Back OT.
Camplo, it appears the modular cabs with AE 15s shown earlier, are AE's own creation.
However, these are so called U-baffles. Appararently it's a cab with an (rectangular) opening at the rear,
therefore different from the traditional 'just the baffle' open baffle or H-frame.
Drivers in these U-baffles are AE Dipole 15's.
On their FB page it is mentioned they have plans available for those interested.
Camplo, it appears the modular cabs with AE 15s shown earlier, are AE's own creation.
However, these are so called U-baffles. Appararently it's a cab with an (rectangular) opening at the rear,
therefore different from the traditional 'just the baffle' open baffle or H-frame.
Drivers in these U-baffles are AE Dipole 15's.
On their FB page it is mentioned they have plans available for those interested.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
MFR
Based on the meaning of its French derivative, the word "amateur" (not my mistype "armature") describes a lover of what they do. Some amateurs demonstrate excellence in their pursuit of loudspeaker design. But of course, numerous dictionaries also exhibit an alternate definition: as “an inexperienced or unskilled person”. In both cases Professionals can be grouped into both these categories as well. For me, I prefer the 'grace' of the original meaning of the word. WHG
Based on the meaning of its French derivative, the word "amateur" (not my mistype "armature") describes a lover of what they do. Some amateurs demonstrate excellence in their pursuit of loudspeaker design. But of course, numerous dictionaries also exhibit an alternate definition: as “an inexperienced or unskilled person”. In both cases Professionals can be grouped into both these categories as well. For me, I prefer the 'grace' of the original meaning of the word. WHG
Last edited:
The YS-500 clones I have use also sort of open baffle arrangement - they have no back. And they play down to 40 Hz and the in room curve slightly slopes down towards the high end. And they sound great. I am not sure if they can satisfy the high SPL criterion, I never used them with more than 10 W, which is VERY loud in my home.
I am experimenting now with a W-Bin with JBL2445/2385 from ca 600 Hz up - with a bit of DSP, the sound is very dynamic and it can do very high SPL - but there is a compromise in power handling and low extension.
I am experimenting now with a W-Bin with JBL2445/2385 from ca 600 Hz up - with a bit of DSP, the sound is very dynamic and it can do very high SPL - but there is a compromise in power handling and low extension.
Let's see:
A sharp 90-degree bend right after the horn throat, i.e., where the acoustic impedance is highest...
It sure makes for the requisite shallow cabinet...
But is it a good design idea from the point of view of maximising sound quality?
Methinks NO, thanks.
Also: the crossover is very simple and CANNOT possibly produce a good phase match between the two drivers over the frequency region where they overlap.
See? Those are just two incontrovertible objective aspects in which that old design is flawed. And if one digs deeper, there will surely be many others.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it can still do some things right, and probably still sound (much) better than many hopeless modern audiophile speakers which are designed for aesthetic appeal with little to no consideration for the actual physics at play.
But "state of the art", today? "Best of show"? No way.
And lest anyone puts words in my mouth:
no, I am NOT dismissing any of the excellent and trail-blazing research that WE carried out in its heyday.
I agree that were it not for such first, giant steps, we wouldn't be where we are now, not by a long shot.
I also agree that, e.g., the 594A driver was, and still is, an excellent unit by most accounts, which enabled the later development of the JBL 375 family of drivers, as well as the large format TADs.
All true.
But that doesn't take away the fact that blindly replicating the full 1940's package is the way to go. Technology HAS moved on since then.
Which, again, is NOT to say that anything modern will be superior just by virtue of being newer! NOT AT ALL.
But, for instance, while being a fundamentally similar system (large-format woofer + horn), a 1990's Pioneer Exclusive 2404 will just wipe the floor with that 1940's WE 757A. The difference is so great that it's not even funny.
As becomes clear in the works of Sabine and others, 1 of the important aspects of room acoustics is the variability due to changes in the space itself, eg due to the number of people present.
Modern tools enable us to respond to this. Which does not mean that this is always done in the correct way.
Regarding loudspeaker design for domestic use. Over the years I've found the best systems where made by people 'skilled in the art'. Usually those people are professionals in one way or another. However, not all professionals are artists
You are definitely one of the people with the most meaningful and informative contributions on this forum.
I do not doubt that. Although I think that there are many similarities between these 2 systems.
The TAD can be considered as a distant descendant of the WE757A.
If the TAD were not better, what would the meaning of progression be?
Still...I bet there will be plenty of folks who prefer the midrange of the WE757A to that of the 2404 in a 1 on 1 comparison. How could that be?
hint: these people are not all crazy
Last edited:
Open baffle is a preferred arrangement by the vintage (WE) community.
The drivers used in such systems are very different from most of the drivers used for (PA) bass applications today.
