Audio Note speaker design [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Audio Note speaker design



Feanor
01-24-2009, 08:05 AM
RGA and others,

RGA's passion for Audio Note speakers is very well know and long standing. Apart from RGA's flat assertion that they sound better than anything, there are the eccentric and questionable aspects of AN's designs. It's not fair to dismiss AN models out-of-hand just because they flout industry trends; but neither is it obvious that any one or combination of them automatically suggests an AN superiority in theory.

If everyone, especially RGA, is up for it, I would like to review ANs divergences from popular practice with a view to possibly revealing the AN phenomenon.


Broad (and sharp-edged) baffles:
There is one advantage of a broad baffle the I'm aware of. That is, the gain that occurs when the baffle is wider 1/2 the wave length of the sound; obviously this occurs at a lower frequency with a wider baffle.
On the other hand I have heard it said that the optimal width of the baffle is not much wider than the aforementioned 1/2 wave length. So to the extent that this true, the wider baffle wouldn't favor the AN tweeters even if it assists the mid/bass driver. You'll notice that in some designs, the cabinet is shaped to be narrower around the tweeter than the mid/bass drivers.

Tweeter placement:
AN's practice of placing the tweeter on the vertical axis isn't so much against current practice as against best practice. It is true that response spikes cause by the cabinet's edges are less if the tweeter is placed at different distances from each edge, (right/left/top/bottom). As mentioned above, the shaping of the cabinet around the tweeter in some non-AN designs which will usually reduce defraction. Alternatively, some use a semi-horn or "controlled dispersion" surround for the tweeter; Paradigm designs their grills to control dispersion.

Large mid/bass driver:
The frequency at which a driver will begin to "beam" rather than disperse the sound is 1/2 the wave length at that frequency. Thus an AN 8" mid/base with an effective driver diameter perhaps 6" will begin to beam above around 1100 Hz. The more typical 6.5" driver with an effective 4" width will start to beam around 1700 Hz. Thus AN's 8" and 10" drivers are disadvantaged with respect to dispersion assuming the crossover is, as one would expect, above 1100 Hz.
Of course, a larger driver will typically go deeper than a smaller driver; it will also play louder versus a single, smaller driver. Vendors today, likely because of narrow baffles, offset the loudness aspect by using multiple, smaller drivers.


Under-damped, resonant cabinets:
AN's cabinets are made of plywood, both more resonant but less predictably so than the more common MDF. Contrary to usual practice, which is to reduce resonance as much as possible, AN cabinets are supposedly design to resonate. I guess in theory you could design a cabinet that resonates in such a way as compensate for speaker drive irregularities. However this would seem to require such extremely tight tolerances in both cabinet and driver as to be unachievable in practice.

Near-wall or corner placement:
No doubt placement near-wall, or more so. corner placement will boost bass. Also, it will reduce the need for "baffle shelf compensation" which relates to baffle width effect as discussed above. Thus AN's recommended placement and baffle width both tend to increase efficiency.
I suspect that the near-wall/corner placement must tend to less predicable over-all frequency response and bass humps however. This no doubt the reason most designers today design for placement 1-3" from the wall.

Model differentiation based on crossover components:
There are boutique speaker makers who offer different, optional grades of crossovers, but none to the extent that AN does where a single, basic design can see a several-fold price increase as the supposed quality of the crossover increases. The significance of wire and crossover component quality for sound quality is debatable, (though no doubt better is better), but there is certainly diminishing returns and AN seems to away over the top in this regard.

Thus AN uses a combination of good and dubious practices. The practical success of their approach can be judge only by listening, but on balance what they do doesn't presuppose a superior speaker.

audio amateur
01-24-2009, 08:30 AM
Interesting post, Feanor.
I am hoping to have a listen to some this April in Denver during my trip to the US.

Luvin Da Blues
01-24-2009, 09:16 AM
INCOMING!!!!!!!!


EVERYBODY DOWN

blackraven
01-24-2009, 11:07 AM
I've been hiding in my bomb shelter ever since this post started!

audio amateur
01-24-2009, 11:37 AM
LOL, I guess I better hide aswell..

JohnMichael
01-24-2009, 12:46 PM
Art Dudley uses a pair in his listening room and that has increased my interest in hearing a pair. I also liked the Snell Type E that one of the models is based on as far as cabinet size and driver compliment.

I remember when Boston Acoustics first began manufacturing speakers they also went with the wide baffles. The A 200's, 150's, 100's and 70's all had a shallow wide baffle. I enjoyed the sounds of the larger models. At the time wide baffled speakers would not work in my room.

Corner placement would not be possible for me now. I have the room for larger speakers but the corners are occupied.

Most of my speakers have the tweeters in vertical axis with the woofers. Offset tweeters with different distances from the edges could be a benefit if the front baffles are mirrored for better imaging. My OML 1's have a chamfered front baffle so the distance from the tweeter and the side edges change. Of course the top edge and bottom edge vary.

Still it would be fun to hear a pair.

Jimmy C
01-24-2009, 01:51 PM
...yes, it would seem like common sense to deaden the speaker to the max. My Revels (for eg.) were very inert and heavy (for their size) - almost like doing the "knuckle-wrap" test on a marble floor.

In contrast, you can actually feel the cabinet on my Reynauds flexing a tiny bit... almost like they're allowed to "breathe" with the music. What's ironic is that the M22s seemed to deaden the music as well, while the Twins are more lively.

Bob Neill at Amherst Audio sells Audio Note and JMR, saying they sound completely different, but both (by my understanding) seem to be his favorites.

It's funny how an unassuming (and relatively inexpensive) 2-way box could in many ways be "the best speaker I've heard", but many of today's speakers simply don't sound like music, they don't sound "right". I'm not saying my humble stereo rig does everything the best, it doesn't. Maybe there is something to the Audio Note thing despite counter-intuitive
design principals. I haven't heard them.

Oh - and please... no one ask me for serial numbers for the Revels I had? I sold them... really... :*)

Ajani
01-24-2009, 02:01 PM
Oh - and please... no one ask me for serial numbers for the Revels I had? I sold them... really... :*)

Well at least tell us where you bought them, otherwise we're forced to assume that you are a Revel bashing troll :ciappa:

Jimmy C
01-24-2009, 02:13 PM
...the A70s were my first decent speaker. My friend recently gave me a pair of near-mint A100s, and that's part of my bedroom rig now. I bit the bullet and bought new replacement woofers from BA. They have sonic problems "fer sure", but they can be quite dynamic and always easy on the ears. I do, however, think I need a smaller stereo in here...

What's odd is Boston decided to do the offset tweeter thing in some of the later series.

The top-dog A400 was the cat's pajamas to me at that time - I wonder how they would stack up now.

Yup - the Snells (same era) were also very good, but out of my price range at the time.

Jimmy C
01-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Well at least tell us where you bought them, otherwise we're forced to assume that you are a Revel bashing troll :ciappa:

...I simply don't remember... it's been so long... but it was in a store. They sold speakers, amps, turntables and stuff. Surely, that's enough info to figure out if I'm full of B-E-E-P, right?

Just kiddin', I have fun with the arguments at times... don't we all :*)

Actually, the store was "American Audiophile" in Rockville Center here on Long Island.

Funny... the place is a MESS. Too much gear, not enough space, and the worst demo conditions I have seen - speakers plopped in the (almost) center of the room, but closer to one side wall, playing WAY too loudly. Rediculous.

They used to have a lot of good 2-channel brands, but they now look like they are doing more and more Home Theater. Sad. But hey, one of the most profitiable audio stores in my area (Audio Den) does indeed cater to HT to a large degree - gotta go where the money is I suppose. In their defense, they have nice stereo gear as well. Well back in 1979, when they had a smaller store, it was obviously all 2-chan. Fun stuff. Guess I'm gettin' old!

I can remember being in the front, smaller room (of American Audiophile) and being suprised to see a small pair of Bose there. I thought it a bit odd, and asked the owner why:

"So I can compare and show people how bad they actually are"

theaudiohobby
01-24-2009, 06:50 PM
...yes, it would seem like common sense to deaden the speaker to the max. My Revels (for eg.) were very inert and heavy (for their size) - almost like doing the "knuckle-wrap" test on a marble floor.

In contrast, you can actually feel the cabinet on my Reynauds flexing a tiny bit... almost like they're allowed to "breathe" with the music. What's ironic is that the M22s seemed to deaden the music as well, while the Twins are more lively.

Your comments remind of an occasion when I was listening to Ludovico Einaudi's Le Onde, a particularly demanding track started playing, lo and behold some notes acquired some unnatural prominence, looked at my speaker (Cyrus Icons) and the cabinet was vibrating in sympathy with the music. I disliked it and resorted to dampening the cabinet. If I recall the same thing happened when I tried listening to Mahler Symphony No. 5 on the AN K/B, the speaker dissolved into jelly when attempting the finale, though I concede the stands were also partially to blame on that occasion.

IMO, resonant boxes works for certain types of music particularly voice and bowed strings as adds some tonal richness, but fall down badly on piano and full bore orchestral music, where the added resonance can be an annoying distraction to the knowledgeable listener.

The Audio Notes certainly have their fans, but some of the weakness are simply not to my taste Listening to Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" on the ANJ with its aggressive midrange and lean upper bass was particularly painful experience. ANK/B has a less aggressive midrange but there is only so much bass you can get from small sealed cabinet and in my room it sounded bass light.

JohnMichael
01-24-2009, 07:27 PM
The Audio Notes certainly have their fans, but some of the weakness are simply not to my taste Listening to Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" on the ANJ with its aggressive midrange and lean upper bass was particularly painful experience. ANK/B has a less aggressive midrange but there is only so much bass you can get from small sealed cabinet and in my room it sounded bass light.




If they can not reproduce Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" or any of my vast collection of Nina on vinyl and cd I just lot interest.

theaudiohobby
01-25-2009, 02:45 AM
If they can not reproduce Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" or any of my vast collection of Nina on vinyl and cd I just lot interest.

Nope, I would not do that as I mentioned in another post I know someone who very much likes Audio Note, he had Audio Notes J on order the last time I saw him, his comments were "they play music". However, the key problem for me is that do not play certain music to my satisfaction.

Furthermore, Audio Note have moved to a stiffer mid/bass driver,so one should expect a few improvements, however the resonant box would still remain an issue.

Feanor
01-25-2009, 04:50 AM
....
IMO, resonant boxes works for certain types of music particularly voice and bowed strings as adds some tonal richness, but fall down badly on piano and full bore orchestral music, where the added resonance can be an annoying distraction to the knowledgeable listener.
...

This more or less what tubes do on the electronic side, IMO. In both cases it's due to added distortion of one type or the other.

mlsstl
01-25-2009, 08:15 PM
Resonant boxes are one solution to the problem of back-waves from the drivers. A number of well regarded speakers use this method. There is also a degree of misunderstanding about the theory of the design. (Full disclosure, I have a set of Spendor SP1/2Es which use this cabinet design. The newer Spendor "S" series don't.))

As the cone oscillates back and forth, the driver creates a back wave of sound that is just as strong as the front wave launched into the room. The question becomes what happens to this energy?

Bass frequencies can be sent through a transmission line or port and actually reinforce bass output. (Or used in an acoustic suspension design to stiffen the compliance of the driver at bass frequencies.) Higher frequencies can be absorbed by the batting or stuffing that is used inside the box. However, there is a middle and lower range of frequencies that aren't well absorbed by the speaker stuffing.

If not handled in some fashion, they can re-radiate though the driver cone. However, they'll be out of time with the front launched wave and this can smear the sound. The ear is particularly sensitive in this frequency range.

The goal of a cabinet that flexes a bit is rather like crash crumple zones in car design. Rather than transmit 100% of the impact into the passenger compartment, the goal is to use up a lot of that energy by bending metal.

By having a speaker wall that flexes, the internal pressure wave is partially dissipated in flexing the cabinet walls. Part two of the design is to have a heavy coating on the interior cabinet wall to dampen the panel at the frequencies where the ear is most sensitive. This helps the exterior of the panel reduce what it radiates into the listening room.

Of course, there are other approaches for how to dissipate the rear wave, but it is an issue that all designers have to face. Simply having a cabinet that is so stiff that it sounds dead when you rap it does nothing by itself to get rid of that midrange energy. And you have to be careful in deadening the driver cone to prevent the back wave from passing through as this can adversely affect the driver's other performance factors.

Like many engineering problems, there are multiple ways to address it. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. However, there are some marvelous sounding speakers that use the thin-wall BBC type design, and they are all highly regarded for their clarity in the reproduction of the human voice. It works for me.

Feanor
01-26-2009, 03:58 AM
Thanks, misstl,

These are the sort of comments I was hoping to evoke from members. Clear the flexible, resonant cabinet is a completely different approach from the very rigid with lots of internal stuffing. Are Harbeth speakers of the "thin walled" type? They certainly have a great reputation.

What I wonder is which speaker design is likely to produce the more predictable, less problematic result for the DIY speaker designer? I suspect that rigid cabinet design will be freer from anomalies -- that is, more likely to work the first time without a lot of testing or experimentation.


Resonant boxes are one solution to the problem of back-waves from the drivers. A number of well regarded speakers use this method. There is also a degree of misunderstanding about the theory of the design. (Full disclosure, I have a set of Spendor SP1/2Es which use this cabinet design. The newer Spendor "S" series don't.))

As the cone oscillates back and forth, the driver creates a back wave of sound that is just as strong as the front wave launched into the room. The question becomes what happens to this energy?

Bass frequencies can be sent through a transmission line or port and actually reinforce bass output. (Or used in an acoustic suspension design to stiffen the compliance of the driver at bass frequencies.) Higher frequencies can be absorbed by the batting or stuffing that is used inside the box. However, there is a middle and lower range of frequencies that aren't well absorbed by the speaker stuffing.

If not handled in some fashion, they can re-radiate though the driver cone. However, they'll be out of time with the front launched wave and this can smear the sound. The ear is particularly sensitive in this frequency range.

The goal of a cabinet that flexes a bit is rather like crash crumple zones in car design. Rather than transmit 100% of the impact into the passenger compartment, the goal is to use up a lot of that energy by bending metal.

By having a speaker wall that flexes, the internal pressure wave is partially dissipated in flexing the cabinet walls. Part two of the design is to have a heavy coating on the interior cabinet wall to dampen the panel at the frequencies where the ear is most sensitive. This helps the exterior of the panel reduce what it radiates into the listening room.

Of course, there are other approaches for how to dissipate the rear wave, but it is an issue that all designers have to face. Simply having a cabinet that is so stiff that it sounds dead when you rap it does nothing by itself to get rid of that midrange energy. And you have to be careful in deadening the driver cone to prevent the back wave from passing through as this can adversely affect the driver's other performance factors.

Like many engineering problems, there are multiple ways to address it. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. However, there are some marvelous sounding speakers that use the thin-wall BBC type design, and they are all highly regarded for their clarity in the reproduction of the human voice. It works for me.

mlsstl
01-26-2009, 06:38 AM
Feanor, yes, Harbeth's use the thin wall BBC design.

Feanor
01-26-2009, 07:18 AM
Folks,

I suppose that some might think my purpose here is to bait RGA. Well, no ... at least not primarily. ;)

My retirement is fast approaching and a project I'd like to try when I have a bit more time is building a pair of DIY speakers suitable for a smaller room that can't accomodate my Magneplanar MG 1.6. That room is no bigger than 10' x 16' -- on the large side of small.

In this context near-wall or corner design becomes a practical, or even necessary, approach. And given near unavoidability of a box, non-dipole design, the other design issues I listed become very relevant. What I'm contemplating is a high-precision, two-way design, probably supplement by a small subwoofer such as my present PSB Subsonic 5.

Naively maybe, I believe that I can duplicate for $1000 - $1200, and using a conservative design approach, the capabilities of popular monitors costing twice as much. I'm leaning to closed-box with quality tweeter that can handle a relatively low, 1200 - 1500 Hz, high-pass filter.

Florian
01-26-2009, 07:33 AM
How about some SET amps and a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls........ boooom ;)

Luvin Da Blues
01-26-2009, 08:00 AM
[QUOTE=Feanor]Folks,

I suppose that some might think my purpose here is to bait RGA. Well, no ... at least not primarily. ;) [QUOTE]

Just my feable attempt at humor.

theaudiohobby
01-26-2009, 10:17 AM
Feanor, yes, Harbeth's use the thin wall BBC design.

BBC is a radio TV broadcaster and given the age of the original design(60's) and BBC interest in the spoken speach, going for a thin wall design seems entirely a plausible trade-off it, the inherent distortion plays well to speach.. I gather that in the 70s, Decca and EMI auditioned a variety of speakers and selected B&W801 as their preferred studio monitor for classical music. So it's horses for courses, really, the job at hand dictates the acceptable trade-offs..

mlsstl
01-26-2009, 11:15 AM
the inherent distortion plays well to speach
There is certainly room for a lot of opinions, but your comment suggests that the goal was to add distortion, albeit a pleasant one. That implies that there would be no distortion with a thick walled design. That is not a given.

If you look at the explanation above, ALL speaker drivers generate both a front wave and a rear wave from the cone's back & forth oscillation. That rear wave does not simply disappear on its own, either because you used a stiff cabinet or waved a magic wand. In fact, a stiff cabinet design (one that gives a dull response to a knuckle rap) can aggravate the problem if it simply acts as a bumper to bounce energy back.

The question for all speaker designers (at least the ones who care to address it), what do we do with the energy inside the cabinet? It has to be used somehow in order to keep it from re-radiating through the cone into the listening room. Box stuffing, regardless of type, is great for absorbing this energy as the frequency goes up, but it is not very effective at lower midrange frequencies.

By dissipating the energy in a controlled fashion, in a good implementation of the thin wall design, the distortion caused by rear wave re-emerging into the listening room is actually reduced, not increased.

And the design hardly ceased development after the introduction in the 1960s. Spendor just released their "R" series with improvements in cabinet materials and design and Harbeth also continues to use the method in their highly regarded speakers. You might as well accuse the horn speaker builders of having made no design improvements since the Voice of the Theatre speakers were introduced. Or claim that modern pulp/paper cones are no longer suitable since they were broadly introduced in the 1920s.

As for the BBC, don't forget they have the only professional chamber choir in the UK (established 1924), the BBC Philharmonic (established 1922) plus four other full orchestras. They probably know a few things about recording music, as well as voice. ;-)

theaudiohobby
01-26-2009, 12:28 PM
There is certainly room for a lot of opinions, but your comment suggests that the goal was to add distortion, albeit a pleasant one.

Nah, that was not my intention,.the goal of the speaker was not add distortion but the dissipate driver rear-wave effectively, a thin-walled speaker by definition will have stronger resonant mode(s) and at a higher frequency than a near inert box, the goal is to ensure that those resonant modes are benign.


By dissipating the energy in a controlled fashion, in a good implementation of the thin wall design, the distortion caused by rear wave re-emerging into the listening room is actually reduced, not increased.

Therein lies the rub, dissipation is not fully controlled around the resonant modes. The trade-off is to tune the walls so that the resonant modes occur at a frequency and an amplitude that has the least negative impact on the speaker.

mlsstl
01-26-2009, 12:50 PM
The trade-off is....
Aye, there's the rub. And that applies to all speaker design options. Take anyone's favorite speaker and there will be trade offs, no matter how expensive or fancy. The trick for a listener is to discover which speaker compromises in areas that he doesn't place at high priority.

Ajani
01-26-2009, 01:16 PM
Aye, there's the rub. And that applies to all speaker design options. Take anyone's favorite speaker and there will be trade offs, no matter how expensive or fancy. The trick for a listener is to discover which speaker compromises in areas that he doesn't place at high priority.

That, IMO, is the main problem with looking at speaker technology... different designs all have their advantages and disadvantages.... Is Panel Tech better than Box? Depends on what your sonic goals are and how much money you have to spend... A panel is arguably the cheapest way to achieve midrange bliss, but is a very expensive way to get dynamic range, while a box is probably the cheapest way to get proper dynamic range.... Is it better to use the exact same material for all of the drivers (Tweeter to Bass) like Revel or to use a different material for each section like B&W? The Revel design gives consistency and cohesion across the entire frequency range, while the B&W design trades consistency for trying to apply the best material for each section of the frequency range...

theaudiohobby
01-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Aye, there's the rub. And that applies to all speaker design options. Take anyone's favorite speaker and there will be trade offs, no matter how expensive or fancy. The trick for a listener is to discover which speaker compromises in areas that he doesn't place at high priority.

agreed :thumbsup:

RGA
01-27-2009, 06:05 AM
Feanor

You've done a good job I think in breaking down the forrest (the end result) into compartmentalized aspects (the trees).

Clearly designers choose the designs they choose because they think it's the best choice for the intended goal - and in that regard your breakdown is well done.

I mean really people they design SET amplifiers - hardly a "measurements first" approach kinda group now are they? I would hardly say the design is inherently better - not in the least - they leave me scratching my head - and on more than just what you presented. In fact I think you have done a very nice job of going out of your way to look at them quite even-handedly. In fact from a design stance they do a lot of things a lot worse on paper than you have written.

Take the speaker and then do one for their amps, and cd players - then ADD the three wrongs together!!!!! From a design perspective you have written pretty much what I wrote in my review.

Feanor
01-27-2009, 06:27 AM
Feanor

You've done a good job I think in breaking down the forrest (the end result) into compartmentalized aspects (the trees).

Clearly designers choose the designs they choose because they think it's the best choice for the intended goal - and in that regard your breakdown is well done.

I mean really people they design SET amplifiers - hardly a "measurements first" approach kinda group now are they? I would hardly say the design is inherently better - not in the least - they leave me scratching my head - and on more than just what you presented. In fact I think you have done a very nice job of going out of your way to look at them quite even-handedly. In fact from a design stance they do a lot of things a lot worse on paper than you have written.

Take the speaker and then do one for their amps, and cd players - then ADD the three wrongs together!!!!! From a design perspective you have written pretty much what I wrote in my review.

I hope you'll agree that I wasn't suggesting that sum can't be greater than the parts.

I'm content with my current speakers for the time being, but as I intimated, the day might come when I need something to suit a different, less accomodating room. If and when that I happens I would be very interested in auditioning the relevant Audio Note product along with more more mainstream stuff like Paradigm, PSB, and whatever I can audition locally.

RGA
01-28-2009, 08:00 AM
Feanor --

Having heard more speakers over the last while - it is more evident to me that most every maker is fighting against a number of limitations and they all must choose the compromise that best fits. So not all corner speakers are good just because they're in corners - the proponents of corners will tell you all the reasons why they should be in corners but they won't tell you about the negatives or they will tell you the negatives and glibly say that "other makers are wrong."

I got caught up in that for a time I must admit. Of course the cracks in the theory fall when you hear a free standing design beat a corner design - or a three way beat a two way or a ribbon beat a silk dome or a plastic woofer beat a paper woofer and on it goes.

My view is to try and and listen to all the different designs - or as many as you can - lots of people love line arrays or panels, stats versus planar, or those massive horns/SET combinations, or dual concentric or single drivers or omni-directionals, or the undamped boxes, or insist on time alignment, or transmission line. Or YG Acoustics that simply state "we make the world's best loudspeakers."

The better makers on all those camps do have passion for what they make and truly believe what they're doing. And none of them measure perfectly and all of them have some pitfall that someone else will gladly reject as being a weakness.

I was overly dogmatic on my Audio Note stance for far too long because to my ear it simply has the best balance that I have yet heard. What I could not get past is that some people want other things in a loudspeaker. I personally had two favorites - horns and panels - I felt Audio Note had the best of both of those (almost) while making little compromise. I can't help it - that's what I hear. But of course there are numerous compromises built in that plenty other speakers will beat them on - other people may hear more serious flaws that they can't live with. Frequency response is not perfect - they're not dead free of colouration, they're not ultimate bass depth or volume level hounds. There is a limit - the designers are trying to coax more and more out of them but in the end nothing is perfect and neither is AN. They're built to ear not to measurements and as some have pointed out - if your ear is similar to Peter's you'll love them - if not then look elsewhere - plenty of great loudspeakers I could live with till daisies grow from my scalp quite happily. I suppose I should recommend those one's more often!

kexodusc
01-28-2009, 09:46 AM
Feanor --

Having heard more speakers over the last while - it is more evident to me that most every maker is fighting against a number of limitations and they all must choose the compromise that best fits. So not all corner speakers are good just because they're in corners - the proponents of corners will tell you all the reasons why they should be in corners but they won't tell you about the negatives or they will tell you the negatives and glibly say that "other makers are wrong."

I got caught up in that for a time I must admit. Of course the cracks in the theory fall when you hear a free standing design beat a corner design - or a three way beat a two way or a ribbon beat a silk dome or a plastic woofer beat a paper woofer and on it goes.

My view is to try and and listen to all the different designs - or as many as you can - lots of people love line arrays or panels, stats versus planar, or those massive horns/SET combinations, or dual concentric or single drivers or omni-directionals, or the undamped boxes, or insist on time alignment, or transmission line. Or YG Acoustics that simply state "we make the world's best loudspeakers."

The better makers on all those camps do have passion for what they make and truly believe what they're doing. And none of them measure perfectly and all of them have some pitfall that someone else will gladly reject as being a weakness.

I was overly dogmatic on my Audio Note stance for far too long because to my ear it simply has the best balance that I have yet heard. What I could not get past is that some people want other things in a loudspeaker. I personally had two favorites - horns and panels - I felt Audio Note had the best of both of those (almost) while making little compromise. I can't help it - that's what I hear. But of course there are numerous compromises built in that plenty other speakers will beat them on - other people may hear more serious flaws that they can't live with. Frequency response is not perfect - they're not dead free of colouration, they're not ultimate bass depth or volume level hounds. There is a limit - the designers are trying to coax more and more out of them but in the end nothing is perfect and neither is AN. They're built to ear not to measurements and as some have pointed out - if your ear is similar to Peter's you'll love them - if not then look elsewhere - plenty of great loudspeakers I could live with till daisies grow from my scalp quite happily. I suppose I should recommend those one's more often!

Or I would have chimed in sooner.

Personally, I think AN just has its priorities striaght. My uncle is a big AN fan (well speakers, he prefers SS amps and other options for electronics). The AN E's (his are just normal, not $70K or anything) are one of the best sounding commercial speakers I've heard at their pricepoint. One of several I'd be happy to own.

They do a lot of engineering stuff that might be theoretically wrong - wide baffle that's bad for imaging, flat edges bad for diffraction, spacing between drivers, etc, etc. But I think AN realizes that 99% of the effects of what those "flaws" might produce in an anechoic chamber at 1 meter pales in comparison to the effects introduced by room acoustics, at typical listening positions. In other words, ya ain't gonna notice it.

I've made several iterations of a few designs I've built. I've done direct a/b comparisons on rounded edges vs square and chamfered, increasing significantly the center-to-center driver spacing, played with damping material, cabinet material, cabinet bracing, and cabinet width and depth. For each of those traits, and sometimes for combinations of them, I could hear almost no difference, or none at all. If it's there, it's almost indistinguishable, to the point I'm calling BS on any would-be golden ears. Not saying with some drivers or designs some of these properties might not be audible, and they're certainly measurable at 1 m, but I am saying that magnitude of the differences at distances of 8-12 feet pale in comparison to the effects the environment introduces to the sound waves by the time the signals reach your brain.

For my part, I would rather invest in quality drivers and components (by quality I mean not necessarily exotic overpriced), and the right crossover design, than fret over the small stuff. Especially if outside an anechoic chamber people just aren't gonna notice your edges are chamfered at 45 instead of rounded over.

As for designers and compromises..well RGA's right it is a battle of compromise. But I feel sorry of the Polks, and B&W's and Paradigms of the world that get crapped on by audio snobs for their entry-level to mid-fi stuff. It's pretty easy to build a helluva great sounding loudspeaker for $5000. But it's damn hard to build a good sounding speaker that pleases 90% of the people 90% of the time for only $300-600. Oh it also has to look absolutely great and fit in a typical condo. And I don't want to have to order it over the internet(increased overhead). And it has to be in stores everywhere for me to demo (increased overhead and markup). Do all that, pay your bills, staff, equipment, and make some money to take home. Oh, and did I mention the competition is 100 times more fierce? Good luck.

Feanor, I have little doubt you will easily exceed your expectations and goals for your project...for $1200 cdn I think you should aim higher than a $2500 commercial speaker. Much higher. Unless you're including the value of your labour or cost of tools, or are buying furniture grade cabinets possibly. Even then. But I assume you'll have time to spare and tools already with which to work. It might not look quite as nice but.

Ajani
01-28-2009, 10:17 AM
Or I would have chimed in sooner.

Personally, I think AN just has its priorities striaght. My uncle is a big AN fan (well speakers, he prefers SS amps and other options for electronics). The AN E's (his are just normal, not $70K or anything) are one of the best sounding commercial speakers I've heard at their pricepoint. One of several I'd be happy to own.

They do a lot of engineering stuff that might be theoretically wrong - wide baffle that's bad for imaging, flat edges bad for diffraction, spacing between drivers, etc, etc. But I think AN realizes that 99% of the effects of what those "flaws" might produce in an anechoic chamber at 1 meter pales in comparison to the effects introduced by room acoustics, at typical listening positions. In other words, ya ain't gonna notice it.

I've made several iterations of a few designs I've built. I've done direct a/b comparisons on rounded edges vs square and chamfered, increasing significantly the center-to-center driver spacing, played with damping material, cabinet material, cabinet bracing, and cabinet width and depth. For each of those traits, and sometimes for combinations of them, I could hear almost no difference, or none at all. If it's there, it's almost indistinguishable, to the point I'm calling BS on any would-be golden ears. Not saying with some drivers or designs some of these properties might not be audible, and they're certainly measurable at 1 m, but I am saying that magnitude of the differences at distances of 8-12 feet pale in comparison to the effects the environment introduces to the sound waves by the time the signals reach your brain.

For my part, I would rather invest in quality drivers and components (by quality I mean not necessarily exotic overpriced), and the right crossover design, than fret over the small stuff. Especially if outside an anechoic chamber people just aren't gonna notice your edges are chamfered at 45 instead of rounded over.

Yep... measurements at 1m in an anechoic chamber are not a good reflection of what you will hear sitting at 8 or 9 feet in your listening room...


As for designers and compromises..well RGA's right it is a battle of compromise. But I feel sorry of the Polks, and B&W's and Paradigms of the world that get crapped on by audio snobs for their entry-level to mid-fi stuff. It's pretty easy to build a helluva great sounding loudspeaker for $5000. But it's damn hard to build a good sounding speaker that pleases 90% of the people 90% of the time for only $300-600. Oh it also has to look absolutely great and fit in a typical condo. And I don't want to have to order it over the internet(increased overhead). And it has to be in stores everywhere for me to demo (increased overhead and markup). Do all that, pay your bills, staff, equipment, and make some money to take home. Oh, and did I mention the competition is 100 times more fierce? Good luck.


For me the real magic happens at the sub $2K price points... Producing a truly exceptional product that is either affordable or at least can be purchased with a few month's disciplined saving, is a real challenge... having unlimited money to throw at a product is great for achieving SOTA, but irrelevant to most of us...

theaudiohobby
01-28-2009, 11:31 AM
I could hear almost no difference, or none at all. If it's there, it's almost indistinguishable, to the point I'm calling BS on any would-be golden ears. Not saying with some drivers or designs some of these properties might not be audible, and they're certainly measurable at 1 m, but I am saying that magnitude of the differences at distances of 8-12 feet pale in comparison to the effects the environment introduces to the sound waves by the time the signals reach your brain.

Am I to take that you are suggesting that 3dB lift at 800Hz with a corresponding 3dB drop centered at 130Hz would be inaudible in a real room?

GMichael
01-28-2009, 11:53 AM
Am I to take that you are suggesting that 3dB lift at 800Hz with a corresponding 3dB drop centered at 130Hz would be inaudible in a real room?

No. He's saying that these are measured at 1 meter.
In a normal room, sitting 3 meters away there will be acoustic situations that will make a more prominent difference.

theaudiohobby
01-28-2009, 12:07 PM
No. He's saying that these are measured at 1 meter.
In a normal room, sitting 3 meters away there will be acoustic situations that will make a more prominent difference.

kexodusc, are you are saying that a 3dB lift above the reference level (measured at 1m anechoic) at 800Hz with a corresponding dip at 130Hz will be masked in-room?

theaudiohobby
01-28-2009, 02:05 PM
kexodusc,

Assuming two ported speakers with broadly the same sensitivity, Would a speaker with a single 8" driver (covering both mid and bass) have the same LF dynamic range as another with 2 12" drivers(1 mid, 1 bass) the latter sitting in a box that's over twice the volume of the former?

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 10:02 AM
Am I to take that you are suggesting that 3dB lift at 800Hz with a corresponding 3dB drop centered at 130Hz would be inaudible in a real room?

This seems like a loaded question, but I'll play. But first, what are you getting at with these numbers?

To answer your question, what I'm saying is that the theory doesn't always correspond to the application.

Objective measurements are undertaken in lab conditions, typically 1m, anechoic chambers. How big is your listening room and what do you to do to treat it?

There's a great reason manufacturers don't use living rooms to measure specs, then publish them. The variance is too great from one home to the next. The results would look terrible, and it would be very difficult to draw much from an FR plot.

So we standardize it and use 1m, anechoic. That's just for a measurement reference. It is not what we will hear in most rooms.

What I was implying is that the minimal effects of an extra few inches width on the baffle might measure significantly in lab conditions, but in somebody's home there's gonna be so much "interference" (for lack of a better term) from the acoustics of the environment that by the time it reaches your ear, your 3 dB lift at X Hz might be offset by a -4 dB dip centered at Y Hz. Or not.

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 10:07 AM
kexodusc, are you are saying that a 3dB lift above the reference level (measured at 1m anechoic) at 800Hz with a corresponding dip at 130Hz will be masked in-room?

I guess it's possible if you had furniture or something in your room that affected those frequencies. I have yet to meet a home with an audio room that was "acoustically neutral" and didn't introduce some distortion. I'm not guaranteeing you that it will be masked.

What we measure at 1m anechoic and what we hear and interpret as "good" in a typical room are not the same thing. I think AN focuses on aspects that have greater variability in what they perceive as contributing to sound quality, and that many of those aspects exclude some of these other concerns.

