Re: "Competent design"

[Bob-Stanton]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> I have read in many posts that once an electronic audio component
> reaches a certain level any further improvement is inaudible. Not a point
> of diminishing return, but a definite point of no further improvement.
> Apparently these are knowns, but I have not seen much in the way of
> specifics about these on RAHE. Or possibly they are old news and have been
> well documented in previous discussions.
> Is anyone willing and able to describe some criteria for determining at
> least the general vicinity of this point ?

I will throw out some criteria, everyone is welcome to disagree with
me.

Signal to Noise ratio: That is fairly easy to determine, for yourself,
by listening to test a CD, with various white noise levels. White
noise of -60 dB begins to be difficult to hear. I find white noise of
-80 db inaudible. 16 bit CD's have a white noise less than -90 dB.

Harmonic and Intermodulation Distortion: If you can find his posts, I
remember John Dunlavy writing that tests showed -90 dB beat levels
were inaudible.

I would say that as a general rule, if the beats created by any
combination of three test tones are < -90 dB, than the distortion
created by a music signal is inaudible.

Flatness: +/- 0.5 dB flatness (from 20 Hz to 20 kHz) is the point of
inaudibiliy.

Jitter: Some CD's may have more jitter than cheap CD players can
correct. Work needs to be done to determine the level of audibility
for jitter.

Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
ringing.

Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
players, that should be the required standard.

Loudspeaker Polar Response: No one seems to know the ideal polar
response for a loudspeaker. Since each living room is different, there
may never be an answer to this question.

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message


> I have read in many posts that once an electronic audio component
> reaches a certain level any further improvement is inaudible. Not a
> point of diminishing return, but a definite point of no further
> improvement. Apparently these are knowns, but I have not seen much
> in the way of specifics about these on RAHE. Or possibly they are old
> news and have been well documented in previous discussions.

> Is anyone willing and able to describe some criteria for
> determining at least the general vicinity of this point ?

AFAIK, some time ago, Jim Johnston of AT&T labs (IMO highly conservatively)
put the point of non-existent returns at -100 dB. This corresponds to 0.001%
distortion.

IME, when frequency response is +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz and all forms of
nonlinear distortion are below 0.01% (as equipment is actually used)
hearing differences due to that equipment in even critical studio or home
use is impossible.

As a practical matter, 0.3 dB frequency response variations and 0.1%
nonlinear distortion is generally impossible to hear in typical home or
studio use.

In casual listening, 1 dB frequency response variations and 1% nonlinear
distortion will usually pass for sonically perfect.

[Wylie Williams]

"Joseph Oberlander" asked
> For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
> headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
> an A/V receiver.
>
> Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
> compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
> has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
> 20+ years.
>
Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system components
are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume there
is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend more
and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an AV
receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?

Wylie Williams

[Joseph Oberlander]

Wylie Williams wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" asked
>
>>For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
>>headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
>>an A/V receiver.
>>
>>Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
>>compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
>>has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
>>20+ years.
>>
>
> Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system components
> are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume there
> is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
> call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend more
> and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
> Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
> wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.

> If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
> to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an AV
> receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?

In theory, yes. OTOH, components in the vintage gear degrade like
anything in life, so you'd have to spend some money overhauling it
to get that level of sound. It's usually less expensive to just get
a used Bryston or simmilar quality amp a few years old.

[Wylie Williams]

"Arny Krueger" wrote
> AFAIK, some time ago, Jim Johnston of AT&T labs (IMO highly
conservatively)
> put the point of non-existent returns at -100 dB. This corresponds to
0.001%
> distortion.
>
> IME, when frequency response is +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz and all forms of
> nonlinear distortion are below 0.01% (as equipment is actually used)
> hearing differences due to that equipment in even critical studio or home
> use is impossible.
>
> As a practical matter, 0.3 dB frequency response variations and 0.1%
> nonlinear distortion is generally impossible to hear in typical home or
> studio use.
>
> In casual listening, 1 dB frequency response variations and 1% nonlinear
> distortion will usually pass for sonically perfect.

Arny,

Thanks for the information. It's beginning to look like the main concern
would be deciding how much power is needed.

Wylie Williams

>
>

[james mitchell]

> Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
> and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
> and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
> have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
> ringing.
>
> Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
> players, that should be the required standard.

I'm not sure how useful the squarewave test is with amplifiers and CD
players. Stereophile does a test on components with a 10kHz squarewave. A
component's transient response is mainly a test of it's bandwidth. The
frequency response of a 10 kHz squarewave has significant energy out to 100
kHz (10kHz fundamental, 30kHz, 50kHz, 70kHz,....). Whether the component
has the bandwidth to reproduce these harmonics seems pointless since your
ear will just filter them out anyway.

[Nousaine]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

>Wylie Williams wrote:
>> "Joseph Oberlander" asked
>>
>>>For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
>>>headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
>>>an A/V receiver.
>>>
>>>Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
>>>compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
>>>has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
>>>20+ years.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system
>components
>> are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume
>there
>> is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
>> call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend
>more
>> and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
>> Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
>> wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.
>
>Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
>you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
>you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.

Actually, IME this is simply not true. The MORE you spend the LESS LIKELY
you'll have a trouble-free component.

>
>> If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
>> to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an AV
>> receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?
>
>In theory, yes. OTOH, components in the vintage gear degrade like
>anything in life, so you'd have to spend some money overhauling it
>to get that level of sound.

Sure and the expensive components sound exactly like the cheaper stuff AND tend
to be less reliable.

It's usually less expensive to just get
>a used Bryston or simmilar quality amp a few years old.

I own 4 Bryston amplifiers and they have been the MOST unreliable of the dozen
in my stable.

[Gary Rosen]

"james mitchell" > wrote in message
...
> > Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
> > and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
> > and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
> > have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
> > ringing.
> >
> > Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
> > players, that should be the required standard.
>
> I'm not sure how useful the squarewave test is with amplifiers and CD
> players. Stereophile does a test on components with a 10kHz squarewave.
A
> component's transient response is mainly a test of it's bandwidth. The
> frequency response of a 10 kHz squarewave has significant energy out to
100
> kHz (10kHz fundamental, 30kHz, 50kHz, 70kHz,....). Whether the component
> has the bandwidth to reproduce these harmonics seems pointless since your
> ear will just filter them out anyway.

But not the ears of Stereophile's readers! :^)

- Gary Rosen

[Richard D Pierce]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
...
> Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
> and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
> and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker systems
> have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of audibility for
> ringing.
>
> Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
> players, that should be the required standard.

Really? Square waves have no ringing on CDs? What would Mr.
Gibbs have to say?

I think you seriously have to reconsider this claim in light of
what happens to harmonic seies like square waves that undergo
abrupt truncation.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Wylie Williams]

In response to Wylie Williams statement
>>. I want to decide whether my stereo system components
> > are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume
there
> > is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
> > call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend
more
> > and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid
speakers.
> > Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
> > wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

Mr Oberlander replied
> Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
> you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
> you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.

I am surprised that just from reading the phrase "entry level high end" you
would be able to say that it is better than I "can likely hear differences
in".

Wylie Williams

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:JnGXa.68209$o%2.33604@sccrnsc02

>> AFAIK, some time ago, Jim Johnston of AT&T labs (IMO highly
>> conservatively) put the point of non-existent returns at -100 dB.
>> This corresponds to 0.001% distortion.

>> IME, when frequency response is +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz and all forms of
>> nonlinear distortion are below 0.01% (as equipment is actually used)
>> hearing differences due to that equipment in even critical studio or
>> home use is impossible.

>> As a practical matter, 0.3 dB frequency response variations and 0.1%
>> nonlinear distortion is generally impossible to hear in typical home
>> or studio use.

>> In casual listening, 1 dB frequency response variations and 1%
>> nonlinear distortion will usually pass for sonically perfect.

> Thanks for the information. It's beginning to look like the main
> concern would be deciding how much power is needed.

Yes, you want to avoid clipping. I see the business of buying power amps as
being a three step process.

(1) First one disabuses oneself of the idea that there are *magic* power
amps, IOW one needs to unlearn the idea that there is some indefinable
something that makes one magic power amp sound a lot better than lesser amps
that look similar on paper. The ultimate sin is not failing to buy that one
good-sounding power amp in the whole universe.

(2) Then one realizes that ultimate sin is instead, running out of power.

(3) Sometimes one finds that having a power amp that is so powerful that it
makes destroying speakers too easy can be a bad thing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> M2CW.
>
> "Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
> >...
>>> I have read in many posts that once an electronic audio component
>>> reaches a certain level any further improvement is inaudible. Not
>>> a point of diminishing return, but a definite point of no further
>>> improvement. Apparently these are knowns, but I have not seen much
>>> in the way of specifics about these on RAHE. Or possibly they are
>>> old news and have been well documented in previous discussions.
>>> Is anyone willing and able to describe some criteria for
>>> determining at least the general vicinity of this point ?
>>
>> I will throw out some criteria, everyone is welcome to disagree with
>> me.
>>
>> Signal to Noise ratio: That is fairly easy to determine, for
>> yourself, by listening to test a CD, with various white noise
>> levels. White noise of -60 dB begins to be difficult to hear. I
>> find white noise of
>> -80 db inaudible. 16 bit CD's have a white noise less than -90 dB.
>>
>> Harmonic and Intermodulation Distortion: If you can find his posts, I
>> remember John Dunlavy writing that tests showed -90 dB beat levels
>> were inaudible.
>>
>> I would say that as a general rule, if the beats created by any
>> combination of three test tones are < -90 dB, than the distortion
>> created by a music signal is inaudible.
>>
>> Flatness: +/- 0.5 dB flatness (from 20 Hz to 20 kHz) is the point of
>> inaudibiliy.

> I'd tighten this up to +/- 0.25 dB

I agree with that if we allow the deviations from flatness to be arbitrary.
IOW if the response spec allows 0.5 dB deviations over a few octaves in the
midrange, then there will be audible coloration.

OTOH, nobody is going to hear 0.5 dB down at 20 Khz or 20 Hz when the range
in between is smooth and flat, as it often is.

>> Jitter: Some CD's may have more jitter than cheap CD players can
>> correct. Work needs to be done to determine the level of audibility
>> for jitter.

> Yep, but I bet we find audibility at very low levels.

The classic AES conference paper from Dolby labs was quite thorough, and
says the exact opposite.

>> Transient Response: When tested with a squarewave, some amplifiers,
>> and most loudspeakers overshoot and ring to a stop. With amplifiers
>> and CD players the ringing can be zero. Only a few loudspeaker
>> systems have near zero ringing. I don't know the threshold of
>> audibility for ringing.

The ear tolerates ringing quite well partially since most musical
instruments right LOTS, and what's a little more ringing when there's
already so much in the source material?

>> Since overshoot and ringing can be near zero for amplifiers and CD
>> players, that should be the required standard.

In practice, violent overkill.

>> Loudspeaker Polar Response: No one seems to know the ideal polar
>> response for a loudspeaker. Since each living room is different,
>> there may never be an answer to this question.

> Frequency response?

Very meaningful, both on and off axis.

> Time-Alignment?

Nearly irrelevant, except as it affects frequency response.

> Phase linearity?

See above.

> Power-handling (in spl) at various frequencies and linearity of same.

Meaningful, but an area where the ear is remarkably tolerant because music
is full of harmonics.

[Bob-Stanton]

"james mitchell" > wrote in message

> I'm not sure how useful the squarewave test is with amplifiers and CD
> players. Stereophile does a test on components with a 10kHz squarewave. A
> component's transient response is mainly a test of it's bandwidth. The
> frequency response of a 10 kHz squarewave has significant energy out to 100
> kHz (10kHz fundamental, 30kHz, 50kHz, 70kHz,....). Whether the component
> has the bandwidth to reproduce these harmonics seems pointless since your
> ear will just filter them out anyway.

Yes, I agree, Sterofile's test signal as you discribed it, would be
inapproiate for testing CD players and amplifiers. A better test
signal would be a 200 Hz squarewave with odd harmonics that extend
only up to 20,200 Hz (the the 101th harmonic).

(A squarewave test signal that abruptly eliminates harmonics above a
certain frequency has in itself ringing, caused by "Gibbs" effect.
But, Gibbs effect can be eliminated, with a Gusssian rolloff of the
harmonics. The result is a "squarewave", with a finite rise time,
slightly rounded corners, and no ringing.)

When a CD player or amplifier is tested with this kind of squarewave,
any ringing seen, would caused by the the CD player's or amplifier's
characteristics in the audio band.

Bob Stanton

[All Ears]

-snip-
>
> Thanks for the information. It's beginning to look like the main concern
> would be deciding how much power is needed.
>
> Wylie Williams

Well Wylie, does this really correspond with your experience in the
business?

KE

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tom Nousaine wrote:

>Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> >Wylie Williams wrote:
>>> "Joseph Oberlander" asked
>>>
>>>>For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
>>>>headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
>>>>an A/V receiver.
>>>>
>>>>Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
>>>>compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
>>>>has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
>>>>20+ years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system
>>components
>>> are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume
>>there
>>> is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
>>> call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend
>>more
>>> and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid
>speakers.
>>> Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
>>> wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.
>>
>>Sound quality(sans speakers) of your system at your level is better than
>>you can likely hear differences in. What spending more money really buys
>>you is durability and headroom for tough music/parties, and build quality.
>
>Actually, IME this is simply not true. The MORE you spend the LESS LIKELY
>you'll have a trouble-free component.
>
>>
>>> If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
>>> to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving. Or I could buy an
>AV
>>> receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping. Who knows?
>>
>>In theory, yes. OTOH, components in the vintage gear degrade like
>>anything in life, so you'd have to spend some money overhauling it
>>to get that level of sound.
>
>Sure and the expensive components sound exactly like the cheaper stuff AND
>tend
>to be less reliable.
>
>It's usually less expensive to just get
>>a used Bryston or simmilar quality amp a few years old.
>
>I own 4 Bryston amplifiers and they have been the MOST unreliable of the
>dozen
>in my stable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To what do you attrribute that relative lack of reliability? Does the fact
that you *might* use the Brystons more than the average audiophile would, given
your occupational requirements, have anything to do with this? Note that I am
*not* claiming this is the case; I'm just wondering. Also, in comparing, e.g.
amplifiers, of different price points, for long-term reliability, have you
controlled for such possible confounding variables as number of hours used
and/or *type* of usage (e.g. into relatively benign or demanding speaker
loads). I would think that these variables, among others, I'm sure, could have
some bearing on the long-term durability of any product.

Bruce J. Richman

[Joseph Oberlander]

Wylie Williams wrote:

> I am surprised that just from reading the phrase "entry level high end" you
> would be able to say that it is better than I "can likely hear differences
> in".

I'm assuming you have something ccomparable to a NAD or Rotel or maybe a
notch above that.

With normal speakers and listening volumes, you'll never really hear the
differences, though you may swear you really do(ie - it's your mind playing
more $$=better sound tricks on you). Extremely difficult speakers like
Martin Logans and such of course, will tax any amplifier. A pair of
Joseph Audio or Tannoy or simmilar speakers? No problem at all for most
100wpc or so amplifiers.

Of course, change to better speakers... Watch your eyes open wide at how
much it immediately improves. You are far better off auditioning speakers
in your home first - because you'll get far more improvement for your
money here than by a few percentages here and there by replacing components.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message


> To what do you attribute that relative lack of reliability?

Design.

> Does
> the fact that you *might* use the Britons more than the average
> audiophile would, given your occupational requirements, have anything
> to do with this?

SS amps should and IME do run 24/7 for years. I've got a pair of Dyna 400s
that still meet spec, bought in 1975. One is 100% original and the other had
a few small parts changed. I have a 100% original Dyna ST-120 that still
meets original spec!

>Note that I am *not* claiming this is the case; I'm just wondering.

Note that Tom has a number of other SS amps that still run great.

>Also, in comparing, a.go. amplifiers, of different
> price points, for long-term reliability, have you controlled for such
> possible confounding variables as number of hours used and/or *type*
> of usage (a.go. into relatively benign or demanding speaker loads). I
> would think that these variables, among others, I'm sure, could have
> some bearing on the long-term durability of any product.

If you want a good reliable SS amp you buy from people like Crown and QSC,
you don't spend anything like top dollar, and you get sound as good as the
best for years and years and yes even after some pretty severe abuse.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:UDkYa.56394$Oz4.14859@rwcrnsc54
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>> (1) First one disabuses oneself of the idea that there are *magic*
>> power amps, IOW one needs to unlearn the idea that there is some
>> indefinable something that makes one magic power amp sound a lot
>> better than lesser amps that look similar on paper. The ultimate sin
>> is not failing to buy that one
>> good-sounding power amp in the whole universe.

>> (2) Then one realizes that ultimate sin is instead, running out of
>> power.

>> (3) Sometimes one finds that having a power amp that is so powerful
>> that makes destroying speakers too easy can be a bad thing.

> My experience with the general public was that low power amps
> operated into distortion/clipping are responsible for the vast
> majority of speaker destruction.

IME, nothing fries speakers like a fool and a really powerful amp. I think
that the real problem is that people listen while drinking and partying and
just get carried away.

In these later days, just about every stereo receiver puts out 80-100 wpc,
which is hard for me to characterize as being low-powered.

> Is this applicable to high end systems? Not in my experience, as
> audiophiles are usually too particular to operate their systems this
> way. And they have enough power to more or less satisfy their SPL
> desires without damaging speakers. But then I ran a mostly mid fi
> store, so maybe others with more audiophile experience will
> contradict this.

IME speakers have a built-in protection mechanism if they get really loud
before they become damaged.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
et

>> SS amps should and IME do run 24/7 for years. I've got a pair of
>> Dyna 400s that still meet spec, bought in 1975. One is 100% original
>> and the other had a few small parts changed. I have a 100% original
>> Dyna ST-120 that still meets original spec!

> Of all the SS amps you would hope to fail. I think these might
> be at the top of the list. To think of poor people having listened
> to these for years and years fills me with pity and horror.

Frankly, on the bench it's not that bad-sounding of an amp if its in good
shape. I should put some files from it up on www.pcabx.com. I think many
people would be surprised. I think that since it was fragile, a lot of
people ended up listening to broken ones.

[Dennis Moore]

Well Arny you may be right. The 400 I heard, and the three
120's I have heard sure sounded broken. Badly broken. Then
again a few minutes of them and my ears felt broken.

Besides, I thought you were going to run signals for your web
site through the up to spec 120 and put it on for us to hear some
time ago. If you cannot pick that 120 out using your pcabx
software, I would have to declare the whole abx thing of limited
usefulness. Unless you can show us a typically broken 120 for
comparison. Because besides sounding broken all three 120's
I listened to sounded the same. I cringe thinking of the sound
of those things even thinking about it.

Dennis

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message news:U1uYa.88798$o
> Frankly, on the bench it's not that bad-sounding of an amp if its in good
> shape. I should put some files from it up on www.pcabx.com. I think many
> people would be surprised. I think that since it was fragile, a lot of
> people ended up listening to broken ones.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
news:XmFYa.61927$cF.21453@rwcrnsc53

> Well Arny you may be right. The 400 I heard, and the three
> 120's I have heard sure sounded broken. Badly broken. Then
> again a few minutes of them and my ears felt broken.

One of the things that distinguishes my implementation of PCABX to power
amplifier testing is that I test whether or not the equipment and the test
setup are working properly, within seconds on either side of the gathering
of data for the listening test, and with exactly zero physical changes to
the test setup. The identical same equipment, software, cables, and other
physical elements are absolutely unchanged for both the listening test and
the technical tests.

I don't believe that this level of quality control is achieved any other
way.

> Besides, I thought you were going to run signals for your web
> site through the up to spec 120 and put it on for us to hear some
> time ago.

That's true. I got a little sidetracked into trivial pursuits such as
recording live music. Stuff like this happens with hobbies.

>If you cannot pick that 120 out using your pcabx
> software, I would have to declare the whole abx thing of limited
> usefulness.

Declare as you will. The performance of ABX testing is pretty well
established, as is the effectiveness of the PCABX approach.

I see here a common problem, where people presume the quality of a test by
evaluating test results that they really have no more reliable evidence to
compare it to. Now, I'm not denying the evidence that you perceived, but in
fact you don't and can't know critical facts, like whether or not the
equipment you listened to met spec at the exact time and in the exact
context you listened to it.

I won't even get into the significant issues related to level matching and
bias control. However, given the freedom afforded to owners of home hi fi
systems and those who operate audio sales rooms I think I can easily do a
pretty good job of making figurative white appear to be black. The inverse
is only a little tougher.

> Unless you can show us a typically broken 120 for
> comparison. Because besides sounding broken all three 120's
> I listened to sounded the same. I cringe thinking of the sound
> of those things even thinking about it.

I decline to damage my equipment to satisfy anybody's idle curiosity without
adequate financial compensation.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message

> So how much power is needed, anyway? I have a wide variety of expert
> opinion to choose from, and I have not experimented with super power. But
> if the exquisiteness of high priced stuff is overkill, high power would be
> affrdable.

Picking the Wattage for the power amplifier is easy. Lets say your
making a system using a three-way electronic crossover. Make the
amplifier power, for each driver, equal to the rated power handling of
that driver. For example, if your midrange driver can handle 100
Watts, make the midrange amplifier 100 Watts. If your tweeter can only
take 20 Watts, use a low power amplifier for it. etc.

How much power is needed for simulating real musical instruments or a
real band? *A lot*. But, if you put that much sound power into your
living room, how long are your ears going to last?

Bob Stanton

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
wrote:

>"Joseph Oberlander" asked
>> For what exact purpose? I mean if you're trying to build a little
>> headphone amplifier yourself it's a bit different than, say, buying
>> an A/V receiver.
>>
>> Generally, though, the sad fact remains that our ears are pathetic
>> compared to most of the rest of the mammals out there and technology
>> has had no problem with exceeding its limitations in the last
>> 20+ years.
>>
>Ok, point well taken. I want to decide wheteher my stereo system components
>are up to the "competent design" standard, whatever that is. I assume there
>is such a standard because it is regularly referred to on RAHE. I would
>call my sysytem entry level high end, and wonder whether I should spend more
>and where to spend it. I buy electronics, and either buy or bulid speakers.
>Components in question? CD player, amp, preamp, interconnects, speaker
>wire, and speakers. Of course I don't expect criteria for speakers.

The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.

The big guns like B&W have *massive* R&D facilities, and even when you
can buy the identical drivers (as you could from Dynaudio until
recently), you can't hope to match their experience in cabinet and
crossover design.

>If 20 year old components exceed my hearing then I could use the criteria
>to select vintage gear, which might be a nice saving.

Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
about five years ago.

> Or I could buy an AV
>receiver to use for stereo to get in lower cost bi amping.

Without an active crossover, bi-amping is a waste of time.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Gary Rosen]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
news:J1uYa.88116$uu5.12933@sccrnsc04...
> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message

> > My experience with the general public was that low power amps
> > operated into distortion/clipping are responsible for the vast
> > majority of speaker destruction.
>
> IME, nothing fries speakers like a fool and a really powerful amp. I think
> that the real problem is that people listen while drinking and partying
and
> just get carried away.

I certainly don't want to put words into Dick Pierce's mouth, but I believe
"Mr. Speaker" has posted on several occasions that the most common
mechanism for speaker failure is the one Wylie cites - clipping by an
underpowered amp. Any comment, Dick?

- Gary Rosen

[Marinko]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
> building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
> adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
> amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
> work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
> any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
> short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
> easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.
>

This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

[Gary Rosen]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >

> Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
> you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
> about five years ago.

Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?

- Gary Rosen

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:03:28 GMT, "Gary Rosen"
> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
>
>> Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
>> you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
>> about five years ago.
>
>Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
>as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?

So far as I can tell, only from the mid-'90s did we have DAC chips
which were better than 18-bit linear, combined with low-jitter clocks
and good power supply regulation, giving outputs that are free from
artifacts above -100dB. Usefully, you need pay no more than a few
hundred dollars for a top-class used player from this period, such as
the Arcam Alpha 9, Audiolab 8000CD, Meridian 506, Marantz CD-17 KI, or
the Sony XA50ES.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 10 Aug 2003 05:48:18 GMT, Marinko > wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
>> building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
>> adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
>> amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
>> work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
>> any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
>> short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
>> easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.
>>
>
>This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
>web/magazine links?

Sorry, I can't recall which magazine the article came from which
reported this event.

>It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
>"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

Indeed so, but as with so much in hi-fi, expensive parts do not
guarantee a great speaker! Amateurs find this out to their cost, that
the *real* expense lies in assembling (and learning to use) the test
equipment you need to properly design and build a complete top-quality
loudspeaker. Compare the R&D facilities of KEF or B&W with what the
home-builder has at his disposal, and you can see the problem.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[All Ears]

"Gary Rosen" > wrote in message
news:QelZa.110894$uu5.16176@sccrnsc04...
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
>
> > Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
> > you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
> > about five years ago.
>
> Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
> as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?
>
> - Gary Rosen
>

Even the recent good quality CD players sounds a lot better than what was
possible 5 years ago. It is easy to hear the difference. The newer CD
players sound a lot more "analogue" and has solved the worse problems with
jitter and D/A conversion.

KE

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
Marinko > wrote:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
>> building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
>> adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
>> amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
>> work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
>> any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
>> short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
>> easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.
>
>This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
>web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
>"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

Given the extremely narrow perspective into the realm of speaker
design and manufacturing that, to be frank, makes amateurs
amateurs, this is not surprising in the least. At least one
reason behind this is amateurs are not constrained by nor,
generally have ANY idea whatsoever on what it means and the
constraints imposed with having to build to a price point as one
primary design goal. An amateur worker can sit ther and fiddle
with veneering a cabinet, spending hours or days getting it
"just right" and end up with a result that, if it had to go to
market, would end up selling for an order of magnitude more than
what it is commercially worth.

An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS
is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often
discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same
speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling
overpriced merchandise.

I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different
tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3
months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the
people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,
pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening
and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur
is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem
such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.

Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers
who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"
of which there are a disturbing number of examples.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[All Ears]

I spoke to one of the good and successful speaker designers of today, he
told me that the first 200 pair of speakers he made sounded like crap,
fortunately he was paid to build the last 100 pair of these.

Everyone can buy good quality drivers and components, this is the easy part
of designing speakers.

KE

"Marinko" > wrote in message
...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> > The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
> > building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
> > adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
> > amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
> > work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
> > any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
> > short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
> > easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.
> >
>
> This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or
> web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
> "bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> So far as I can tell, only from the mid-'90s did we have DAC chips
> which were better than 18-bit linear, combined with low-jitter clocks
> and good power supply regulation,

One of the first was my Denon - um - circa 1990. 20bit, good power
supply, and overall a sweet design at the time.

I think 13 1/2 years is close enough to the claimed 15.

[Steven Sullivan]

All Ears > wrote:
> "Gary Rosen" > wrote in message
> news:QelZa.110894$uu5.16176@sccrnsc04...
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
> >
> > > Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
> > > you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
> > > about five years ago.
> >
> > Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
> > as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?
> >
> > - Gary Rosen
> >

> Even the recent good quality CD players sounds a lot better than what was
> possible 5 years ago. It is easy to hear the difference. The newer CD
> players sound a lot more "analogue" and has solved the worse problems with
> jitter and D/A conversion.

Benajmin and Gannon's jitter threshold listening tests reported in a 1998 AES preprint
indicated that the threshold for audible jitter with actual music
(as opposed to sine waves and single instrumental tones) was on the order
of 100 ns. Are you saying that CD players five years ago
generally had at least this much jitter, or is there some other audible
factor that they have improved since then?

____
-S.

[Steven Sullivan]

All Ears > wrote:
> "Gary Rosen" > wrote in message
> news:QelZa.110894$uu5.16176@sccrnsc04...
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 4 Aug 2003 15:15:04 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
> >
> > > Indeed yes - a fifteen-year old Krell or Bryston will be all the amp
> > > you'll ever need. Note however, that CD players only really peaked
> > > about five years ago.
> >
> > Stewart, in what way would you say CD players "peaked" as recently
> > as five years ago? What were the shortcomings prior to that?
> >
> > - Gary Rosen
> >

> Even the recent good quality CD players sounds a lot better than what was
> possible 5 years ago. It is easy to hear the difference. The newer CD
> players sound a lot more "analogue" and has solved the worse problems with
> jitter and D/A conversion.

Benajmin and Gannon's jitter threshold listening tests reported in a 1998 AES preprint
indicated that the threshold for audible jitter with actual music
(as opposed to sine waves and single instrumental tones) was on the order
of 100 ns. Are you saying that CD players five years ago
generally had at least this much jitter, or is there some other audible
factor that they have improved since then?

____
-S.

[FOURCADE Jean]

On 10 Aug 2003 14:38:05 GMT, (Richard D Pierce)
wrote:

>In article >,
>Marinko > wrote:
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>=20
>>> The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
>>> building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
>>> adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
>>> amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
>>> work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick u=
p
>>> any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
>>> short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers wa=
s
>>> easily outperformed by a =A3300 pair of Celestions.
>>
>>This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details or=
=20
>>web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about=20
>>"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.
>
>Given the extremely narrow perspective into the realm of speaker
>design and manufacturing that, to be frank, makes amateurs
>amateurs, this is not surprising in the least. At least one
>reason behind this is amateurs are not constrained by nor,
>generally have ANY idea whatsoever on what it means and the
>constraints imposed with having to build to a price point as one
>primary design goal. An amateur worker can sit ther and fiddle
>with veneering a cabinet, spending hours or days getting it
>"just right" and end up with a result that, if it had to go to
>market, would end up selling for an order of magnitude more than
>what it is commercially worth.
>
>An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS=20
>is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often=20
>discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same=20
>speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling=20
>overpriced merchandise.

You are completely right, i remember having exactly the same opinion
on the price of speakers many years ago (but i got informed) and i'm
still tempted to do it again when seeing the price of certain
products.....

>
>I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different=20
>tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3=20
>months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the=20
>people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,=20
>pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening=20
>and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur=20
>is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem=20
>such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.

But the amateur is right at his own level, for the pair he's building.
He's using leisure time, so he decides to have fun building a speaker
instead of travelling, playing tennis, etc.., economically lost time
so he's right to forget it's value, he gets his money from his job.
Ironically, he may think he's not paid enough for his working time.

>
>Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers=20
>who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"=20
>of which there are a disturbing number of examples.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 11 Aug 2003 05:06:00 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> So far as I can tell, only from the mid-'90s did we have DAC chips
>> which were better than 18-bit linear, combined with low-jitter clocks
>> and good power supply regulation,
>
>One of the first was my Denon - um - circa 1990. 20bit, good power
>supply, and overall a sweet design at the time.

Please note I said 18-bit *linear*, not just on the label............

>I think 13 1/2 years is close enough to the claimed 15.

Depends on your criteria. I'm certainly not suggesting that there
weren't *some* excellent designs around in the early '90s, of which
the Meridians and the early 'single-bit' Sonys would be among the
best.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Penury]

On 10 Aug 2003 14:38:05 GMT, (Richard D Pierce)
wrote:
>An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS
>is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often
>discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same
>speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling
>overpriced merchandise.
>
>I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different
>tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3
>months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the
>people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,
>pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening
>and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur
>is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem
>such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.
>
>Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers
>who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"
>of which there are a disturbing number of examples.

What you say is true, but that is the view from the commercial
side. The view from the amateur side is: He only has to built 1 or 2
pairs (his brother wants a pair), so he can lavish the attention on
the construction and finish to suit him with no commercial restraints.
If he purchases a proven design of drivers and crossover parts,
then measures the T/S parameters of those drivers and fits each to
it's own recommended custom cabinet, then spends months "tweaking" the
crossover parts to his satisfaction, he ends up with a speaker that
not only is unique, but fits his tastes. Usually his cost is MUCH less
than a comparable commercial speaker. Sure he has lots of time
invested, but it is better than drinking beer at the local tavern,
well maybe not. There is also pride of ownership involved in designing
and constructing a "one of a kind".
P. S. The local raw driver outlet charges $5 per driver to measure the
T/S parameters using LEAP, so it is easier to match speakers to each
other and to their boxes.

Bill Eckle

Vanity Web page at:
http://www.wmeckle.com

[Joseph Oberlander]

FOURCADE Jean wrote:

>>Given the extremely narrow perspective into the realm of speaker
>>design and manufacturing that, to be frank, makes amateurs
>>amateurs, this is not surprising in the least. At least one
>>reason behind this is amateurs are not constrained by nor,
>>generally have ANY idea whatsoever on what it means and the
>>constraints imposed with having to build to a price point as one
>>primary design goal. An amateur worker can sit ther and fiddle
>>with veneering a cabinet, spending hours or days getting it
>>"just right" and end up with a result that, if it had to go to
>>market, would end up selling for an order of magnitude more than
>>what it is commercially worth.

There is an exception to the DIYer vs commmercial firm equation,
though - that is, if the speaker doens't have a box to tweak
or design(planar/stat/stat/etc)

I suspect that it would not be that hard to duplicate a Magnepan
if you had access to the same panels.

[Gary Rosen]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...

> Benajmin and Gannon's jitter threshold listening tests reported in a 1998
AES preprint
> indicated that the threshold for audible jitter with actual music
> (as opposed to sine waves and single instrumental tones) was on the order
> of 100 ns. Are you saying that CD players five years ago
> generally had at least this much jitter, or is there some other audible
> factor that they have improved since then?

I did a quick calculation and while 100 *nano* seconds may be a little
high (for audibility) it is in the ballpark. But readily available crystal
oscillators have jitter well below 100 *pico*seconds - in other words
three orders of magnitude better which translates to 60 dB lower
noise. In other words, jitter should have no effect unless the design
is *really* incompetent. This buttresses the point Dick Pierce
has made many times, that the audio industry is decades behind the
rest of the electronic industry.

- Gary Rosen

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 11 Aug 2003 14:53:14 GMT, Penury > wrote:

> What you say is true, but that is the view from the commercial
>side. The view from the amateur side is: He only has to built 1 or 2
>pairs (his brother wants a pair), so he can lavish the attention on
>the construction and finish to suit him with no commercial restraints.

No commercial restraints? What, you don't think a large anechoic
chamber, precision measuring microphones, a laser interferometry rig,
strain gauges, accelerometers, all the test gear attached to those
sensors, and access to several decades of research data, is a little
overkill for *properly* designing one pair of speakers? :-)

> If he purchases a proven design of drivers and crossover parts,
>then measures the T/S parameters of those drivers and fits each to
>it's own recommended custom cabinet,

Um, where do you get the 'recommended custom cabinet' design?
Recommended by whom? We're not just talking about cabinet volume here,
but materials and construction, plus internal damping.

> then spends months "tweaking" the
>crossover parts to his satisfaction, he ends up with a speaker that
>not only is unique, but fits his tastes.

Yes, that's true - but will it actually stack up against a commercial
design using similar drivers? Experience suggests not.

> Usually his cost is MUCH less
>than a comparable commercial speaker. Sure he has lots of time
>invested, but it is better than drinking beer at the local tavern,
>well maybe not. There is also pride of ownership involved in designing
>and constructing a "one of a kind".

Sure, no argument there, so long as you're building for fun and
furniture, and are not bothered about raw performance.

>P. S. The local raw driver outlet charges $5 per driver to measure the
>T/S parameters using LEAP, so it is easier to match speakers to each
>other and to their boxes.

Well, that gets you to the first stage of the 347 mutually
interdependent things you need to optimise...... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Steven Sullivan]

Gary Rosen > wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Benajmin and Gannon's jitter threshold listening tests reported in a 1998
> AES preprint
> > indicated that the threshold for audible jitter with actual music
> > (as opposed to sine waves and single instrumental tones) was on the order
> > of 100 ns. Are you saying that CD players five years ago
> > generally had at least this much jitter, or is there some other audible
> > factor that they have improved since then?

> I did a quick calculation and while 100 *nano* seconds may be a little
> high (for audibility) it is in the ballpark. But readily available crystal
> oscillators have jitter well below 100 *pico*seconds - in other words
> three orders of magnitude better which translates to 60 dB lower
> noise. In other words, jitter should have no effect unless the design
> is *really* incompetent. This buttresses the point Dick Pierce
> has made many times, that the audio industry is decades behind the
> rest of the electronic industry.

These days when I bring up the B&G figures on other audiophile forums, I'm
told that Bob Katz, Julian Dunn and others 'have evidence' that jitter is
audible down to the 1 nanosecond range....but I'm never, ever directed to
audibility test *results* that show this. Audio engineers (as in ,people
who make recordings, such as Mr. katz, *not* those who design equipment)
are, I'm told, *convinced* that jitter is an omnipresent and routinely
audible scourge in the digital realm. The arguemnt here goes basically:
they work with sound every day, and if they say it's real, it is.

Btw, I would posit that B&G's threshold audibility
figures are, if anything, possibly *too low*, because they employed
no controls to *verify* audibility. The testees were simply told to
indicate when they could and could not hear a difference between the 'unjittered'
and 'jittered' stream, knowing at all times which was which (A/B). When
a threshold was determined this way, it wasn't subsequently tested
by presenting jittered/nonjisttered streams in *ABX* fashion.

On his jitter FAQ page of his website , http://www.digido.com/ mastering
engineer Bob Katz mentions work done by one David Smith at Sony as regards
jitter:

" In a low-jitter CD player, we can examine and test for "microcosmic"
influences on the stability of the player's crystal clock and see if they
are caused by "microcosmic" differences on the CD disc. It took David
Smith and Sony Corporation months and months to devise some sophisticated
audio tests in order to conclude that the golden ears were right!"

Anyone here know what Sony work this refers to, and how it relates to
the *audibility* of jitter, and whether it has been published?

--
-S.

[Wylie Williams]

The assumption of several members to the speaker building posts is that
home builders are making their own Some home speaker builders are
building pre-engineered designs, so the only issue is their workmanship.
Are the home designs inherently flawed?. Some are; some aren't, and the
same can be said of many name brand factory speakers.
There is more competence in the world of home speaker builders than is
being credited in these posts.
Wylie Williams

"Penury" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Aug 2003 14:38:05 GMT, (Richard D Pierce)
> wrote:
> >An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS
> >is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often
> >discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same
> >speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling
> >overpriced merchandise.
> >
> >I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different
> >tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3
> >months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the
> >people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,
> >pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening
> >and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur
> >is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem
> >such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.
> >
> >Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers
> >who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"
> >of which there are a disturbing number of examples.
>
> What you say is true, but that is the view from the commercial
> side. The view from the amateur side is: He only has to built 1 or 2
> pairs (his brother wants a pair), so he can lavish the attention on
> the construction and finish to suit him with no commercial restraints.
> If he purchases a proven design of drivers and crossover parts,
> then measures the T/S parameters of those drivers and fits each to
> it's own recommended custom cabinet, then spends months "tweaking" the
> crossover parts to his satisfaction, he ends up with a speaker that
> not only is unique, but fits his tastes. Usually his cost is MUCH less
> than a comparable commercial speaker. Sure he has lots of time
> invested, but it is better than drinking beer at the local tavern,
> well maybe not. There is also pride of ownership involved in designing
> and constructing a "one of a kind".
> P. S. The local raw driver outlet charges $5 per driver to measure the
> T/S parameters using LEAP, so it is easier to match speakers to each
> other and to their boxes.
>
> Bill Eckle
>
> Vanity Web page at:
> http://www.wmeckle.com
>
>

[Joseph Oberlander]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2003 05:06:00 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So far as I can tell, only from the mid-'90s did we have DAC chips
>>>which were better than 18-bit linear, combined with low-jitter clocks
>>>and good power supply regulation,
>>
>>One of the first was my Denon - um - circa 1990. 20bit, good power
>>supply, and overall a sweet design at the time.
>
>
> Please note I said 18-bit *linear*, not just on the label............
>
>
>>I think 13 1/2 years is close enough to the claimed 15.
>
>
> Depends on your criteria. I'm certainly not suggesting that there
> weren't *some* excellent designs around in the early '90s, of which
> the Meridians and the early 'single-bit' Sonys would be among the
> best.

Sure, but my opriginal point was that back then even, the sound
was close to or exceeded what we could discern with our poor
hearing. Now, my cat - she would complain loudly at one
pair of speakers I had - and the other playing the same music
got no yowling. I ran it through a scope and sure enough - the
razzy metal tweeter was blaring all over the 25-35Khz range. Put
a hard filter on it at 20Khz and happy cat :)

Funny Siamese I had - lol - she made a good test subject :)

[Nousaine]

(Stewart Pinkerton)

>The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
>building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
>adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
>amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
>work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also pick up
>any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
>short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers was
>easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.

In the early 90s audio club PSACS conducted a "measurement clinic" where
members were encouraged to bring in any project they had to confirm performance
with fancy B&K and AP Measurement equipment at the Bosch/Blaupunkt laboratory
in Broadview IL.

There were mostly speakers and a few electronic projects. The electronics all
worked pretty much according to plan but the speakers were, well, just all over
the map, including the hundred pound concrete egg-shaped 3 way system carted in
on a hand truck by the owner.

At the end of the day the Chief Engineer grabbed a $300 set ot Celestion
speakers used for bench monitors. These babies literally destroyed all the DIY
speakers in quasi-anechoic frequency response measurements.

On the other hand I still encourage enthusiasts to design and build subwoofers.
There are NO commercially available subwoofers that will deliver an honest 12
Hz at live levels to a listener 2 meters away. There are plenty of recordings
with significant content below 10 Hz and IF you want to hear/feel it the way it
was recorded you literally have to roll your own.

[Nousaine]

(Richard D Pierce) wrote:

>In article <Ep_Za.87046$Oz4.21697@rwcrnsc54>,
>Wylie Williams > wrote:
>>The assumption of several members to the speaker building posts is that
>>home builders are making their own Some home speaker builders are
>>building pre-engineered designs, so the only issue is their workmanship.
>
>No, the "assumption" which was pretty well stated at one point
>in the thread, is that home builders are attempting to duplicate
>and existing commercial design, not some "pre-engineered" kit.

This is true for many of them. But there area fair number of home builders who
are making unique designs. BUT, most of them ARE limited to drivers/parts that
are commercially avialable to them. For example a woofer manufacturer made a
batch of 8 fifteen inch woofers for my personal subwoofer project BUT they were
all made from off-the-shelf-parts. At a non-commercial level there simply was
no way that anyone would supply developmental resources for this kind of
project.

Mind you even this is generally several orders of magnitude in engineering/cost
resources available to most amateurs in the transducer part of the project.


>As an example, someone may decide they don't want to spend the
>money on a finished pair of Aerial 10t's or B&W's, so they
>attempt to get the same drivers and so on. Well, in most cases,
>they can't, so they're already starting with a serious
>handicap.

What the serious amateur can supply is what I call "Randy Parkers Table Saw and
Router" in deference to a friend of mine who makes one-off good performing
speakers that have a shape/style/finish commercially unavailable.

But for design purposes Randy looks to professional friends for
engineering/measurement help.


>
>>Are the home designs inherently flawed?
>
>Nobody said they were "inherently" flawed.
>
>>Some are; some aren't, and the same can be said of many name
>>brand factory speakers.

Ain't that the Truth.

>
>Indeed, and usually for precisely the same reason: lack of
>experience, lack of expertise, lack of proper design facilities,
>lack of proper components, and so on. SO what?
>
>>There is more competence in the world of home speaker builders than is
>>being credited in these posts.
>
>Really? I think you need to read the posts and understand what
>IS being talked about. And as one who has, in fact, measured the
>results of a couple of hundred such home speaker builders, I
>think I might have a somewhat different perspective.
>--
>| Dick Pierce |
>| Professional Audio Development |
>| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
>| |

Dick is right. I've measured dozens of projects for friends and for the most
part THE advantage of these projects is cost and appearance. Except for
subwoofers few, if any, are better performing than a commercial project at a
similar overall cost disregarding projecteer labor which is inherently free. If
it weren't then he'd be making money elsewhere to buy the commercial product.

BUT it is true that there are some pretty goofy performing commerical products
(especially high-end, because many of the high-end designers are essentially
amateurs) that can be easily be equalled or beaten by amateurs.

BUT, I've never seen an amateur 2 or 3 way project that exceeded the basic
performance of similar designs made by competent commercial manufacurers.

Better finish, cooler shape, other personal things like "made it myself"
.....sure. Better sound at above subwoofer frequencies; never.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 13 Aug 2003 01:40:04 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

> There are plenty of recordings
>with significant content below 10 Hz and IF you want to hear/feel it the way it
>was recorded you literally have to roll your own.

Is there a list of these recordings somewhere?

Kal

[Nousaine]

>"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
>
>> So how much power is needed, anyway? I have a wide variety of expert
>> opinion to choose from, and I have not experimented with super power. But
>> if the exquisiteness of high priced stuff is overkill, high power would be
>> affrdable.

I'm all for high powrered amplification but there are a few things one should
know:

SMWTMS found that to find a reliably audible difference they had to drop to 10
watts comapred to 400 watts.

Dick Greiner conducted laboratory/listening experiments and concluded that any
amplifier would be audibly transparent if held to clipping less than 1% of the
time.

Dan Shanefield (anecdote alert) told mew that he often used 5-watt Radio Shack
amplifiers to drive his Magnepans, while the big amps still had an rca input
that would let the power monitor needles swing with the program, and no one
ever seemed to notice a difference (sure; maybe they were just being polite :))

But, personally, I've often been amazed at how good seemingly 'underpowered'
amplifiers seemed to sound.

[Uptown Audio]

Sure and that is what should be hoped to be accomplished, fun.
Certainly not a better than commercial pair of speakers. Now if they
compare them to some of the really thin, worthless stuff, then yes
about any small amount of quality driver and parts would produce a
better product. But when it comes to speaker specialists as those that
have been named here and their design efforts as mentioned by Richard
and Stewart, they simply have the upper hand. to think otherwise is
folly. More than one fellow has dragged a pair of home-brew speakers
here expecting to have them blast our products and then be able to
strut out and spread the faith. Unfortunately those were never the
results and even distributors for makers of otherwise very fine
speakers have been very disapointed with our assessment of their
products. One companies rep actually left after he was told that there
was no way that we could sell his product beside the JM Lab speakers
and made the comment, we get a lot of that. His firm will go nameless
(as it should!). In all cases only a very small bookshelf speaker was
used to compare these other gentlemen's larger products (homebrew or
commercial) to and in all cases the choice was clear. I have also
heard a load of different speaker designs and built my share for grins
and can say that it is not even remotely worth it from an economic
standpoint to try and replicate the product of the masters. You can
have fun at it, yes. You can even make nice units, but you won't touch
the fit, finish, sound and value of the big boys in your garage. Not
today and not tomorrow. I gave that up long ago as well.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"FOURCADE Jean" > wrote in message
news:4fGZa.119164$YN5.83424@sccrnsc01...
>On 10 Aug 2003 14:38:05 GMT, (Richard D Pierce)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Marinko > wrote:
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The most obvious first piece of advice is that you should stop
>>>> building speakers! Chances are that your electronics are more than
>>>> adequate, but a relatively recent 'showdown' by Celestion invited
>>>> amateur speaker builders to come along and demonstrate their best
>>>> work, so that Celestion could compare them all fairly and also
>pick up
>>>> any useful ideas from this wide cross-section. To cut a long story
>>>> short, evenj the best and most exotic of these home-built speakers
>was
>>>> easily outperformed by a £300 pair of Celestions.
>>>
>>>This is very interesting story, so can you give us some more details
>or
>>>web/magazine links? It's not rare for amateur builders to talk about
>>>"bad quality, cheap parts and low value" of commercial speakers.
>>
>>Given the extremely narrow perspective into the realm of speaker
>>design and manufacturing that, to be frank, makes amateurs
>>amateurs, this is not surprising in the least. At least one
>>reason behind this is amateurs are not constrained by nor,
>>generally have ANY idea whatsoever on what it means and the
>>constraints imposed with having to build to a price point as one
>>primary design goal. An amateur worker can sit ther and fiddle
>>with veneering a cabinet, spending hours or days getting it
>>"just right" and end up with a result that, if it had to go to
>>market, would end up selling for an order of magnitude more than
>>what it is commercially worth.
>>
>>An amateur might look at a $2000 speaker, add up what he THINKS
>>is the parts cost, totally underprice the cost of labor (often
>>discounting it to zero) and say, "Why, I can build that same
>>speaker for $400!" then rip into the industry for selling
>>overpriced merchandise.
>
>You are completely right, i remember having exactly the same opinion
>on the price of speakers many years ago (but i got informed) and i'm
>still tempted to do it again when seeing the price of certain
>products.....
>
>>
>>I'd bet that same amateur would be singing QUITE a different
>>tune when he has to build 200 pairs of the same speaker in 3
>>months time, find a distribution and sales network, pay the
>>people he now has to hire to help him, find dealers, advertise,
>>pay for the warranty repairs because someone ELSE is listening
>>and using and, possibly abusing his creations. That same amateur
>>is going to find out that the $400 that made these speakers seem
>>such a bargain disappeared into a black hole long ago.
>
>But the amateur is right at his own level, for the pair he's building.
>He's using leisure time, so he decides to have fun building a speaker
>instead of travelling, playing tennis, etc.., economically lost time
>so he's right to forget it's value, he gets his money from his job.
>Ironically, he may think he's not paid enough for his working time.
>
>>
>>Of course, this is not to excuse those commercial manufacturers
>>who DO sell products with "bad quality, cheap parts and low value"
>>of which there are a disturbing number of examples.
>
>
>

[Wylie Williams]

Gentlemen, I am going to concede some ground on the subject of homebrew
speakers. There seems to be a pretty universal disregard for them on RAHE.
OK, there are some dreadful home mades, but my point is that there are also
some dreadful factory made speakers as well.
There are several types of home builders, not all of whom are of the high
end persuasion.
There are the dumb guys who build something big, loud, and cheap. They
would have bought a comparable commercial design that sounded just as bad.
They might have bought a white van speaker.
There are the guys who like to do woodworking, and speakers give them that
outlet. The great part of that is that they always love the sound of
whatever they build,. and they rile the stereo store guys by telling them
that their speaker is better than the "store boughts".
Then there are the inventors/artists. The desire to create is there even if
the competence is not. These are not high end guys, though some think they
are. There are some very strange designs out there that represent the heart
and souls of the designers, and a few are OK or even better. .
Of course there are the Klone-audio.com types who copy high end speakers.
I've never heard their work, but I invite all to see their project update
page to see that they are miles above the dumb guy category.
Then there are the many self taught individuals who design their own
speakers that vary from good to great.
Then there are the kits designed and perfected by professionals that allow
a home builder to make his own cabinet and assemble his own speaker. Look at
Madisound.com for some examples at low to mid prices, and the Linkwitz site
for a high end home built speaker that looks superb.
I notice that when comparisons are made the commercial speakers used
are carefully selected examples of small speakers that might also embarrass
many higher proved factory built high end speakers in the market if
demonstrated against them. e.g.- nobody picks Bose for their comparisons,
even though Bose is a huge seller and has far more market share than the
lesser known and lesser selling British brand mentioned. As far as that
goes there are probably more white van speakers sold than, say, Celestion.
So why not use them for comparison to home made?

Wylie Williams

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:30:28 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> wrote:

> I notice that when comparisons are made the commercial speakers used
>are carefully selected examples of small speakers that might also embarrass
>many higher proved factory built high end speakers in the market if
>demonstrated against them. e.g.- nobody picks Bose for their comparisons,
>even though Bose is a huge seller and has far more market share than the
>lesser known and lesser selling British brand mentioned. As far as that
>goes there are probably more white van speakers sold than, say, Celestion.
>So why not use them for comparison to home made?

Why on earth would one deliberately pick a generally acknowledged poor
speaker design (such as Bose) to make compartisons against homebrew
speakers? No one is denying that there are indeed many *bad* speakers
on the market, the whole point of the question is whether for say
$1,000, an amateur (even a talented and educated one) can build a
speaker which is a match for one of the many *good* speakers on the
market at this price point.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Uptown Audio]

Because they suck? Most guys that want to come in and brag about their
speakers claim they are better than high-end designs. That has never
held water except for the rare cases where the guy actually used
high-end drivers with hugely elaborate electronic x-over and tri/quad
amped designs to produce dynamics on a breathtakingly real scale. you
might guess what a system like that would cost. A summer home in the
mountains might be an equivelent idea. What, if someone ever came in
and said "I built some myself that sound better than those mass-market
cubes." The response would be (to myself "So what?") and more
politletly to them perhaps, "Good for you.". I mean that, I don't
think any of these guys set-out thinking "I just to build something
mediocre for just as much money without the warranty". They are truly
delusional about the realistically obtainable sound quality, but if it
is fun and fun only that they want, then no one can argue with that.
Of course it is "possible" to get lucky and come away with a great
speaker, but so unlikely that I have yet to hear it (an appearantly
many others here as well). The sheer number of variables in
combinations of components alone make the likelyhood rather grim.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
. net...
> Gentlemen, I am going to concede some ground on the subject of
homebrew
> speakers. There seems to be a pretty universal disregard for them on
RAHE.
> OK, there are some dreadful home mades, but my point is that there
are also
> some dreadful factory made speakers as well.
> There are several types of home builders, not all of whom are of
the high
> end persuasion.
> There are the dumb guys who build something big, loud, and cheap.
They
> would have bought a comparable commercial design that sounded just
as bad.
> They might have bought a white van speaker.
> There are the guys who like to do woodworking, and speakers give
them that
> outlet. The great part of that is that they always love the sound
of
> whatever they build,. and they rile the stereo store guys by telling
them
> that their speaker is better than the "store boughts".
> Then there are the inventors/artists. The desire to create is there
even if
> the competence is not. These are not high end guys, though some
think they
> are. There are some very strange designs out there that represent
the heart
> and souls of the designers, and a few are OK or even better. .
> Of course there are the Klone-audio.com types who copy high end
speakers.
> I've never heard their work, but I invite all to see their project
update
> page to see that they are miles above the dumb guy category.
> Then there are the many self taught individuals who design their
own
> speakers that vary from good to great.
> Then there are the kits designed and perfected by professionals
that allow
> a home builder to make his own cabinet and assemble his own speaker.
Look at
> Madisound.com for some examples at low to mid prices, and the
Linkwitz site
> for a high end home built speaker that looks superb.
> I notice that when comparisons are made the commercial speakers
used
> are carefully selected examples of small speakers that might also
embarrass
> many higher proved factory built high end speakers in the market if
> demonstrated against them. e.g.- nobody picks Bose for their
comparisons,
> even though Bose is a huge seller and has far more market share than
the
> lesser known and lesser selling British brand mentioned. As far as
that
> goes there are probably more white van speakers sold than, say,
Celestion.
> So why not use them for comparison to home made?
>
> Wylie Williams
>

