Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
84.25.122.240
In Reply to: RE: tweet resistor posted by DrChaos on October 14, 2020 at 14:33:49
"No it's not. The tweeter level control in other speakers works exactly the same way. It's simply less expensive the way Magnepan does it, given that there is no need for frequent adjustment"
True, I thought he was referring to a treble level control on a amp.......... my bad..
"The point is indeed to match the power response to the room's reflectivity. Nothing wrong with that."
To me, it's wrong, fix the room, not the signal. You build a concert hall to maximize the experience of a symphony orchestra, you don't ask the orchestra to "tone it down".
Follow Ups:
Confusion partially my fault. I used to own snells. Came with tweeter knob on the back panel, type D's. I basically assumed in my mind that kind of knob.
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
A treble level control on an amplifier could/might do the same thing. IF the characteristics could be set to achieve the same shelving action an inserted resistor would.
You could make a case that fixing the room and not the signal is a valid premise, but there are numerous "room correction" systems now that do it the other way 'round. And many people are happy with the results. Dirac Live is the most common one....but there are many others.
Dave.
So true, you could argue all day about tuning the signal or tuning the room to reach the same results. Back in the "old days" a clean straight signal path was the holy grail of high- end audio, anything resembling an equalizer was a dirty word. Computers and digitalization have created new options to achieve decent sound, but the purist approach still gets my vote.
The question then becomes what constitutes a "purist approach" considering we're not in the "old days" anymore.
Does a simple resistor in the tweeter signal path violate the "purist approach?" Hmmmmm. :)
Dave.
"The question then becomes what constitutes a "purist approach" considering we're not in the "old days" anymore."
A purist approach is the pursuit of a clean, straight signal path, avoiding or removing anything that would unnecessarily deteriorate or alter the source signal. This is a key factor for High-End amp + source manufacturers. Designers have often stated "A perfect design would be a straight wire with gain", thats about as pure as you can get. Thats why (quality) amps lack tone controls and use the shortest possible signal paths, we remove fuse + fuse holders, replace internal wiring, connectors + plugs or even better, make bare wire connections, all in the pursuit of reducing resistance + deterioration of the signal.
We may not be in the "old days" anymore, but that doesn't mean that digital possibilities have created a giant step forward. A top analog rig still competes with(or betters) anything digital, class D amps still cannot compete with pure class A and magneplanar speakers are still amongst the best money can buy.
"Does a simple resistor in the tweeter signal path violate the "purist approach?"
Yes.
That's some hard medicine there.
You mean speaker crossovers? I've never heard a crossover-less speaker. I would like to sometime.
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
"You mean speaker crossovers?"
That would be great! every speaker manufacturer would love to build a speaker without crossovers, but then you need a point source that could cover the entire frequency range, from top to bottom. Would like to hear that too!
I thought that was Zu Audio's calling card?
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
Zu audio? never heard of them, probably never crossed the pond. Did check them out and they indeed try to cover the range with one driver, cool....... would like to hear them, not much chance. Ugly as hell, won't win any design awards!
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: