|
This particular article does just that, and comes up with a couple of suggestions for re-working the crossover to end up with hopefully a better end result. What gives him the ability to do better than B&W could do? Are you suggesting B&W dont understand how to do crossovers? Its all a matter of opinion in the end. There is no such thing as a better crossover, only one that is tuned to your ears. I would suggest that 6db with 4khz notch is hardly optimum. |
Erik wrote: " I share this with all of you just as an example of the work that goes into making a loudspeaker from parts, and the tools, and how much of what we hear has to do with choices made in the crossover. "
Your post and that article are a welcome respite from repeated accusations by one person on this forum of being a scammer because I’m a loudspeaker designer. Thank you Erik.
"... the goal is not merely quality assurance, but to build a complete electro acoustical understanding of the system as a whole so changes can be considered, and their final results predicted."
Imo a complete acoustic understanding would include a great deal more off-axis data. This is just my opinion.
" This particular article does just that, and comes up with a couple of suggestions for re-working the crossover to end up with hopefully a better end result. "
I agree with the direction of all of the changes the author made. I probably would have reduced the output of the tweeter in the crossover region even more that he did, to partially offset its excess off-axis energy at the bottom end of its passband.
Duke
|
the big thing I took away was how honest the reviewer was about the sound. you NEVER see this in "pro" or online amateur reviews. |
I agree with the direction of all of the changes the author made. I probably would have reduced the output of the tweeter in the crossover region even more that he did, to partially offset its excess off-axis energy at the bottom end of its passband. Yes. B&W must have made a silly mistake and overlooked that. |
Duke @audiokinesis
You are killing me.
😆😆😆
I meant to say that "the goal of speaker analysis is..."
and for consumers, this is a decent introduction, not a comprehensive guide.
|
"... for consumers, this is a decent introduction, not a comprehensive guide."
It is a FAR MORE THAN DECENT introduction!
The process I use is pretty much what the author did. Once the first iteration is built, even if the measurements look good, I use my ears to tell me whether it’s "right" or not. And if not, then I gather data to figure out what isn’t right, which in turn points me towards what to do about it.
Duke
|
@avanti1960
The diy community has a very different take on what a great loudspeaker should sound like compared to mag reviewers.
As I have said more than once, the high end sound has been driven by king makers to something very far from neutral and for old ears.
Kill the Buddha (reviewer) and find your own nirvana. |
Boy I disliked the old B&W speakers with those ugly yellow kevlar cones. I’m thinking of speakers like the CDM1, a perfect example of a speaker that sounds exactly like it looks - tweeter frequencies sounding detached and too bright. Yuck.
|
I did not read the article but everything is usually built to a price point so the possibility of improving the B&W cross-over is not out of the question. Very few manufacturers use the top line capacitors, resistors, wire, etc. I have been repairing audio components with my partner for a long tome now. There are so many ways to swap out some parts to improve the sound in many areas. I recently repaired an old Counterpoint power amp that had both the Plitron transformer and Plitron choke upgrades. At the same time I had the same amp without those upgrades in stock form and another amp with just the Plitron transformer. Being a comparison person, I was able to listen to each and get handle if there were any improvements. So now I know what each prat contributes. So the B&W X-over could be improved IMO.
I was recently at an Audio Society where I met the owner and speaker designer of Genesis. The amount of time, research and development he went through to make the current line was incredible. Over $3 million spent. I learned so much I never imagined. He also spent time researching and understanding the recording and playback processes for vinyl. He brought along different vinyl recording to demonstrate the process. I was amazed at what I heard and what I learned.
So I take everything as a learning process that can only help me develop a better system for me. I also don't always believe that speakers are the cause of brightness, or bass issues. To me the causes is what is feeding them. For example I placed one of my power amp designs recently on Thiel speakers. Everything improved. Installed my DHT DAC and the sound was even better, last my preamplifier and I have to say that now I realize the potential of Thiel speakers were before I mostly read that they were bright sounding.
So IMO don't take what you read of advise you receive for granted, there is something to learn from each and everyone of us.
Happy Listening. |
I think these particular speakers are a real good example of how disjoint the driver development can be vs. the crossover and system.
|
So the B&W X-over could be improved IMO. by swapping the parts for ones that cost a few dollars more? |
@kenjit
Dude, for real???
You have argued that no designer knows how to build a speaker, now you are saying that the designers know best?
And yeah, thats classic Duke! |
It's all a matter of opinion. There is no best. There is no speaker design. That's why we have such a large number of speakers out there. Nobody knows what they're doing. |
Next up Kenjit will have a post on "Armchair Analysis of Speaker Critics" It will arrive at no conclusion and will have no pertinent information and will fulfill his desire to use a keyboard.
|
The cat thinks the objective is to chase and eventually catch the tail, so chasing is seen as productive design work...
start with the origin acoustic event
see how ya do at reproducing that
correlate that to measurements and distortions that matter
design to a price point. Nobody, even Gary K has an unlimited budget, nobody.
design the trade space , real engineering is about trade space management and cost as an independant variable
graduate to learning a bit about how humans hear, acoustic space on the origin event end and the reproduction end, buy some VERY expensive microphones, test equipment, chamber.. Keep listening to live music evey week...
spend most of your adult life chasing the grail....fun ;-) ignore moronic trolls |
So the B&W X-over could be improved IMO. by swapping the parts for ones that cost a few dollars more?
@kenjit Possibly - I would have to take a look what is in there now but IMO probably yes. My old Alon Model V MKIIs used such basic parts that although they sounded good at that time, just changing out the resistors to mills, replacing the caps, etc. made a nice improvement for not much more costs (a few hundred if I remember correctly). Bass had better impact and clarity, mid-range improved although I liked the mids to begin with, and highs were clearer and more transparent. It was more balanced and musical.- Swapping parts is not hard to do and you can always change it back if you don't like the sound. |
by swapping the parts for ones that cost a few dollars more? @kenjit Looking forward to you learning AC circuit analysis, followed by filter design so you can come back to that statement in embarrassment. |
Only the capacitance value is used in the filter design. No hocus pocus hogwash.
Erik, have you checked your filter design is adequate to avoid cone breakup? I heard you were doing 6db slopes |
"Nobody knows what they're doing." ^^^ "psychological projection" at it's purest. It's like Trump has invaded audiogon. |
like I said, ( and will modify here ) ignore ignorant trolls and Dumpsterfire...
|
Only the capacitance value is used in the filter design. No hocus pocus hogwash.
Please see my previous message. Erik, have you checked your filter design is adequate to avoid cone breakup? I heard you were doing 6db slopes
Are you under the mistaken impression that the B&W write-up is mine? It's not. If you are talking about a published speaker design of mine, I assure you, you are wrong. I've never published a speaker using such a low filter slope. In either case, your concern is something any speaker designer should be able to answer from the measurements. Best, Erik |
6db per octave slopes since 1977, half a million sold, real systems design vs just catalog shopping components, etc....
and the ability to visually see cone breakup and non-pistonic behavior.....the cat stopped chasing the tail long ago....The Wizard of Hanford. There are a few other wizards at work also, many so humble they admit they don’t ( as yet ) know everything.... |
kenjit: There is no speaker design. That's why we have such a large number of speakers out there. Nobody knows what they're doing. There is no automotive design. That's why we have such a large number of cars out there. Nobody knows what they're doing. There is no architectural design. That's why we have such a large number of houses out there. Nobody knows what they're doing. There is no science. That's why we have such a large number of experiments out there. Nobody knows what they're doing. I'm not sure about nobody, but it sure seems somebody doesn't know what they're doing. |
The purpose of this thread was not to bash B&W and say "Look, they could have done it better, but their crossovers are crap."
I happen to dislike the B&W sound nearly universally, but!! the point here was to demonstrate how speaker analysis is done, and how a designer applies his intention to the crossover and simulation to achieve a desired outcome.
Even if the article had gone the other way, started with a neutral sounding speaker and moved to a W shaped frequency response, it's still an excellent primer.
Past that, it also helps to explain how a brand can develop their signature sound.
Best,
Erik
|
Past that, it also helps to explain how a brand can develop their signature sound. There is no signature sound its a myth. |
There is no signature sound its a myth. Really love being called a liar without evidence. |
Would that there were no BULLJIT! |
Nice article which shows to fix the root cause. Sometimes we only fix the symptoms. I guess you have to cut the head of the snake to get the problem fixed. |
my signature is flat to the last band on the eleven band analog bass EQ with a Q of .72, unless I am listening to Steely Dan: Two Against Nature, then i tweak it back a whisker....
seriously Eric..keep doing your thing, learning, building speakers, etc....” Nolite te Bastardes Carrborund !” but also, don’t feed them.... |
my signature is flat to the last band on the eleven band analog bass EQ with a Q of .72, unless I am listening to Steely Dan: Two Against Nature, then i tweak it back a whisker....
Teachable moment: flat is relative because human beings don't measure they hear. Metering is a scientific process of measuring the physical movement of air. Hearing seems on the surface to work that way but in reality is a whole lot more complicated. What sounds flat or balanced at one volume level will sound completely different at another volume level, even though it may measure flat both times. This is why the loudness control used to be so common. See Fletcher Munson curves. Now this creates a bit of a challenge for recording engineers. Because they want to get a certain sound. But they know the sound they get changes dramatically depending on the volume its played at. They tend to monitor at a fairly high level, and tend to EQ for that level. They know a lot of people will listen at lower volume, or higher, where either way the EQ will be off. Most people though when they are really listening will tend to have the volume fairly high. So they EQ for that level. So you can twiddle all you want with your EQ, it will only ever sound right at the one volume level. Even then, only with recordings that were mastered at about that same level. |
"There is no signature sound its a myth."
Really?
How do you figure???
Harbeth, Tannoy, Klipsch, Ohm, B&W..
They don't have a signature?
If its not by design, then your rationale would be that the designers keep making the same mistakes over and over...
special, very special...
|
They don’t have a signature? So what makes a DIY speaker made by a novice who has no degree, no knowledge and no experience, less good than a speaker made by a true speaker designer if in the end its just a matter of a particular signature and theres no right or wrong signature? |
"So what makes a DIY speaker made by a novice who has no degree, no knowledge and no experience, less good than a speaker made by a true speaker designer if in the end its just a matter of a particular signature and theres no right or wrong signature?"
What does that have to do with anything?
Like everything else you state, absolutely nothing.
Your statement said quite clearly that "There is no signature sound its a myth"
The comment had noting to do with bad or good, it had to do with a signature...
Genius
|
The most important point to remember is:
THERE ARE NO RULES IN SPEAKER DESIGN.
Revel thinks even dispersion from top to bottom is best but clearly, many speakers fail to meet this goal. We also do not know whether speakers measure the way they do intentionally or by chance. The measurements too are not infallible. Some designers think mdf is good enough, others disagree. Some may deliberately make their cabinets sing along with the music. You have opened a can of worms here you dont know what youre getting yourself into.
Speaker design is a mishmash of ideas with a bit of hogwash for good measure.
|
teachable moment ( only because i don’t consider you a troll ), the room and room nodes and modes are already another form of EQ, so I and others are doing our best to fix those with just 11 bands of EQ below 120 HZ, let whatever it is the artist/producer/engineer sought shine thru....
like I said, unamplified is the reference and yes, I am a recording engineer in both the high speed tape and digital domains.
back to our regular programming....
|
Thanks for posting this Eric. I got to read the review thoroughly, and agree that it was well done. Though for a $300 pair of speakers, I probably wouldn't have spent so much time. But, the modifications might be something an amateur could accomplish easily. Plus, it would be fun!
Too bad some people are so contrary...
Bob |
Thanks Erik that was an informative read for some of us. |
What people don't seem to understand is that if you use DSP, you could have a dozen different crossovers that you could switch between in a split second and literally be an armchair crossover designer. A passive crossover designer would take many hours just to figure out one design! I kid you not. |
And how DSP working out for you in your non-existent system ?
|
And how DSP working out for you in your non-existent system ? better than passive |
So kenjit,
What does your current system look like?
|
He sold it all because he wasn’t satisfied. He seems to be content with his “chaep earbuds”.
Based on the most recent discussion started by him, it would appear that he is considering Sonos or Bose, as they sound better than most audiophile bookshelf speakers that he’s heard.
His requirements for an audiophile system is flat response from 20hz-20khz at loud volumes and off axis response that measures identical to on axis response.
I’ve never heard him ask about tonality, imaging, prat, etc.
He’s not one time added something constructive or beneficial to the group.
We’d all be better off completely ignoring him until he went away
|
He's just misunderstood. Probably to be expected. I mean its not like any of us will ever have his super sensitive auditory acuity, so how would we know what he's going through? Probably his intellect is equally advanced beyond us mere mortals, and that is why nothing he says seems to make any sense to us. Tonality? Imaging? PRAT? Mere names to ensnare and stifle our weak minds. Ignore? Might as well ignore the eagle, soaring high over our heads.
|
Once again, Kenjit fails to answer any question directly.
Politician perhaps???
"You have opened a can of worms here you dont know what youre getting yourself into.
Speaker design is a mishmash of ideas with a bit of hogwash for good measure."
Direct question:
What do the above two statements mean - specifically? No round about silliness with diversionary ramblings switching the subject.
Regarding the eagle:
...we walked with frail apprehension, our eyes daring not look up. We knew the force, power and majesty of everything was there, looking down at us. We who were so much less then it. All we could, was stop, close our eyes and listen in fear as all was about to be revealed with crystalline clarity... |
And how about that "There is no sound signature its a myth" statement.
Are you going to back up that rather "bold" statement?
|
Gentlemen
So the B&W X-over could be improved IMO I don't think anybody is asserting that B&W made a mistake. Their engineers obviously voiced the speaker for different use and for a different system than what we are accustomed to -- indeed, quite possibly for a non-audiophile customer. When Duke or diyers suggest "improving the XO (is possible)" they are thinking in audiophile terms. So, from our point of view smoothing the speaker's response curve is important here. IMHO, YMMV, etc |
I dont see any proof that there is a signature sound. Surely the burden of proof is on the person making a claim? What do the above two statements mean - specifically? No round about silliness with diversionary ramblings switching the subject Speaker design has no rules. I am arguing against what Erik squires says. he says Speaker analysis is to measure each of the components both separately and as they come together in a complete system. It is a part of creating a new loudspeaker, but it can also be used to analyze an existing speaker, to understand it and perhaps to make it better. His opinion is that there is some method and expertise involved in speaker design. I claim that in practice this is false because even though there are many ideas about for example what cabinet material to use and what polar response is best, in the end after all the analysis, there is no consensus. We dont know what the designers intended goal was and whether it has been reached and if so, intentionally or by chance. The analysis is all wrong anyway because it doesn't involve the end user who is the most important person in the process of the design not the designer. Its all to do with custom tuning to your ears. A lot of these designers are not doing controlled tests and analyses. I heard that Revel do blind tests which is a start. But what about all the other speaker companies? Why don't they publish their distortion figures and frequency response if they are so confident? Do not be duped. |
Gee , are Bose and Sonos fine tuning their speakers that you think are better than high end speakers to your golden, super sensitive ears ? Are those cheap ear buds you listen to fine tuned to those golden, super sensitive ears. Time to get off this ridiculous narrative of yours
|
ask yourself are you learning anything from the troll?
my speaker designer, engineer, passionate listener and frugal Dutch American has listened to both of his creations, in my room....oh ya, it hits the mark....but because we are Kaizen warriors, the mindeset is that EVERYTHING can be improved...so we toil....and enjoy the music and the Journey....
btw, my favorite mystical bird is the Kingfisher
|
