|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.94.105.94
In Reply to: RE: Cabinet for Tannoy 12" posted by andrenel on June 23, 2014 at 00:08:13
Hey, my mistake, andre. I had indeed been referencing the HPD/Monitor-Gold style of more efficient paperconed monitors (and that's what my cab-building experience is with).
But I might point out that there are two separate kinds of things being discussed, regardless. Or maybe two equally credible lines of thought.
Your end seems maybe closer to home theater, or even pro sound-reinforcement thinking-- separate the frequencies, drive the various freq ranges hard, use whatever electronics or multiple drivers + crossover elements you need, to create a big, multi-source sound. All-rounders, as you say, fit to do the thundering crashes and sound effects in HT or very large-scale music.
From my (short-signal-path, least-in-the-way, fewest-drivers/less-xover/no-sub) kind of perspective it's really only music that is in question, and probably not more than 30hz-18khz anyway. In my view the more integrity the program material has at low volumes-- the bigger of a win, because you can use less tonnage of electronics in the path, fewer components, fewer strategies like neg-feedback or psu filtering & regulation. Vacuum tubes for some parts of the system, transformer-volume-controls, simple circuitry, simple psu's.
On my side of the divide, if you have to push anything hard and then super-damp or loop-feedback or filter it to control it, you're not getting it right. Once you build inefficient drivers into tight, narrow-baffled close-walled pillars, you'll be needing to damp the insides extravagantly to kill reflections, and yes, drive them hard with hundreds of watts to get spls back out of that damped interior.
To my ear, subjectively, the lack of frontage on the narrow baffle wins some battles and loses others. Imaging and disappearing-as-source are the wins, no question; so again, in HT, exactly the ticket. Fullness and organic timbre seem to be the losses. Pillars always seem to suit that kind of electric-bass lounge jazz thing better than they do an acoustic strings-&-woodwinds vibe. Subjective, but maybe it's not just me.
From your side, I suppose, why not divide and conquer, use as much tech as gets the job done and have some overage to spare. Why concern the design with getting all things right when you can cater to those things with auxiliary parts of the system (like multi-drivers, supertweets & subs, for example).
I guess I just wanted to assert that drivers like old-school tannoys, lowthers, etc make sense not because efficiency is required by incompetent amplifiers, but because efficiency complements simple, short-signal-path systems that are inherently low-watt.
Anyway, best of luck with the D900 plans, wish I could have been more help.
Follow Ups:
Thanks, Blinx - once again, a thought-provoking response. After mulling it over, I conclude that correctly reproducing sound is a higher objective in hi-fi terms than reproducing music.
I say that respectfully within a forum like this, where vague platitudes like "it's all about the music" are not unusual. Without intending offense, I hastily add that my objection is not with the sentiment of the statement, but with its implementation - what is music?
If music were simply "strings and pipes" instruments, I would agree with the philosophy of your setup, but when you include the equally valid percussion and high-dynamic-range scenario, without losing sight of equally valid non-musical terms like transparency, parameters need to be re-evaluated. That is where I am right now.
Personally, my first point of discontent with the "old-school sound" was with the amplifiers. Bipolar amps sounded slow; FET's were "tizzy" and valves/tubes fussy - a lifetime of frustration punctuated by moments of bliss. Mark Alexander's groundbreaking work on current feedback amplifiers really worked for me. Having found my holy grail of amplification, I boldly entered the realm of electrostatic speakers and its many untapped treasures.
That is what my main system consists of now.
While the electrostatics deliver abundantly in many areas, they are not without problems of their own.
Furthermore, I cannot help but feel that I can get the Tannoys to perform better than I have been able to in the past.
But, I am not going into this project blindly. I am acutely aware that Tannoy can and do produce exceptional cabinets. I want to start from their base of good work and devote my attention to an active system, where I feel a lot more comfortable.
Tonight, I will be setting up a listening room with a pair of D900's and a pair of S10's. Regrettably, the drivers are not identical in the two ranges, but they are of the same family, but the cabinets have very different designs, which is my point of interest.
I am just going to start by listening to music and see where that takes me with my cabinet quest.
{ from the previous... Re my musical examples of pillar-columns vs wide-boxes-- electric-bass-lounge-jazz versus woody-strings-and-winds, well. On a completely primitive level that makes some sense, doesn’t it. An electric bass is a narrow board of completely rigid material that generates its sound via complex electric pickup system. Much like multi-driver pillars with elaborate xovers. As for the wide-wooden-box profile, what does that resemble but something like a cello or double-bass, a woody soundbox after all .... Sometimes an ‘obvious’ comparison isn’t so wrong ... }
____
Thanks A, for your post. On your point of reproducing music versus reproducing sound, well, two things. First is that I completely agree with your reluctance to accept the platitude of ‘it’s all about the music’, especially when repeatedly, fervently intoned on Audio boards; generally an audio board statement of same is followed by a rapt appreciation of some brainless demo material or played-til-dead warhorse-recording. Of that, enough.
The second, though, is that I agree with your assessment in the big picture. It is more difficult to reproduce Sound than just Music; that’s built into the definition, in that music is only a subset of the larger category. But you’re right, even if you flatten all the variables, there is much more to the discussion and the definitions & guidelines of sound reproduction.
I would venture, though, that the rules are a little bit different for the two kinds of discussions. While there is a broad Arts + Sciences umbrella to cover the Sound reproduction discussion, it leans to the science. Whereas, in Music, the arts-and-literature, history, tradition and culture aspects take up, easily, a good half of the discussion; with different descriptors, different metrics for successful outcomes.
And here is where the parting of the ways is clearer. For a musical venture, it may well be that the examination of the original text-- the Recording, in this case-- is the ultimate and indisputable aim. That to eq, vary, rematerialize, reinforce or diverge in any way from the values in the recording ---is a false path. No matter that a tube system may render more lifelike harmonics, or that a high-current electrostatic system may pressurize the room more impressively--- if reproduction diverges from the text, it’s wrong.
Since we’re all adults, though, it’s worth noting that nothing is perfect, that there is distortion and variability in all systems, and in the end, even with rigorous approaches, it really just comes to what seems more believable. Or to which may exhibit the fewer obvious glitches or ‘fudges’.
Trying for a minute to get outside of the regular ruts these things run in, I would opine that new ‘versions’ –new to oneself-- of sound playback systems (whether open baffles or stats, dual concentrics or mass-arrays of small drivers, triode, pushpull, SET, SIT, Mosfet or current-feedback)--- are beguiling for maybe just a bit longer than it takes to completely immerse and “get” the trick. During which time the blissed-out listener swims thru new discoveries, universes of music—both new and previously visited material. After which you start to hear the trick, not the program material.
b7
ps thnx for the tip on current-feedback, on which I'm happily reading up...
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: