Other than his ability to troll these pages, Kenjit has established nothing at all
|
Kenjit wrote:
"which is why you need to stop tinkering with these horrible passive crossovers."
The fallacy here is that your statement assumes facts which are not in evidence. You have not established that passive crossovers are horrible, nor that mine in particular are horrible.
Duke
|
which is why you need to stop tinkering with these horrible passive crossovers |
Xyobgyn wrote: "Quite possibly we should have crossovers with some caps and or resistors we could swap easily to adjust the sound to where we want it."
I have been making crossovers with an external resistor that functions as a "tilt/level" control; that is, it effects the tweeter’s level more up at 10 kHz than it does down at 2 kHz, the theory being that this would be more useful in dealing with real-world variations in room acoustics than a level-only L-pad. Also, L-pads are not readily available at the same quality as say a Mills resistor.
I also like to build in some low-end adjustability in the form of multiple pluggable ports.
Ime often changing capacitors = re-designing the crossover, as there is often a rather precise balance between capacitor values and inductance values in a circuit, such that a change in one often calls for a change in the other.
Duke |
The first B&W Matrix 801, 802 (I still have a set of the latter) included adjustment dials on the back of the module contains midrange and tweeter.
perhaps a nod to the idea that YMMV.
Quite possibly we should have crossovers with some caps and or resistors we could swap easily to adjust the sound to where we want it.
Makes more sense to me than swapping around fuses, power cords, and cables to tame or enhance the tone. We are acknowledging here that there is huge variation in how a designer arrives at the sound THEY perceive we will prefer.
why not make it the way we want? |
The corporate identity and the target sound at B&W has changed significantly over the years. For a very long time I used DM1800 speakers (with metal domes) that sounded wonderful. Nowadays I find B&W, especially their more costly offerings, near unlistenable. |
Hello @xyobgyn
Thank you for your kind words.
I think crossover parts are pretty cheap en masse. I don’t think that’s the biggest factor, but I do think that trends and product differentiation are important motivators for speaker makers. Having speakers that sound different than the masses, as well as making sure your more expensive speakers sound better than your mid range speakers is very important.
If you can get enough reviewers to agree that your speakers are among the finest, then you can turn public opinion around.
There’s also a lot to be said for having hills and valleys in your response curve. It makes your speaker accentuate certain notes, and like I said, different is often perceived as better.
So, back to the word "hamstring." From a sales stand point, this may be no hamstring at all, plus there is something to be said for having a variety of sound profiles to purchase from. The world would be a very boring place if every speaker sounded like mine. :)
But, I think the write-up does a fantastic job of showing just how much lee-way a crossover designer has in making the speakers sound one way or the other.
|
Erik:
Thank you for sharing that link.
I believe the article is fascinating on several levels. Thank you for possibly one of the most thought provoking posts (IMO obviously) of the year.
I happen to find pleasure using several older B&W matrix series speakers. 802,804,805 etc In different settings around the home. I like their sound, I run them with Bryston power, and various sources. It pleases me, not trying to say it’s perfect. (Use what pleases YOUR ears, not here to push an agenda)
B&W btw has web access to see their crossovers for all their models in Service Manuals. On my two way 805 for example there is a far more sophisticated crossover than the two way analyzed in the linked article from Eric.
It would be fascinating to speak “off the record” to the people who made the decisions regarding crossover choices in the model reviewed.
Would they say:
1) Cost drove the decision?
2) Some version of “Played side by side with competing speakers in typical show rooms, polls of unsophisticated listeners prefer this sound”
3) If we put in a proper crossover, even with inexpensive components, it would sound SO good, people wouldn’t buy the more expensive line of speakers.
4) We think it sounds great this way, why change it?
Personally I find it surprising they use (apparently) very good quality drivers, but hamstring (again, apparently) the crossover.
I think the least likely explanation is that B&W actually thinks it sounds “better” than with a more appropriate crossover..... so it begs the question why?
The ironic part of this discussion is that B&W are not stupid collectively as a company. Odds are likely that the majority of us in this forum, if charged with making the decision of how to release this particular speakers crossover, might actually AGREE with B&W decision once the true reasons were revealed.
(ie Porsche knows it’s SUV are a dilution of their core product, but to survive and produce their “good stuff” they essentially have no choice.) |
@gdnrbob so right, opting out just hurts the contribution centered community and learning.....but I get the thick skin sometimes required.... |
@teo audio,
If we let the 'know it all's' dictate our behaviour, then we are lost.
Bob |
Now..many can see why all I said was: Thanks, Erik.
As... it can get ugly out there... prolly best keep my mouth shut on the subject of speaker design.
|
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
|
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
|
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. |
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 |
And how about that "There is no sound signature its a myth" statement.
Are you going to back up that rather "bold" statement?
|
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... |
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.
|
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
|
So kenjit,
What does your current system look like?
|
And how DSP working out for you in your non-existent system ? better than passive |
And how DSP working out for you in your non-existent system ?
|
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. |
Thanks Erik that was an informative read for some of us. |
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 |
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....
|
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.
|
"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
|
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? |
"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...
|
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. |
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.... |
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. |
Would that there were no BULLJIT! |
There is no signature sound its a myth. Really love being called a liar without evidence. |
Past that, it also helps to explain how a brand can develop their signature sound. There is no signature sound its a myth. |
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
|
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. |
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.... |
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 |
like I said, ( and will modify here ) ignore ignorant trolls and Dumpsterfire...
|
"Nobody knows what they're doing." ^^^ "psychological projection" at it's purest. It's like Trump has invaded audiogon. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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.
|
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. |
@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! |
So the B&W X-over could be improved IMO. by swapping the parts for ones that cost a few dollars more? |
