OK... I really don't get it. Anytime that I've asked a question in the past that makes reference to an incrediblyh successful manufacturer and their design choices... I usually get a bunch of huge egos that could obviously blow this manufacturer away with their incredible design knowledge. ....and the reason that they aren't as successful as the big designer is because they won't sell out.... like say Mark Levinson or Mondial. C'mon.. please give me a break just this once. All the all of you "sour grapes" people to go to another thread. ....and if it makes you fel better.. then I agree... The world is flat and the emperors new robe is gorgeous. Now for those of you that are real scientists and ask the question "Why it might work?" as opposed making statements about "why it won't work." Well.. Welcome to this thread. We may even start a new trend of optimistic/open minded speaker builders as opposed to the "you're going to fall off the end of the world" type. Afterall, we all know that you can't send sounds thousands of miles away without wire, right? OK.. are all the chest pounding Yahoos gone? LOL.. that may actually include everyone that frequents this website. I guess we'll see.
So.... Any ideas on Eggleston's design choice? Remember, I've already heard all of the "you can't" statements that Eggleston, Wilson Audio, and Carver have obviously not. Let's see if we can figure out why those poor misinformed individuals chose to make such a poor choice OK.. sorry to be so wordy, but "Polarity Responders" belong in later phases of design development. After you've done 90% of what they'll tell you isn't possible.
So.... Any ideas on Eggleston's design choice? Remember, I've already heard all of the "you can't" statements that Eggleston, Wilson Audio, and Carver have obviously not. Let's see if we can figure out why those poor misinformed individuals chose to make such a poor choice OK.. sorry to be so wordy, but "Polarity Responders" belong in later phases of design development. After you've done 90% of what they'll tell you isn't possible.
pinkmouse said:
Hi,
I love the quote. Isn't it sad that it's true. Anyway, here are a couple this link will take you to a couple of examples:
http://www.egglestonworks.com/savoy.html
and Carver's Sunfire website at:
http://www.sunfire.com
There are more, but I have to run right now. Have you ever listened to any of these?
Thanks, Nick
kensetsu,
I have a number of friends that will not post on the forum because they do not want to be criticized. I know, I have been before and it really dose not bother me that much. So just take the good with the bad, it all free.
The Eggleston designs are very interesting, and his design have won product of the year in Stereopile. Therefore, he must be on the right track. I Have never built a speaker that Isobaric design and it seem to have to many non-linear elements, I would just rather do a bass reflex. What is very interesting is that he runs the midrange drivers with out crossovers which could be linear, however could present a number of problems with the tweeters. Of course the low frequency response of the midrange is limited by the cabinet size.
Also I though he was out of business, but I see he's not.
I have a number of friends that will not post on the forum because they do not want to be criticized. I know, I have been before and it really dose not bother me that much. So just take the good with the bad, it all free.
The Eggleston designs are very interesting, and his design have won product of the year in Stereopile. Therefore, he must be on the right track. I Have never built a speaker that Isobaric design and it seem to have to many non-linear elements, I would just rather do a bass reflex. What is very interesting is that he runs the midrange drivers with out crossovers which could be linear, however could present a number of problems with the tweeters. Of course the low frequency response of the midrange is limited by the cabinet size.
Also I though he was out of business, but I see he's not.
SY said:
Hi,
I never said that Eggleston invented it. I merely said that despite everything negative that I've read on this design theory, Eggleston and some others appear to have implemented this design in a somewhat successful manner. I really would like to learn more about using this method in a practical manner. Unfortunately there are far too many "bottom bread butterers" on this website and in the world, in general. Sheesh! What was Don Garlits thinking when he invented the rear engine dragster. What a stupid idea. Didn't he know that you couldn't put the cart before the horse. Shouldn't F-15s have the engine in front? Like the old propellor aircraft. silly rabbit... perhaps you shold try cheerios instead. Anyway, I expect few positive responses to this post as most people are have difficulty with expanding their viewpoints. It's much easier to narrow it.
jewilson said:
Hi, I have no problem with being criticized. I just have a problem with my time being wasted by people with narrow minds. Unfortunately, the world is filled with "Sheeple" and I know that I will have to interact with them, but it would be much better if they started a "Nick is a fool" thread. I'm sure my ex-wife would love to post there. LOL.. Anyway, I'm a single dad with custody of 3 kids, and have little time to waste. Yeah... I know... Like Isobaric designs, dads with custody don't work.. Don't tell any of my kids that... Unless you want all 3 of them ganging up on you. Anyway, since I've already read about 100 posts about why this direction is a waste of time... I'd be real interested in any positive/constructive ideas on the use of this theory.
Thanks, Nick
kensetsu,
We are all entitled to our points of view in the forum. I cannot see that starting a thread with a negative attitude can lead to much.
Most of us seem to get buy just fine without doubling up on bass drivers to get the results needed. You know Tommy Ivo built a dragster with 4 engines and four wheel drive and it was a flop. So what performance attribute are we gaining buy doubling on the woofers
We are all entitled to our points of view in the forum. I cannot see that starting a thread with a negative attitude can lead to much.
Most of us seem to get buy just fine without doubling up on bass drivers to get the results needed. You know Tommy Ivo built a dragster with 4 engines and four wheel drive and it was a flop. So what performance attribute are we gaining buy doubling on the woofers
Just a thought
As every other principle, isobaric has it's pros and cons. So all is a matter of taste, application .... etc.
There is definitely no best speaker nor best principle. Simple as that.
BTW: I also once heard one of the very early isobaric Dynaudio speakers. They had some of the cleanest bass I ever heard. But efficiency was veeeeeery low.
Regards
Charles
As every other principle, isobaric has it's pros and cons. So all is a matter of taste, application .... etc.
There is definitely no best speaker nor best principle. Simple as that.
BTW: I also once heard one of the very early isobaric Dynaudio speakers. They had some of the cleanest bass I ever heard. But efficiency was veeeeeery low.
Regards
Charles
jewilson said:kensetsu,
We are all entitled to our points of view in the forum. I cannot see that starting a thread with a negative attitude can lead to much.
Most of us seem to get buy just fine without doubling up on bass drivers to get the results needed. You know Tommy Ivo built a dragster with 4 engines and four wheel drive and it was a flop. So what performance attribute are we gaining buy doubling on the woofers
Hi Jim,
Thanks for pointing out everyones right to there opinion. I'm very aware of that, but my desire to have problem solvers instead of problem creators is not a negative attitude. As a matter of fact it's a double negative, which is a positive. LOL.. But if I choose to have a party and announce that I don't want anyone bringing guns and alcohol... Then that's my right. That doesn't mean that they can't bring their guns and alcohol to your party. That's OK with me, if it's OK with you. Anyway, I suspect that it's much easer to hang on to old outdated beliefs then it is to adopt new ones. Even if they have incredible merit. Jeez, I remember when I was a kid and drove better when I drank alcohol. Well that said, I would like to say that I really appreciate your concern. It was very thoughtful of you to lookout for me, but (and forgive me for saying this) it sounds like you'd like to justify being destructive and offering negative criticism. By the way, I believe that the space shuttle is launched by at least 5 engines. Tommy Ivo's poor implementation of a design did not make it a bad idea. Perhaps all speakers should have a single driver. Anyway, I love Philosophy. If I thought that I could have made a living at it, I wouldn't have gone to Pharmacy School for 6 years and Post grad at Purdue for Nuclear Physics. Anyway, this isn't a philosophy website and I don't think that I should waste anymore people's time with why I choose to intereact with problem solvers as opposed to problem creators.
Take care, Nick
Re: Just a thought
-
Hi Charles, Yeah.. I know the efficiency is low. That part stinks, but I'm hoping to offset this with some pretty powerful amplifiers. and by biampling. The interesting thing about the Eggleston designs, is that they've cholsen to do this on the midrange drivers. Hmmn? Could it really be that good? Anyway, every thing that I read tells me that the clamshell configuration is the only one worth using, but I see other companies out there that use other configurations anyway.
Thanks for the input, Nick
P.S. You know, if we keep moving in this direction, we may actually discover something new.
phase_accurate said:
-Hi Charles, Yeah.. I know the efficiency is low. That part stinks, but I'm hoping to offset this with some pretty powerful amplifiers. and by biampling. The interesting thing about the Eggleston designs, is that they've cholsen to do this on the midrange drivers. Hmmn? Could it really be that good? Anyway, every thing that I read tells me that the clamshell configuration is the only one worth using, but I see other companies out there that use other configurations anyway.
Thanks for the input, Nick
P.S. You know, if we keep moving in this direction, we may actually discover something new.
Nick,
I'll spend and run some compound isobaric designs through my simulators. I will use Dynaudio and some Scan Speak and some cheap drivers.
I'll spend and run some compound isobaric designs through my simulators. I'll use Dynaudio Drivers and some Scan Speak's and cheap drivers and we will see. What I assume we'll get is a smaller cabinet and lower sensitivity-efficiency. I guess my question is how this design looks to the amps as a load. Still it is not a cost effect way to design a bass system.
I'll spend and run some compound isobaric designs through my simulators. I will use Dynaudio and some Scan Speak and some cheap drivers.
I'll spend and run some compound isobaric designs through my simulators. I'll use Dynaudio Drivers and some Scan Speak's and cheap drivers and we will see. What I assume we'll get is a smaller cabinet and lower sensitivity-efficiency. I guess my question is how this design looks to the amps as a load. Still it is not a cost effect way to design a bass system.
kensetsu said:
Hi Kensetsu
It's not that I don't know what an isobarik is, it's just I wasn't sure of what point you were trying to make. I thought you had a specific statement in mind, rather than a global point.
I have never heard the examples you gave, but then again, they are both very American designs, and as such don't really travel over to the UK in any great quantity.
As for Isobariks in principle, like all tools, they have their place. They can do some good things, and they can do some bad things.Such is life. No methodology is a global solution to good sound reproduction.
However I have to agree with others, if you want to start a constructive discussion thread here, commencing with such sweeping negative statements will in general only lead to a destructive thread, the kind you say you don't want, a self fullfilling prophecy if you will.
Re: Re: Just a thought
kensetsu,
I believe it only on the Bass and Midd bass drivers. If make no sense to load the mid this way.
kensetsu said:
Hi Charles, Yeah.. I know the efficiency is low. That part stinks, but I'm hoping to offset this with some pretty powerful amplifiers. and by biampling. The interesting thing about the Eggleston designs, is that they've cholsen to do this on the midrange drivers. Hmmn? Could it really be that good? Anyway, every thing that I read tells me that the clamshell configuration is the only one worth using, but I see other companies out there that use other configurations anyway.
Thanks for the input, Nick
P.S. You know, if we keep moving in this direction, we may actually discover something new.
kensetsu,
I believe it only on the Bass and Midd bass drivers. If make no sense to load the mid this way.
It should be noted that Dynaudio woofers of that era (e.g., 30W54) were perfect candidates for isobaric loading- high Vas, low fs, moderate Qts. Dynaudio did some very cool tricks which I haven't seen anyone else duplicate. First, the isobaric was asymmetrical- the inner woofer was different than the outer. Second, they rolled off the inner woofer acoustically by having it fire through a Variovent. Third, they had a moderate volume and distance between the two drivers. Super, super clean bass, the best I've ever heard to this day.
The Eggleston speakers I've heard were not, to my ears, terribly impressive, but not because of the isobaric loading; they had some fundamental crossover issues. Off axis response was very rough, and it took some major room treatment to make them integrate. Why someone made it "Product of the Year" escapes me, unless it was a very slow year.
jewilson said:
Hi Jim,
I know it's not cost efficient, but I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't take drugs or gamble. Heck... As a single parent with custody of 3 kids, I don't even go out, except to work or drive my kids somewhere. I need a creative outlet and I guess that, right now, this is it. Right now, I have the following Dynaudio drivers:
Esotar T330D tweeters (2 pairs)
15W75 Esotec (3 pairs)
17WLQ Woofers (6 pairs of)
Raven R1 tweeters (1 pair)
Raven R2 tweeters (1 pair)
Esotec D260D tweeters (2 pairs), but I'm going to sell these and I may even sell the Raven R1 tweeters to fund my project further.
I originally planned on trying to clone the Dynaudio Evidence Temptation, but then I started reading about the Eggleston and Silverline audio line (who also uses Esotars) with their rear firing tweeters, etc. Anyway, I'm really just trying to figure out if it might actually be a better route then most think.
Thanks, Nick
jewilson said:
The results I have had with some very very cheap drivers ($6 ea) would dispute this. I'm sure that a 10 pair array of those would out perform any $120 driver by a wide margin. For the mass market manufacturers I'd think that iso loading would be the most cost effective way to improve the sound of their bass, if they wanted to that is.
pinkmouse said:
Will someone please list the bad things other than less efficiency, unsightly driver baskets, and limited frequency range.
Also please list the advantages in addition to smaller box requirements and reduced distortion if in a push-pull configuration. Are there other reductions in distortion from iso loading? I've iso loaded 2 drivers that could only be used for paper weights alone, but together they sounded quite nice. I'd like to know everything that could have caused such a drastic improvement.
pinkmouse said:
Hi,
You sound like a wise man. Point well taken. I, being from cross cultural background, sometimes forget the Western desire to act like John Wayne... and growing up as military brat, I found that dissidents in the ranks severly slowed progress and put others at risk. It's a good thing that the New York Yankees act like a team. We in the U.S. used to be like that, but now we all want to be the leader.. Hence the unstoppable rise of the China as an economic power. Hey, if ther's fighting in the ranks.... You figure it out. By the way, I'm Japanese and Irish. Japanese are "we can" people... lol.. the Irish tend to be."go ahead, I don't care", people. I love them both. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that Gengis Kahn wouldn't have gotten so far f there was a lot of internal fighting, but what do I know. I think that the United States is on the way down, because we're no longer United.
Thanks, Nick
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.