|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.92.86.176
In Reply to: RE: Can't remember their name - went out of business posted by Mike in NJ on March 21, 2015 at 07:25:38
As others pointed out, it was probably Waveform.
I knew the company's owner, John Otvos, a bit. After Waveform closed, he made a point of saying to me that he didn't go out of business; instead, he closed up shop.
Some might say that amounts to the same thing, but not necessarily. John was a master woodworker who made tremendous money building things (not speakers) for other people. As far as I could tell, Waveform was a business of passion, not a business to make a living for him. He was also an idealist about what he wanted to sell, and outspoken about it. Controversial, always.
I think he just sort of gave up the fight and focused on other things. I could be wrong, but that was the impression I got (I spent a day out there a year or two before he closed up and he wasn't hurting for money as far as I could tell).
Doug Schneider
www.soundstage.com
Follow Ups:
His loudspeakers were accepted by engineers at Telarc and Dorian and another company I forget, as well as independent engineer Jerry Bruck.
However, one of the ironies of the audio-business ecosystem is that, as IIRC Jane Jacobs stated in "Imperfect Competition," that "high price" can be as powerful an influence on sales as "low price."
For such an ambitious (and hard to ship and set up) loudspeaker, I think that the "buy it direct from the builder" business model is pretty much doomed.
A valiant effort, though.
JM
There are many reasons Otvos probably chose to close up shop -- price might've been one factor. Undoubtedly, there were many factors involved, probably the most important one being that the speaker had an active crossover and needed three channels of amplification per speaker. Now, anyone who knows anything about loudspeakers knows that's a very credible way to go with design (Otvos could really be seen as ahead of his time in that regard), but it's also one hell of a difficult loudspeaker to sell, back then or even today -- audiophiles tend to like fully passive. For example, the latest iteration of that was Aurum Acoustics' speaker, which was incredibly good, but, again, the active, triamplified approach just doesn't sell well, and Aurum chose to close up shop as well.Doug Schneider
www.soundstage.com
Edits: 03/22/15
This has frustrated me for a long time. You can always do a better job with active crossovers and matched amplification than with a passive system. Add DSP, and you can do things that few purely mechanical speakers can hope to accomplish. But then, I'm bugged by the elimination of tone controls as well. Sometimes, purism can be self defeating.
Mostly because the effort necessary to surpass top class amps and passive network is much more difficult than paper theory, one such problem is overcoming the microphonics from amplifiers when placed inside enclosures.
Regards
It's an engineering effort, to be sure, but pro speaker and subwoofer manufacturers certainly haven't shied away from it. My sense is that it just wouldn't sell in the high-end consumer market. Audiophiles like to choose their own amplifiers and cables and to use the sonic characteristics of one component to balance the sound of another. And there's a certain amount of equipment lust involved as well.
Concur Josh,
there are other reasons why pro speakers fail in fhe high end, frankly just not enough quality of a speaker, much different design criteria .....
Regards
Yeah, the design criteria are very different. I've never heard a monitor I would want to use at home. The one area in which they are superior is dynamics -- so many audiophile systems can't play at realistic levels.
Puesdo audiophile systems Josh ... :)Yes and mainly because most are content with 80-90db for playback levels and at peaks at that. As to active , my experience with active setups date back to early seventies and my first SOTA attempts. Back then 2 and 3 way active was doable and i had used xovers from Sansui,Sony , Crown and custom built discrete units, this worked really well over what i had before , but later , after i had acquired a Pr of MC3500's in 78 i went back to a full passive design and with the better amplification the system was much better. Over the decades i have tried many different itinerations of active setups, but always found the best results, Passive for mid-twt and active bass/mid-bass to be the best compromise over a full active setup.
Active in the bass makes not only good technical, but practical sense and does work in real world application. Connecting the amp directly to the woofer has many benefits, as oppose to running thru non-linear miles of aircore (due to big values) or linear, but compression killing laminate coils, not to mention the phase angles presented to the amplifiers as is usually necessary for a good low bandpass filter.
Still Full passive can be hard to beat when done right, the active setup will be extensive for SOTA performance and it will be orders of magnitude more expensive..
Regards..
Edits: 04/14/15 04/14/15
Interesting. Why do you prefer passive for mid/tweet? Because of problems with the sonics of the active crossover?
Yes i found the sonics and coherency superior with passive xover and of course with good caps ...
Regards
Edits: 04/14/15
There are active designs with external amps. I don't believe that this makes any significant difference but if it did there's an easy workaround. I've never seen anyone dispute the known advantages of active designs.
Imagine how boring the internet would be if folks were as civil here as they are in person.
What known advantage is being disputed ..? What active speaker are you currently using ..?
no known advantages are being disputed because nobody has anything. I've had several active speakers. Currently I have a pair of custom ATC active 110's that have external P-4 amplifiers. It's not really relevant. Microphonics mattered in tube days. Enclosures can be built that don't resonate.
Imagine how boring the internet would be if folks were as civil here as they are in person.
Hi Doug,
I'm an adherent of active systems; however, our system is active from the perspective it -- DALI MegaLine III -- utilizes an active external crossover and requires four channels of amplification, user-selected, along with two pairs of speaker cables.
Simply hooking-up a pair of XLR's directly to a loudspeaker, e.g., ATC actives, has an attraction.
Vbr,
Sam
Hi Sam,
Never heard a fully active speaker i could take home , quasi-active works best for me ...
Regards
Hello A.Wayne,
Yes, very appealing in the regard of exercising choice among amplifiers and cables. Actives, such as some of the ATC's whereby amplification is integral to the speaker enclosure, affords much less flexibility.
Vbr,
Sam
We are all susceptible to this kind of thinking.
Although sometimes there is an inverse effect - a "nocebo" type of negativity - no matter how innately good a piece of gear is may be, disappointment is predetermined by sticker shock.
You have to hit that sweet spot. Expensive enough to bestow an aura of "high end", but not so expensive to offend.
"You have to hit that sweet spot. Expensive enough to bestow an aura of "high end", but not so expensive to offend."
And most folks agree that their stuff is pretty darn good without being oppressively expensive.
-RW-
Ayre makes damn good stuff
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: