Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Well I suppose the shallow vs. steep argument will just go on and on
Well I suppose the shallow vs. steep argument will just go on and on
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th November 2017, 03:39 PM   #181
Charles Darwin is offline Charles Darwin  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottjoplin View Post
Any examples of Australian speakers? They must be the biggest in the world?
Don't know of Australian speakers but I do know of an Australian guy who owns or owned a pair of Tannoy Westminsters alongside a pair of Electro Voice Patrician 2s.


(That is a 12" cone mid)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg EVBrochure_11.jpg (110.8 KB, 227 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2017, 10:51 PM   #182
wesayso is offline wesayso  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
wesayso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by graaf View Post
and Toole explains why:

Click the image to open in full size.
Beautiful post and probably very true. I've definitely noticed I could train myself to "hear" the room. Much harder to unlearn that though. I sometimes whished I didn't do that .
However the very early reflections (within ~6 to 7 ms) can really affect imaging positions. Especially noticeable in a non symmetrical room setup.

It's much like a sauce that's poured over each recording. It doesn't have to be objectionable, but it was similar over a wide range of songs. In my own experiments, removing those reflections meant each recoding had more of it's own size and shape of the perceived image. That has become my preference. I can't blame anyone preferring something different though, as the removal of reflections had it's own downsides.
__________________
Use Science to design your speakers and they will sound like a piece of Art...

Last edited by wesayso; 13th November 2017 at 10:53 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 12:31 AM   #183
DDF is offline DDF  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
DDF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ottawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Toole and Olive ...are quite convinced that a constant (flat) DI with a subtle HF power response roll-off is necessary for the best possible reproduction.
They spent two lifetimes trying to show that subjective preference is statistically highest over the widest variety of playback environments if the speakers used in the recording chain and the playback speakers had this DI. It doesn't preclude other options or situations. It's more of a wise design target for commercial speakers and recording environments both, than a better design for specific situations.

Two additional ways to look at this:
As Dr Toole repeats often, the "circle of confusion" posits that the best replay environment mimics the intent of the recording environment, whatever that may be.

Or, looking at this another way, I never quite understood why Troels Gravesen almost always designed his speakers for reduced output the higher one went in frequency (on axis). Then I watched an interview with one of Kef design leads, and he clarified this resulted in higher preference in Europe due to the typically lower absorption in rooms. Flatter is arguably better for North America, but neither target is universally "better" or "worse"
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 02:47 AM   #184
Pallas is offline Pallas  Pakistan
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernando R View Post
I don't think the B&W 800 series with 12 and 15" woofers were constrained by size.
Interesting thing about B&W. The speakers that made their reputation were the "Matrix" series that got into Abbey Road, became Don Keele's reference, etc. These were designed by Lawrence Dickie, and basically followed the Toole/Olive criteria: flat and smooth FR on axis, smooth FR off axis.

The current B&W 800 series are designed totally differently. I haven't heard the latest line. They're so ungainly that I have no interest in listening. The previous generation at least looked more elegant.

If you want to see what the designer who put B&W on the map is doing now, here's a glimpse:
Vivid Audio Giya G3 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
__________________
Serious Audio Blog
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 07:23 AM   #185
wintermute is offline wintermute  Australia
just another
diyAudio Moderator
 
wintermute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney
Well I suppose the shallow vs. steep argument will just go on and on
Quote:
Originally Posted by wesayso View Post
I've definitely noticed I could train myself to "hear" the room. Much harder to unlearn that though. I sometimes whished I didn't do that .
Yes, one of the reasons I've not gone out of my way to pick up on various imperfections. Once you can do it I imagine it is very hard to turn off!!

On the Australian speakers... Duntech would be an example of shallow, they use first order (I believe acoustic) crossovers. Duntech Audio

Krix is another Australian manufacturer though I don't know what sort of crossovers they use Floorstanding | Krix

Tony.
__________________
Any intelligence I may appear to have is purely artificial!
Some of my photos
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 08:34 AM   #186
Charles Darwin is offline Charles Darwin  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas View Post
Interesting thing about B&W. The speakers that made their reputation were the "Matrix" series that got into Abbey Road...
Always bear in mind that B&W got into Abbey Road because of sponsoring, not because they were any better than the Quested systems they used before.
The Abbey Road engineer I spoke to claims the contrary ie the B&W/Classé combination that replaced active Quested systems in some rooms are clearly inferior. In other rooms they still use Quested but B&Ws are moved in for any official photos.
People who have been to Abbey Road recently say that the place is cluttered up with top-of-the-range B&Ws, they are everywhere: Shoved into corners, filling up broom cupboards and a few are actually connected and working!
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 12:50 PM   #187
Zvu is offline Zvu  Serbia
diyAudio Member
 
Zvu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Belgrade
Good thing to know
__________________
Not for fainthearted
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 03:05 PM   #188
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDF View Post
They spent two lifetimes trying to show that subjective preference is statistically highest over the widest variety of playback environments if the speakers used in the recording chain and the playback speakers had this DI. It doesn't preclude other options or situations.
...
he clarified this resulted in higher preference in Europe due to the typically lower absorption in rooms. Flatter is arguably better for North America, but neither target is universally "better" or "worse"
I don't suppose that the results of anyone's research would preclude there being other solutions. However, it seems wise to me that in the absence of any solid evidence of alternative solutions that one would go with what we have.

I don't know how much others roll off their high end, but I have also found this to be preferred even here in NA. Maybe they do this more than I do, I don't know. I find that as the DI becomes flatter at the high end, the sound seems brighter, requiring more falloff for a natural sound. To me this represents the natural condition of sound in nature where higher frequencies get rolled off with propagation from air absorption. When we playback in a small space there isn't enough "space" to yield this natural roll-off so we add it in ourselves.
__________________
Earl Geddes Gedlee Website
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 10:13 PM   #189
system7 is offline system7  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
system7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Portsmouth UK
Great thread, boys and girls! All we know about our Universe (and our hypothetical Creator) really is that it is an EXTREMELY interesting place. If there is a Creator, he is certainly brighter than us little arboreal (tree-dwelling) creatures!

My own view, is that our Universe is designed to please living creatures at any level. Whether you are a Hebrew shepherd looking at the seemingly constant stars at night in ancient days, or a Hebrew scientist considering the seemingly invariable laws of physics in the less sane C20. The Universe seems to have no plot holes. It's a masterpiece.

FWIW, we have far more acoustic senses than just our ears. We have the hairs on the back of our necks (and cheeks if we guys didn't shave) which can pick up frequencies up to about 40kHz. We are always aware of height and nearby precipices and caves from some gut vibration feeling in our stomachs that makes us nervous of falling to our deaths (around 5Hz I think).

So on a dark night when our monkey eyes don't help much, we are not only aware of what is around us which might be a predator, we are aware of a cliff we might fall off, or a rock wall we might bump into. You follow?

In fact, the strength of arboreal (tree-dwelling) creatures like us, who will only fall to the ground once, because that would be terminal, is a tremendous spatial awareness. 3 dimensional.

At a mathematical level, not only does the geometry of the device matter, it also matters what the space is that it is embedded in. This is Bernhard Riemann stuff. Which means the speaker geometry matters, and also the room.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg EMI 13x8 bass plus cone tweeter.JPG (51.2 KB, 132 views)
File Type: jpg Conics.JPG (21.8 KB, 132 views)
File Type: jpg Gaussian Curvature in Geometry.jpg (101.1 KB, 128 views)
File Type: jpg Hyperbolic15.jpg (49.1 KB, 123 views)
__________________
Best Regards from Steve in Portsmouth, UK.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2017, 10:48 PM   #190
454Casull is offline 454Casull  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernando R View Post
As someone who has been in this hobby for 50 years now, and stopped to get an electrical engineering degree somewhere along the way, I am greatly amused by some of the arguments on these boards and those who believe that engineering is actually ruled by inviolable concepts and theories. The absolute best definition of engineering I have ever come across is “the art of figuring out which parameters can be safely ignored.”On another thread someone wrote something to the effect that those who crossed over at or above 3 KHz ignoring the directivity index were fools who had no idea what they were doing.
That comment made me draw up a short list of fools who did not know what they were doing and whose speakers must have had terrible midrange.
  • The entire BBC team who thought 8” drivers could be crossed over at 3 KHz in their monitors.
  • Spendor, from the original BC1 (8”) to the current D7 (7”) crossing at 3 KHz
  • Harbeth who still think you can cross 8” woofers at 3 KHz.
  • Bowers and Wilkins who still think you can cross 6” drivers at 4 KHz in their flagship 800 series.
  • Aerial Acoustics who take an SB 5” Papyrus mid to 3KHz in their 7T
  • Sony with their SS-AR1 who think that they can take a Scan 15M Revelator from 400 to 4 KHz
  • The biggest fool had to be Peter Walker of Quad who thought you could take a wide flat panel to 7 KHz before crossing to a narrow strip
These people were either fools or they figured out that gains could be made in other areas by compromising some directivity. They succeeded in creating great products becausethey figured out what and how much could be safely ignored.
Lighten up guys. None of us have absolute answers.
I apologize to any other fools I neglected to mention.
Just leaving these here:

Argument from authority - Wikipedia
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

*silently tiptoes away*
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Well I suppose the shallow vs. steep argument will just go on and onHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2 + 1, variable state bi-amping VS steep low pass subwoofer emosms Analog Line Level 0 16th February 2016 06:50 PM
Shallow mid-range enclosure inside a 3-way?? too shallow?? Kooshball Multi-Way 8 3rd November 2012 11:40 PM
Suppose I should have introduced myself first. J_Starner Introductions 2 19th May 2006 01:41 PM
pc xo : steep crossover slopes advantages and drawbacks Nemophyle Multi-Way 2 14th September 2005 12:25 AM
Inexpensive 8" driver with steep top-end roll-off The Paulinator Multi-Way 1 6th June 2003 07:25 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio
Wiki