 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.53.159.98
Thanks to AJinFLA's post, I followed the link and it led me to Roger Russell's new speakers! Damn I really do need to try and get to his house and listen to those!Thetubeguy1954
Follow Ups:
If no one has heard them, I suppose we can comment on how they look.I think the WAF would be very low -- maybe negative!
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
My Stereo is MUCH BETTER than Your Stereo
RBG,I haven't heard them, but other members of the Central Florida Audio Society whose opinions I respect have. Those that have heard them are speaking highly of them. I've been told Roger wants me to come over and give them a listen. So if/when I'm up to the trip I'll let you know what my opinion is.
Thetubeguy1954
www.transmissionaudio.comThe M3 pro from this company costs $28,000 and is using a ribbon for most of the mids and highs with active xover. Much more advanced design than this russel speaker IMO and likely to sound better with a much higher dynamic headroom (not to mention 96 db/watt).
The M5 is around $40K.
They also make a TRUE ribbon full-range speaker called the La Scalla but it runs $50K.
Also http://www.relcoaudio.it/Relco_ing/davinci.htm
This is a ribbon hybrid fully dipole system. Costs about $24,000. 90db sensitivity.
Both are around 2 meters tall
Then if you want full-range single driver line source then you need to look at these:
http://www.izzy-wizzy.com/audio/spkrframe.html
This is an Acoustat 1+1. It has two identical panels stacked on top of each other to make a 94 inch tall (2.35 meters) line source full-range electrostatic speaker. Acoustat also made a 2+2 (2 down and 2 up), a 3+3 and a 4+4
Later generations used the same panels but improved interfaces (better transparency and tonal color...or lack thereof) and are the 4400 (again 2 up and 2 down) and the 6600 (an updated 3+3).
True linesources with seamless full-range to 20Khz can only be done with electrostatic elements because they can do the 20Khz with decent dispersion (if the panel is not too wide or if the panel is electronicall segmented)
I have Acoustat 1+1s and Spectra 2200 (a 2 panel wide model that is 1.7 meters tall).
The best part: you can find 1+1 and 2+2 for around $1000!!! So if you really want to try a line source speaker this is by far the cheapest and possibly best sounding options. OH, I forgot they work just fine with about 30 watts of tube power so your Mastersound SETs will love them.
These are certainly very nice! In fact this is the company that made the R3 design for Mark Levinson's Red Rose Music.I like the high-efficiencey and ribbons combined, a lot! Great speakers IMHO.
Thetubeguy1954
Well, I'll put them somewhere not too far down on my audition list, but I presume I would have to get to Florida or to one of the big shows to audition them. Others on the list are the Linkwitz Orion and the GedLee Summa. I'm not really in the market for new speakers right now, though.I don't quite see how 3.5" drivers can have really wide dispersion in the treble and highs, but user comments do indicate it seems to be a very good speaker, so it should be worth auditioning.
A couple of years ago or so, I heard some McIntosh speakers which were very tall, had numerous drivers, and cost about $20,000. They projected a big image all right, but seemed to me to be somewhat colored on massed strings.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
"I don't quite see how 3.5" drivers can have really wide dispersion in the treble and highs"They can't and they don't. It's strictly due to the diameter of the driver which inescapably must cause the dispersion to be reduced as the wavelength approaches the same dimension as the cone. The FR graph shows off axis response diverging significantly starting around 5 khz, by 10 khz it's down around 5 db, at 10 khz, around 10 db, and at 20 khz, it's down around 20 db all relative to the on axis response which itself falls rapidly above 10 khz. On axis FR actually starts a gradual rise at about 6 khz rising about 5 db at 10 khz and then falling about 10 db from there at about 19 khz. This is not good even compared to a typical 1" dome tweeter. One reviewer noted that sound was better when the speakers were toed in, testimony to poor lateral dispersion. See my more extensive comments below.
I heard their newest one with tons of small 2 inch mids and 1 inch tweeters on a panel in front of several 12 inch woofers. Like a giant, line source, coaxial car speaker :)! The sound was not bad at all though with just some dryness to the sound that is more likely due to the Mc amps they were using. Incredible dynamic headroom on this speaker though so it should be able to really do full-scale orchesetra.
Using lots of 3.5" midrange drivers equalized to run full range. Somehow, I'm thinking that someone has done something like that in the past...rw
Yes. Buuut, Bose uses horizontal time dispersion to present a more stable, albeit waaaaay tooooo large image..opens the sweetspot to the detriment of focus.Line arrays alter stability of image because IID drops as 1/r, vs Bose's angular/time source placement which has lord only knows what propagation equations..
Cheers, John
The lack of focus comes from the lack of high frequency energy. A 4" midwoofer stinks as a tweeter. There is practically no energy above about 10 to 12 khz, the driver's inertial mass being far too great no matter how much electrical energy you pump into it. And even if there were, the dispersion of HF energy from the front facing driver, the one which creates the sense of directionality becaue it arrives at the listener first and the one direction from which it is loudest, is so poor that unless you were directly on axis, you wouldn't hear it anyway. But I fixed that. Mine is an entirely different speaker now. BTW, I also took out the upper bass peak at around 250 hz as well, and I extended the deep bass so that it is in reasonable balance with the rest of the spectrum.
I wasn't speaking about the highs.But rather, the diffusive reflections of a dihedral pseudo-planar wavefront off the back wall, with it's time-dispersive angular spreading. More of a midrange thingy.
Cheers, John
My experiments with not only this but with other speakers as well had convinced me that hf dispersion is very critical. Even though the total energy reaching my ears is relatively small, not only is its relative gain but its angles of arrival and the relative spectral content of the reflected sound compared to the direct sound is also critical. I used a 12:1 reflected to direct ratio of radiated sound to in a live room to supplement the response from the main 4" drivers which are only 8:1. I also changed the spectral balance of the front driver relative to the rear drivers since the walls have a greater tendency to absorb as frequency increases. This is intended to create a reflected sound at my ears with a flatter power transfer function and IMO is much more like the way sound is radiated and arrives from actual musical instruments. So now I have highs, and now I have lows, but is it still Bose????? :> )
""actual musical instruments""ARE YOU NUTS?? Actual musical instruments??
Sheesh, next thing you'll be talkin bout is, what...vocals???
Don't tell me you're one of those guys that actually listens to a song all the way to the end..:-)
I'm gonna have me some fun playing with the ITD/IID electronically, software control, as opposed to hardware..pshaw, anybody can make hardware...
Can't wait to go see Chick..live
Cheers, John
Many great violins created during the glory of Cremona Italy are at the end of their lives. If you could see them from the inside out according to this expert and know how many drastic repairs some of them have undergone, you wouldn't buy them, you'd be horrified.With all of our science noboby can recreate a great violin like those created in Cremona Italy about 300 or more years ago by the great violin makers. Even today, nobody can record and reproduce the sounds they can make accurately. I feel very priveleged to have lived in a time and place when I was able to hear them while they still sung in their full glory. Future generations won't have that chance. The fault lies in the technology, the violinmakers gave us over three centuries to capture their sound, learned their secrets and we have failed. It's our loss, not theirs, they did the best that they could have done, we didn't. It's our loss and the loss of future generations.
> With all of our science noboby can recreate a great violin like those
> created in Cremona Italy about 300 or more years ago by the great
> violin makers. Even today, nobody can record and reproduce the sounds
> they can make accurately.Did you mean to say that it is not straightforward to record and reproduce an individual violin accurately? If so, would you mind explaining what is problematic about it?
What do you mean by recreate a great violin? Do you mean that we cannot manufacture a copy that sounds like a particular violin?
Or that we cannot say why a violin sounds like a violin?
Or perhaps both?
"Did you mean to say that it is not straightforward to record and reproduce an individual violin accurately? If so, would you mind explaining what is problematic about it?"The state of the art is still inadequate to reproduce the tone of great violins (and other instruments as well) accurately. For people who claim to be able to hear the subtle differences between one wire and another, one vacuum tube and another, this should hardly come as a surprise sicne the differences are so gross as to be orders of magnitude greater. Among the many problems, electonic speakers don't radiate sound into the air the way musical instruments do. Therefore, even if they sound the same in an anechoic chamber, in real rooms, the acoustics make the distinction between them an immediate dead giveaway.
"What do you mean by recreate a great violin? Do you mean that we cannot manufacture a copy that sounds like a particular violin?"
Yes, that and the fact that we can't duplicate the sound of any of them, at least not to the degree that we can imbue them with the qualities which make them so unique. How they got that way is still beyond the understanding of our science. But violinmakers keep trying and eventually who knows. Analogously, winemakers in the US have made great strides equaling the best Bordeaux can produce as evidenced by a recent blind testing by French wine experts. These of course are no run of the mill wines. Yet even here, it is impossible to duplicate the taste of any one particular wine of note. Is it the notion of "terroir", that characteristic of earth and climate particluar to one spot in the world as the French oenologists contend or is it something else. At this stage nobody really knows. That's also beyond our science.
SM: ""
Many great violins created during the glory of Cremona Italy are at the end of their lives. ""SM: ""
With all of our science noboby can recreate a great violin like those created in Cremona Italy about 300 or more years ago by the great violin makers. Even today, nobody can record and reproduce the sounds they can make accurately.""SM: ""
The fault lies in the technology, the violinmakers gave us over three centuries to capture their sound, learned their secrets and we have failed. It's our loss, not theirs, they did the best that they could have done, we didn't. It's our loss and the loss of future generations.""So wait a minute, let me get this straight..
We, with our advanced technology, can't figure out how to reproduce the sound that is produced by a 300 year old wood instrument that, from what you are saying, is "at the end of their lives".
Some questions come to mind..
Has the sound from the instruments remained exactly the same over the 300 years, even though the instruments themselves are degrading? Or, is the sound currently produced better than what it was when it was built.
Are they chasing a ghost? How do we know that what we make now is not as good as the stuff 300 years ago? Perhaps in another 300 years, they'll be saying the exact same thing about what is being built now.
Maybe the answer is..if ya gonna make a violin that sounds like the 300 year old ones, ya shoulda started a looooooong time ago, like 1700.
Cheers, John
It doesn't really matter john if the sound has changed somewhat, for better or worse. What is important is that the reputation as the best was already in place during their makers lifetime and hasn't dimensished. It was the best then and its the best now and this is inspite of the fact that music styles changed dramatically, the way pieces were played has changed etc. People still recognize the superiortiy of these instruments. I have heard the effects personally by living with my exgirlfriend for the last four years. As she is an extremely talented violinst she was given access to several of these rare gems, including a Guarneri del Gesu, a Guadhinini, and a very good example of a Stradivarius. I have heard how superior they were even to a very good 100 year old Strad copy (that was better already than most modern violins).I think Soundmind is wrong about them going the way of the Dodo. There are about 500 strad violins left in the world. Yep, 500. The guy was making them for a long time and made probably several thousand in his lifetime. Now they are worth in the millions for a decent example. The funny thing is that the best way for them to keep their sound is to play them. Storing them for a hundred years ruins their sound, often permanently. This is why rich patrons who own them often loan them out to young talent. Sure things wear out when they are played but not the vital parts. Of course this means they are not totally original and maybe don't sound quite the same but the basic character is clearly in the parts that remain constant over the centuries. I bet they will be around for at least a few more.
"I think Soundmind is wrong about them going the way of the Dodo."I'm just repeating what I've heard from people who claim to know. I'm as hopeful as you are that it's wrong.
"We, with our advanced technology, can't figure out how to reproduce the sound that is produced by a 300 year old wood instrument that, from what you are saying, is "at the end of their lives"."That seems to be the general consensus. Exactly how they were made and why they are the way they, sound the way they sound, feel in use to violinists the way the feel seems to be the result of secrets which died with the the makers and ones which science hasn't figured out yet. From what I gather, the time to examine these relics during which they can reveal thier secrets is also running out. Don't be so surprised, there are much simpler problems science hasn't figured out yet either...such as how the universe came into existance or how the sound of speaker wires and vaccum tubes are affected by fluoridated water in nearby house plants if you belive some people.
"Has the sound from the instruments remained exactly the same over the 300 years"
We have no way to know because nobody who heard them when they were young is still around to remember and tell us but the betting is no, they do change over time. In fact they can change quite drastically in a short time when conditions of storage, lack of use, or damage occurs. And one of the comment's this violinmaker made was that we haven't given newer instruments 300 years worth of playing they just might need to reach their peak. Sounds like violin making at the highest level is somewhat akin to winemaking, part science, part art, and part voodoo.
"How do we know that what we make now is not as good as the stuff 300 years ago?"
Well, there is the sound they make for one thing. Ever heard a (non electronic unamplified) violin which is as loud as a trumpet? I have....4 feet in front of me...startling.) Will modern insturments sound like these ancient masterpieces in 300 years? I'll try to stick around and report back to you when the time comes.
Soundmind and Jneutron, I am surprised and disappointed that you, as engineers, have not found a cost effective way to make a Strad quality violin.
It should be easy, and the Chinese can make it look like a perfect copy. The materials don't amount to much, just some wood, plastic, epoxy, whatever. Maybe a spray finish
Now don't tell me that it would not sound as good as a Strad! We all know how fallable the ear is at determining these things. We MUST use test measurements to compare the two violins, and factor out everything that JJ says that that we really don't need to have in the measured waveforms, because they will be masked by our ears, anyway.
If we need to, we might have a 'compensator' sound source built inside the violin that will fill the gaps, or add the 'distortion' that everybody likes in an old Strad violin. Maybe, even a dynamic range enhancer function built in too.
How about it folks? ;-)
sm: ""
We have no way to know because nobody who heard them when they were young is still around to remember and tell us but the betting is no, they do change over time""
That was my point. We don't know what they sounded like when they were made, just what they sound like now. Current product, the opposite. So, is it the current goal to make something that sounds like it's 300 years old, or make one that sounded like new..sm: ""
....in 300 years? I'll try to stick around and report back to you when the time comes. ""That is also my goal..so far, so good.
Cheers, John
"So, is it the current goal to make something that sounds like it's 300 years old, or make one that sounded like new.."If I could make a bottle of wine today which tastes, smells, has the texture of, and for all practical intents and purposes IS 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, do you think I'd be sitting here wasting my time talking to you? We want it all and we want it all NOW!
A colleague of mine has one and loves it. In all these things it's a matter of price range, and given that the excellent older violas have risen astronomically in price, the carbon fiber viola simply wastes anything near it in cost.She loves it, and to me (husband of violinist) it sounds lovely indeed.
BTW, she says the black sounds better than the brown. ;-)
Also, it's sad that actual working musicians can't afford the good stuff anymore.
My ex would have sneered at this thought but then she was playing on some of the best instruments (a Strad, a Guarneri and some other old Italian instruments...violins not violas). The sound is really that much better as loath as I am to admit it given their price (a couple of them were priced in the millions). No self-respecting violinist in Europe would be caught playing one (at least I have never seen one in the hands of a concert violinist or orchestral member here).On the other hand i have heard that some good new violins can be had for sane money. Not the level of the best old ones but better than lesser examples. For the price of a new car or perhaps a bit less.
Did your ex experiment with different bows also? A friend who plays professionally says often it is the bow that can make a crucial difference in sound, and that you have to match the bow with the instrument and the personality: just like a stereo system, right!?I do recall in the past, Yamaha had borrowed several well known instruments, and x-rayed and measured them to the best of their capability, in an attempt to recreate the sound.
Stu
Yes she did. She had on loan a Sartori (I don't know if that is exactly the right name or spelling) bow that was pretty damn expensive for a stick of wood. She owned two other bows that she used for different occasions. For example one was lighter and stiffer and she liked it for playing technical music like Paganini Caprices. The other bow gave a richer sound (amazing but it was very obvious to hear) and she preferred it for things like Brahms or Bartok to put more emotion into the sound.Also, "little" things like moving the sound peg a couple of mm could shift the harmonic balance quite noticably or changing the bridge could have a profound effect on the sound. Now the instrument never stopped sounding like its basic self but the accent changed, if you know what I mean.
All in all, it was a most fascinating education for me on many levels, appreciation of music, appreciation of talent, understanding of instruments and what separates a good one from a bad one, understanding the profound DIFFERENCE having a good instrument makes in the ability of an aritst to get the music across, etc. etc. My ex I think lived in fear that one day she might end up stuck with a merely good.
Well I would guess that Yamaha was not entirely successful, otherwise you might see plenty of Yamaha violins poping up in orchestras!
for scientific analysis of all instruments and is slowly atarting to dominate the world. An acquaintance who is first or second call at the Met on Tuba once told me that their instruments play well, play in tune and will make any decent player sound respectable. WWhen he purchased his custom German horn, he told me it tookyears to master the instrument, but it had more of that 'soul' than the Yamaha he had. As for other instruments, for a while the entire Phily oboe section was using Yamaha oboes.....
Similarly, a local trumpet player had a custom horn built by Yamaha for his friend and the friend had Yamaha build a second horn for my friend. We had a long discussion as to what made the trumpet tick, and since my friend has access to a lathe he has done extensive experimentation with his various horns in order to achieve a certain sound quality. Many of the results are directly applicable to speaker cone designs.A local piano tuner who also sells Bosendorfers, sent his son to Yamaha to be trained as a tuner because he said they get the math and the basic technique correct. He tunes a bit different, but he says that after you learn the Yamaha way it is much easier to teach his way (he once was flown to Iceland to tune Ashkenazy's instrument).
I find the fine tuning of a real instrument very instructional for my stereo gear. Many of the lessons learned from a real instrument can be directly transfered to stereo gear.
YMMV, of course,
Stu
Stu
I also agree that the sound of an outstanding instrument is amazing, and virtually impossible to duplicate or even understand the underlying mechanism. When I was married to a violinist about 30 years ago, we attended a concert where a very special Strad. was played. I just about fell out of my seat when I heard it played. I whispered to my wife what special violin that was and she told me: "That's your first 'Strad', John" No is wasn't my first, nor my last, but WOW! Back stage, after the performance, I must have bored the guy to death, raving about his Strad to him.
Many physicists and engineers have tried for generations to figure out exactly what makes the Strad sound. A physics professor, Dr. Fry, and I spent some time discussing the subtle points of Strad design. His hypothesis at the time was the mass to stiffness ratio of the wood. I don't know what came of this hypothesis, but once in a while, someone comes up with another idea as to why and how this happens. It should humble engineers to realize that not everything that we hear is easily measured or even understood.
Yamaha once tried to make a cost effective classic guitar. It looked good, played in tune, did everything right, but I just gave it away as it had no 'soul'. Apparently, they have done better with pianos, or have they?
Well I heard that Yamaha pianos are ok for jazz...'nough said.
I will say this, you should be able to learn the instrument on just about anything. ;-) I started guitar with a Sears model. Later, I got better guitars.
Think about the 8th grade, and what viola you want your kid to take to and from school, etc.
When I was at IHEM (a grad school for classical musicians) back in 1974, a young lady who was 'sponsoring' our get-together, put her special violin (in its case) under her bed. Too many people apparently sat on the bed, and it was broken beyond repair. This is with people in their late teens and early twenties. Think about younger kids. We have to make a 'usable' cheap and rugged version of these instruments, just to keep them whole! ;-)
Yes and I have heard stories of musicians leaving said precious instruments on trains...lost!
Never heard of a carbon fiber viola. What would they call a double bass made out of it, Big Bertha II? It's only been a couple of years since I actually saw an electric violin. BTW, for students, we've found Southwest Strings has excellent values in factory made instruments. They also have a nice variety of strings, cases, and other items at reasonable prices. Don't know if they ship to Switzerland though.
GTF
$19k for a pair for speakers that use the the Peerless TG9FD10 that I bought from Madisound for $20?
Hmmm...
Well, at least he is using DSP.
I have yet to hear a line array that didn't sound fabulous on large scale orchestra and pooh-pooh on solo acoustic instrument. The image is always, well, large.
And of course, no, wires and power chords won't help here.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
AJinFla,First you are probably mistaken about the drivers being used. If Roger is using Peerless drivers (I honestly don't know what drivers he's actually using) it's most likely the Peerless V-Line TG9SFD10-04 3.5" Full Range Shielded @ $33.95ea and not Peerless TG9FD10. The IDS site specifically states " the entire magnet assembly is shielded" which the Peerless TG9FD10 isn't.
Then your implication that $19K is somehow out of wack for this speaker via the comment "$19k for a pair for speakers that use the the Peerless TG9FD10 that I bought from Madisound for $20? Hmmm..." Reveals your understanding of how a business decides apon the price they market a product at is limited. It's not simply 48 drivers X $33.95 plus wood, as it would be for a DIYer.
