What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:55:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well, we both know that with its max SPL rating of
something like 137 dB, the diaphragm mostly never does
that.

However, its 13.7 dBu maximum undistorted output might
just clip some lesser line inputs! ;-)


With self-powered mics I frequently use them straight on
the line-in sockets; I've made a few adaptors just for
that job. Never been anywhere loud enough to overload
them though - not sure I'd particularly want to either.

I have a 4 channel phantom power box that would do the job.

But there's plenty of things you can record into line-in
with about 20dB of headroom left. That makes for a
perfectly acceptable recording in my books.

I see no problems if the peak levels are up there.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, here we go - this is the setup:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Setup%2001.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Setup%2002.JPG

and here is the track:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...,%20SE1As).mp3

...and here's the Lowther track again for direct
comparison (if anyone else is interested):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Track10.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0In%20Love.mp3

Interesting to ABX, level matched.

I hate to sound like an ingrate but the Ruarks and their associated amps
combined to add fairly massive amounts of even order distortion - no doubt
10%. It is audible, man is it audible! Note what happens to the sound of the
triangle.

The nonlinear distortion is also hihgly visible in a visual display
(CoolEdit). The source material being hihgly clipped, has very symmetrical
tops and bottoms. After a trip through the amp+speakers, it is very
asymmetrical.

If you like your percussion extra crunchy, this might be your preference. I
like my percussion crisp, if that is how the origional recording is.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote


Interesting to ABX, level matched.

I hate to sound like an ingrate but the Ruarks and their associated amps
combined to add fairly massive amounts of even order distortion - no doubt
10%. It is audible, man is it audible! Note what happens to the sound of
the triangle.

The nonlinear distortion is also hihgly visible in a visual display
(CoolEdit). The source material being hihgly clipped, has very symmetrical
tops and bottoms. After a trip through the amp+speakers, it is very
asymmetrical.

If you like your percussion extra crunchy, this might be your preference.
I like my percussion crisp, if that is how the origional recording is.



OK, to round it off, I have posted a couple of (identical?) 30sec extracts
from the original WAVs to remove any 'MP3 spuriae' and have more clearly
titled them:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav


But have a care Arny, mon brave - if I read the above right (?) and you are
saying you prefer the Fidelio treble (as I do) then it's a vote for triodes
and horns over the 'normal' 2-way speakers on the Sony SS AV amp under the
telly in this pic:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Setup%2001.JPG

(The Pioneer DVDP is with the projector - not in the pic...)

Bass is not the issue here - there never was any suggestion (from me) that a
pair of FR horns would ever 'outbass' a normal speaker with 215mm (Focal)
drivers and the fact that the 'lite bass' of the Fidelios suits my small
listening room better is also neither here nor there in this comparison....

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Keith G" wrote


OK, to round it off, I have posted a couple of (identical?) 30sec extracts
from the original WAVs to remove any 'MP3 spuriae' and have more clearly
titled them:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav





Strikes me that those clips also serve to illustrate my recent remarks about
'speed and immediacy' quite well - AFAIAC, the Fidelios demonstrate clear
superiority in both these aspects, making the Ruarks seem quite ponderous by
comparison....??

No-one else see (hear) it....??

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:
If the harmonics from a musical instrument were unimportant then
top C from a piano would sound exactly the same as from a violin.
Of course perhaps they do on your setup...

Didn't take you long, did it...??

Perfectly valid comment given your love of devices which alter the
harmonic content of a signal.

You can't have it both ways, dear boy. ;-)


snip silly sig yet again...

That's what the sig separator is there for - if you know how to
configure your newsreader.



I've got *configure* my newsreader to delete your silly sig?

I don't think so....

A decent one would be configured so as default. You seem to manage to
avoid top posting, though, despite what your newsreader tells you to do.



Really? That'll be Rule Number what from the 'Plowman's Intergalactic
Guide To Pub Lunches And How It Is'....??

Here's one from my very own wipe-clean, laminated plastic set of 'How To
Scrape By Without Having To Get Too Far In' handy hint cards:

No. 3 - "Try to resist grabbing *every single* opportunity to make
yourself look a tit and you'll probably win greater respect from your
fellow man/other posters in this group....!!"

So you don't think you've made yourself look a fool by saying harmonics
don't matter? Because I've got news for you.



Actually not - there isn't *anything* you think you might know that I
need to know from you.

Fine. Then why waste time replying to this post? Stick with your strange
ideas about sound. And your flowery descriptions.

(Hope that isn't too *devastating* for you?? :-)

You seem to have the idea *your* opinion of people is important to them?
I've got news for you.



They are the very essence of
music. Without them it would be pretty boring.



Tell you what - could you give me a little notice of the things I'm
about to say and I'll get some snappy replies roughed out in
readiness....???



(Asitappens, if you had been following today's fun and games with my
recordings of *both* my triode/horn and ss/ordinary speaker setups you'd
have maybe twigged I've already *got it* both ways....?? ;-)

I've not been following your latest blog, no. Haven't got the time to
waste.



Ooh dear, let's not *kid* ourselves, shall we....??

You kid yourself all the time, surely?

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article om, Andy
Evans wrote:
My impression is that making a single driver speaker imposes such
demanding constraints on the design and use as to be rather limiting.
But then my

reaction is to prefer (phased array) electrostatics to cone-and-box
speakers, anyway. JL

[snip]

I just about get away with the frequency response - 40hz is there, and
it goes up to 13k or so.

These days I'd probably miss below 40Hz rather more than I'd miss above
13k. :-)

However the problem with 'full range' drivers tends to be doppler intermod
as well as lack of ability to both shift a lot of air (for LF) and move
fast enough for HF. Plus the problems with radiation patterns which Arny
has referred to.

The unit may well work better when it's not supplying the bass
frequencies, but then I'd need a crossover and I am very wary of
capacitors in the signal path - I really don't like them. I could go
active - that would be a solution (though complex)

....and would involve capacitors unless you are still full-range driving all
units. :-)

Whenever I compared caps I found that - provided I avoided obviously daft
choices like cheap electrolytics of too low/variable a value - no-one could
actually tell one cap from another purely on sound. Nor could then tell
them from d.c. coupling if the roll-offs were well out of the 20-20k range.
So I stopped worring about that 20+ years ago. I suspect that asking a
single driver to work full range is likely to produce rather more audible
effects unless your taste in music is quite limited.


- but I find I can
live with the sound I have. It's not perfect but it's extremely clear
and detailed and the tone is fine. I don't know what the term is for a
single driver - coherent maybe?

'coherent' has a specific set of meanings in engineering. It also applies
to arrays or sets of drivers. Although a small single driver speaker mean
that the nominal source position for the radiation varies less with
frequency than conventional multiway systems, and this may aid stereo
imaging. So in that sense frequency-invarient spatial coherence may be a
virtue of such systems if you can live with the probable other drawbacks.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:
If the harmonics from a musical instrument were unimportant then
top C from a piano would sound exactly the same as from a violin.
Of course perhaps they do on your setup...

Didn't take you long, did it...??

Perfectly valid comment given your love of devices which alter the
harmonic content of a signal.

You can't have it both ways, dear boy. ;-)


snip silly sig yet again...

That's what the sig separator is there for - if you know how to
configure your newsreader.



I've got *configure* my newsreader to delete your silly sig?

I don't think so....

A decent one would be configured so as default. You seem to manage to
avoid top posting, though, despite what your newsreader tells you to do.



Really? That'll be Rule Number what from the 'Plowman's Intergalactic
Guide To Pub Lunches And How It Is'....??

Here's one from my very own wipe-clean, laminated plastic set of 'How
To
Scrape By Without Having To Get Too Far In' handy hint cards:

No. 3 - "Try to resist grabbing *every single* opportunity to make
yourself look a tit and you'll probably win greater respect from your
fellow man/other posters in this group....!!"

So you don't think you've made yourself look a fool by saying harmonics
don't matter? Because I've got news for you.



Actually not - there isn't *anything* you think you might know that I
need to know from you.

Fine. Then why waste time replying to this post? Stick with your strange
ideas about sound. And your flowery descriptions.

(Hope that isn't too *devastating* for you?? :-)

You seem to have the idea *your* opinion of people is important to them?
I've got news for you.



They are the very essence of
music. Without them it would be pretty boring.



Tell you what - could you give me a little notice of the things I'm
about to say and I'll get some snappy replies roughed out in
readiness....???



(Asitappens, if you had been following today's fun and games with my
recordings of *both* my triode/horn and ss/ordinary speaker setups
you'd
have maybe twigged I've already *got it* both ways....?? ;-)

I've not been following your latest blog, no. Haven't got the time to
waste.



Ooh dear, let's not *kid* ourselves, shall we....??

You kid yourself all the time, surely?

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.




Buck your ideas up matey - you're like a whiney little snot mithering
endlessly because he can't get his own way.....

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, to round it off, I have posted a couple of
(identical?) 30sec extracts from the original WAVs to
remove any 'MP3 spuriae' and have more clearly titled
them:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav

Very different samples from before, even though the music is a subset of
what came before. They also showed up rather precisely level-matched.

But have a care Arny, mon brave - if I read the above
right (?) and you are saying you prefer the Fidelio
treble (as I do) then it's a vote for triodes and horns

No, I still prefer the Fidelios sample, and I still hear a crunching sort
distortion on the Ruarks sample, instead of the more natural crisp sound of
undistorted percussion.

I also analyzed the two samples technically, and can see a big hole around
2KHz, and peakiness around 18 KHz in the Ruarks sample.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

These days I'd probably miss below 40Hz rather more than I'd miss above
13k. :-)

I'm sure you're not alone! I'm a particular case since I'm a bass
player and as they say "the cobblers children have no shoes"


However the problem with 'full range' drivers tends to be doppler intermod
as well as lack of ability to both shift a lot of air (for LF) and move
fast enough for HF. Plus the problems with radiation patterns which Arny
has referred to.

Yes - doppler intermod is an issue. I've experimented with cutting out
the lower bass by using straws in the port - the mids do clean up, but
then the bass goes (rather predictably).


The unit may well work better when it's not supplying the bass
frequencies, but then I'd need a crossover and I am very wary of
capacitors in the signal path - I really don't like them. I could go
active - that would be a solution (though complex)

...and would involve capacitors unless you are still full-range driving all
units. :-)

Yes, but in this case they are small ones and one could use high
quality ones like teflon or polystyrene. That makes a difference.


Whenever I compared caps I found that - provided I avoided obviously daft
choices like cheap electrolytics of too low/variable a value - no-one could
actually tell one cap from another purely on sound.

I went through a few months of capacitor testing, and the teflon or
polystyrenes sounded consistently better to my ears, so since then I've
used them for all small values, and polypropylene for all larger
values. I prefer transformers for coupling, sound wise. It looks as if
my ears are more sensitive to some things than others - I can ignore
the bass end in ways that others wouldn't tolerate, but I pick up small
details in timbre. All this within the problem that I mostly work
alone so rarely have the ability to blind test stuff - I welcome the
chance whenever it presents itself and do tests with friends for that
reason.


'coherent' has a specific set of meanings in engineering. It also applies
to arrays or sets of drivers. Although a small single driver speaker mean
that the nominal source position for the radiation varies less with
frequency than conventional multiway systems, and this may aid stereo
imaging. So in that sense frequency-invarient spatial coherence may be a
virtue of such systems if you can live with the probable other drawbacks.

That sounds very much like what I'm experiencing (together with any
advantages accrued by no crossover, and all attendant problems as
discussed).

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, to round it off, I have posted a couple of
(identical?) 30sec extracts from the original WAVs to
remove any 'MP3 spuriae' and have more clearly titled
them:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...%20Extract.wav

Very different samples from before, even though the music is a subset of
what came before.


Sure, the previous MP3s were made from the same WAVs as the above extracts
(contrary to what one or two here seem to think, I have never *knowingly*
posted BS in this group! ;-) but your comment is an interesting one - that
MP3s do seem to represent a considerably 'altered state' from the original,
even though I think they can sound perfectly fine in the right circumstances
if the bitrate is high enough!


They also showed up rather precisely level-matched.


That would be more by luck than judgement - the levels were set by 'eye' but
it is a lot easier now on my cracking little (Yankee) tube pre's which have
the usual two ranges (Norm and +20dB) and which give me 2x almost a full
rotation's worth of adjustment....



But have a care Arny, mon brave - if I read the above
right (?) and you are saying you prefer the Fidelio
treble (as I do) then it's a vote for triodes and horns

No, I still prefer the Fidelios sample, and I still hear a crunching sort
distortion on the Ruarks sample, instead of the more natural crisp sound
of undistorted percussion.


I perhaps should have mentioned there was an SS pre driving the 300B amp
(beefs the sound up to ridiculous levels if/when required and gives me
remote volume control!!), but I think the comparison of the upper limits of
(certain/most/all??) FR drivers and 'normal tweeters' are one of those
situations where the 'appearances on paper' and the actual sounds produced
don't necessarily line up....



I also analyzed the two samples technically, and can see a big hole around
2KHz, and peakiness around 18 KHz in the Ruarks sample.


Interesting. When I bought the Paladins they were at a very good price
(then) from one of the shops in town, but the boxes were marked 'seconds'. I
phoned Ruark and the chap there looked them up - the shop had bought a job
lot which were all marked 'seconds', but mine had been out on exhibition
work is all. One thing the guy said was that there was a note 'in the book'
that one of the crossovers was 'blackened' (??) - I asked if it was likely
to be a problem, he said no....(??)

In any case, the crossover point is 2.8k, as can be seen from the manual:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/paladin.JPG


Continuing my 'revisit' of them, I was running them quite loud earlier today
and every upright surface in the place was thrumming, but I think I have
evolved too far away from that type of sound to enjoy them now - they do a
super (invisible) job on the telly and movies (*and* match the nearby
piano), so I think they have found their rightful place!

:-)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

Andy Evans wrote:

For years I've been using a single driver now (Monacor 130AL, aluminium
cone like a Jordan). Of course it's not perfect - bass is only just
there and treble could be better. That's the deal. But nevertheless I
add ribbon tweeters (Decca) and take them away. Yes, the ribbon sounds
better but the crossover doesn't.

So, what do you guys feel rocks your boat? Are you in the camp of full
frequency response or that of total integrity (or whatever words you
feel describes a single driver)?

As a reference, the best speakers I know are panels like Magneplanar or
even better Apogee - yes they have crossovers but the sound remains the
same top to bottom in terms of delicacy, so you have the "feel" of a
single driver.

If your drivers are up to the task, just use a first order crossover ( 6dB /
octave).

By its very nature it can't screw up. It will always give constant power and
pressure and eliminate any phase 'nasties'.

To do it right you also need to compensate the drivers to amke their impedance
flat too btw.

Graham

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

Eeyore wrote:

As a reference, the best speakers I know are panels like Magneplanar or
even better Apogee - yes they have crossovers but the sound remains the
same top to bottom in terms of delicacy, so you have the "feel" of a
single driver.


If your drivers are up to the task, just use a first order crossover ( 6dB /
octave).

By its very nature it can't screw up. It will always give constant power and
pressure and eliminate any phase 'nasties'.

Paging Mr. Garratt. Someone wants to know how your Tannoys compare....

--
Eiron.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:13:11 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Andy Evans wrote:

For years I've been using a single driver now (Monacor 130AL, aluminium
cone like a Jordan). Of course it's not perfect - bass is only just
there and treble could be better. That's the deal. But nevertheless I
add ribbon tweeters (Decca) and take them away. Yes, the ribbon sounds
better but the crossover doesn't.

So, what do you guys feel rocks your boat? Are you in the camp of full
frequency response or that of total integrity (or whatever words you
feel describes a single driver)?

As a reference, the best speakers I know are panels like Magneplanar or
even better Apogee - yes they have crossovers but the sound remains the
same top to bottom in terms of delicacy, so you have the "feel" of a
single driver.

If your drivers are up to the task, just use a first order crossover ( 6dB /
octave).

By its very nature it can't screw up. It will always give constant power and
pressure and eliminate any phase 'nasties'.

No, a singe order crossover can't be linear phase - you need at least
second order to achieve that.


To do it right you also need to compensate the drivers to amke their impedance
flat too btw.


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

That's what I'm afraid of - by using no crossover I avoid the "black
art" where a little learning can be a dangerous thing - drink deep, or
taste not the Pierian spring!

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.



The word 'professional' is a little misleading here - many classic
'homebrew' speakers are actually designs from highly capable and highly
qualified people, many of whom I am sure did not design speakers for a
living. It is also, I feel, a little unfair to suggest that well-known,
established designs didn't benefit from proper design and development
processes - I can't throw examples up without a lot of searching, but I am
aware that it is fairly common that many successful designs will have been
evolved over a great period of time, using sophisticated equipment
(including anechoic chambers) and undergone many refining processes such as
you describe. Then there is also the great likelihood of a raft of feedback
and improvement suggestions from a considerable number of people who will
have built a standard design and gone on to experiment with it - all the
(non professional) home builder has to do is be able to build strictly to
the design...!!

Speakers, like other 'homebrew products' also benefit from the freedom from
the constraints of cost-effectiveness and financial viability of
professionally/commercially produced items where, as we all know, much of
the component cost goes into the cosmetics. There is nothing cheap about
homebrew speakers, even if one is prepared to cost the comparatively
considerable effort of building them at nothing. What you do get, if you are
lucky, is a speaker that might well not have been too cheap to build, but
would have certainly cost a great deal more if it had been a commercial
product.

