is it a "next step" design? wanting to try a WAW for example? Is it the elusive "last ever build / all out quality" etc...
I don't know of any maxims that apply to help such as - "never use a 3 way in a room the size of a cupboard". Some of these might limit certain choices.
A decision tree could be useful... and as complex as the origin of life itself.
1. Personal preference
2. Measurable and consistent trade-off in design
Re #1 - if we all had $1m to spend on speakers and we all agreed on the perfect speaker costing $100k. There's no guarantee we'd all buy that speaker. Some of us would prioritise other things, a holiday, cancer treatment or 8K TV etc.. .over the speaker purchase.
That is why #1 is pretty much a useless set of categories. Someone's small speaker is too large for someone else. too expensive, too cheap etc...
Even when it comes to recommending a speaker. It comes down to that person's bias on "All full range and OB speakers are crap" or whatever misinformation they might have.
Lastly - what is their goal? Is it a "next step" design? wanting to try a WAW for example? Is it the elusive "last ever build / all out quality" etc...
I don't know of any maxims that apply to help such as - "never use a 3 way in a room the size of a cupboard". Some of these might limit certain choices.
A decision tree could be useful... and as complex as the origin of life itself.
Hi, my wording must have failed. I mean that one should pick up the better driver, bigger box etc. if it means better audio and not care about the cost and size and visual stuff. Aesthetics being the second most important (after audio quality), then size and cost the least important thing. The trade-off is in some other camp than audio quality when ever possible.
Last edited:
Another issue - not exactly a trade-off - is that many people aren't that serious about their listening anyway and just want something which looks good, doesn't take up too much space and makes noise. For them, size and cost would be the key factors.
Real 'trade offs' come when someone is serious about their listening and has to work out how best to put together something which makes their ears and partner happy. Room, budget, driver type, cabinet size, speaker type, music sources/preferences and aesthetics will get thrown into the decision making process and the outcome will be different for everyone.
Just to consider one of those variables, let's say the desired and agreed cabinet size is as per Paul Carmody's "Amigas": 9"w, 11"d and 34" high. That cabinet can accommodate TM, MTM, TMM and even TMWW configurations, so you need to choose from those options.
The TM may have less dB output than the MTM, but its tweeter will be in a better location for listening. The budget might mean that you can afford higher quality drivers in the TM.
The TMWW might have great bass extension, but your collection might consist of old LPs with heaps of surface noise and rumble which those speakers will happily reproduce. The crossover will be harder to put together and the cabinet might need a thicker than normal baffle, so the cabinet will be heavier and a pain to move for vacuuming.
Decisions, decisions! Fun, but also a little daunting: after all, you will probably have those speakers for years. And then you move house and the process starts again....
Geoff
Real 'trade offs' come when someone is serious about their listening and has to work out how best to put together something which makes their ears and partner happy. Room, budget, driver type, cabinet size, speaker type, music sources/preferences and aesthetics will get thrown into the decision making process and the outcome will be different for everyone.
Just to consider one of those variables, let's say the desired and agreed cabinet size is as per Paul Carmody's "Amigas": 9"w, 11"d and 34" high. That cabinet can accommodate TM, MTM, TMM and even TMWW configurations, so you need to choose from those options.
The TM may have less dB output than the MTM, but its tweeter will be in a better location for listening. The budget might mean that you can afford higher quality drivers in the TM.
The TMWW might have great bass extension, but your collection might consist of old LPs with heaps of surface noise and rumble which those speakers will happily reproduce. The crossover will be harder to put together and the cabinet might need a thicker than normal baffle, so the cabinet will be heavier and a pain to move for vacuuming.
Decisions, decisions! Fun, but also a little daunting: after all, you will probably have those speakers for years. And then you move house and the process starts again....
Geoff
Dave Bullet, exactly, at the beginning we don't know what we are doing and it is hard to help since knowing what someone has in mind for their project when they are seeking help might be completely opposite what the helper feel they should be doing (in addition to knowledge of the helper there is this bias you mention).
Thinking through some simple set of compromises helps a lot in this regard to get to kind of same zone so that relevant information can be passed through discussion. The trade-off categories I've listed in the opening post, and prioritizing them per project, is just a tool to aid in decision making. It helps to stay on track (for The project at hand) and not get lost to the infinite tree of possibilities.
Thinking through some simple set of compromises helps a lot in this regard to get to kind of same zone so that relevant information can be passed through discussion. The trade-off categories I've listed in the opening post, and prioritizing them per project, is just a tool to aid in decision making. It helps to stay on track (for The project at hand) and not get lost to the infinite tree of possibilities.
Hi Geoff, I use your post as an example for the trade-off priority thinking. The project you describe "buy and assemble a Paul Carmody DIY kit" and choice between how many woofers is there falls mostly into the audio quality vs. cost (time and problems) and thus would be an easy decision if audio quality and cost were prioritized (either over the other) for this particular project before hand. At least it would be easier choice since one would have the priority as a guideline, no need for second guessing because of confidence, fun times ahead doing it and enjoying the results!
And because it is just a guideline one could very well choose against it and still feel confident since the downsides (trade-offs) are considered, appreciated and accepted. I'm promoting the awareness here, it allows to have more fun and not get lost so easily.
Last edited:
My feeling is people here would be good at identifying which commercial speakers will outperform the old kits. I'm not suggesting the old kits are the product of inferior work. We just have new technology at lower prices now.
I'd bet you could see the most dramatic technology leaps in headphones. Which will have some sort of influence on future speaker designs due to binaural and/or ATMOS recording efforts to generate virtual reality soundscapes.
Traditional speakers have been democratized (commoditized) to a great extent. Consequently, the DIYer center of gravity will drift more toward arrays, waveguides, and destructive cancellation to add value beyond what consumers can readily purchase in the market. DIYers will also need to look at wireless battery powered multi-channel. Increasingly, DIYers will move away from doing things like chasing low frequency extension in two main channels.
Once you start moving away from low frequency extension -- or toward multi channel -- the old DIY designs offer terrible value relative to today's commercial alternatives.
Hi Geoff, I use your post as an example for the trade-off priority thinking. The project you describe "buy and assemble a Paul Carmody DIY kit" and choice between how many woofers is there falls mostly into the audio quality vs. cost (time and problems) and thus would be an easy decision if audio quality and cost were prioritized (either over the other) for this particular project before hand. At least it would be easier choice since one would have the priority as a guideline, no need for second guessing because of confidence, fun times ahead doing it and enjoying the results!
I’m still not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. Are there tradeoffs between cost, performance, and appearance? Of course there are. That’s always the case.
And not just in speakers, but in everything else. Cars, boats, houses, computers, TVs, etc. On and on. You name it. There are always tradeoffs. So I still don’t see why this is all that helpful here.
Much more important is finding the right speaker configuration to give you maximum performance in your particular listening environment. And that’s not so easy to do. It requires a well thought out analysis starting at the very top with your room characteristics and your listening preferences. And then works its way down through a series of specific choices to the best possible solution within your budget.
If that’s done properly all the other tradeoffs will take care of themselves. You will eliminate a lot of possible combinations that simply don’t fit your situation. And you will end up with the best performance for your particular needs.
Last edited:
You’ve been promoting this idea that what we have today isn’t good enough and what’s coming is going to replace it. Stereo is no good any more according to you. Even though there are thousands and thousands of people who thoroughly enjoy it for listening to their 2-channel music collection.
But now we are all going to have to go to multi-channel. Never mind that most people don’t likely have the room for all those speakers. Or want to pay for them. Or have to look at them. Or even have a desire to hear music that way. You assume that it’s superior to today’s outstanding quality stereo, but that’s just your opinion.
Sorry, but I just don’t see everyone getting excited by all the new gimmicks and jumping to your pie in the sky ideas. Some of this might be of interest to home theater fans, but that’s an entirely different group from most of the people here.
What is the subject of this thread?
Because "a trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situational decision that involves diminishing or losing one quality, quantity, or property of a set or design in return for gains in other aspects. In simple terms, a tradeoff is where one thing increases, and another must decrease."
Because "a trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situational decision that involves diminishing or losing one quality, quantity, or property of a set or design in return for gains in other aspects. In simple terms, a tradeoff is where one thing increases, and another must decrease."
I have the space and assemble the whole 5.1 system. I wasn't even interested in movies.
When I went to live concerts, I never saw a musician behind me playing his instrument. And when I saw some (very few) action movies, the artificial effects from behind-ahead didn't seem anything close to reality. All these supposed advances in sound reproduction technologies remind me of the failure of the quadraphony in the reproduction of vinyl.
Hi classicalfan,
yes I was hoping people comment their thoughts about trade-offs in general as you have and my opening post for the thread is just another general layer for your point. The trade-offs are there for every trade as said and people use them more or less knowingly everyday for many things, also in hobbies like loudspeaker design and building. Let me tell some background.
I have felt many times a bit lost with my speaker project and had thoughts like what to do next, should I buy some other parts or when to call it finished and things like that and the project isn't finished yet, of course. Ok, I knew it is going to be a long project and effort to study the craft as a hobby when I started it out but still after some time I wasn't confident about the project. I had a goal, sort of, to build very good set of big speakers that somehow blend into the room visually. Initial target was certain dimensions that I could pack the speakers back of my car for parties but that has changed, took me some time to let the idea go for better fit to the place they mostly spent their time. And there was some other ideas as well, and endless project Suddenly I've realized I'm studying about some particular issue for long times spending more and more time thinking the trade-offs. Now that I've realized the basic set of cost, appearance, size and sound quality can be used as tool to help this kind of situations as a baseline guide. I was not knowingly thinking about them since I hadn't set any priority for them for this particular project, at any point. I've got enough time span and some savings and system size is limited to about 1000 litres so maybe that is why I wasn't paying attention and have been just hustling around.
Setting a priority order for these basic trade-offs helps to get the project to the goal, what ever that was, and successfully so. Just a quick mental note making the priority into awareness was enough. I feel it keeps me on the track now and guides decisions with the project without ever having to go second guessing, a confidence. More importantly it has helped me to understand the people and their projects a bit better and hopefully I'm reflecting some of that back as more helpful output.
Now I see this same kind of "not thinking the priority of these basic trade-offs" haunting many others as well here in the internet, particularly the relatively new to the trade as I'm. Every project is different priority set and if people don't think about what the priorities are it is very hard to have a successful information transfer be it studying some material or communicating with others. Answer to an question can help a lot more if it is based on same priority set as the question, for the project at hand. Every project have their own priorities but most if not all are tied into these basic trade-off categories so that's why they are useful as basis. Somehow I've been doing this prioritizing at work pretty well but didn't apply it in the hobby. Now that I'm writing this I think I'll be more confident at work and life as well
So, I'm trying to start a thread that hopefully pops up every now and then for the new readers to find to the basic trade-offs and confidence they can give. And it seems to have started, I feel waxxx and some others have been in tune so the idea has some resonance at least. Well, this post might be too personal to yuck many but I felt I should share it.
There it is, said it was kind of philosophical Trying to outsmart the deeper trade-offs is the salt for me and I believe many others participating here. I love to ponder about the problems and I'm having lots of fun!
yes I was hoping people comment their thoughts about trade-offs in general as you have and my opening post for the thread is just another general layer for your point. The trade-offs are there for every trade as said and people use them more or less knowingly everyday for many things, also in hobbies like loudspeaker design and building. Let me tell some background.
I have felt many times a bit lost with my speaker project and had thoughts like what to do next, should I buy some other parts or when to call it finished and things like that and the project isn't finished yet, of course. Ok, I knew it is going to be a long project and effort to study the craft as a hobby when I started it out but still after some time I wasn't confident about the project. I had a goal, sort of, to build very good set of big speakers that somehow blend into the room visually. Initial target was certain dimensions that I could pack the speakers back of my car for parties but that has changed, took me some time to let the idea go for better fit to the place they mostly spent their time. And there was some other ideas as well, and endless project
Suddenly I've realized I'm studying about some particular issue for long times spending more and more time thinking the trade-offs. Now that I've realized the basic set of cost, appearance, size and sound quality can be used as tool to help this kind of situations as a baseline guide. I was not knowingly thinking about them since I hadn't set any priority for them for this particular project, at any point. I've got enough time span and some savings and system size is limited to about 1000 litres so maybe that is why I wasn't paying attention and have been just hustling around. Setting a priority order for these basic trade-offs helps to get the project to the goal, what ever that was, and successfully so. Just a quick mental note making the priority into awareness was enough. I feel it keeps me on the track now and guides decisions with the project without ever having to go second guessing, a confidence. More importantly it has helped me to understand the people and their projects a bit better and hopefully I'm reflecting some of that back as more helpful output.
Now I see this same kind of "not thinking the priority of these basic trade-offs" haunting many others as well here in the internet, particularly the relatively new to the trade as I'm. Every project is different priority set and if people don't think about what the priorities are it is very hard to have a successful information transfer be it studying some material or communicating with others. Answer to an question can help a lot more if it is based on same priority set as the question, for the project at hand. Every project have their own priorities but most if not all are tied into these basic trade-off categories so that's why they are useful as basis. Somehow I've been doing this prioritizing at work pretty well but didn't apply it in the hobby. Now that I'm writing this I think I'll be more confident at work and life as well
So, I'm trying to start a thread that hopefully pops up every now and then for the new readers to find to the basic trade-offs and confidence they can give. And it seems to have started, I feel waxxx and some others have been in tune so the idea has some resonance at least. Well, this post might be too personal to yuck many but I felt I should share it.
There it is, said it was kind of philosophical
Trying to outsmart the deeper trade-offs is the salt for me and I believe many others participating here. I love to ponder about the problems and I'm having lots of fun!Is it your opinion that two channel stereo is superior to live performance?
Major trade-off for me is size.
The person in charge really doesn't want refrigerators taking up a large part of the lounge room.
The other constraint is also size, not being able to afford a house with a large enough space to fit refrigerator sized speakers whilst another constraint related to size is my own diminishing physical strength and no longer being able to move speakers that weigh in excess of 100 kilos
The person in charge really doesn't want refrigerators taking up a large part of the lounge room.
The other constraint is also size, not being able to afford a house with a large enough space to fit refrigerator sized speakers whilst another constraint related to size is my own diminishing physical strength and no longer being able to move speakers that weigh in excess of 100 kilos
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.