As IDS is a business. So in addition to the price of the parts in the speakers & equalizer, there are employee's salaries to consider, utilities, insurance, rent and I'm sure many more expenses I cannot even imagine as I've never owned a business. Roger graduated from Eensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. with a degree in Electrical Engineering. For 25 years Roger was the Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh Laboratory Inc. doing what he like best-- creating better sound. Roger initiated the loudspeaker line at McIntosh, developed many new concepts, received several patents and wrote several magazine articles. As his email is available to the public via his website, I'd suggest you email him (he lives in FLA like you) at rogerr4 (at) earthlink.net with any questions you have on his pricing scheme.
I think you just prefer arguing or dissenting as a way of provoking others into debates. I noticed when I responded quite nicely to your Quadrapole post by stating "Wow AJinFLA! What a find! Who makes these speakers? I'd like to read more about them..." You totally ignored my question and response. Yet when I post about Roger Russell, a well respected speaker designer and one of your fellow Objectivists (a man I have great respect for) has created a new speaker and here it is for all to see. Now you have something to say and it's not what I'd call a basically postive reply.
Oh well maybe one of these days...
Thetubeguy1954
54, I don't think that I have heard these specific speakers, but we used to use vertical arrays in the Grateful Dead sound system more than 36 years ago, and found them to have real advantages. It is true that we usually used a horn tweeter array for the very highs, much for the reason that even small cones would have to be equalized to some extent.
However, my friend's system, that was more a curved array of 4 inch loudspeakers, was used at that time as well, and even Doc Watson complimented us on the sound quality after we did an outdoor concert with him. The real hangup at the time was the quality of the 4'' loudspeakers. JBL made a quality 4" BUT it did not have any linear throw (for some reason) and could not easily be used full range for this reason. Most speakers were Bose quality from CTS , etc. I will look into these Peerless loudspeakers, just to see what progress has been made over the last 30 years or so.
"Do You Believe The Price Simply Equals The Sum Of The Prices Of The Parts Involved?"(Spoken like a true high markup, low volume, low QPR manufacturer.)
Only if you believe that as a consumer you shouldn't have to pay through the nose for the least efficient possible way to manufacture something. In a world where the semi-skilled Chinese labor to assemble this speaker is worth one dollar a day while American labor he probably used costs $100 an hour (with overhead), where you are buying fifty of the most expensive portable television set speaker drivers ever conceived (similar to Peerless/Vifa Tymphany TG9FS 10D-4 @$34 ea at full retail) in a couple of rather ordinary two cubic foot wooden furniture boxes, and instead of a 31 band graphic equalizer which will perform identically for $200 retail you are getting a customized low volume production variant probably costing a thousand or two, the notion of paying as much for this obviously flawed off the shelf design as a new car rises to the level of mental illness as I see it. It isn't even worth the cost of building it yourself at one tenth the price as you can buy one hell of a lot of fine drivers these days for $1700 and build your own box. But then again, I'm not an audiophile, someone who will pay anything in a candystore display case because the they're convinced it's OH so sweet by a high markup, low volume, low QPR manufacturer. This is one reason why high end audio is nearly dead and fading fast.
Personally, I don't have $19K to buy some loudspeakers, but if they do sound very good, then they are probably worth it. This is because there can be subtle differences in speaker driver design, not apparent from the external appearance that can make big differences in sound quality. The Asians have done a great job in making components that look OK, but are really composed of marginal materials and construction. It is like making a temporary building that looks normal on the outside, but will be relatively uncomfortable in the inside, perhaps drafty, noisy, and eventially will fall apart. External appearances aren't everything.
Now, if you can beat the price of 2 buck Chuck and still beat a superior tasting bottle of wine, I would take you seriously. ;-)
"Now, if you can beat the price of 2 buck Chuck and still beat a superior tasting bottle of wine, I would take you seriously."I might...by growing my own grapes. I've got three acres and haven't planted anything. But...there's still about 40 cases of mostly vintage Bordeaux from 90, 89, 88, and some 86s and 95s, in my cellar so I'm hardly hurting for great wine to drink.
Europe always charged very high prices for whatever they made. Having lived there for a couple of years, I can tell you from first hand experience, most of what Europe makes is crap. Vifa/Peerless/Tymphany make outstanding quality speakers (Ken Kantor wouldn't be associated with anything less) but they are not worth twice the price of Tang Band drivers which measure almost identically and can handle 50% more power. Personally, if I really liked it, I would have no qualms about building it myself but I haven't heard it and I suspect from my experience with other speakers using small drivers, this one will also not have acceptable lateral high frequency dispersion. BTW, I could easily afford them from RR if I really wanted them. I'd sooner build around the Bohlender Graebener 75" planar drivers and NHT 1259s if I wanted line source high fidelity speakers. It takes enormous amplifier power to get a lot of bass out of a collection of small drivers and 50 might not be enough. They may have the radiating surface of a 16" woofer and they may be equalizable to 25 hz but they only have an Xmax of 0.5 mm. Not good. A really good 12" woofer has an Xmax of 10 to 15 mm so it can move a lot more air and still keep its VC well within the most linear region of the magnetic field. If I get the chance I'll listen to it...but I'm not going out of my way to find it. I might be mistaken but it looks like RR has what amounts to a mail order operation out of a garage type workshop anyway.
Wisdom audio does something similar (the 75" BG driver and sealed bass units). Guess what? They cost a lot of money too. However; I would tend to agree with you that they would likely sound better.
TB54 - First you are probably mistaken about the drivers being used. If Roger is using Peerless drivers (I honestly don't know what drivers he's actually using) it's most likely the Peerless V-Line TG9SFD10-04 3.5" Full Range Shielded @ $33.95ea and not Peerless TG9FD10. The IDS site specifically states " the entire magnet assembly is shielded" which the Peerless TG9FD10 isn't.No, I simply short handed the entire model#. Yours is the *exact* one if you so please. Audibly, there will be little if any perceptible difference between them after DSP. Dig?
Plus, what is the relevance of having a $19K *shielded* 8' tall speaker speaker? Who the heck is going to have spend that much and have it close to a CRT LOL?TB - Then your implication that $19K is somehow out of wack for this speaker via the comment "$19k for a pair for speakers that use the the Peerless TG9FD10 that I bought from Madisound for $20? Hmmm..." Reveals your understanding of how a business decides apon the price they market a product at is limited. It's not simply 48 drivers X $33.95 plus wood, as it would be for a DIYer.
You always seem to read far more into what you think I might have said that what I actually said. The above/below is all your words, not mine.
Understanding of Business? Who the heck was talking about that? Do you understand what "break-up" treble is? No amount of DSP can correct this inherent behavior of the diaphram. Settle down Beavis.TB54 -As IDS is a business.
Yeah, I gathered that. More power to him. A trusted set of ears heard them and said they didn't sound too shabby. I'd most likely like them overall, but as I've stated before, we each have our preferences. I prefer more point source behavior. Might not sound as grand on large works, but more accurate on solo. YMMV.
TB54 - So in addition to the price of the parts in the speakers & equalizer, there are employee's salaries to consider, utilities, insurance, rent and I'm sure many more expenses I cannot even imagine as I've never owned a business. Roger graduated from Eensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. with a degree in Electrical Engineering. For 25 years Roger was the Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh Laboratory Inc. doing what he like best-- creating better sound. Roger initiated the loudspeaker line at McIntosh, developed many new concepts, received several patents and wrote several magazine articles. As his email is available to the public via his website, I'd suggest you email him (he lives in FLA like you) at rogerr4 (at) earthlink.net with any questions you have on his pricing scheme.
Roger sounds like a swell guy. I must tell you that I have *never* heard a McIntosh speaker that I liked and I have heard many, icluding large LA's (there has been is a dealer locally for years that I have been to many a time). Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
TB54 - I think you just prefer arguing or dissenting as a way of provoking others into debates. I noticed when I responded quite nicely to your Quadrapole post by stating "Wow AJinFLA! What a find! Who makes these speakers? I'd like to read more about them..." You totally ignored my question and response. Yet when I post about Roger Russell, a well respected speaker designer and one of your fellow Objectivists (a man I have great respect for) has created a new speaker and here it is for all to see. Now you have something to say and it's not what I'd call a basically postive reply.
Oh well maybe one of these days...Jeez man, take it easy. You are so easily offended by nothing. Ignore you? Did you not see the link I provided you in the very same post? Emerald Physics does not have a website yet. I have spoken to the designer and they intend to have one as soon as possibly. Like every good designer, he is an objectivist and promises the site will have all the technical details, no voodoo mumbo jumbo type crap, as I suspected when I saw the design. It is DSP controlled/tri-amplified (like my former rig), so probably isn't your bag (unless you want to spring for a couple more $$$Mastersounds LOL).
And yes, the sub is a Quadrupole, as I suspected. I e-mailed Linkwitz to discuss, since no one here seemed interested or possibly had any knowledge of such.
Enjoy your music and quit worrying about what you think I might have said.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
AJinFLA,You'll not taunt me into an arguement no matter how much you try. So telling me to "take it easy" or "(I'm)so easily offended by nothing." or refering to "no voodoo mumbo jumbo type crap" or even "unless you want to spring for a couple more $$$Mastersounds LOL" These comment are not going to achieve your desired affect.
Unlike you I'll choose to stick to the subject if you don't mind, and not ridicule your choices in audio components! The fact is you're incorrect. You didn't only short hand the entire model number like I'll do in this explinantion. One model is the TG9FD10, the other model is the TG9SFD10. One has an S the other doesn't. In addition to that S, which I assume represents shielded, there's a price difference of $20 for the TG9FD10 (like you said) and $33.95 for the TG9SFD10. So calm down AJinFLA that's not a personal attack, it's ONLY a correction of misrepresented facts. I didn't say or believe you did it with any malicious intent. People make mistakes, it's ok. But, if that bothers you, probably you're the one who should "take it easy" or "(I's)so easily offended by nothing."
We are in 100% agreement that audibly, there will be little if any perceptible difference between them after DSP, so yes I dig. I was only correcting your errors. Your also probably correct that due to Roger's speaker being a DSP controlled/tri-amplified speaker, it probably isn't my first preference. But just because it isn't my first preference that doesn't mean I won't like how it replicates music. Other members of the CFAS have heard this speaker (in fact I know who built the first pair) and they tell me it replicates music wonderfully. Roger is indeed a swell guy. Unlike you I have *never* heard a McIntosh speaker period. So I don't know if I would or wouldn't like how they replicate music. Roger has through another friend extended me a personal invite to come and hear them. That's something I'll have to do.
AJinFLA perhaps I should clarify something to you. Yes I own a Mastersound SET amp, and I am restoring a pair of RCA LC9A horn speakers. Those are my first preference, for my system. However unlike you, I still enjoy listening to other people's systems that use technologies other than what I own & prefer, i.e. solidtstate amps, hybrid amps, ESL, ribbons, dynamic speakers in OB, IB or BR enclosures. For me all technologies have the strengths & weaknesses so it's not what the component is, it's how well it replicates music, period. I don't mock Quad owners because they cannot be played loud, instead I appreciate what the Quads can do well.
You apparently feel you know me because of a few posts you've read here on A.A., but you don't! What I believe is everyone has the right to like any style music and any type of equipment they choose to. Some prefer soldstate to tubes, tubes to solidstate, triodes to ultralinear, analog to digital, digital to analog or some even prefer convenience over obtaining the last bit musicality from their system. Some like Jazz, some don't consider Smooth Jazz to be Jazz. Another person love's Smooth Jazz and doesn't like older Jazz and so on. "IF" your aystem makes YOU happy, and if you enjoy listening to Miles Davis or Kenny G or Bach, or Yanni, or Johnny Cash, or Marvin Gaye or Snoop Dog, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or says. This is all any of us should strive for anyway. To end up with a system makes you happy when you play the music YOU love!
But more importantly I believe audio is supposed to be a fun hobby. So YES I enjoy my music, as I hope you enjoy your music and I'm NOT worrying about what you think. However that doesn't preclude me from having OPINIONS or correcting what you or others might have said, if the facts are wrong. I have as much right to my OPINION as you do to yours.
As of this point my OPINION is I believe you prefer arguing or dissenting as a way of provoking others into debates. The fact is you didn't answer my question. Did I say I was offended, no! I'm not offended I am merely stating a fact. Why are you getting so defensive over such a simple thing? I'd prefer talking about the topics, not the people what I think about them or their choices in components. Perhaps you'll do the same? This could be a great place if we talked about the topics and not each other, or don't you agree?
Thetubeguy1954
x
n
A 33 dollar driver...times 50, is 1,650 dollars in drivers.Now, for correct operation, the drivers have to be matched. So, say 75% fallout from a batch if you select transfer function accuracy of 1%. (ok, they can be binned).
Test of function, say 10 minutes per driver, that's 200 drivers checked at initial run, 2000 minutes of test at a dollar per minute (underestimating labor and overhead of the labor).
First run costs 6600 in drivers, 2000 for driver binning..8600 dollars. Subsequent runs will be 500 dollars plus 1650, 2K per in medium quantity.
Then there's building and final burnin and test. OOPS, burn in has to occur prior to binning..sorry bout that. Say, 5 minutes per driver to load and unload the rack, 1000 dollars. That puts initial at 10K so far, subsequent at 2500 per.
Assembly, figure 8 hours at 100 per hour, 800 bucks plus materials, an even 1000.
So, first set at 11 thousand dollars, scales to 3500 per.
The first set has a markup around 70%...that's pretty small, and wouldn't support business.
Production quantities can take it to a factor of 5 markup, this is closer to production viability as long as there is a good quantity of orders.
It doesn't get much better if one assumes drivers wholesale, but it helps.
Figures just for S + G of course, some of my assumptions are not complete.
Cheers, John
he is likely using the very best lamp cord available for internal wiring. :)rw
You may jest but now he is at the sharp end it looks like he knows where his self interest lies and is giving his potential customers what they want. His site states that he uses Cardas wire internally and I presume this is a brand with a positive audiophile reputation?
Andy_19191,That was a good catch, I missed it! I know Roger is/was a staunch proponent of the all wires sound the same group. So I can ONLY guess that he feels that anyone who spends $19K on a speaker is probably of the mindset that wires do matter or, maybe he's been converted, or perhaps it's strictly a business decision?
Like I told AJinFLA Roger's email is listed on his website so you, or anyone else can ask him via email, if you so choose. I know this much if/when I see Roger again I'll definitely be asking him about this decision!
Thetubeguy1954
Thetubeguy1954
Evidently, he thinks little of his own opinion. Or has dissociative identity disorder. Hi, I'm Roger Russell. Do you know us? I wonder if he'll be modifying the description for his speaker wire page:"It all sounds the same provided the resistance is low enough."
Or, if I'm selling it to you where lamp cord is not good enough. Inquiring minds want to know! :)
> "It all sounds the same provided the resistance is low enough."Indeed it does under normal conditions but if your customers think otherwise who is right?
> Evidently, he thinks little of his own opinion.
Opinion has got nothing to do with it. He is simply being pragmatic as all loudspeaker manufacturers were when they stopped supplying cables with their loudspeakers in order to avoid losing sales to the growing number of audiophiles who believed in the magical properties of speaker cables. Ditto when more sales were lost by not supplying speakers with "biwirable" terminals than it cost to add them.
These things do not harm the performance and if they enhance the attractiveness of the product to audiophiles by more than the additional cost then it is only sensible to include them. And this looks like a product for the audiophile rather than one targeted at the professional market where using a midrange driver for bass and treble would not get accepted at $19k for reasons of sound quality.
He is simply being pragmatic as all loudspeaker manufacturers were when they stopped supplying cables with their loudspeakers...Must be a British thing. I've never known of any speaker for the past thirty years (other than cheap brown goods using RCA plugs) that were supplied with cables.
And this looks like a product for the audiophile...
More like Bose owners. As for me, it speaks volumes about a designer's credibility (or lack thereof) when he doesn't practice what he preaches.
rw
> As for me, it speaks volumes about a designer's credibility (or lack
> thereof) when he doesn't practice what he preaches.Indeed. Now he is at the sharp end rather than an ex-engineer, I suspect he may well wish he had handled public pronouncements rather differently. I am sure you will have noticed that almost nobody in the audiophile industry points out the "scientific problems" with audiophile beliefs. It would be unprofessional to do so given their central role in the way the industry works. I certainly would not post here even anonomously if I had any professional involvement with audiophile industry.
However, keeping quiet about audiophile beliefs and actually believing them are two quite different things. Any engineer who believes the behaviour of cables is governed by magic rather than the established scientific laws is going to have serious problems performing his job and serious problems remaining employed. On the sales and marketing side technical understanding matters far less and believing in the marketed line may actually help for all I know. Anyone?
You mean business owner? So, he didn't give a crap for years when he worked for McIntosh, but does now? There's that pesky integrity issue again.I am sure you will have noticed that almost nobody in the audiophile industry points out the "scientific problems" with audiophile beliefs.
You're not talking to the same guys that I am.
Any engineer who believes the behaviour of cables is governed by magic rather than the established scientific laws is going to have serious problems performing his job and serious problems remaining employed.
Which engineers believe in magic?
rw
The "sharp end"? You mean business owner?Not necessarily. I mean dealing with the customer who is giving you the money to pay the rent and the school fees. Getting it wrong here is likely to be serious in something like the audiophile business which is low tech and heavily marketing based.
> So, he didn't give a crap for years when he worked for McIntosh, but
> does now? There's that pesky integrity issue again.Not at all. He was performing the role of an engineer at McIntosh which meant he would be struggling to do his job if he did not know something as fundamental as how wire functioned. From his postings it would seem he does know how wire works although as his employer one might perhaps question the time and effort expended on the topic.
What he may have done unwisely is talk about something in public that may not be helpful in his current venture. There is no integrity issue here that I can see, he spoke truthfully and did not run down his old employer, at least not on this issue. But he was unwise to oppose audiophile beliefs if he wanted to sell to audiophiles under his own name.
Note that he is not stating that Cardas wire performs better than lighting flex, which most certainly would be an integrity issue, but that he is using Cardas wire in his current product and letting his potential customers know the fact. Welcome to the real world.
> You're not talking to the same guys that I am.
They are making these statements in public for their employers customers to see?
> Which engineers believe in magic?
No competent ones but a lot of audiophiles believe in magic even if they do not view it as such.
> Heavily marketing based? Please define your terms. Most of the brands I own
> don't advertise at all. Others will place an occasional ad in one of the
> audio mags.Marketing is the resources spent putting the product on the market. This involves pricing, dealers, shows, magazines, websites, etc... The line between marketing and engineering (research, development, production) is often blurred when it comes to, for example, what the product looks like. Placing adverts in magazines may be part of the strategy but it is not a requirement.
> As opposed to say crappy stuff like Bose which spends millions of dollars
> every year in print and radio far beyond the audio realm.I have never been able to feel this typical emotional audiophile response to Bose products which are not aimed at the audiophile sector. Bose certainly markets effectively but they also give their customers what they want. I strongly suspect that Bose customers are generally significantly happier with their purchases than audiophiles are with theirs. I also suspect the reason is that they get what they expected unlike audiophiles who usually hold a set of beliefs about audio equipment that is incorrect and therefore does not get delivered with the product.
> Of course he didn't run down McIntosh. He has simply whored out himself.
I do not understand this?
> So, he is simply wasting their money on frivolous features? Great message.
No. He is judging that his customers would prefer Cardas wire to unbranded wire in his speakers. This is what brands are for and why companies work hard to build them up.
> When confronted with the truth, believers do not want to hear about it. They
> want to remain in the magical world of fantasy where they think they can
> hear improvements in their wire, often arrived at by making listening tests
> without adequate controls or understanding of the problems involved. One of
> the prime tools in creating such a faith for the average consumer is by
> capitalizing on fear and ignorance as in many other things that aren’t
> readily apparent. There is fear that the wire currently in use is not good
> enough. There is ignorance because most people do not have scientific
> knowledge in this area and lack adequate measuring equipment to prove
> otherwise.
>
> Only a fool thinks he knows everything. Here is a guy who thinks he knows
> everything and based upon that belief willingly overcharges his potential
> customers. Would you buy a used car from this guy?It is not a wholly unreasonable paragraph but it does look like an unwise one if he is not using this type of argument in the marketing for his current products but is using his name.
I would argue that, although present, the role of fear is somewhat overstated for the audiophile sector although it would seem appropriate for other similar sectors like alternative medicine. For luxury goods in the audiophile sector I suspect things like status within the group are likely to be quite strong factors.
> Do tell us which statements to which you refer.
> > > > I am sure you will have noticed that almost nobody in the audiophile
> > > > industry points out the "scientific problems" with audiophile beliefs.> > > You're not talking to the same guys that I am.
> > They are making these statements in public for their employers customers to
> > see?> So Andy (that's my father's name)
You would appear to be no child of mine.
> what is your sound reference?
I do not understand. Sound is all around me all the time.
> What do you find to be most faithful to the music?
Again I am not sure I understand but it looks like we may back to magic. Faithful music does not exist in the signal on your CDs and LPs. The best you can do is play back what is on your CDs and LPs with minimal deviation or, if you prefer, to add deviation in a form that sounds pleasant for the typical types of music you listen to.
I wish we could edit instead of copy/delete/repost.I have never been able to feel this typical emotional audiophile response to Bose products...
No emotion here. General Motors makes crappy products. Funai makes crappy products.
Regarding integrity, if you bend in the breeze (like some politicians) regarding your principles to make a buck, that is prostituting ones self.
He is judging that his customers would prefer Cardas wire to unbranded wire in his speakers.
He could have chosen Belden for less money.
I am sure you will have noticed that almost nobody in the audiophile industry points out the "scientific problems" with audiophile beliefs.
What are these audiophile beliefs?
Again I am not sure I understand but it looks like we may back to magic.
Sorry. What is your choice of audio components for reproducing music?
rw
> No emotion here. General Motors makes crappy products. Funai makes crappy
> products.I am not sure who you are trying to convince. Labelling something crappy when it is not a product designed to fit your requirements will be viewed as being emotional by many.
> Regarding integrity, if you bend in the breeze (like some politicians)
> regarding your principles to make a buck, that is prostituting ones self.Making something in a form conforming to prospective customers wants is not demonstrating a lack of integrity. Telling lies about the product in order to persuade people to buy it is demonstrating a lack of integrity. If this is happening here I cannot see it. Can you?
There may well be a grey areas between these two limits such as telling lies but believing them to be true but supplying something that someone wants when it has no benefits over something cheaper is not an integrity issue it is a marketing issue.
Do you think the people that manufacture Cardas wire believe it has astounding acoustical properties above that dictated by simple known scientific laws? Do you think the people that market the wire believe in these properties?
> > He is judging that his customers would prefer Cardas wire to unbranded wire
> > in his speakers.> He could have chosen Belden for less money.
At $19k the price of the wire is unlikely to be a significant factor but the attractiveness of the Cardas brand compared to the Belden brand for prospective customers may well be. Does Belden wire have the same attractiveness as Cardas wire to audiophiles?
> What are these audiophile beliefs?
Beliefs about audiophile products that are incorrect in the scientific sense. Peter Aczels 10 lies article gives a list of many of them.
> Sorry. What is your choice of audio components for reproducing music?
An interesting question. Before supplying it may I ask what information my answer will provide?
Labelling something crappy when it is not a product designed to fit your requirements will be viewed as being emotional by many.We'll just have to disagree here. Poorly made or unreliable goods are crappy in my book.
Telling lies about the product in order to persuade people to buy it is demonstrating a lack of integrity. If this is happening here I cannot see it.
Visit the website for his ongoing soap box.
Do you think the people that manufacture Cardas wire believe it has astounding acoustical properties above that dictated by simple known scientific laws?
What are those properties? Do you assume you know everything there is to possibly know about such?
Peter Aczels 10 lies article gives a list of many of them.
Ah, Peter Aczel. As for #1, apparently he is unaware of a factor called RFI.
...may I ask what information my answer will provide?
I'm not asking for your credit card number. Knowing your point of reference will help put your commnents into perspective. Sheesh.
rw
> Visit the website for his ongoing soap box.An interesting website. I had seen the wire part a while ago but not the rest of the site. I still cannot see a lack of integrity concerning speaker wire but I can see one or two other things... Perhaps he does not understand copyright.
> > Do you think the people that manufacture Cardas wire believe it has
> > astounding acoustical properties above that dictated by simple known
> > scientific laws?> What are those properties? Do you assume you know everything there is to
> possibly know about such?When it comes to being asked to believe in differences in wires that are so large they are audible at acoustical frequencies and yet violate the known laws governing the performance of cables at audio frequencies then to be blunt yes. You may find that remarkable but you will almost certainly get the same answer from everybody with a technical education covering this field from a science orientated school child upwards. (Obligatory caveat concerning "normal" operation to exclude problems with the rest of equipment or environment).
> > I'm not asking for your credit card number. Knowing your point of reference
> > will help put your commnents into perspective. Sheesh.I think you may misunderstand why I asked, I am interested in how you reason about matters concerning the performance of audio equipment.
I am now struggling to answer the question because my point of reference is not a set of branded equipment but an education in science and acoustics in particular. Does this answer your question or is it still insufficient for you to extract what is important for you to know about my reasoning? If no, what is missing and why?
By the way, my current equipment is not a secret, is quite ordinary and is almost certainly mentioned somewhere in the archives but I would like to tease out of you what is relevant about it.
When it comes to being asked to believe in differences...Belief - faith in that which is outside one's experience. Sorry that is the case for you.
...my point of reference is not a set of branded equipment but an education in science and acoustics in particular.
Good engineers act on what they've read. Better ones question what they've read.
...my current equipment...is quite ordinary...but I would like to tease out of you what is relevant about it.
I'll take your word for it! :)
rw
Getting it wrong here is likely to be serious in something like the audiophile business which is low tech and heavily marketing based.Heavily marketing based? Please define your terms. Most of the brands I own don't advertise at all. Others will place an occasional ad in one of the audio mags. As opposed to say crappy stuff like Bose which spends millions of dollars every year in print and radio far beyond the audio realm.
There is no integrity issue here that I can see, he spoke truthfully and did not run down his old employer, at least not on this issue.
Of course he didn't run down McIntosh. He has simply whored out himself.
Note that he is not stating that Cardas wire performs better than lighting flex, which most certainly would be an integrity issue, but that he is using Cardas wire in his current product and letting his potential customers know the fact.
So, he is simply wasting their money on frivolous features? Great message.
I love this commentary by RR:
When confronted with the truth, believers do not want to hear about it. They want to remain in the magical world of fantasy where they think they can hear improvements in their wire, often arrived at by making listening tests without adequate controls or understanding of the problems involved. One of the prime tools in creating such a faith for the average consumer is by capitalizing on fear and ignorance as in many other things that aren’t readily apparent. There is fear that the wire currently in use is not good enough. There is ignorance because most people do not have scientific knowledge in this area and lack adequate measuring equipment to prove otherwise.
Only a fool thinks he knows everything. Here is a guy who thinks he knows everything and based upon that belief willingly overcharges his potential customers. Would you buy a used car from this guy?
They are making these statements in public for their employers customers to see?
Do tell us which statements to which you refer.
No competent ones but a lot of audiophiles believe in magic even if they do not view it as such.
I see. This is simply a theoretical reference to no company with which you are familiar.
So Andy (that's my father's name) what is your sound reference? What do you find to be most faithful to the music?
rw
I seem to have scrambled my windows when cutting-and-pasting the thread. Please see above for the response.
> he is likely using the very best lamp cord available for internal wiring. :) <LOL! I've found that lamp cord makes the sound brighter but with better focus. :)
Only 25 drivers/side?? Piker.But the equations for line sources are quite different from point. And single driver does help image stability..
I'll know this eventually, when I gets my drivers in boxes, but I'm goin planar/cylindrical with 60 per side..
Cheers, John
JN - I'll know this eventually, when I gets my drivers in boxesWhy boxes?
JN - I'm goin planar/cylindrical with 60 per side
Off the shelf or DIY drivers? Any horizontal directivity control?
200 tweeters! 100/side? Unless they are neo/small flange you must have some awful tall ceilings.
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Design:12 independent cabinets of 10 4 inch drivers (off the shelf). Each cab will be wired to allow massive parallel (6 cabs per side), or independent drive (24 50 watt channels, each fed by a dsp block to allow spacial ITD/IID variation side to side as well as up/down.
10 independent lines of 20 tweets each. Same kind of feed system.
Horizontal directivity is two fold, physical rotation of each cab, as well as temporal phased array style if I drive it with individual amps under dsp control.
It'll also serve double duty, as I also want to use them for the back channels in a 450 seat venue, but do not have the distance from crowd I would need for a 12 inch driver runnin 400 watts. Using a large spread of smaller drivers keeps the spl much lower 6 feet from the cabs, so the people sitting in front of it aren't made uncomfortable..it's easy blowin them away with a single driver at high power, but that's not the desired end result.
Cheers, John
JN - Design:
12 independent cabinets of 10 4 inch drivers (off the shelf). Each cab will be wired to allow massive parallel (6 cabs per side), or independent drive (24 50 watt channels, each fed by a dsp block to allow spacial ITD/IID variation side to side as well as up/down.
10 independent lines of 20 tweets each. Same kind of feed system.
Horizontal directivity is two fold, physical rotation of each cab, as well as temporal phased array style if I drive it with individual amps under dsp control.
It'll also serve double duty, as I also want to use them for the back channels in a 450 seat venue, but do not have the distance from crowd I would need for a 12 inch driver runnin 400 watts. Using a large spread of smaller drivers keeps the spl much lower 6 feet from the cabs, so the people sitting in front of it aren't made uncomfortable..it's easy blowin them away with a single driver at high power, but that's not the desired end result.
Cheers, JohnThat sounds rather more complex than I would want to try LOL. Do post more info when it becomes a reality. Will you utilize the spatial ITD/IID to optimize a single fixed listening position or try to create a slighly larger listener(s) window?
Not too familiar with basements here LOL. Wish I had one.BTW, no one bit on my quadrupole question. You or any of the folks down the hall familiar with the acoustic behavior of the aforementioned? I may have to use the empirical method for the test subs and annoy the neighbors with some lovely test tones. Gated does me no good indoors, so I'll have to break out the ol RTA. The anechoic chamber overlooks the pond out back see....:-)
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
AJinFLA: ""
Will you utilize the spatial ITD/IID to optimize a single fixed listening position or try to create a slighly larger listener(s) window? ""My desire it to make it flexible enough to change the parameters at will, and play. I believe there is a tradeoff between a tightly fixed image focus and the size of the sweet spot, using a complex rig like this allows me to alter to my hearts content.
AJinFLA: ""
Not too familiar with basements here LOL. Wish I had one.""
Ah, they are just a hole in the ground.:-)Can't wait to make the workshop, I need a place to do woodwork..
AJinFLA: ""
BTW, no one bit on my quadrupole question. You or any of the folks down the hall familiar with the acoustic behavior of the aforementioned? I may have to use the empirical method for the test subs and annoy the neighbors with some lovely test tones. Gated does me no good indoors, so I'll have to break out the ol RTA. The anechoic chamber overlooks the pond out back see....:-)
""We're very familiar with magnets which are quadrupoles, they are used to focus beams. But acoustically, nobody here has any experience.
That sounds like a really nice anechoic chamber..coupla beers, a rowboat, drown some worms (or just wet the hooks)..nice.
Quite honestly, anybody I ask would wonder why the backwave would be allowed free, it reduces the conversion efficiency..as far as what it would sound like, nada clue..
Cheers, John
The driver in the RR design looks to be to be the Tang Band W3-881SD. The description and photos look to me to be the same or very similar. They retail at Parts Express for around $16 each so you could build this speaker for about $1100 a pair including 50 drivers, 2 sheets of 3/4" plywood, and a 31 band two channel equalizer. Parts Express closed out a similar model in both 4 and 8 ohm versions earlier this year which originally retailed for $10 for 49 cents each. I wonder if RR got started by buying them out. One nice thing about arrays Dr. Bose pointed out, each driver contributes so little to the overall output, normal individual variations from one driver to another are inaudible in the overall output. This is a very good driver for its type and purpose. It shold have better HF propagation than the 4" CTS driver Bose originally used. Internal enclosure volume looks to be about 2 to 3 cubic feet. One problem with getting accurate bass out of this kind of array is that the small drivers in a small enclosure often result in a fairly high F3. I'd judge the original 901 to be around 250hz to 500hz with a Q well above 1. This creates a peak which must be compensated for with a suitable notch filter. To make power requirements managable for its era, he only provided a 6 db/octave rise in the bass but an AS system falls off at 12 db per octave below F3, so if you want flat bass to 20 or 30 hz, you can double his power requirements. I'd say a good figure of merit for 901/I or II is about 500 to 1000 wpc and because of Xmax limitations, multiple such arrays are usually preferable. The other problem therefore is that while the combined radiating surface area is equivalent to a 15" woofer, the Xmax is only about 1/20 or less of a long throw model, in the vacinity of 0.5 mm. This means that an array this size will be no match for a single high quality acoustic suspension woofer such as NHT 1259. At the other extreme, a 3 1/2" driver will not have very good HF lateral dispersion even by comparison to a 1" tweeter (which IMO is inadequate as well which is why I use arrays.) One reviewer at the manufacturer's website said toeing them in improves their sound. I'd guess the best placement would be in the corners of a room which is around 14' wide by anywhere from 14' to 30' long and aimed in at 45 degrees. This will make the most of both their bass and treble and is what PQ recommends for his speakers for much the same reason. Therefore the design could be improved considerably by using anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen or more such arrays in a semicylidrical or cylindrical arrangement which would mitigate both problems. Is this what you had in mind? Another characteristic of arrays is that they often contain perfect square of integer number of drivers (9 in the 901, 16 in the e/e sweet 16 article and 25 here) which means that because the speakers are wired in parallel units of series strings to manage overall impedence, the effective amplifier damping factor across each driver is less than 1 (in this case 0.25 or less.) That makes performance independet of both amplifier damping factor and wire gage or type (not counting deliberately high shunt capacitance types.) Another nice thing is that with drivers this small, you can probably cut the baffle holes with a hole saw drill bit, no need for a saber saw and Home Depot or Lowes will of course cut the plywood for you if you want them to, often for free. This doesn't look like a particularly difficult DIY project as speaker projects go. Personally, I'd wait to hear them first and then for a markdown at Parts Express or some other supplier.
John,You definitely have to post a picture of those when your done. Planar/cylindrical with 60 per side, is something I'd love to see!
Thetubeguy1954
Me too!!!..I also have 200 tweets, and will be usin em..
Alas, woikin on the bedroom at the moment. Then, I can make the workshop in the basement..and then the fun.
Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
