Showing 5 responses by mahgister

Master M how goes the acoustic journey? Adjustable spring BASS traps (pipe organ tech) coming up..:-)
It takes me a lot of listening and some enhancement device trick to succeed, but much time... 2 weeks of listening and fine tuning, but i had 29 pipes and tubes ...This is finished now.... 😊

My last idea comes directly from the last acoustical research ,but i am proud to be the sole creator of my design... Like you are for your speakers...

We listen not to frequency like assume those who use an electronic equalizer and a mic with a tested response frequency for a PRECISE ARTIFICIAL location...

We listen to some multi dimensional complex different wavefronts, a bunch of frequencies,( like the voice timbre of a singer) coming from the tweeter, the bass drivers, and from early and late reflections in a PRECISE NATURAL time frame...

I used this fact creating my H.M.E. (Helmoltz mechanical equalizer): imagine a snake with head and tail...

The HEAD begins a few centimeters from the tweeter of one of my speakers with 2 pipes near the tweeter and 2 bottles near the port hole; then going to my left on the first reflection point with 6 pipes; then to my rear with the MAIN BODY of the snake, 8 pipes ,one 8 feet high; and then goes to the second reflection point to my right, with 6 pipes and finally ends at the TAIL, with 3 pipes near the bass driver of this speaker, with one bottle near the port hole....Asymmetric distribution of pipes and bottles and differences between them are very important at the head and tail....

Result: "listener envelopment" factor LEV and "source width" factor ASW and imaging complete optimization...

This means my 50 dollars speakers sound like almost the best speakers there is to my ears, with ONLY their design normal limitations and no more limitations from the room now... In the opposite, my room enhanced the speakers design to MY EARS (not to a mic from a mic)...

It seems you were the only one to catch something about my idea with your comparison with silent organ pipe acoustical tuning in church.... This was half of my idea.... The other half is related to the way the ears/brain recreate the FIRST frontwave sound coming from the 2 speakers early and late reflections for each ear.... The gist of my idea is to control these different reflections with a qualitative control different for each ear...This is the powerful head and tail of my acoustical snake or H.M.E. we can also reduce his name to a true "Helmholtz grid".... Speakers were not there tough at the time of Helmholtz....


Acoustic is so powerful that it is the main factor in audiophile perceived experience... The failure to understand this push the market obsession with upgrading electronics parts....There is less difference between each electronics parts at ANY cost than between electronic part in a bad or in a good room... PERIOD....

The tragedy is : it is not all people who can experience it in a dedicated room....The rest is audiophile blind history obsession with all that matter the less, cables,analog/digital,tubes/S.S. etc, at the cost of which really matter the most: acoustic....

NO ONE listen to his speakers only...We listen to our room.... The direct waves coming from the speakers are perceived, even in near listening field, MIXED with the reflections.... In my own room in one second the waves cross the room 80 times horizontally and more vertically ( my room is 13 feet square 8 1/2 feet high)....My ear/brain use a 80 milliseconds window, in which already many crossings(direct,early and late reflections) will be analyzed internally from EACH one ear... When people think that near listening field nullify the powerful impediment of their non controlled room this is completely false....Any change in my own acoustical settings were detected by me in nearfield listening or regular one position alike...


My best to you....


Thanks oldhvymecΒ .....Interesting remarks from a great "connoisseur" in organ pipe acoustic control....

😊😊😊😊😊
Tempest in a Teapot me thinks.
😁😊😁😊😁😊😁😊

I dont pretend to know anything about speakers design...

I dont doubt and never doubted that high efficiency speakers are probably better in many count...

I dont think that any speakers tough could have been designed WITHOUT trade-off....

I dont want to argue about details of engineering here over my head save for this evidence: there is no perfect speakers... the reason for that is simple, the speakers are always designed with a particular room and specific use in the head of the creator.... Some are better designed, yes, and i will bet on high efficiency speakers in general...But low efficiency one may exist with other choices made that are also meaningful... And between low and high efficiency there is not a line, but a country ..... 😊
Then when someone speak of high efficiency speakers he speak about some in partiicular, different with different choices made than any other one.... ZU is not TEKTON for example....

I try to speak about something i know by experiments and speakers are not my experience...

I will let speakers designers enlightened me about that...

I never imagine that thanking someone for an article about trade off in speakers could create indignation....But millercarbon is passionnate like i am myself, perhaps even a little bit more....Then i understand...

I will only add that the author of this article is not a "clown"....

"Chris Brunhaver grew up in his family’s speaker manufacturing and hi-fi shop and pursued a music performance degree on double bass." An italian family manufacturing speakers is not my definition of what is a "clown" in general if we speak about speakers....

There is no free lunch anywhere this is evidence, but in amplifiers, dac, speakers all trade-off are not equal for sure....Some are better in a general way.... i will bet on high efficiency in general...

My best to all....
Did we all watch the same video?



The video is 2 minute long....

The engineering deep problems related to these trade-off are over my head anyway...

My post was clearly refering to the article under the video...

The only thing that i know is engineering by definition is an art of trade-off between different aspects of physical laws....

No free lunch means that NO DESIGN could be without his own perspective and design costs... Which is an evidence....

I was refering to the article under it.... 😊
Interesting to be conscious reading that article about the great amount of trade-off related to any engineering master craft....