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 10:17 AM
kexodusc,

Assuming two ported speakers with broadly the same sensitivity, Would a speaker with a single 8" driver (covering both mid and bass) have the same LF dynamic range as another with 2 12" drivers(1 mid, 1 bass) the latter sitting in a box that's over twice the volume of the former?
You're asking a guy who uses dual 15" woofers...:p
Bu yeah, sure. Since you're pulling scenarios out of thin air let me do so too.
If those 12" drivers were made by Bose and cost 40 cents a piece, had an xmax 4 mm, and a frequency of resonance of 40 Hz, whereas the 8" driver was made by one of the world's foremost expert driver designers, say, Seas, and cost $325 a piece, and had 3 times the excursion, and a frequency of resonance of 35 Hz, I'd expect an aweful lot more from the 8" than the two 12" woofers.

Or if the 12" woofers were 10 times the quality of the 8" woofer...no.

What's your point?

Be careful with dynamic range too - a 12" woofer could be far more capable in delivering dynamic range, but if the 8" woofer is up to the task of reproducing a dynamic range consistent with the music you're listening to, at the volumes you want to listen to it, then it's doing the job perfectly and any extra benefit of the 12" woofer's is non-existant. You'll never need it. Untapped potential.

You got some beef with Audio Note or something?

Ajani
01-29-2009, 10:41 AM
You got some beef with Audio Note or something?

Be careful Kex or you may end up on TAH's bad side, along with RGA, me and GM.....

theaudiohobby
01-29-2009, 10:53 AM
What's your point?

Asked you a straightforward question, no need for an overly defensive/aggressive stance.



Be careful with dynamic range too - a 12" woofer could be far more capable in delivering dynamic range, but if the 8" woofer is up to the task of reproducing a dynamic range consistent with the music you're listening to, at the volumes you want to listen to it, then it's doing the job perfectly and any extra benefit of the 12" woofer's is non-existant. You'll never need it. Untapped potential.

You got some beef with Audio Note or something?

Well, you got there in the end which is given reasonable circumstances a 8" woofer covering mids and bass would be less capable than a 12" woofer covering only the bass. Untapped potential is besides the point since we are discussing capability, right?

Feanor
01-29-2009, 10:58 AM
...
Feanor, I have little doubt you will easily exceed your expectations and goals for your project...for $1200 cdn I think you should aim higher than a $2500 commercial speaker. Much higher. Unless you're including the value of your labour or cost of tools, or are buying furniture grade cabinets possibly. Even then. But I assume you'll have time to spare and tools already with which to work. It might not look quite as nice but.

Kex, the value of my labor is zero, I'm afraid! :)

I'm pretty sure it's possible with good versus ultra expensive components. The sorts of options I'd consider are these.

Mid/woofers:

Parts Express Reference RS180 (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=295-364), for a low-ball choice;
Morel MW 168 6", (http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_256&products_id=611) or I maybe ...
Morel CAW638 6" (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=297-084) -- but I won't be getting Seas Excel or ScanSpeak Revelator.Tweeters, a little trickier:

Vifa XT25TG30 (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=264-555), "ring radiator"
Morel MDT30S (http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_229_324&products_id=568) or maybe step up to ...
Morel Elite ET338 (http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_229_324&products_id=8342)
Fountek NeoCd2.0M (http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_229_236&products_id=1556) ribbon
HiVi RT2H-A Planar (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=297-407)
but not ScanSpeak R2904/7000-05 (http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_229_427&products_id=1580), much less ..
Accuton D20-6 (http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_229_250&products_id=1039) -- these are in the $20+k speaker realm.You can go nuts with crossover components too, especially capacitors (http://www.madisound.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=404_5_351_413), but there again I think one step up from basic might to very will.

My cabinet working skills and tools being what they are I might buy boxes. Parts Express cabinets like these (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=302-733) are pretty nice and not stupidly expensive.

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 11:07 AM
Asked you a straightforward question, no need for an overly defensive/aggressive stance.
No worries, bro...just not sure where you were going with it? Multiple drivers can sound better, but higher quality, small drivers can often do the job as good or better too...there is not a hard rule here.



Well, you got there in the end which is given reasonable circumstances a 8" woofer covering mids and bass would be less capable than a 12" woofer covering only the bass. Untapped potential is besides the point since we are discussing capability, right?
No, I'm afraid you're wrong here. Capability is nice, but just because you have more doesn't mean it increases performance. SACD's boast a dynamic range of 120 dB. If both the 8" and 12" woofers do 120 dB perfectly, and that's the most you'll ever need, then there's no additional performance to extract from a 12" woofer with capability of 200 dB. It'll never be used. Above a certain point, excess capability is just waste.

theaudiohobby
01-29-2009, 11:16 AM
This seems like a loaded question, but I'll play. But first, what are you getting at with these numbers?

It's loaded, I am glad you spotted it



To answer your question, what I'm saying is that the theory doesn't always correspond to the application.

Objective measurements are undertaken in lab conditions, typically 1m, anechoic chambers. How big is your listening room and what do you to do to treat it?

There's a great reason manufacturers don't use living rooms to measure specs, then publish them. The variance is too great from one home to the next. The results would look terrible, and it would be very difficult to draw much from an FR plot.

So we standardize it and use 1m, anechoic. That's just for a measurement reference. It is not what we will hear in most rooms.

What I was implying is that the minimal effects of an extra few inches width on the baffle might measure significantly in lab conditions, but in somebody's home there's gonna be so much "interference" (for lack of a better term) from the acoustics of the environment that by the time it reaches your ear, your 3 dB lift at X Hz might be offset by a -4 dB dip centered at Y Hz. Or not.

I'll rephrase the question to elicit a less equivocal answer from you :smilewinkgrin: , Assuming a speaker has a midrange tone switch centered at 800Hz +3,0,-3dB and another centered @ 4KHz with the same settings. Would the efffects of the switches be masked in-room. By the way, I agree that baffle diffraction is a smaller issue.

theaudiohobby
01-29-2009, 11:29 AM
No, I'm afraid you're wrong here. Capability is nice, but just because you have more doesn't mean it increases performance. SACD's boast a dynamic range of 120 dB. If both the 8" and 12" woofers do 120 dB perfectly, and that's the most you'll ever need, then there's no additional performance to extract from a 12" woofer with capability of 200 dB. It'll never be used. Above a certain point, excess capability is just waste.

Disagree with you here you overstated your point in your original post which is why I asked you loaded questions. Whilst there are hardly any recordings that test the capability of SACD dynamic range, the same cannot be said for our hypothetical woofers, There are any number of recordings than can take advantage of a 12" woofer's bass capability especially when compared to a 8" mid/bass woofer.

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 11:37 AM
Kex, the value of my labor is zero, I'm afraid! :)

Well, I don't include my time in my projects, but I wouldn't say its zero. It's relaxing for me in some ways and I enjoy it so no value charged.


I'm pretty sure it's possible with good versus ultra expensive components. The sorts of options I'd consider are these.

I'm very partial to the Dayton RS and Seas woofers. There's plenty of other options of course, but you can do some scary things for not a lot of money with some of these woofers. And there's hundreds of awesome, proven project designs available, giving you more ideas and the option to play it safe. Never a bad idea.


You can go nuts with crossover components too,
Yeah, I really struggle with xo elements..I feel the need to cut costs sometimes by cheaping out here, but in some cases I have heard differences and regreted it. Cost me more money to place an order for better parts. Overall I try to pick components that have high value, but if I was building a speaker with drivers exceeding $100 or so I'd probably feel compelled to buy the fancy xo components just in case.



My cabinet working skills and tools being what they are I might buy boxes. Parts Express cabinets like these (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=302-733) are pretty nice and not stupidly expensive.
I bought some of the 1 cubic ft cabinets in the past (cherry). They are excellent. I build replacement baffles during testing phases for some designs I've done, but the finish is solid.

I usually just build my own though. This is the biggest area for cost savings IMO. I cheap out and paint, bedliner spray, or (mostly) use the vinyl laminates they sell. You can 3-4 pairs of speakers for a $50 sheet of MDF and $15-25 in laminate. Or spend $600-$800 for cabinets + shipping + duties, etc (which aren't insubstantial when building 5.1 or 7.1 systems).

They look "ok". Once in awhile I get up the nerve to veneer, and I've used Baltic Birch Ply and Oak ply in the past which were fun and looked reat. Actually most of my projects have gone to friends or relatives so they're bottom lines were the limiting factor. The vinyls look good enough for most rec rooms/ht rooms/ listening rooms, but people with discriminating tastes or wives might need something more polished. Then ya gotta pay.

My favorite is black because, well, it's not the best looking, but it's the most cooperative.
I uploaded a photo to my gallery of an old project from maybe 3-4 years ago that used it for an idea if you're curious. Maybe you've used the stuff before though?

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 11:50 AM
It's loaded, I am glad you spotted it



I'll rephrase the question to elicit a less equivocal answer from you :smilewinkgrin: , Assuming a speaker has a midrange tone switch centered at 800Hz +3,0,-3dB and another centered @ 4KHz with the same settings. Would the efffects of the switches be masked in-room. By the way, I agree that baffle diffraction is a smaller issue.

Of course not, nor would I expect a 6 dB variance in the gain of an amplifier to be unnoticed except perhaps for frequencies below 200 Hz. Nor would I expect every single room to allow a +3 dB gain to be observed at the listening position vs at 1 m across the spectrum. Care to deliver the punch line without masking? :p

Ajani
01-29-2009, 11:51 AM
This is the biggest area for cost savings IMO. I cheap out and paint, bedliner spray, or (mostly) use the vinyl laminates they sell. You can 3-4 pairs of speakers for a $50 sheet of MDF and $15-25 in laminate. Or spend $600-$800 for cabinets + shipping + duties, etc (which aren't insubstantial when building 5.1 or 7.1 systems).

If my wood working skills weren't non-existent, I'd seriously consider building my own speakers... since the biggest expense in getting good speakers to countries off the beaten path (like where I live) is the shipping costs and duties...

Feanor
01-29-2009, 12:00 PM
...
I bought some of the 1 cubic ft cabinets in the past (cherry). They are excellent. I build replacement baffles during testing phases for some designs I've done, but the finish is solid.

I usually just build my own though. This is the biggest area for cost savings IMO. I cheap out and paint, bedliner spray, or (mostly) use the vinyl laminates they sell. You can 3-4 pairs of speakers for a $50 sheet of MDF and $15-25 in laminate. Or spend $600-$800 for cabinets + shipping + duties, etc (which aren't insubstantial when building 5.1 or 7.1 systems).
...

Absolutely true that the really cost savings is in making you own cabinets -- at least when you're shotting to duplicate $1000 commercial speakers.

BTW, cabinets identical to Parts Express are available in Canada from Creative Sound Solutions (http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=CHYC.75); worth checking out to avoid duty & taxes.

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 12:03 PM
Disagree with you here you overstated your point in your original post which is why I asked you loaded questions. Whilst there are hardly any recordings that test the capability of SACD dynamic range, the same cannot be said for our hypothetical woofers, .

What do you disagree with? That if your speakers have capability (I.e, the dynamic range issue you brought forth) beyond the most any source you will ever play demands of them, that capability will never be called upon?

There are any number of recordings than can take advantage of a 12" woofer's bass capability especially when compared to a 8" mid/bass woofer

Sure there are...and yet there are people who listen to 15" woofers, 12" woofers, 10" woofers and still prefer speakers with 8" woofers. When I designed my system, I originally had 12" sealed config in mind...wasn't enough for me...besides the point though...

BTW, while I admit I could be guilty, exactly what point did I overstate? I never even brought up the issue of woofer size...

kexodusc
01-29-2009, 02:15 PM
Absolutely true that the really cost savings is in making you own cabinets -- at least when you're shotting to duplicate $1000 commercial speakers.

BTW, cabinets identical to Parts Express are available in Canada from Creative Sound Solutions (http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=CHYC.75); worth checking out to avoid duty & taxes.

I generally just use the duty free exemptions whenever I return from the US to bring back whatever I can duty free. Some times its well worth it. Some times things are priced better up here.

theaudiohobby
01-29-2009, 04:48 PM
Of course not, nor would I expect a 6 dB variance in the gain of an amplifier to be unnoticed except perhaps for frequencies below 200 Hz. Nor would I expect every single room to allow a +3 dB gain to be observed at the listening position vs at 1 m across the spectrum. Care to deliver the punch line without masking? :p

Not sure where you are going with the "observable effects across the spectrum", my questions specifically excluded that possibility.

There is no punch line to deliver. My question was posed to elicit a clarification of your comments in less equivocal terms i.e. Specific speaker behaviour observed under anechoic conditions that's not masked in-room.

kexodusc
01-30-2009, 04:33 AM
Not sure where you are going with the "observable effects across the spectrum", my questions specifically excluded that possibility.

There is no punch line to deliver. My question was posed to elicit a clarification of your comments in less equivocal terms i.e. Specific speaker behaviour observed under anechoic conditions that's not masked in-room.
Then it is now obvious to me you missed the entire point.

E-Stat
01-30-2009, 07:28 AM
BTW, while I admit I could be guilty, exactly what point did I overstate? I never even brought up the issue of woofer size...
You're not alone. I've had some really bizarre round-the-world-with-no-destination discussions with TAH.

<a href="http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=45156">What ARE you talking about ?</a href>

Don't bother following the lengthy thread. I never got the an answer to his ridiculous *charges*.

rw

theaudiohobby
01-30-2009, 08:01 AM
Then it is now obvious to me you missed the entire point.

Maybe, however GMicheal and Ajani responses to your post suggest I was not alone, GMicheal's is particularly interesting because it's unsurprisingly at odds with your eventual response to my question. Doesn't matter to me as you have now clarified your overstated comments on speaker anechoic behaviour

GMichael
01-30-2009, 08:04 AM
Maybe, however GMicheal and Ajani responses to your post suggest I was not alone, GMicheal's is particularly interesting because it's unsurprisingly at odds with your eventual response to my question. Doesn't matter to me as you have now clarified your overstated comments on speaker anechoic behaviour

I understood him perfectly. Did my best to reword it so even you would get it, but it didn't work. It seems like you just want to argue. Good luck to the people closest to you.

theaudiohobby
01-30-2009, 08:10 AM
You're not alone. I've had some really bizarre round-the-world-with-no-destination discussions with TAH.

<a href="http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=45156">What ARE you talking about ?</a href>

Don't bother following the lengthy thread. I never got the an answer to his ridiculous *charges*.

rw

Ha..ha... Thats why there are so many lawyers and courts up and down the land,. even after a court judgement on a dispute some folks still do not have an "answer", the only difference is they have to comply with the judgement regardless :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: .

theaudiohobby
01-30-2009, 08:12 AM
I understood him perfectly. Did my best to reword it so even you would get it, but it didn't work. It seems like you just want to argue. Good luck to the people closest to you.

ya...ya.....that was some rewording... :lol:

audio amateur
01-30-2009, 08:44 AM
You're a strange fella TAH

theaudiohobby
01-30-2009, 08:53 AM
You're a strange fella TAH

why?:confused:

GMichael
01-30-2009, 09:22 AM
ya...ya.....that was some rewording... :lol:

Thanks for making my point. :thumbsup:

audio amateur
01-30-2009, 09:41 AM
why?:confused:
Simply the impression I have after reading through your posts. It looks like others mirror the sentiment.
No harm done though, everyone's a little strange:1:

kexodusc
01-30-2009, 09:43 AM
Maybe, however GMicheal and Ajani responses to your post suggest I was not alone, GMicheal's is particularly interesting because it's unsurprisingly at odds with your eventual response to my question. Doesn't matter to me as you have now clarified your overstated comments on speaker anechoic behaviour

Oh dear. It looks like you failed to comprehend GM's and Ajani's points as well.

Your questions about tone control switches and out-of-nowhere opinion on woofers remains completely out of context with my original comment, rendering anything you said irrelevant to the discussion.

Though I'm glad you agreed with my point on the relatively inconsequential need to focus on baffle diffraction and other minor design issues at the expense of the important stuff. Interestingly enough, that side of your personality seems to agree with me. I like him.

theaudiohobby
01-30-2009, 09:44 AM
Simply the impression I have after reading through your posts. It looks like others mirror the sentiment.
No harm done though, everyone's a little strange:1:

Your comments are not much help for correcting unintentional poor board ethics, but thanks anyhow..

kexodusc
01-30-2009, 09:49 AM
You're not alone. I've had some really bizarre round-the-world-with-no-destination discussions with TAH.

<a href="http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=45156">What ARE you talking about ?</a href>

Don't bother following the lengthy thread. I never got the an answer to his ridiculous *charges*.

rw

Ok, you win.

theaudiohobby
01-30-2009, 10:17 AM
Oh dear. It looks like you failed to comprehend GM's and Ajani's points as well. .

Why? I understand perfectly that certain minor flaws detected under anechoic conditions are less audible or even completely inaudible in-room, so what's the misunderstanding? I felt you overstated your original position, thats all.



Your questions about tone control switches and out-of-nowhere opinion on woofers remains completely out of context with my original comment, rendering anything you said irrelevant to the discussion. .

The question about tone controls was simply an attempt to illustrate that there are many important issues (such as upper midrange lift) picked up under anechoic conditions that are easily detectable in-room. Speaking for myself, I do not have difficulty mapping anechoic behavior to in room conditions, though I accept it's not always cut and dry. Evidently, my attempt was not very successful. I accept that the woofer question was out of context in this thread, it was a carry over from another thread.



Though I'm glad you agreed with my point on the relatively inconsequential need to focus on baffle diffraction and other minor design issues at the expense of the important stuff. Interestingly enough, that side of your personality seems to agree with me. I like him.

Your are welcome...

Rich-n-Texas
01-30-2009, 03:14 PM
Wots going on here :mad:

Everybody out of the pool! :mad5:

Ajani
01-30-2009, 04:19 PM
Wots going on here :mad:

Everybody out of the pool! :mad5:

It wasn't me... I didn't do it.... What are those bubbles? ugghh

I think GM peed in the pool again...

Rich-n-Texas
01-30-2009, 06:43 PM
And Who Threw The Baby Ruth Bar In The Pool!!! :nono:

Rich-n-Texas
01-30-2009, 06:43 PM
TAH = MW? :sosp:

audio amateur
01-31-2009, 08:52 AM
TAH = MW? :sosp:
Could very well be.. :crazy:

E-Stat
01-31-2009, 01:22 PM
Could very well be.. :crazy:
I am always impressed by those who are truly multi-lingual. I took about five years of French in school ages ago, but practically speaking, I've never been able to use what I learned so my abilities are very limited. (J'ai cinq ans de Francais a l'ecole tres hier!)

Having said that, I think TAH's native language is NOT English and therefore he sometimes has difficulty communicating with others. I've asked him direct questions before where he acts baffled and never answers. If I didn't fully understand someone, I would ask them more questions. Here again, I would likely do far worse if this forum were in French. :)

rw

theaudiohobby
01-31-2009, 01:55 PM
I am always impressed by those who are truly multi-lingual. I took about five years of French in school ages ago, but practically speaking, I've never been able to use what I learned so my abilities are very limited. (J'ai cinq ans de Francais a l'ecole tres hier!)

Having said that, I think TAH's native language is NOT English and therefore he sometimes has difficulty communicating with others. I've asked him direct questions before where he acts baffled and never answers. If I didn't fully understand someone, I would ask them more questions. Here again, I would likely do far worse if this forum were in French. :)

rw

Estat, in what context do you use "native"? And I do not answer your "direct" questions where I think they would result in circular discussions.

audio amateur
01-31-2009, 03:42 PM
I am always impressed by those who are truly multi-lingual. I took about five years of French in school ages ago, but practically speaking, I've never been able to use what I learned so my abilities are very limited. (J'ai cinq ans de Francais a l'ecole tres hier!)

Having said that, I think TAH's native language is NOT English and therefore he sometimes has difficulty communicating with others. I've asked him direct questions before where he acts baffled and never answers. If I didn't fully understand someone, I would ask them more questions. Here again, I would likely do far worse if this forum were in French. :)

rw
You could be completely right about that. However, his location does suggest otherwise, which makes it a little strange. He also could speak up for himself and ask more questions in the case that he does not understand.
It doesn't bother me but if I was discussing something it would rapidly fatigue me. Thanks for pointing it out

E-Stat
01-31-2009, 04:01 PM
Estat, in what context do you use "native"?
As, in which language did your mother teach you to say "Ma Ma" and "Da Da". What was that?


And I do not answer your "direct" questions where I think they would result in circular discussions.
Circular discussions? Let's take a look at text from my example over at AA:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAH: By the way, I particularly enjoyed the lecture that Bold eagle gave you the other day, now that was good lecture on logical fallacies.

E: I will be happy to respond to any real examples of anything said by me or others. For a change, why don't you begin with facts? Cite the specifics behind your imagination.

TAH: You on the other hand, are you typical audiophile poster. Let's start with Bold Eagle's comments, can you validate the cause and effect pairing of your KimberKable Power cord experiments? (links to thread where Bold Eagle is absent)

E: Let's do start with Bold Eagle's comments.Where are they? Certainly not in the linked thread. I'll say it again: You make comments that bear no resemblance to reality.

TAH: Nice try EStat, back to the old game of playing dumb at every request.

E: Are you incapable of following a stream of thought? ...I continue to await your ability to deliver any modicum of truth to your accusation. Dumb? No. Persistent? Yes. Still waiting. You remain in fantasy land. Or, have incredibly poor memory. Do you believe poster Bold Eagle = jj? Do you believe that "the other day" refers to something two years ago? You really need to get your head straight because you continue to babble.

TAH: When will you quit playing dumb? So you are still playing dumb in attempt to subvert the discussion down a cul de sac. I notice that you've sidestepped substantive issue, your comments on KimberKable PCs to chip way at irrelevant issues such Bold Eagle=jj, Is two years ago the other day etc?

E: I am doing my best to understand your bizarre behavior. Let's try this in a more simple fashion to see if you can comprehend such. I'll ask one question and you provide one answer, please.

DO YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCES TO BACK UP YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM ABOUT BOLD EAGLE?

All this requires is a simple "Yes" or "No".

TAH: Same here. (quote by E: "DO YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCES TO BACK UP YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM ABOUT BOLD EAGLE?") Clarify.

E: Clarify? You made this observation:

(quote by TAH: By the way, I particularly enjoyed the lecture that Bold eagle gave you the other day, now that was good lecture on logical fallacies.)

So, what does that mean? One might reasonably assume you are referring to an event that has actually taken place. Since it has not, I understandably want to know what you mean. Are you simply confused as to the poster? Are you confused as to the time frame? Both? What is the relevance to any of your remarks to Jerry from Cleveland, OH? Or is this yet another fig newton of your imagination? Can you speeky Engrish?

TAH: Yet another weasel, a twist on the playing dumb tactic. A good twist on the playing dumb tactic, making a claim for specificity where none was implied. I guess I should expect another weasel from you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not representative of someone who really grasps the English language.

rw

E-Stat
01-31-2009, 04:03 PM
...but if I was discussing something it would rapidly fatigue me.
C'est vrai, mon ami. It is most fatiguing.

rw

theaudiohobby
01-31-2009, 04:19 PM
You're right it could very be. However, his location does suggest otherwise, which makes it a little strange.

This is getting very interesting, EStat is wrong.

theaudiohobby
01-31-2009, 05:21 PM
English is my native language. For better or for worse the thread is currently focused on moi.

E-Stat let's revisit your post and BoldEagles subsequent response


E-Stat:I have taken part in true ABX style DBTs and conducted a cable SBT at home. The obvious challenge with single blind tests is to eliminate any contact between tester and me to prevent any cueing. From the outset, I stated that I did so by having her make the switch while I was out of the room (I exit to rear door to another room between each trial) while she entered/exited via the front door and returned upstairs before I reentered. SNIP

I was accused of being a "typical audiophile not understanding over 35 years of psychoacoustic data". Naturally, I asked this guy why he thought the test was faulty given the test methodology

BoldEagle:
--SNIP--
Not all tests need to be done by blind or DBT to confirm the effects of a change. A measurment where the changes are of a magnitude known to be detectable works just as well; provided the nature of the measured change matches the character of the perceived change. In other words there is a valid pairing of cause and effect. Too often in this hobby, the cause and effect pairings are not valid. (I'm thinking of a coaxial patch cord test by a "cable guru" where perceived differences were attributed to the materials of construction, while the capacitance changes caused by those different materials were not documented or considered). DBT or not, the tests can lead to an erroneous, or at least highly suspect, conclusion. Which in turn leads to the issue of test design and the skill and depth of knowledge of the test designer. In a sci-fi story called "The Answerer", the last line was: "In order to ask a meaningful question, you already have to know most of the answer". This concludes my sermon for this Sunday.
E-Stat:Amen, preacher! -nt

I understand this to be Bold Eagle giving you a lecture on why your test may not be as sound as you think it is. You also felt the same way about it but thought it was directed to folks like me (not sure why) because in your response to RJ from the thread you excerpted, you said "The irony of course is that Jerry's sermon was addressed to guys like TAH for whom the reference was targeted. --SNIP--"

IMO, you very well knew which post I was referring to but decided to play dumb.

E-Stat
01-31-2009, 06:41 PM
E-Stat let's revisit your post and BoldEagles subsequent response
First of all, if this is the series of discussions I had with my friend Jerry, why on earth did you not link this to me? I ask "where are Jerry's comments?" and you never provided the answer.


I understand this to be Bold Eagle giving you a lecture on why your test may not be as sound as you think it is.
Righty-O there S.O. ! LOL!

You really picked a bad example in which to project your incorrect assumptions. Actually, Jerry and I are friends and speak directly via email. I had business in northern Ohio and gave him a call. The result was a most enjoyable visit that ran well into the wee hours where we each shared some of our favorite music (I left several CDRs with him). Dammit, I had an early appointment the next day. Jerry is an engineer from way back and has a most pragmatic approach to audio. He has arguably the best tweaked pair of Advent speakers on the planet. I'll link to the discussion Jerry and I had concerning the topic "I'm pissed that some guy from nowhere has attacked my test procedure without reason".

<a href="http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vintage&n=163894">Jerry is pissed </a href>

I agreed and provided yet another example of someone attacking my test methods without providing any substantiation of why that was. So, what happened next? Did he lecture me on "why your test may not be as sound as you think it is?" Huh? What are you smoking? Here's the actual response:

"About two years ago I did a blind test on the Golden Sound Intelligent Chip with my former lab manager. (it was supposed to mysteriously make CD's sound better by "treating them" through the steel cover of the player) It was nicely crafted and double blind, yet it stirred up a lot of controversy, including some dirty pool by a proponent of the chip. (the chip had no effect)

It got to the point some years back that I resist being referred to as an Audiophile. I much prefer labeling myself as an enthusiast or hobbyist, although I do have a few professional credits.

Not all tests need to be done by blind or DBT to confirm the effects of a change. A measurment where the changes are of a magnitude known to be detectable works just as well; provided the nature of the measured change matches the character of the perceived change. In other words there is a valid pairing of cause and effect. Too often in this hobby, the cause and effect pairings are not valid. (I'm thinking of a coaxial patch cord test by a "cable guru" where perceived differences were attributed to the materials of construction, while the capacitance changes caused by those different materials were not documented or considered). DBT or not, the tests can lead to an erroneous, or at least highly suspect, conclusion. Which in turn leads to the issue of test design and the skill and depth of knowledge of the test designer. In a sci-fi story called "The Answerer", the last line was: "In order to ask a meaningful question, you already have to know most of the answer".

This concludes my sermon for this Sunday."


You also felt the same way about it but thought it was directed to folks like me (not sure why) because in your response to RJ from the thread you excerpted, you said "The irony of course is that Jerry's sermon was addressed to guys like TAH for whom the reference was targeted.
I know you'll never get this, but I will respond for the benefit of anyone who actually cares about this farce. Jerry began with a post where he was upset that some guy having no specific knowledge of the details of a test he conducted attacked his method. I agreed and provided one of my examples. You will never answer the question I asked as to how my wife from another room cued me as to my cable choices (BTW, the results of that test were null - I could not detect any difference between a cheap cable and the JPS Labs stuff in a 0.5 meter connection ) when we never saw each other between her cable changes. Jerry responded with yet another case - mention of any sort to the specifics of my misery? No.



IMO, you very well knew which post I was referring to but decided to play dumb.
When all else fails...

rw

Rich-n-Texas
01-31-2009, 06:50 PM
For me, this has become one very bizarre thread. Sorry I stuck my nose into it. :idea:

E-Stat
01-31-2009, 06:55 PM
For me, this has become one very bizarre thread. Sorry I stuck my nose into it. :idea:
My apologies for the farce. Restraint is difficult. :)

rw

Rich-n-Texas
01-31-2009, 10:14 PM
Well, the only thing I want to know E-Stat is, are we on the same page regarding whether or not TAH & Melvin Walker are one in the same?

Way way way too many similarities. :sosp:

theaudiohobby
02-01-2009, 03:02 AM
E-Stat,

I did not link to the thread because I supposed you knew which thread I was referring to? Secondly, the answer to your question was in the same thread anyhow and you event posted to that sub thread with much the same comments you posted here.



Bold Eagle (04/05/08): ...This concludes my sermon for this Sunday.
E-Stat(04/05/08): Amen preacher -nt
TAH (14/05/08):"** A measurement where the changes are of a magnitude known to be detectable works just as well ; provided the nature of the measured change matches the character of the perceived change **
Where the changes in those interconnects or power cables large enough to fulfill this criteria, did you bother with measurements at all, made worse by Kimber's paucity of specs. I hope that your amen, preacher! is in appreciation that your cables would have woefully failed the test above. "
Estat(14/05/08):Go back to Prophead and argue with wall (end of thread)

Here is my first post in the subsequent thread which is now the subject of your ridicule


TAH (18/05/08):Read more closely, those that dismiss a lot of cable voodoo do it on sound scientific basis, you on the other hand, on what basis do you make claims for Kimber Kable. By the way, I particularly enjoyed the lecture that Bold eagle gave you the other day, now that was good lecture on logical fallacies

Do you mean to tell me that you had forgotten all about the previous thread four days later?


Jerry responded with yet another case - mention of any sort to the specifics of my misery? No.

The excerpted thread does not contain any subsequent posts from Bold Eagle. So you must be referring to another thread, correct?

PS:Apologies feanor for highjacking your thread.

Ajani
02-01-2009, 04:19 AM
Well, the only thing I want to know E-Stat is, are we on the same page regarding whether or not TAH & Melvin Walker are one in the same?

Way way way too many similarities. :sosp:

I doubt they're the same person, but I suspect they have the same objectives.... Like with MW, the best approach is probably just to ignore him (or risk being bated into ridiculous, never-ending arguments)...

E-Stat
02-01-2009, 09:58 AM
Do you mean to tell me that you had forgotten all about the previous thread four days later?
I remember most all of the discussions with my friend Jerry. We recently had a private email discussion concerning the crossovers in our Advents. None of our discussions have ever involved getting a lecture from him directed at me. You are dreaming. The *sermon* was addressed to the two individuals from the stories he told. In the one discussion you referenced to someone else, but never me, Jerry and I are commiserating about those who attack our test methods without knowing the details. He made no mention whatsoever as to my cable test since he has done the same and also found differences, most notably in use with one of his CD players. He frequently refers to his experience with the audible changes caused by cabling:

<a href="http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vintage&n=129854">I share his experience</a href>

Mr. O, you certainly have a most unusual perspective on things. That's why I brought up the topic. Perhaps you may benefit from the knowledge that what you say is often confusing to others and inconsistent. Do whatever with that observation you like. End of transmission.

rw

E-Stat
02-01-2009, 10:17 AM
Well, the only thing I want to know E-Stat is, are we on the same page regarding whether or not TAH & Melvin Walker are one in the same?
Nope, but there are certainly similarities in their approach. On the other hand, Melvin was quick to point out his background quite proudly. For some reason, TAH does not want others to know his heritage which is made evident by his name. A google search on my ordinary Scottish name results in 8850 hits. A search on his name reveals only 70. To each his own.

rw

theaudiohobby
02-01-2009, 03:08 PM
I remember most all of the discussions with my friend Jerry.

And this is one of the occasions where you conveniently forgot the discussion. :smilewinkgrin:


We recently had a private email discussion concerning the crossovers in our Advents. None of our discussions have ever involved getting a lecture from him directed at me. You are dreaming. The *sermon* was addressed to the two individuals from the stories he told. In the one discussion you referenced to someone else, but never me, Jerry and I are commiserating about those who attack our test methods without knowing the details. He made no mention whatsoever as to my cable test since he has done the same and also found differences, most notably in use with one of his CD players. He frequently refers to his experience with the audible changes caused by cabling:

<a href="http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vintage&n=129854">I share his experience</a href>



I am glad for you that you've had private email conversations with Jerry discussing Advents. However here you have chosen a poor example to illustrate any similarity between your cable experience and Jerry's because here Jerry shows that

There is a valid cause-effect pairing i.e. a measurable difference in cable capacitances results in an audible differences between two the cables involved and
The thread also sees Jerry largely agreeing with Peter Aczel and Soundmind on a core issue.

Can you claim that your KimberKable Power Cord SBT tests had a valid cause-effect pairing, the central issue in Jerry's sermon? Do you see eye to eye with Peter Aczel or Soundmind on the core issue discussed here?


you certainly have a most unusual perspective on things. That's why I brought up the topic. Perhaps you may benefit from the knowledge that what you say is often confusing to others and inconsistent. Do whatever with that observation you like.

rw

Of course, I will take it on board and improve subsequent board communication. That said, I am glad you brought up this thread as it serves to undermine your previous comments on my conduct and spotlights your tendency to intentionally obfuscate on occasion.

PS: Luvin Da Blues: E-Stat posts has answered that question about anonymous posting, in summary, we don't.

GMichael
02-02-2009, 06:21 AM
It's good to see that we have picked up another, colorful, poster. It keeps this place hoppin". Now, where's Pix? Can you picture those two on the same thread?

Feanor
02-02-2009, 08:08 AM
... thread goes south.

Pass me a brew
...

GMichael
02-02-2009, 08:15 AM
Sorry Feanor,

I'll try to behave.

kexodusc
02-02-2009, 12:06 PM
... thread goes south.

Pass me a brew
... Mmmm....Sleeman Honey Brown Lager...
I have about half a dozen or so of those left...had some yesterday for the first time. Pretty damn good...:arf:

JSE
02-02-2009, 08:24 PM
Mmmm....Sleeman Honey Brown Lager...
I have about half a dozen or so of those left...had some yesterday for the first time. Pretty damn good...:arf:


No clue what this thread is about but that Sleeman is some fine beer.

I've got 13 left. Had to special order a case to get it here to Texas. Worth every penny.

GMichael
02-03-2009, 06:08 AM
No clue what this thread is about but that Sleeman is some fine beer.

I've got 13 left. Had to special order a case to get it here to Texas. Worth every penny.

Geez, someone mentions beer and look who shows up. Where were you for the fireworks? They were brilliant!