If you want high sensitivity + high SPL capability + bass extension in an open baffle configuration, you'll need many big drivers.
With the OT's purpose in mind, I don't think an OB will cut it in a system of reasonable proportions.
Last edited:
The YS-500 utilizes the DE500 (which is also used by Dr. Geddes in his loudspeakers) and the Eminence 2515.
I like the overall concept of the YS-500, but the bass lacks weight due to the open back.
In a large cab the same Eminence would easily go down to 35Hz in a room and would be easier to set up as well.
The diysoundgroup's Sentinel-15, in the large cab variant, is a very straightforward design that would probably give the YS-500 a run for its money.
I like the overall concept of the YS-500, but the bass lacks weight due to the open back.
In a large cab the same Eminence would easily go down to 35Hz in a room and would be easier to set up as well.
The diysoundgroup's Sentinel-15, in the large cab variant, is a very straightforward design that would probably give the YS-500 a run for its money.
The dog appears to be a Whippet or Greyhound of sorts.
On top of the Altec utility cabs are either power supplies for Field Coils, or (parts of) large WE tube amps.
The guy with the dog (Vincent Gallo) made a number of rather unusual movies. This is a scene from one of those.
The Vitalic track (not his best) brings back some good memories from the "ElectroClash" era.
The "PA" is not representative of his setup at home
Last edited:
The dog appears to be a Whippet or Greyhound of sorts.
On top of the Altec utility cabs are either power supplies for Field Coils, or (parts of) large WE tube amps.
The guy with the dog (Vincent Gallo) made some rather unusual movies. This is a scene from one of those.
The Vitalic track (not his best) brings back some good memories from the "ElectroClash" era.
The "PA" is not representative of his setup at home
Wow! .......the good stuff!
Still...I bet there will be plenty of folks who prefer the midrange of the WE757A to that of the 2404 in a 1 on 1 comparison. How could that be?
hint: these people are not all crazy
When we compare the paintings, for example, Renoir, the impressionist vs Charles Bell (Gumball Machine), the photorealist, most of us consider Renoir is a more respectful artist and the his art is actually much more expensive than the Bell's, despite Bell's art is much more realistic than Renoir's blurry image. (And WE is much more $$$ than Pioneer)
Some audiophiles value the recorded music's photo realistic reality, but the other people do not deny the "reality", which is, the recorded music is actually nothing but a fake stereo image that we precept as a 3D space with ridiculous 3d glasses. The difference is if one wants to listen to the recorded music as a virtual reality, or as an art.
Last edited:
Plasnu, I like your analogy, even though I can already smell the rationalists/objectivists approaching.
Perception of sound is a subjective affair.
At home there are a lot factors contributing to the actual perception.
That's also why I don't take 80-90% of the so called audiophiles seriously.
Often times these folks are listening (to a limited collection of approved audiophile recordings > boring!!!) for certain aspects > dimensions of the "soundstage", resolution, extension etc. This is the target market for most manufacturers of dime a dozen audiophile loudspeakers.
Even 2 identical live performances of the same piece of music by the same orchestra may sound quite different, depending on the hall/theatre in which the performance takes place.
Most of us have probably read or participated in endless discussions on the topic here or elsewhere.
Perception of sound is a subjective affair.
At home there are a lot factors contributing to the actual perception.
That's also why I don't take 80-90% of the so called audiophiles seriously.
Often times these folks are listening (to a limited collection of approved audiophile recordings > boring!!!) for certain aspects > dimensions of the "soundstage", resolution, extension etc. This is the target market for most manufacturers of dime a dozen audiophile loudspeakers.
Even 2 identical live performances of the same piece of music by the same orchestra may sound quite different, depending on the hall/theatre in which the performance takes place.
Most of us have probably read or participated in endless discussions on the topic here or elsewhere.
Last edited:
As for the WE757A vs TAD 2402 comparison, I think the 728B contributes considerably to the subjectively perceived quality of the midrange.
From the WE response plots, shown earlier, it's clear this is a true wideband driver.
Contrary to the TAD 2404, the 757A isn't a high sensitivity 2-way monitor, but apart from the lower efficiency the 728B, like its little brother (the 755A) are exceptional drivers, even by today's standards. The secret is in the cone.
These are not perfectly linear, but without major defects. The 728B adds some "warmth" and "body" to the 757A's midrange that many people will appreciate.
From the WE response plots, shown earlier, it's clear this is a true wideband driver.
Contrary to the TAD 2404, the 757A isn't a high sensitivity 2-way monitor, but apart from the lower efficiency the 728B, like its little brother (the 755A) are exceptional drivers, even by today's standards. The secret is in the cone.
These are not perfectly linear, but without major defects. The 728B adds some "warmth" and "body" to the 757A's midrange that many people will appreciate.
Last edited: