phusis
Responses from phusis
| Bruce Edgar Sorry to learn of this. Godspeed, Mr. Edgar. | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @mijostyn --Just looked over at your profile, and you have an impressive set-up from what I can assess (haven’t heard it, obviously, but I’m sure it’s sonically extremely capable). You wrote "Sound Labs" being your main ESL’s, but the profile read... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @atmasphere -- The T-1 has a 250Hz horn, using a 4" compression driver that is field coil powered. The diaphragm is made of beryllium and employs a Kapton surround, which is how it goes so low without breakups. I don’t know the spec on the T-1 but... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @mijostyn --.. my set up is fully active but you could never use SET amps in my system. I really require big amps. I was talking in the context of very efficient speakers. SET amps are very romantic and if that is what you like then by all means b... | |
| I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ... @jon_5912 --Ad 1: Indeed, agreed. Seeing the somewhat easier load presented to an amp when coupled directly to a driver without the interference of a passive cross-over, the "impedance matching" of amps to drivers that is often heralded as an adva... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @atmasphere --I have. The Classic Audio Loudspeakers are **easily** in the same league. If I had to compare, the CAL is a bit smoother, owing to a better interface between the throat and horn, resulting in far less artifact. The field coil compres... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @atmasphere -- They are TAD 1602s. Pricey, and a bit different from the EV. I forgot to mention they have Alnico magnets.FWIW the midrange driver employs a field coil and a beryllium diaphragm with a Kapton surround. They are Classic Audio Louds... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @clearthinker -- If I understand you correctly, you make a new point after 119 posts to this thread:A large majority of audiophile speaker designs are low efficiency because a large majority of audiophiles don’t like some of the sound characterist... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @atmasphere --... A higher efficiency driver that can make 98dB with 1 watt and is 8 ohms is a different beast altogether. This describes the 15" drivers in my speakers at home and they cost $2000.00 each.These are field coil-fitted drivers, rig... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @clearthinker --I'd agree with poster @ctsooner here. Pro manufacturers, the more or less sole supplier for this segment, have developed and build their high efficiency drivers for decades now, and relative to their size, material use and R&D ... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @audio2design -- You don’t have to have a highly efficient speaker to overcome dynamic compression in normal usage.Now, before you tell me what I don’t know and need to know, consider the following:What system constellation as it pertains to minim... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ Greg Timbers:Q: How has the sound of speakers changed over the years? Many yearn for the speakers of the past over those of today… what has changed? Distortion, materials, focus on sound characteristics?A (by Mr. Timbers): Speakers have generally ... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @mijostyn --Good post, but I'd have to disagree with below quote: A low sensitivity speaker can be very bit as dynamic as a high sensitivity speaker. It is just a matter of power. Sorry, but no. Anything approaching live dynamics calls for both ... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @audiokinesis -- This is almost exactly what I’m working on, and had hoped to introduce in 2020 but... stuff happened that year...Anyway I designed a large-format Oblate Spheroid waveguide using Earl Geddes’ equations, like you targeting a 700 Hz... | |
| Speaker sensitivity vs SQ @djones51 --With active speakers and DSP box size and bass extension are being challenged in interesting ways. Look at the Develiat Phantoms down in subwoofer range with appossing drivers and a lot of watts. The Phantom's to me are more an inter... |