Mass-produced/commercial speakers will always offer more bang for your buck
and look better (if 'audio furniture' is your thing), but there is nothing
quite like the moment a box you have bashed together in your workshop
actually *speaks* to you for the first time - which is of course when they
will sound their worst, but it is better still when they continue to hold up
after a period of brutally honest comparison with available commercial
products!! :-)

(Having just done it, I can't think why on earth I bothered to type all of
that...??)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

That's what I'm afraid of - by using no crossover I avoid the "black
art" where a little learning can be a dangerous thing - drink deep, or
taste not the Pierian spring!



I know bugger-all about, it but crossovers aren't all that scary and you can
always get then 'made to order' if you don't fancy doing then yourself, but
the reason I don't like them (or correction networks) is because I think
that's where the harm is done, if you don't get them right. Earlier on Arny
pointed out problems at the 2 kHz point on a sample I posted, recorded from
a pair of commercial speakers I have here - how about that for being 'right
on the money'....???

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:05:34 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.



The word 'professional' is a little misleading here - many classic
'homebrew' speakers are actually designs from highly capable and highly
qualified people, many of whom I am sure did not design speakers for a
living. It is also, I feel, a little unfair to suggest that well-known,
established designs didn't benefit from proper design and development
processes - I can't throw examples up without a lot of searching, but I am
aware that it is fairly common that many successful designs will have been
evolved over a great period of time, using sophisticated equipment
(including anechoic chambers) and undergone many refining processes such as
you describe. Then there is also the great likelihood of a raft of feedback
and improvement suggestions from a considerable number of people who will
have built a standard design and gone on to experiment with it - all the
(non professional) home builder has to do is be able to build strictly to
the design...!!

Speakers, like other 'homebrew products' also benefit from the freedom from
the constraints of cost-effectiveness and financial viability of
professionally/commercially produced items where, as we all know, much of
the component cost goes into the cosmetics. There is nothing cheap about
homebrew speakers, even if one is prepared to cost the comparatively
considerable effort of building them at nothing. What you do get, if you are
lucky, is a speaker that might well not have been too cheap to build, but
would have certainly cost a great deal more if it had been a commercial
product.

Mass-produced/commercial speakers will always offer more bang for your buck
and look better (if 'audio furniture' is your thing), but there is nothing
quite like the moment a box you have bashed together in your workshop
actually *speaks* to you for the first time - which is of course when they
will sound their worst, but it is better still when they continue to hold up
after a period of brutally honest comparison with available commercial
products!! :-)

(Having just done it, I can't think why on earth I bothered to type all of
that...??)



Sure I would expect commercial kits to have undergone something like
the same sort of development as a factory-produced speaker - or a
published set of plans for that matter, although as these tend to come
from individuals rather than companies, the opportunities for foul-ups
must be greater.

As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:05:34 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


That is part of the art of speaker design. You start with the
theoretically correct values, then juggle them to make them work with
the real world impedances. Then you do a sensitivity analysis - that
is sensitivity of the design to variations in speaker and component
tolerance. Then you do a yield analysis to see how many will arrive
within spec, then you centre the design so that even if it isn't
perfect at nominal impedances, as a many as possible will pass spec.

That is why it is only the professionals who can afford to make many
models and even more measurements will ever be good at producing
decent speakers.



The word 'professional' is a little misleading here - many classic
'homebrew' speakers are actually designs from highly capable and highly
qualified people, many of whom I am sure did not design speakers for a
living. It is also, I feel, a little unfair to suggest that well-known,
established designs didn't benefit from proper design and development
processes - I can't throw examples up without a lot of searching, but I am
aware that it is fairly common that many successful designs will have been
evolved over a great period of time, using sophisticated equipment
(including anechoic chambers) and undergone many refining processes such
as
you describe. Then there is also the great likelihood of a raft of
feedback
and improvement suggestions from a considerable number of people who will
have built a standard design and gone on to experiment with it - all the
(non professional) home builder has to do is be able to build strictly to
the design...!!

Speakers, like other 'homebrew products' also benefit from the freedom
from
the constraints of cost-effectiveness and financial viability of
professionally/commercially produced items where, as we all know, much of
the component cost goes into the cosmetics. There is nothing cheap about
homebrew speakers, even if one is prepared to cost the comparatively
considerable effort of building them at nothing. What you do get, if you
are
lucky, is a speaker that might well not have been too cheap to build, but
would have certainly cost a great deal more if it had been a commercial
product.

Mass-produced/commercial speakers will always offer more bang for your
buck
and look better (if 'audio furniture' is your thing), but there is nothing
quite like the moment a box you have bashed together in your workshop
actually *speaks* to you for the first time - which is of course when they
will sound their worst, but it is better still when they continue to hold
up
after a period of brutally honest comparison with available commercial
products!! :-)

(Having just done it, I can't think why on earth I bothered to type all of
that...??)



Sure I would expect commercial kits to have undergone something like
the same sort of development as a factory-produced speaker - or a
published set of plans for that matter, although as these tend to come
from individuals rather than companies, the opportunities for foul-ups
must be greater.



I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with well-known,
established *designs* is that they will be very often built by people who
are much more likely to experiment (different drivers, tweaking crossovers -
if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a commercial speaker - the
'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would deter most people from
tampering, for a start!! Also the established designs very often have a
worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in touch with each other
(dedicated websites &c.), so the development potential is not
inconsiderable!!



As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)


I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most homebrew
speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I have built 6 pairs
now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:45:41 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with well-known,
established *designs* is that they will be very often built by people who
are much more likely to experiment (different drivers, tweaking crossovers -
if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a commercial speaker - the
'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would deter most people from
tampering, for a start!! Also the established designs very often have a
worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in touch with each other
(dedicated websites &c.), so the development potential is not
inconsiderable!!



As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)


I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most homebrew
speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I have built 6 pairs
now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....


But were your builds a developmental progression, examining the
shortcomings of previous models and redesigning the next to address
the details? Or have you just built a LOT of speakers? There is a big
difference. I mean, what is to say your second pair wasn't a whole lot
better than the fifth?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article .com,
Andy
Evans wrote:



Whenever I compared caps I found that - provided I avoided obviously
daft choices like cheap electrolytics of too low/variable a value -
no-one could actually tell one cap from another purely on sound.

I went through a few months of capacitor testing, and the teflon or
polystyrenes sounded consistently better to my ears, so since then I've
used them for all small values, and polypropylene for all larger values.

I recall hearing various similar comments from some of those who
subsequently failed to be able to hear any differences when they had only
the sounds to go on in the past. This was 20-odd years ago, though, so
perhaps ears have got better - or caps got worse - since then. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with
well-known, established *designs* is that they will be very often built
by people who are much more likely to experiment (different drivers,
tweaking crossovers - if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a
commercial speaker - the 'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would
deter most people from tampering, for a start!! Also the established
designs very often have a worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in
touch with each other (dedicated websites &c.), so the development
potential is not inconsiderable!!

Many of the very best commercial designs use carefully chosen and
controlled materials for the cabinets. The principle behind this is you
can't eliminate all resonances so incorporate them as part of the design.
The Spendor BC1 being a prime example - and it's by no means the only one.
The home maker simply hasn't the facilities for such choices - even MDF
varies from one maker to another.

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most
homebrew speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I
have built 6 pairs now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....


But were your builds a developmental progression, examining the
shortcomings of previous models and redesigning the next to address
the details? Or have you just built a LOT of speakers? There is a big
difference. I mean, what is to say your second pair wasn't a whole lot
better than the fifth?

It's what I find hard to accept from Mr G. As each speaker is completed
it's a breath of fresh air or whatever with all and sundry agreeing it's
the best thing they've ever heard. Only to be ousted by the next one which
follows in short order. ;-)

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

It's what I find hard to accept from Mr G. As each speaker is completed

it's a breath of fresh air or whatever with all and sundry agreeing
it's
the best thing they've ever heard. Only to be ousted by the next one
which
follows in short order. ;-)

Well, Keith's undeniable enthusiasm for life may be catching when
people visit. Or could be in the drinks cabinet - requires a steady
increase in the quality of the single malts. We must be up to
Lagavullin 18 years by now............

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:45:41 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with well-known,
established *designs* is that they will be very often built by people who
are much more likely to experiment (different drivers, tweaking
crossovers -
if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a commercial speaker - the
'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would deter most people from
tampering, for a start!! Also the established designs very often have a
worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in touch with each other
(dedicated websites &c.), so the development potential is not
inconsiderable!!



As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)


I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most homebrew
speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I have built 6
pairs
now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....


But were your builds a developmental progression, examining the
shortcomings of previous models and redesigning the next to address
the details? Or have you just built a LOT of speakers? There is a big
difference. I mean, what is to say your second pair wasn't a whole lot
better than the fifth?



No, 5 out of the 6 pairs I have built were well-established designs and I
built them strictly according to plan. The other pair were a 'tweaked'
version of an established/recommended design, but I don't have the
knowledge/time/inclination to experiment much, other than with wadding/or
not and different drivers. The structural variables are greater than my
ability to encompass them - old dog, new shoes &c. and happy enough to go
with the same wheel someone else has been using for a number of years...!!
(Different story if I was a lot younger and still had a brain that worked...
:-)

The speakers were not a definite progression in terms of effectiveness,
either - the very first pair still hold their own against the others but
they are too intrinsically different to make direct comparisons. Pair No. 4
have been booted out now as the least effective/useful (at least for the
moment) which is a nuisance as they the ones that have been heard most by a
few here. They only need a correction network but I'm resisting it as, like
I said to Andy, I can see it leading to endless tweaking and ****ing about
on a 'better or worse?' basis!! (Maybe later... ;-)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:29:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:45:41 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with well-known,
established *designs* is that they will be very often built by people who
are much more likely to experiment (different drivers, tweaking
crossovers -
if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a commercial speaker - the
'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would deter most people from
tampering, for a start!! Also the established designs very often have a
worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in touch with each other
(dedicated websites &c.), so the development potential is not
inconsiderable!!



As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)


I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most homebrew
speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I have built 6
pairs
now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....


But were your builds a developmental progression, examining the
shortcomings of previous models and redesigning the next to address
the details? Or have you just built a LOT of speakers? There is a big
difference. I mean, what is to say your second pair wasn't a whole lot
better than the fifth?



No, 5 out of the 6 pairs I have built were well-established designs and I
built them strictly according to plan. The other pair were a 'tweaked'
version of an established/recommended design, but I don't have the
knowledge/time/inclination to experiment much, other than with wadding/or
not and different drivers. The structural variables are greater than my
ability to encompass them - old dog, new shoes &c. and happy enough to go
with the same wheel someone else has been using for a number of years...!!
(Different story if I was a lot younger and still had a brain that worked...
:-)

The speakers were not a definite progression in terms of effectiveness,
either - the very first pair still hold their own against the others but
they are too intrinsically different to make direct comparisons. Pair No. 4
have been booted out now as the least effective/useful (at least for the
moment) which is a nuisance as they the ones that have been heard most by a
few here. They only need a correction network but I'm resisting it as, like
I said to Andy, I can see it leading to endless tweaking and ****ing about
on a 'better or worse?' basis!! (Maybe later... ;-)



Ah, so you have adopted the Taguchi method, whereby you change many
variables at once rather than just one at a time. It is a kind of
evolutionary system, but you have to be really ruthless in kicking out
the crap. :-)

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's what I find hard to accept from Mr G. As each speaker is completed

it's a breath of fresh air or whatever with all and sundry agreeing
it's
the best thing they've ever heard. Only to be ousted by the next one
which
follows in short order. ;-)

Well, Keith's undeniable enthusiasm for life may be catching when
people visit. Or could be in the drinks cabinet - requires a steady
increase in the quality of the single malts. We must be up to
Lagavullin 18 years by now............



Ignore Plowie, he's only repeating my reports of the *one* person (Pat the
****) who has been here for virtually every build has gone 'wow' and left
muttering that he will build a pair of the last speakers he's heard! (Only a
week or so ago, I gather P the T was borrowing a pair of LS 3/5As from
another regular visitor here and raving about them also - I don't think
he'll *ever* settle on a final pair!!)

I, OTOH, rarely give the game away with enthusiasm or otherwise - I have
been/was a very successful negotiator for a number of decades and know how
to 'work' a situation to get to whatever reality there may be in it! In the
case of the speakers, trust me - I am more interested in hearing what people
*really* think than pushing my own opinion on to them!

(Hint: I have never yet *sold* a pair of speakers! ;-)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:29:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:45:41 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with
well-known,
established *designs* is that they will be very often built by people
who
are much more likely to experiment (different drivers, tweaking
crossovers -
if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a commercial speaker -
the
'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would deter most people from
tampering, for a start!! Also the established designs very often have a
worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in touch with each other
(dedicated websites &c.), so the development potential is not
inconsiderable!!



As for the total homebrew, of course, you are in the lap of the gods,
but your critical faculties might be delayed just a bit before
springing into action ;-)


I'm sure 'builder's blindness' comes into the equation, but most
homebrew
speaker builders don't stop at just the one pair - even I have built 6
pairs
now and am well aware of how they stack up/compare!!

Sack time now.....


But were your builds a developmental progression, examining the
shortcomings of previous models and redesigning the next to address
the details? Or have you just built a LOT of speakers? There is a big
difference. I mean, what is to say your second pair wasn't a whole lot
better than the fifth?



No, 5 out of the 6 pairs I have built were well-established designs and I
built them strictly according to plan. The other pair were a 'tweaked'
version of an established/recommended design, but I don't have the
knowledge/time/inclination to experiment much, other than with wadding/or
not and different drivers. The structural variables are greater than my
ability to encompass them - old dog, new shoes &c. and happy enough to go
with the same wheel someone else has been using for a number of years...!!
(Different story if I was a lot younger and still had a brain that
worked...
:-)

The speakers were not a definite progression in terms of effectiveness,
either - the very first pair still hold their own against the others but
they are too intrinsically different to make direct comparisons. Pair No.
4
have been booted out now as the least effective/useful (at least for the
moment) which is a nuisance as they the ones that have been heard most by
a
few here. They only need a correction network but I'm resisting it as,
like
I said to Andy, I can see it leading to endless tweaking and ****ing about
on a 'better or worse?' basis!! (Maybe later... ;-)



Ah, so you have adopted the Taguchi method, whereby you change many
variables at once rather than just one at a time. It is a kind of
evolutionary system, but you have to be really ruthless in kicking out
the crap. :-)



Sure, but the 'freedom' exists in there being no constraints of expectation,
so they can be kicked out without too much stress if necessary.

Your advice to the poster Sharad (way above) is perfectly correct, but the
alternative would work just as well: Buy a pair of stunning-looking speakers
that you really can *not* afford (divorce-inducing) with a truly 'world
class' name (Bosendorfer, Sonus Faber, Wilson &c.) and learn to ignore their
shortcomings - just like you would with a pair of cardboard Wharfedales, if
you had more sense than money....!!

It's like with cars, throughout my life, I have preferred to buy an enormous
number of totally different cars (more out of curiosity than anything else)
than try and work through 'improved' variants of the same make/model..!!
(With a V12 Jag at the 'top' of the list, I guess, all I would say is the
'best' cars have not been the *best* cars*..!! ;-)

Most successful make of car in my life..? - Suzuki, without a doubt, but I
wouldn't want one now.....

(Swim, OTOH, had had the same car for at least 15 years and won't be parted
from it!)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with
well-known, established *designs* is that they will be very often built
by people who are much more likely to experiment (different drivers,
tweaking crossovers - if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a
commercial speaker - the 'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would
deter most people from tampering, for a start!! Also the established
designs very often have a worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in
touch with each other (dedicated websites &c.), so the development
potential is not inconsiderable!!

Many of the very best commercial designs use carefully chosen and
controlled materials for the cabinets. The principle behind this is you
can't eliminate all resonances so incorporate them as part of the design.
The Spendor BC1 being a prime example - and it's by no means the only one.
The home maker simply hasn't the facilities for such choices - even MDF
varies from one maker to another.


Hmm...

I thought you were too busy to reply to my crap....??

Anyway, do stop trying to make yourself look good by telling me stuff I (and
most everyone else here) already know - I'm well aware of the different
approaches to cabinet resonances adopted by different makers and have even
had a pair of 'thinwall' Rogers BBC Studio Monitors here, myself. I've told
you before (only recently) - there's nothing you know that I either don't
know already or need to know, OK?

As to consistency of components and materials used in speaker manufacturer -
tell me you *wouldn't* prefer a pair of speakers with consecutive serial
numbers....??

(But then, I don't even need to know that....!! :-)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I have reservations about 'commercial kits' but the point with
well-known, established *designs* is that they will be very often built
by people who are much more likely to experiment (different drivers,
tweaking crossovers - if nothing else) than people who just scoop up a
commercial speaker - the 'cabinet finish' of a commercial speaker would
deter most people from tampering, for a start!! Also the established
designs very often have a worldwide following of enthusiasts who are in
touch with each other (dedicated websites &c.), so the development
potential is not inconsiderable!!
Many of the very best commercial designs use carefully chosen and
controlled materials for the cabinets. The principle behind this is you
can't eliminate all resonances so incorporate them as part of the design.
The Spendor BC1 being a prime example - and it's by no means the only one.
The home maker simply hasn't the facilities for such choices - even MDF
varies from one maker to another.


Hmm...

I thought you were too busy to reply to my crap....??

Anyway, do stop trying to make yourself look good by telling me stuff I (and
most everyone else here) already know - I'm well aware of the different
approaches to cabinet resonances adopted by different makers and have even
had a pair of 'thinwall' Rogers BBC Studio Monitors here, myself. I've told
you before (only recently) - there's nothing you know that I either don't
know already or need to know, OK?

As to consistency of components and materials used in speaker manufacturer -
tell me you *wouldn't* prefer a pair of speakers with consecutive serial
numbers....??

(But then, I don't even need to know that....!! :-)



Keith,

You own a pair of Rogers BBC studio Monitors and you're persisting with
your single driver horns?

Staggered

S.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:08:20 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Ah, so you have adopted the Taguchi method, whereby you change many
variables at once rather than just one at a time. It is a kind of
evolutionary system, but you have to be really ruthless in kicking out
the crap. :-)



Sure, but the 'freedom' exists in there being no constraints of expectation,
so they can be kicked out without too much stress if necessary.

Your advice to the poster Sharad (way above) is perfectly correct, but the
alternative would work just as well: Buy a pair of stunning-looking speakers
that you really can *not* afford (divorce-inducing) with a truly 'world
class' name (Bosendorfer, Sonus Faber, Wilson &c.) and learn to ignore their
shortcomings - just like you would with a pair of cardboard Wharfedales, if
you had more sense than money....!!


Well I have my Sonus Fabers (Amator), and I listen to them with no
sense of any shortcomings I have to ignore. They are by now
seamlessly integrated with the sub, so all I have to do is switch on
and start listening.

It's like with cars, throughout my life, I have preferred to buy an enormous
number of totally different cars (more out of curiosity than anything else)
than try and work through 'improved' variants of the same make/model..!!
(With a V12 Jag at the 'top' of the list, I guess, all I would say is the
'best' cars have not been the *best* cars*..!! ;-)


I've had my share too - I used to go rallying in mki Escorts (RS1600
era) and I've been through the usual suspects since. But I'm happiest
with my current car which I've owned longer than any other - Audi S4
Avant (the Avant bit is the key).

Most successful make of car in my life..? - Suzuki, without a doubt, but I
wouldn't want one now.....

(Swim, OTOH, had had the same car for at least 15 years and won't be parted
from it!)



Like an old pair of slippers!

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
(Hint: I have never yet *sold* a pair of speakers! ;-)

Set the reserve lower then. Even firewood has a value.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Ignore Plowie, he's only repeating my reports of the *one* person (Pat
the ****) who has been here for virtually every build has gone 'wow'
and left muttering that he will build a pair of the last speakers he's
heard!

Your memory must be playing tricks.

Somewhere in the depths of that email prog you don't understand there
should be a log of all the posts you've sent. Try reading them again.
You've mentioned all sorts of people being amazed by your latest creation.
Be it speaker, amp or whatever.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote

Keith,

You own a pair of Rogers BBC studio Monitors and you're persisting with
your single driver horns?

Staggered


Why?

The SMs were fine (I thought so - others were not so impressed) but they had
a problem - one of the bass drivers rubbed and I couldn't cure it with
rotating it, so I swapped it with the already-mentioned P the T for a pair
of B&W DM2As which are what got me into TL/'horn' speakers. (Dave at DK
Loudspeakers was quoting about 140 quid to do both bass units at the time
and also bitching about the build quality of SF speakers...) He couldn't
cure them either, so he ended up putting them in a local auction and got 20
quid for them. They turned up on eBay (someone emailed me) and went for 352
quid....!!

(We don't call him P the T for nothing!! ;-)

But what bothers me is the 'they are Rogers, so they *must* be good*
implication here....??

Now, I mentioned how 'topical' this group always seems to be - I've just now
had this spam in:

------------------------------------------------------------------

" Almost welcome to the [DOMAIN] mailinglist.

Someone, hopefully you, has subscribed your email address to our
mailinglist.

If this is correct, please click the following link to confirm your
subscription.

Without this confirmation, you will not receive any newsletters.

https://secure.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/...b680d60715b95e

If this is not correct, you do not need to do anything, simply delete
this message.

Thank you"

-------------------------------------------------------------

See what I mean?

:-)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote

Keith,

You own a pair of Rogers BBC studio Monitors and you're persisting with
your single driver horns?

Staggered


Why?

The SMs were fine (I thought so - others were not so impressed) but they had
a problem - one of the bass drivers rubbed and I couldn't cure it with
rotating it, so I swapped it with the already-mentioned P the T for a pair
of B&W DM2As which are what got me into TL/'horn' speakers. (Dave at DK
Loudspeakers was quoting about 140 quid to do both bass units at the time
and also bitching about the build quality of SF speakers...) He couldn't
cure them either, so he ended up putting them in a local auction and got 20
quid for them. They turned up on eBay (someone emailed me) and went for 352
quid....!!

(We don't call him P the T for nothing!! ;-)

But what bothers me is the 'they are Rogers, so they *must* be good*
implication here....??

What I meant was that all the BBC monitor 'speakers were excellent,
considering the application they were intended for. No, I've never liked
the LS3/5A for music, not enough bass, top or loudness, but perfect for
speech monitoring in OB vans. The larger BBC monitors, I would have
thought, would be perfect for your taste in music, leaning to the
classical, and from vinyl.


Now, I mentioned how 'topical' this group always seems to be - I've just now
had this spam in:

------------------------------------------------------------------

" Almost welcome to the [DOMAIN] mailinglist.

Someone, hopefully you, has subscribed your email address to our
mailinglist.

If this is correct, please click the following link to confirm your
subscription.

Without this confirmation, you will not receive any newsletters.

https://secure.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/...b680d60715b95e

If this is not correct, you do not need to do anything, simply delete
this message.

Thank you"

-------------------------------------------------------------

See what I mean?

:-)

Funny how that happens. By the way, with your considerable woodworking
skills, I thought you might like to have a go at a pair of transmission
line 'speakers. They'll need a bit more welly than your horns, but you
should find the bass smoother and treble less "crunchy"

S.

S.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Ignore Plowie, he's only repeating my reports of the *one* person (Pat
the ****) who has been here for virtually every build has gone 'wow'
and left muttering that he will build a pair of the last speakers he's
heard!

Your memory must be playing tricks.

Somewhere in the depths of that email prog you don't understand there
should be a log of all the posts you've sent. Try reading them again.
You've mentioned all sorts of people being amazed by your latest creation.
Be it speaker, amp or whatever.



I've only ever posted like it *is* (or was) and I'm sure many here have
quietly larfed their arses off - the difference betwen them and you is that
it doesn't seem to bother them as much...??

(But then, they probably don't consider that the entire world is sitting,
waiting with baited breath, for their *wisdom*....?? ;-)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Many of the very best commercial designs use carefully chosen and
controlled materials for the cabinets. The principle behind this is
you can't eliminate all resonances so incorporate them as part of the
design. The Spendor BC1 being a prime example - and it's by no means
the only one. The home maker simply hasn't the facilities for such
choices - even MDF varies from one maker to another.


Hmm...

I thought you were too busy to reply to my crap....??

You need to try reading what is said rather than assuming. I was too busy
to do more than skim through your tracts. They tend to be very long...

Anyway, do stop trying to make yourself look good by telling me stuff I
(and most everyone else here) already know - I'm well aware of the
different approaches to cabinet resonances adopted by different makers
and have even had a pair of 'thinwall' Rogers BBC Studio Monitors here,
myself. I've told you before (only recently) - there's nothing you know
that I either don't know already or need to know, OK?

Please realise that posts on here aren't just to you personally. They are
a contribution to a general debate. As I've said before, it isn't your
personal group - much as you wish it was or try and make it.

As to consistency of components and materials used in speaker
manufacturer - tell me you *wouldn't* prefer a pair of speakers with
consecutive serial numbers....??

You clearly haven't seen decent speakers being made.

(But then, I don't even need to know that....!! :-)

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
You own a pair of Rogers BBC studio Monitors and you're persisting with
your single driver horns?

Staggered

It's sort of been my point all along. You name an industry 'standard' and
Mr G has owned it and said it's crap. So his home brew must be very
powerful stuff. ;-)

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
What I meant was that all the BBC monitor 'speakers were excellent,
considering the application they were intended for. No, I've never liked
the LS3/5A for music, not enough bass, top or loudness, but perfect for
speech monitoring in OB vans.

For domestic use I'd describe them as ideal bedroom speakers. They acquit
themselves well on all types of music as well as speech - at low to
moderate levels. But they do seem to need a decent amp to drive them -
perhaps more so than other similar sized/power handling designs.

The larger BBC monitors, I would have thought, would be perfect for
your taste in music, leaning to the classical, and from vinyl.

I'm sticking with my 5/8s till something better comes along.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote

Keith,

You own a pair of Rogers BBC studio Monitors and you're persisting with
your single driver horns?

Staggered


Why?

The SMs were fine (I thought so - others were not so impressed) but they
had a problem - one of the bass drivers rubbed and I couldn't cure it
with rotating it, so I swapped it with the already-mentioned P the T for
a pair of B&W DM2As which are what got me into TL/'horn' speakers. (Dave
at DK Loudspeakers was quoting about 140 quid to do both bass units at
the time and also bitching about the build quality of SF speakers...) He
couldn't cure them either, so he ended up putting them in a local auction
and got 20 quid for them. They turned up on eBay (someone emailed me) and
went for 352 quid....!!

(We don't call him P the T for nothing!! ;-)

But what bothers me is the 'they are Rogers, so they *must* be good*
implication here....??

What I meant was that all the BBC monitor 'speakers were excellent,
considering the application they were intended for. No, I've never liked
the LS3/5A for music, not enough bass, top or loudness, but perfect for
speech monitoring in OB vans. The larger BBC monitors, I would have
thought, would be perfect for your taste in music, leaning to the
classical, and from vinyl.


I said I *did* like them (lovely top end) but the rasping bass couldn't be
ignored. The strange thing is nobody else liked them much, it seems!!??

Mark Hennessy still has them on his website - scroll down about halfway
he

http://www.mhennessy1.f9.co.uk/rogers/others.htm

until you hit the speaker standing on our ratty old kitchen table (my indoor
workbench) and a photo of the serial plate and you will see the innards with
the loopy great crossovers I mentioned the other day!

Also plenty of other good stuff about Rogers he

http://www.mhennessy1.f9.co.uk/rogers/index.htm


snip WA spam


See what I mean?

:-)

Funny how that happens.



Funnier still is that Nick emailed me to say anybody clicking on the link
would subscribe me - moments *after* another WA email to tell me I *was*
subscribed!! :-)

(I wonder who it was...?? :-)



By the way, with your considerable woodworking
skills, I thought you might like to have a go at a pair of transmission
line 'speakers. They'll need a bit more welly than your horns, but you
should find the bass smoother and treble less "crunchy"


See previous - the speakers that got me into it all were the dreadfully
insensitive DM2As, but they were fine on the triodes in my small room!
However, a pair of summat different is in the offing for the new year, when
I can slide them into my (greatly restricted) spending schedule!! (Even 'in
valves' I can lay 60 wpc to a pair of speakers!!)

What's your view of speaker crossovers?
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
What I meant was that all the BBC monitor 'speakers were excellent,
considering the application they were intended for. No, I've never liked
the LS3/5A for music, not enough bass, top or loudness, but perfect for
speech monitoring in OB vans.

For domestic use I'd describe them as ideal bedroom speakers. They acquit
themselves well on all types of music as well as speech - at low to
moderate levels. But they do seem to need a decent amp to drive them -
perhaps more so than other similar sized/power handling designs.

I'm surprised at this comment as I thought they were an easy load, and
would work on most things. I've heard them on countless HH Electronics
amps (seems to have been a BH standard issue) Quad 303s and even the
occasional Quad II. I understand what you mean as ideal bedroom
'speakers, I suppose they would be pretty good for that. I did once do a
demo at NTL's Croydon facility where they provide a pair of LS3/5As with
their add-on subwoofer. That was actually a rather nice combination, and
made them much more universal in application.


The larger BBC monitors, I would have thought, would be perfect for
your taste in music, leaning to the classical, and from vinyl.

I'm sticking with my 5/8s till something better comes along.


You may have to wait a long time.

S.