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. |
Suits_me> Is there a vintage site with a picture of the C/3L?
There is a picture at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IM_Fried/?yguid=180415640
They appear to be of early-middle vintage, judging by the drivers. My C/3-Ls resembled these at one point, although I used a single piece of foam to cover the tweeters without a cutout for the dome. (The foam they sell for air-conditioner filters works quite well.) |
I regret that I never got subwoofers to match my C/3-Ls. I am planning to buy a pair of Monitor 5s, which likely don't image as well, but have better bass and maybe even better midrange due to less reflections back through the cone.
The Monitor 7s evidently may have bass that's a bit better than that, but they use a tweeter that is not as good.
Perhaps a much deeper C style cabinet would help avoid reflections, but you're still dealing with pretty tight spacing. The larger cabinets of the floor-standers give you much more room for the line and its folds, but you get a larger front baffle along with it. Topping a rectangular cabinet with a truncated pyramid would help, but then your cabinet costs go way up. |
Suits me:
You don't need a stepped baffle to get time-alignment. A sloped front baffle actually works better.
Bud did recommend that most of his bookshelf speakers be listened to from a certain axis.
This brings me to my next point, and it involves an earlier comment I saw about the new Monitor 7 and Studio 7 not being time-aligned.
The acoustic center of a typical tweeter is closer to the plane of the front mounting plate than in a woofer. Since you're sitting out in front of the speakers, we can say that you're closer to the tweeter (to the tweeter's acoustic center). That's a bad thing if we're looking for time-alignment.
So we need to move the tweeter farther away (or the woofer closer). Stepping the baffle can move the tweeter farther away, as can sloping the baffle.
With something like the Monitor 7s, you're meant to listen on-axis with the woofers. The tweeters are off-axis, so they're farther away from your ears. In this case, time-alignment is accomplished without sloping or stepping the baffle.
All we're really looking for is to align the _distance_ from each driver to your ear to be the same.
So Bud had designs that had sloped front baffles, and he also had designs where you were meant to listen from a certain point where the distance from the drivers to your ear was equal.
I used to listen to my Betas on stands that tilted them back. An possibly equivalent method would have been to place them on taller stands. In this case Bud recommended tilting. I can only assume that he looked at the positioning of the drivers and their respective acoustic centers and determined that placing them tilted back was correct.
He recommended that the A/3s that my brother owned be placed on taller stands, with the woofer at ear level.
As you can see, it's difficult to judge whether a speaker is time-aligned or not, unless you also know where your ears are meant to be in relation to the drivers.
BTW, I don't feel stepped-baffles are a good idea because you can get big problems with reflections and diffraction. Fried suggests another problem:
"We have developed as our first possibility three drive systems, in time proper enclosures, joined by a network that makes them “phase coherent”. These we must get to work in a “phase aligned” fashion, i.e., all providing the proper data to the listener at the proper time. The only way known to the author is to place the drivers on a sloping baffle, so that the propagating center of each driver is in vertical alignment with each of the others. If we place them on a flat board, we will be phase coherent but not phase aligned; if we place the bass units out in front, with a step back to the mid, and another step to the tweeter, we will get proper time at just one seat on axis, every other seat in the room being very out of phase; and we will have introduced severe problems in the vertical plane. The best we can do is to slope the baffle, either by designing it in; or by recommending that the speaker be used on a tilt back stand."
Note that he re-thought this later and arrived at time-alignment as done in the Monitor 7s as an alternate. (I first saw that same arrangement on the Studio IVs.) |
Yes, I surely do like my C/3-Ls, and they've served me well for 15 years or so. I'm in the process of getting them upgraded to C/6 status. |
Again, for anyone who doesn't know, I am a part of the current Fried loudspeaker operation. I needed to get involved because of my feelings for Bud. Suits_me, I was also thirsting for the information you are seeking at one point. I could not read enough about the Frieds. Thankfully, a significant amount of this can be found at http://imf-electronics.com/Fried/index.html, including the C series of pyramidal, time aligned minimonitors. There are a lot of pdfs of old sales literature. Amazing how quickly and profoundly the computer has impacted this area, most everything here was typewritten and mimeographed. I have Bud's personal pair, and sure enough, they have been tweaked and tweaked, but think that the pair Skrivis owns are probably not all that different sounding. They have an uncanny ability to produce music without so much of the resonances that we never notice until we have a pair of loudspeakers that don't produce them. Also, as someone who has been around enough audio equipment as I have, to find a pair of speakers that image as these do really leaves one impressed. I also have the matching O subwoofers that they sit on, but don't look anything like that on the website, as they switched to a design that was narrow and deep ala what is currently in vogue. I think you'll agree with me when I first perused the site that the description of the man literally being a generation ahead of his time was accurate. Alas, there will NEVER be another... |
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. |
Trelja,
I'm very surprised to hear that Bud didn't know about Zeta in re: series crossovers. He certainly had known about 1st-order series and quasi-second order series crossovers since at least as early as the Betas. |
Nice post, Tom!
