I'm unsure if we have trolls in this thread. Lrsky used to work for Thiel, goes through an attack on first order crossovers, then says he likes Fried speakers, which are first order. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, along with his rank ignorance on the patent issues. Josephaud then offers highly damning praise to Thiel speakers, thus offending them and Roy Johnson (decidedly not "the only manufacturer who really implements low order crossovers properly",) whose participation here is far beyond that of others in terms of technical information. |
I don't believe you can demonstrate that having a time and phase coherent speaker is more important than having a just a phase coherent speaker. The problem in being definitive is not merely that it's largely a matter of preference - which it is, just like I prefer Patti Smith to Norah Jones - there are unresolved matters of psychoacoustics in testing something like this, as well as a particular design method's suitability to a particular use. For example, a time aligned speaker might not be appropriate for extreme near field listening; it objectively wouldn't be the best for that situation. But it might be the best in another situation.
Of course, Jeff J. thinks each kind is less appropriate for virtually every situation. |
>I said there are no patent holders on First Order Crossovers
This is not what you said. What you said is right in the thread, and I quoted it. Go read it again. At any rate, your incorrect claim doesn't apply anyway, since the Kaminsky crossover I referenced is not first order. So sorry for your multiple confusions.
I didn't read the rest of your post. |
After this and other long, fact filled threads on the topic, we still don't know that Fried did not and doesn't make time aligned speakers.
He believed in first order series crossovers.
On that topic if Roy Johnson happens to read this: What about the higher order series crossovers like the Kaminsky? They claim phase coherence. Have you studied these? Thanks. |
Thank you. Those crossovers interest me, but it seems the patent holder (?) has a kind of underdeveloped speaker site and seems to charge a lot for the speakers, which, of course, I've never heard. |
> There is no 'patent holder' per se on cross overs
Please forward your remarks to Richard Modafferi _and_ Roy Kimber, and let me know what you find. OTOH, I don't know if Kaminsky is still alive, or if that site is a licensee of his, or what. (Here's a small hint: "Our Infinite Slope (US Patent #4771466) reduces wave interference down....") God, I mean it's so obvious.
In a similar vein, your opinion that you would expect a first order crossover speaker to sound forward is without foundation. It's fine if you like Thiels, or if you like that attribute, but there are other first order designs which are anything but bright, including Vandersteens and presumably out of your awareness Symdex.
When Thiel was first getting dealers, including Herb Hamburger in PA, he maintained that other speakers rolled off the high end improperly. It was a design decision, which in my opinion he has somewhat moderated since the early days.
And most speakers do not measure flat to 20khz, although in recent years more and more might than was the case in the past. |
Trelja > As Larry alluded to, Bud Fried did produce time aligned speakers.
I would like more information on this, since I cannot remember a the Fried speaker whose drivers had aligned acoustic centers via a stepped baffle arrangement, an obvious prerequisite for a time aligned, dynamic speaker. (Single driver, dynamic speakers cannot just be assumed to be time aligned, as we've discussed many times in these threads.) Is there a vintage site with a picture of the C/3L?
Now, regarding Lrsky, some Fried models apparently did not have first order crossovers on all drivers. This was pointed out to me and I acknowledged the error.
When I pointed out some of your errors, you simply denied what you said and what I said. It's all in the thread, not that anyone else is going to bother keeping track. However, your many errors, combined with your evasive responses when directed to your errors, frankly reminds me of Jason Bloom hitting the sauce a wee bit too much. I find that kind of denial objectionable. |
>what I should have said is, if there are any active patents on first orders, (the subject here) they are not being inforced, due to the issues you chose not to read.
You're still confused. First, I was never talking about patents on first order crossovers. I asked the expert, Roy Johnson - not you - what he thought of the patented Kaminsky _higher order_ series crossover which claims to be phase coherent. This crossover is relevant to this thread; and the thread itself is a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion: Phase coherence and/or time alignment. The thread is not titled "first order crossovers" as you seem to think. This is why I wanted an expert's opinion on the Kaminsky, which makes radical claims.
You then made everything confounding not only by mis-speaking, but by denying what you posted on this point specifically. Your other posts have a high degree of error and even internal contradiction, imo, but rather than go through it again I'll just keep it in mind for my future reference when I check your posts and your products.
OTOH, I may have gotten some of my information on some Fried crossovers wrong. I always appreciate corrections regarding my own misconceptions or lack of specificity. It seems some of Bud Fried's crossovers were asymmetric...but I don't know model by model. |
Thank you all for the interesting info and links.
>You don't need a stepped baffle to get time-alignment. A sloped front baffle actually works better.
I was imprecise, and meant to indicate aligned acoustic centers, be it via stepped or sloped baffles or adjustable drive units. |