I think one can argue from a lot of different perspectives, it makes for interesting conversation and enhances everyone's experience here. However, when one tries to say that something that has been to be viable (and over an extended period) "cannot work", one sure puts themselves in a difficult position.
As I reread through this thread, I am more than embarrassed to have noticed that I was flat out backwards in my Zeta description. Zeta of 0.7 is more forward, and 1.2 is more laid back. Can't believe I actually made that mistake in the morning! Surprised no one crucified me on this. Mea culpa, mea culpa... |
Joe about a year ago or so ..well I guess I got into a verbal pissing match with a speaker designer here on the Gon who told me that series crossovers didnt work..Well maybe he couldnt make them work but Fried made them work and the fellows with Starsound made them work..Some designers all to often, only follow what their text book or their professor told them was possible... I have heard Larry's speakers on several occasions always at his home. Always impressive, very musical yet detailed, a great look and way under priced..Tom |
As Larry alluded to, Bud Fried did produce time aligned speakers. He sure was a proponent.
Skrivis' C/3L speakers are time aligned, along with the simple first order crossover he stated. They also use true transmission line midbass loading - which is actually MORE important that loading the woofer that way. I'm sure he'll agree that the notes just flat out fly out of the speakers, with no smearing whatsoever. I really like my pair...
Larry, I am certain your speaker venture will be a successful one. Best of luck! Please let me know if I can be of any assistance at all,
Joe |
I own a pair of C/3-Ls, and have seen crossover schematics for other models, and they use a simple 1st-order series network. Period. There's no way to get a higher-order electrical network out of what's there.
The published articles I've seen from Bud all talk about 1st-order series crossovers as being superior.
Perhaps he was talking to you about the acoustic response? Or perhaps the "archived" info you're referring to dates back to before modern drivers allowed symmetric 1st-order crossovers? |
One name that should not go unmentioned in this thread is John Dunlavy. He was/is a big proponent of time alignment and his speakers use a first-order crossover. If I recall correctly, John was undecided on how important phase coherence was, but time alignment was crucial. Based on how much I like his speakers, I'm inclined to agree!
Also (and again assuming that I recall correctly), John felt that after his speakers (of course), Thiel came the closest to getting it right.
Apologies to John Dunlavy if I'm misstating any of his positions. |
|
Was it, the guy who opened the equipment switching company? BTW 1998 was 22 years after THIEL started. |
Larry there is a fellow down in Lexington that was designing speakers with first order series crossovers back in 1998 and his last name wasn't Thiel...Tom |
The unit I heard, as I recall, did not have any caps, so it must have been an early version. I do remember the guy, Our tech, waxing over the crossover, talking about its absence of coloration, and again, IF I RECALL, caps.
It was, nevertheless, glorious in it's clear simplicity, as if nothing was between you and the music.
I remember hearing the Jura Rega, commenting on how it sounded, flaws notwithstanding, as if there was no crossover.
Thanks Tom. |
Larry look at the patent disclosure on the government site..Patent #6381334 owned by a Mr.Alexander from there in Utah..Crossover appears to me to be a Series type.First patent uses only inductors and resistors, no caps. Second patent by the same designer adds capacitors to add back energy... not to reduce or roll out energy. Series designers use the inductance of the drivers as well as other measurements to be an intregal part of their designs.The drivers themselves are a part of the crossover.Tom |
Suits Me, one of YOUR most obvious and glaring errors, not only proven by my many conversations with him, but archival works available to anyone who wants to, or takes the time to, or has the ability to, understand them.
You wrote, as cut from the thread, and I will file it for future information about you and your business endeavors.
>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.<
Guess we all make mistakes, yet most of us are more gracious about pointing them out to others than you.
I have really tried to remain civil with a person who has no interest in doing so. God I hate threads that break down into feces throwing like this, but really, how many times can one person apologize? Sorry G you were right this was headed for disaster with a guy like this.... |
I happened to hear the Kimber crossover, in what I thought, was 'his' speaker(?), and it sounds like "no crossover at all", the ultimate compliment. Clean clear and without that 'too many crossover parts' haze, created by overzealous engineers who try too hard IMHO to 'shape' the sound.
Wow, it was great, Kudos to Ray once again! |
Hi, Tom.
Please forgive me for not fully understanding your question. From what sense do you mean, "a true series crossover has to to pass all the information sent to it by the amplifier, unlike most every other crossover design?"
To be honest, I really have no idea why the series crossover is not used more. Despite the "black magic" that surrounds crossovers, this one even being on another plane, it is no more complex or difficult to understand than a parallel network. Though, I would allow that the most simple first order parallel network (cap inline with the tweeter, plus coil inline with the mid/woofer) is probably the most easy for folks to envision.
What I think sometimes scares people is when they see the schematic of a series network. It looks all wrong on paper, as our minds have grown accustomed to seeing the cap go with the tweeter, and the coil go with the mid/woofer. With a series network, the same is true, but it took a very simple parable that talked about what was actually happening before it clicked for this dunderhead. Of course, I sound ridiculous in this post, because I cannot draw out a parallel and a series network, and I wish I could. Suffice it to say that it looks odd, with the coil in parallel to the tweeter, and the cap in parallel to the woofer.
Bud got started down the series crossover road while at one of his visits to Dynaudio. In talking to someone, he noticed two crossovers on their desk. Bud being Bud, he asked about them. The employee mentioned, "Oh, they're different. These are the series crossovers and these are the parallel." Bud asked what was different about them, to which the reply was, "Well the series crossovers are just better. Both from a sonic and measurement standpoint." Of course at that point, Bud's question was, "Well then why the hell do you even offer the parallel crossover?!?" The answer was, "Nobody wants the series crossover because they've never seen them before, and whenever we send them a diagram, they run away."
Again, Bud being Bud, he didn't run away. He built them, tested them (and saw their much superior dynamic range), listened to them (musicality plus cohesion - less sense of listening to individual drivers), and soon after never built another parallel network outside of to have something to show as a comparison for testing or at shows for dealers, customers, friends.
What was even a surprise to Bud was when I used to discuss them with him last year. He never heard of Zeta, which is the means to alter the rolloff and sonics of a series crossover. The traditional first order Butterworth (6 db/octave) values of the parallel network yield the same 6 db/octave rolloff have a Zeta value of 1.0. By altering the cap/coil values in relation to each other, one can lower the Zeta (for example - 0.7, slower rolloff - more laid back sound) or raise it (1.2 faster rolloff - more upfront sound). He never heard of this before, and nothing made him more happy than discourse he found interesting. It was something that he wanted us to experiment with together. Alas, he fell ill before we got to play...
I hear in the series crossover a sense of cohesiveness that I instantly noticed each time I listened to the Roman Audio Centurions. The Centurions use Ray Kimber's patented DiAural Crossover, which is just a simple series crossover - though I have never looked at the patent. As Ray was another one of us Bud Fried proteges, I consider it a homage to Bud. Anyway, the sound of these speakers just knocked my socks off. They were creamy, smooth, yet detailed and dynamic. Musical, and I realize that is a vastly overused term. The cohesiveness in the sound haunted me. I could not stop thinking about them. I later understood why, it was the series crossover, the drivers act in unison, as opposed to working on their own. |
>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. |
Trelja am I correct in saying that a true series crossover has to to pass all the information sent to it by the amplifier, unlike most every other crossover design? Tom |
Sorry Bud, what a disgrace to accuse him of graduating from Princeton. LOL! Actually, it was so long ago, I figured I had a fifty fifty shot.
Again, what a mind, what a guy. Legends like him will last forever.
Years after I opened my store, a guy I had been trying to THIEL-ize, came in, and had found either the TL 50's or the Studio Monitors. They were magnificent. Music rolled out in the bottom like almost no other. Wow.
Transmission lines don't work according to some, who say the laws of physics, and length of the bass wave preclude it- I say, TELL THAT TO THE WONDERFUL BASS ROLLING OUT OF THEM ! |
Nice post, Larry!
Only one thing, I'm sure that Bud is turning over in his grave right now regarding your feeling that he went to Princeton. As you will well remember via this prodding, it was "Fair Haaaaaaaaavud".
All I will add is that he was truly a member of The Greatest Generation. During his time there, he received every degree they offered, medicine and dentistry excepted. Though he was frail later in life, his energy, enthusiasm, and confidence, and wit would put any 23 year old to shame.
I am a better person because he befriended me. He and football great Johnny Sample have both made indelible marks on my life. |
If you read my posts above, I tried to express the theme that it is probably wise for the general "Audiophile" to not get so immersed in crossover engineering and go out and listen for themselves to the various designs. I also stated that it was THEIR money and satisfaction that was at stake.
I believe that a person's idea of "Good" sound is so highly variable that any and all designs can be considered.
I just happen to be in the first order camp and have been there for a long time. I have based my opinions on 40 years of experience of listening to various designed speakers in my own room side by side. I personally feel this is the only way to judge a speaker and unfortunately, many do not have this opportunity. I just don't think that dealers stores and shows are the place to make a decision (or honestly formulate an opinion) but that's the way it is.
As I have stated so many times, I feel that preserving the waveform is of great importance. I always step back from time to time and listen to other designs to maintain a perspective and to me personally, the compromise in higher slope speaker designs is just too great for crirical listening, even though, I will admit, some sound very good. Hell, I use steeper slope speakers in my home theater because I have never felt it was THAT important used in this context (with the exception that I do believe the drivers need to be matched.)
We will just have to agree to disagree on the ultimate merits of each design and I'm sure this debate will go on and on. It's always interesting though. |
There's been a lot of pointless carping and sniping about 1st order vs non 1st order designs of late.
I suggest we all listen with our ears and choose what sounds best to us in our system. It's quite clear that there is a wide variation in what different people consider to be the "best" in audio, so I have little doubt that no single approach will appeal to all tastes.
And for the discussion we should keep it technical, or at the very least preface all subjective comments as such. |
Trelja long time no write.
Yes, Bud was a legend, and old time, old fashioned, 'tell it like it is, kind of guy.
Last night when I started writing about how much I loved his speakers, (and owned the ALS30's, I think they were called though my heart was with the TL 50's at the outlandish cost of, I think $2500. in 1978) it was frankly before my techno awareness. So when I was properly upbraided for liking him, thinking his work and Jim's were (no pun) polar opposites, my memory kept telling me that he was not a first order guy.
Then when someone wrote that note about me liking him, I had to go, both to my memories of our many conversations, then to the archives, and research his work.
There, in what appears to be old Royal typewriter print,
gotta love the days before computers, was the description of his design. I mispoke, (it was after midnite and I was tired, 6db in the bass, though above I mistakenly said 3db,
anyway, then 18 db per octave in the mid/tweet crossover.
Heck, I should have remembered, as I mentioned above, he was a hoot. When the G2A(?) came out to good press, he would call me weekly and raise holy hell with me for selling THIEL's CS3. And his language, Hell I thought I knew all the words, he must have visited the Profanity 101 Classes at Princeton. HA!!! He was the most loveable curmudgen.
I remember a few years later seeing him in Chicago, the home of the Consumer Electronics Show for years; I saw him, and as I recall he had had heart bypass surgery--that must have been in 1986? I remember, when we shook hands, I was alarmed at how thin, and cold his hands were; but it did not alter his enthusiasm or excitement for life and audio.
I miss him already. God, what and influence. I, without being corney bow at the altar of he and Jim THIEL, Joseph Audio, (hence my shock and pleasure when he agreed with my thoughts on crossovers). My only shock was when someone took umbridge at his comment about THIEL. It was a complement to Jim's genius, and as is often the case on these hallowed threads, someone thought Joseph was being negative about him. Shame, because he was expressing true admiration, just noting his shared view of a design, certainly not Jim, another, later day legend.
And (long winded here), Jim Thiel, is just as wonderful a person to work for as one might imagine. Always gentle, and kind, and hard working, the true American dream--from a dirt floor garage start, to an international company.
Thanks for the memo, and kind words. The audio business is better for Bud, Jim, Rich Vandersteen, Joseph, Gayle Sanders, Roger West, and(another mentor) Albert Von Schweikert. Thanks for them and many I have forgotten.
(Oh God, how could I forget Peter Snell, one of Jim's good friends, who died at, I think 37--a genius snatched from audio all too soon.
God Bless Bud!!! |
I'm really having a great time watching the discourse in this thread!
Larry, I am happy to hear you were a friend of Bud's. I really do feel an emptyness in his absence. I am honored by all of which is being written about him here.
What I personally feel is Bud's greatest gift to us is his lifetime of continually improving the craft that so many of us (Jim Thiel, Jeff Joseph, Larry Staples, Richard Moddafieri, Ray Kimber) have immersed ourselves in with all of our hearts.
It is true that Bud was outspoken, opinionated, and could be downright ornery. However, for those capable of seeing the truth, he dedicated his life into laying the foundation which we all could build upon. He knew that life was finite, but also knew that the art/science would never cease. His hope was for us to learn from his life experience - all of the work, successes, mistakes, etc. to build upon his lessons learned so that we did not have to reivent the wheel. Seeing people ripped off by shamanism or BS would enrage him. If that ruffled feathers along the way, I can think of no higher compliment to pay the man. For those who he came to become fond of, there was boundless fun, humor, respect, generosity, and love.
While I believe and am invested in first order series crossovers, low Q drivers, transmission line loading of the bass and midrange drivers, and time alignment, who am I to say that another approach is not without merit? Again, there are so many fine sounding speakers, in many different flavors, that we can respect those who have faithfully dedicated themselves to the craft. |
My exact comments regarding my opinion of Vandersteen was, that, " I say they sound rather neutral and pleasant."
As far as coherence, the initial thought of the discussion, has been lost. It had to do with Suits Me stating that "then says he likes Fried speakers, which are first order."
If one goes to Frieds stated work and crossovers on certain products, which I just referenced tonight, he used 3 db per octave slopes on the woofer, then 18 db per octave, which is third order cross over on mids and tweets.
This has turned into a hornets nest of confusion, for which I can take some credit probably. But Fried, most definitely was NOT a proponent of true first order networks as described as 6 db per octave, the proof of which is listed with his archival work, and my personal conversations with him, in which he found that to be unacceptable, in the design of loudspeakers.
I have nothing but profound respect for Rich Vandersteen, and what was said in my quote was by someone I was with. Truthfully I probably shouldn't have repeated it, other than to point out that his speakers are NOT forward sounding as are the THIEL's.
The 'some guy' who has speakers coming to market is me, Larry Staples, who studied under Jim Thiel, and Albert Von Schweikert, and has 25 years invested in the industry.
It takes thick skin to take a stand on these, supposedly hobbiest friendly sites. If I offend anyone by recanting past experiences I am profoundly apologetic. I found Bud Fried to be passionate, and brilliant. He was a grad of Princeton as I recall, and a fantastic representative of the field of audio, as is Mr. Vandersteen.
We all have disperate ideas on what works in design. Nobody has all the answers. I am struggling to make my product come to market and only hope to have a fraction of the success that Bud and Rich Vandersteen, and Jim Thiel, as well as the others who have contributed so much.
My speakers are a tribute to design by listening, not intellectualizing what 'should work'. I voiced my product, making it sound as I personally think real music sounds like. Some will like it others won't. Be aware that I am only ATTEMPTING to add to the science and art of building speakers.
Please, no one, take offense at any misspoken words.
Best,
Larry R. Staples
LSA Group
President |
In response to the above, in Richard Hardesty's "Audio Perfectionist Journal Watchdog list," a letter was posted by Bud Fried that was aimed at JA in Stereophile for stating that time and phase were unimportant. He went own with an explanation and then concluded by saying "I think someday ALL speakers will be time and phase coherent." I don't remember wether it was actually published or not but it does seem to be in direct contrast to the statemnt(s) made above. Now, did he have a change of heart in his old age, was he BS'ing JA or what's the deal here?
At any rate, it's nice to know that Richard Vandersteen is a second rate designer of time and phase coherent speakers. I feel somewhat disappointed that I and hundreds of thousands of others have put up with a rolled off speaker lacking in resolution and of questionable design. I guess I could call him tomorrow and ask for my money back. Of course he then would ask why and I would have to tell him that based on Jeff Joseph and some other fellow who has speakers coming out are the only ones who know how to make a speaker correctly. He would then ask where I saw this and I would say on 'Audiogon." When he got through laughing, he would probably tell me to kiss his ass! |
Two things really, Suits me. Fried yelled at me constantly about THIEL speakers and their damnable first order crossovers. He did not use a straight 6db per octave crossover as proven on his archived information which I would be glad to send to you.
Second, I am sure, and I apologize that I misspoke about the Patent--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.
Let's be friends, in the spirit of Bud, one of the industry giants. His spirit is alive in all of his products, that's for sure. And boy did he hate a true first order. My wife would laugh at me, as I would hold the phone away from my ear, as he would yell about the 'evil' of that kind of crossover. "They don't work, Goddamnit", as I recall. He was a hoot, who I will surely miss.
Friends, I hope...
BTW he used a first order on the bass, and a third on the mid treble, as I recall. |
>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. |
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 said there are no patent holders on First Order Crossovers, not 'any crossovers', and I didn't mention the Infinite Slope or Ray's special, relatively new crossover, as I recall--the issue at hand though, isn't that no one can patent them, its just that one infinitessimal change makes enforcing the intent of the patent impossible. Jim Thiel who had not patented anything up through 1999 when I worked for him, said, and I am recanting his words to me, as to the efficacy of patenting what I thought were some great ideas. It simply isn't realistic to patent certain items which are replicated with such frequency and similarity, in which changes of small measure destroy your case in court.(Not to mention the cost of enforcing, and protecting your patent.) I do notice from his web site that he has a patent pending re his SmartSub.(So all things change in time.)
The comments I made about first orders sounding 'bright' were, in this context, probably more regarding THIEL. Vandersteen is not only, not bright, many people find it lacking in what they call fine detail. I say they sound rather neutral and pleasant. One designer I was roaming the CES show with when it was still in Chicago, so an Ice Age ago, said upon hearing the latest Vandersteen, "Typical Richard design, not bad, won't offend anyone, but it lacks enough detail to make it interesting."
I have a wide berth of listening experiences, having visited about 100 stores across the United States while working as Director of Sales for THIEL, owning a retail store for 12 years, and attending every CES for many years; and my experience was that MANY 1st orders sound odd, and as Joseph of Joseph Audio was pointing out after my post, Jim is the most talented or advanced of the known designers employing first orders, and that the issues surrounding that design are, at least to him the same as to me. "Sit in the right place, eliminate room reflections, and play them at a moderate level." (I paraphrased to save time.)
What I hear, (and I don't expect you to hear the same thing by the way) is that the sounds emanating from the drivers well out of the dominant sound (frequency) range, sound odd, and amusical, creating a sound which is foreign, (to me) from the orignal and or intended sound.
Jim Thiel, insofar as I know, still thinks that all speakers should go 'flat' to 20Khz, it's just that most designs don't achieve that goal.But the perceived 'brightness' that people carp about with THIEL's aren't near the 20Khz region anyway, more like the 4 to 8Khz regions.
I hope this clarifies what I meant in my previous comments. |
> 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. |
Dear Josephaud- with my unbridled respect for you, I hubly accept this complement.
Thanks, and I look forward to seeing you again soon, (perhaps in Vegas.) |
Actually, I WOULD expect the 'forward' or brightness from a first order design. It's almost a sure bet that everyone who's heard THIEL would agree that they sound forward in the high frequencies. My speakers measure flat, (inasmuch as any can or will) yet the tweeter is invisible to the ear; this has the effect of making fatigue a virtual non factor. Plus older recordings, some of the sixties abortions which sound so awful, (this was the moment when engineers found the eq switch, I like to say), and they sound different than contemporary, but listenable, instead of ear splitting.
The principal design behind any speaker, should be fidelity, that is the output should equal the input, and here we're walking a fine line. A quarter of a db across a broad enough bandwidth, makes all the difference in the world tonally.
I theorize that the forwardness comes from the rather 'odd' sounds created by the multiple bandwidths covered by the drivers-- and how tonally mismatched they are in reproducing what should be similar sounds. That 'blend' of sounds creates a secondary sound, amusical to me, which I find offensive, and 'bright' as described by
Opalchip, even though he surmised that first order 'would not' sound bright.
This is based on listening to the contribution of the drivers individually, as they 'try' to play frequencies, which reside normally, well out of their range.
Theory, not scientific fact, but my ears hear the composite of each individual driver, and the sound is abberational. |
Larry,
Great post.
In my opinion, the only manufacturer who really implements low order crossovers properly is Jim Thiel. His crossovers are complex, but he is much more advanced in his thinking than any other designer in that camp. If you took his speakers and ran them at moderate listening levels in a well damped listening environment and sat at just the right height you'd hear the best results that particular method has to offer. |
I have to agree with Lrsky, although I usually prefer not agreeing with anyone. The theories of speaker designs are interesting, but the actual experience is what matters ultimately. All speakers are compromises - and overall it's pretty amazing that you can etch a pattern into plastic with a cutting head, play it back with a tiny diamond, amplify that signal a gazillion times, and then have it come back at you sounding ALMOST exactly like it did going in.
I've heard many of these new "wonder-speakers" with all sorts of expensive drivers and internal wires that are just unlistenable (to me), and I've heard 20 year old designs with some updates (like my Dahlquist DQ-20i's) that keep beautiful music sounding that way. And despite whatever a designer does with Phase and Time, room interactions play a huge, huge part in what you'll actually hear.
I have heard both Joseph Audio Pearls and Green Mountain C-3's a fair bit and they're both great speakers with different attributes for people with different "ears".
I had a trade pass at the last HES San Francisco and went back and forth without having to wait on lines between Joseph Audio and Avantgarde Trios and came to the conclusion that if I had to live with one or the other at home, I'd pick the Pearls as less fatiguing - not what you would predict for a steeper slope crossover.
I also have spent a few hours audiotioning GMA C-3's and found them to be spectacularly dynamic, very detailed, and also a bit bright/forward in the mids (for my taste) - also not what you'd predict from a 1st order design.
So go figure...
|
It's odd that Bud Fried, (who I had the pleasure of knowing) is part of this conversation, and as Lincoln might have said, "it is altogether fitting and proper..."
Bud Fried's TL series made be become an audiophile back in the early 1980's. I fell in love then, with the, almost polar opposite, THIEL, and met, eventually worked for Jim Thiel. The one undeniable comment about Fried, or IMF as they were after the first split, (women, you know)--were the most 'musical' speaker around. They had the magic, and people didn't talk about 1st order, or this and that, they were too busy playing music to talk about it.
Plus, with no 'time alignment' they imaged wonderfully.
But, and this is not sentimental fluff, the music came out of the boxes just like it's supposed to.
I guess, Fried more than any other product was my inspiration for my speakers, (to be released, God help us soon). I just tried my best to make them sound like music. Forget the popular jargon, and make them sound like something that makes you want to sit 'all the way through an album', and not get up and change the record or disc, because it sounds to 'bright' or amusical.
An acquaintence came by during my final voicing, and said, (this is from the heart, not a commercial) 'your speakers make me want to listen to music again." Honest to God, a comment like that will put tears in your eyes.
I think about Bud, (and Jim) and their influence as opposite as they were, and thank them both, because without either, the industry would be poorer.
Sorry for the melodrama, but I mean every word.
Larry |
I don't understand your post. There is no 'patent holder' per se on cross overs; what 'site' are you refering to--and who charges a lot for their speakers?
Sorry, not being sarcastic maybe I'm just thick today, but I really don't understand your comment/question.
Please clarify. |
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. |
First order crossovers, 6 db per octave, are the only one's which 'supposedly' offer the least phase shift, that is energy storage, and shift from one driver to the next.
The issue at hand is the enormous amount of work that each driver, since it rolls in and rolls out at 6 db per octave, has to operate over too wide of a frequency bandwidth,causing notable limitations in dynamics , or distortions which are unacceptably high.
When I worked for THIEL Jim Thiel would attempt to compensate (in part) by using special pole piece which allowed for linear treatment of the magnetic field over the coil in the driver throughout its proposed excursion, since that excursion was by necessity very long throw. This is like saying the sky is blue, because the ocean is too. It is a self defeating, and repeating argument, and certainly a condrum for designers who chose to use this cross over design.
Some designers, feel that first order crossovers place too many negatives in the picture for a natural and relaxed sound; not to mention that the lobing effects of the drivers at various distances (you do the math) causes frequency anomolies, such as suck outs and the inverse, causing room reflexions which look nothing like the output at the speaker. That may sound benign, but imagine, every echo and room reflexion sounding different than the signal at 8 feet, or at your listening position, this causes for a confused signal to the listener. So, some question, "what if a combination of slopes could create a sound"... that, at the listener and throughout the room, are close to identical as the actual measured output of the speaker; i.e. no lobing issues, and no tweeter having to operate like this, in this scenario. Using a 3K crossover point as many do, (too high in my opinion) but in that instance, the driver is down 6db at 1500Hz, then 12db @750Hz, 18db @375. (It's after midnight don't check the math with a calculator PLEASE) So significant midrange information is coming from a (generally 1" dome). That, IMHO is too much to ask of a driver of that size and excursion potential. Plus, again the issue of the lobing, caused by sharing of common frequencies, with the mid range, which in turn is also, asked to put out vast quantities of bass, making enormous excursions. A recipe for disaster for the wrong driver.
This first order design is one of those engineering arguments which looks great on paper, but in practice faces significant challenges, and the creation of drivers which operate in a manner not generally available to them by dent of their very design, and the known limits of drivers, given the laws of physics.
Other solutions, other than phase coherence gained through first order networks, IMHO is the answer. But time and space don't allow for all to be said here. |
It has been a while. I recall seeing phase coherence but not time coherence. I did not pursue Kaminsky's work because it could only be implemented in an active crossover. Again, it has been many years, and I could be thinking of something or someone else. What I remember for certain about Kaminsky's work is that it was excellent, and it is worth examining again. Thank you for the reminder.
Series crossovers have advantages, and disadvantages. We use parallel circuits, which seem to have fewer disadvantages. I do not agree with statements like "better dynamic coupling of the drivers, using a series circuit", as I have never seen any definition of what that actually means.
Bud Fried made so many important contributions- he will be missed. The first speakers I heard that opened my ears in many, many ways were his original IMF transmission line speakers, in 1972.
Warmest regards, Bud. Thank you for everything.
Roy Johnson
Founder and Designer
Green Mountain Audio |
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. |
Skrivis, I was refering to major manufactures of well established companies. It is good to hear that Bud Fried's work is being carried on. I always had a ton of respect for him and was sorry to see his passing. Audio lost another great man. If I may quote something he said, "Someday, all speakers will be time and phase coherent." He truly believed in this concept.
I didn't want to say much about Pat McGinty because I really have no first hand knowledge other than he closed shop. I wouldn't think a man of his potential would stay down for whatever reason. I agree with you and would expect his return in the future. Lets hope so.
So far, in the time and phase camp, I have tried Meadowlark, Vandersteen and Thiel. I have really got to try Roy Johnson's designs out at some point. I also go back to listen to steep slope speakers from time to time to help keep my perspective. Now that my kids are out of college and out of the house, I have plenty of free time. It's nice to get back into enjoying the hobby again. |
That should have been "X number of listeners _think_ it sounds swell." |
The "X number of listeners thing it sounds swell" argument doesn't impress me because it also applies to Bose speakers...
"Professional" listeners? Like recording studio engineers or musicians?
I'm not sure I'd rate most studio engineers as a good recommendation for speakers. They often are listening for different things than the end user of the recording is.
I might respect a musician's opinion more, but I have no way of knowing whether they have actually compared "more correct" speakers to "steep slope" speakers, or whether they just find that Brand X "steep slope" speaker is better than a bunch of other incorrect speakers.
My opinion is that a speaker with steep slope crossovers doesn't stand much of a chance of being able to reassemble the original waveform at my listening position.
Whether that's important, and whether "time and phase coherent" speakers can reassemble the wave form correctly or not is where there's a lot of argument.
At that point I have to fall back on my own listening experience, and say that I feel that phase-coherent designs work better for me. They provide a better window into the recording. |
"I have noticed the positive recommendations you are receiving here and other places on your speakers. With the apparent unfortunate situation with Meadowlark, it looks like you, Richard V. and Thiel must carry the load. "
There are others. Karl Schuemann is working on phase-correct designs, and then there are a couple of people or groups of people carrying on Bud Fried's work.
In addition, I wouldn't count Pat McGinty out just yet. :-) |