[Uptown Audio]

Because they suck? Most guys that want to come in and brag about their
speakers claim they are better than high-end designs. That has never
held water except for the rare cases where the guy actually used
high-end drivers with hugely elaborate electronic x-over and tri/quad
amped designs to produce dynamics on a breathtakingly real scale. you
might guess what a system like that would cost. A summer home in the
mountains might be an equivelent idea. What, if someone ever came in
and said "I built some myself that sound better than those mass-market
cubes." The response would be (to myself "So what?") and more
politletly to them perhaps, "Good for you.".
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
. net...
> Gentlemen, I am going to concede some ground on the subject of
homebrew
> speakers. There seems to be a pretty universal disregard for them on
RAHE.
> OK, there are some dreadful home mades, but my point is that there
are also
> some dreadful factory made speakers as well.
> There are several types of home builders, not all of whom are of
the high
> end persuasion.
> There are the dumb guys who build something big, loud, and cheap.
They
> would have bought a comparable commercial design that sounded just
as bad.
> They might have bought a white van speaker.
> There are the guys who like to do woodworking, and speakers give
them that
> outlet. The great part of that is that they always love the sound
of
> whatever they build,. and they rile the stereo store guys by telling
them
> that their speaker is better than the "store boughts".
> Then there are the inventors/artists. The desire to create is there
even if
> the competence is not. These are not high end guys, though some
think they
> are. There are some very strange designs out there that represent
the heart
> and souls of the designers, and a few are OK or even better. .
> Of course there are the Klone-audio.com types who copy high end
speakers.
> I've never heard their work, but I invite all to see their project
update
> page to see that they are miles above the dumb guy category.
> Then there are the many self taught individuals who design their
own
> speakers that vary from good to great.
> Then there are the kits designed and perfected by professionals
that allow
> a home builder to make his own cabinet and assemble his own speaker.
Look at
> Madisound.com for some examples at low to mid prices, and the
Linkwitz site
> for a high end home built speaker that looks superb.
> I notice that when comparisons are made the commercial speakers
used
> are carefully selected examples of small speakers that might also
embarrass
> many higher proved factory built high end speakers in the market if
> demonstrated against them. e.g.- nobody picks Bose for their
comparisons,
> even though Bose is a huge seller and has far more market share than
the
> lesser known and lesser selling British brand mentioned. As far as
that
> goes there are probably more white van speakers sold than, say,
Celestion.
> So why not use them for comparison to home made?
>
> Wylie Williams
>

[ludovic mirabel]

"Uptown Audio" > wrote in message >...
> Because they suck? Most guys that want to come in and brag about their
> speakers claim they are better than high-end designs. That has never
> held water except for the rare cases where the guy actually used
> high-end drivers with hugely elaborate electronic x-over and tri/quad
> amped designs to produce dynamics on a breathtakingly real scale. you
> might guess what a system like that would cost. A summer home in the
> mountains might be an equivelent idea. What, if someone ever came in
> and said "I built some myself that sound better than those mass-market
> cubes." The response would be (to myself "So what?") and more
> politletly to them perhaps, "Good for you.".
> - Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250

What follows is a self-indulgent, entirely subjective and
unscientific account of my experiences. I hope that it might find some
echo but I'm not, repeat not, claiming that I have a recommendation
for anyone to follow.
As you and others said I do not doubt that the speakers
themselves, cones especially, are better left to the manufacturer. But
I'm not sure that a skilled amateur can't build a good enclosure
following generally accepted principles. And I wonder about
electrostats: I know that Roger Sanders for one started as a DIY
electrostat amateur/experimenter, then became an authority on the ELS
design, then abandoned medicine and is now manufacturing a
well-reviewed and respected electrostat under the Inner Sound name.
It was his contention that only the transmission line woofers are
"fast" enough to match an electrostat that fortified my
dissatisfaction with what I had myself and what I heard elsewhere. I
loved the ELS midrange but I was always unhappy with the "full range"
Quads and Acoustats. I was also unhappy with the M-Lewis and Quad
hybrids. Same for my own solution: Xover from the Acoustat X (amps.
updated) to a "Magnat" closed box with a custom 12" woofer
(Electrovoice/Altec Lansing combination with high power-handling
capacity) and a Magnat plasma tweeter. I use also a Velodyne subwoofer
from 40Hz down
I felt that all the bass I heard through my own and other speakers
such as the Watts Puppies, B@ W 801 etc.was the weak link of hi-fi
sound. Somewhere in the transition from the lower to the upper bass
the sound got "smeared"- cellos for instance losing their string
harmonics and acquiring a nasal cold.
Looking for a cheap trial of a TL woofer I came across what seemed
to me like a crank idea from which I did not expect too much. Two
Sonotubes (compressed paper tubes builders use to pour concrete in) of
different dimensions inside each other to get a transmission line-
woofer sound flowing to the bottom of the inner tube , and coming out
through the ports in the outer tube.
You'll find details in: Google search under "Transmission line
soeakers" ,page 1. Click: Rec>Audio>Do-it-yourself. Click: "Building a
transmission line design".
My own solution is somewhat different . My inner tube rests on washers
resting between nuts installed 3,5" abobe the base level -on 6"
carriage bolts- allowing for what I am told is a longer and truer
transmission path and allowing for the ports to be on top.
The construction is ideal for the most inept (like myself). The main
expense is the polyfill stuffing. One needs lots of it.
The sound is a revelation. The instruments come from a concert hall
stage not from the floor. The bass is the cleanest I ever had and
powerful enough to give Peter Hurford's Bach organ a true cathedral
majesty.
I have no knowledge or interest in theory and will not even read
theoretical objections and pretend understanding. I'd love though to
hear the feedback from others who tried similar , tubular design. I
saw on the web designs for Hsu-like subwoofer out of Sonotube and
others like it.
The Magnat closed boxes available for carrying away
Ludovic Mirabel
>
> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Gentlemen, I am going to concede some ground on the subject of
> homebrew
> > speakers. There seems to be a pretty universal disregard for them on
> RAHE.
> > OK, there are some dreadful home mades, but my point is that there
> are also
> > some dreadful factory made speakers as well.
> > There are several types of home builders, not all of whom are of
> the high
> > end persuasion.
> > There are the dumb guys who build something big, loud, and cheap.
> They
> > would have bought a comparable commercial design that sounded just
> as bad.
> > They might have bought a white van speaker.
> > There are the guys who like to do woodworking, and speakers give
> them that
> > outlet. The great part of that is that they always love the sound
> of
> > whatever they build,. and they rile the stereo store guys by telling
> them
> > that their speaker is better than the "store boughts".
> > Then there are the inventors/artists. The desire to create is there
> even if
> > the competence is not. These are not high end guys, though some
> think they
> > are. There are some very strange designs out there that represent
> the heart
> > and souls of the designers, and a few are OK or even better. .
> > Of course there are the Klone-audio.com types who copy high end
> speakers.
> > I've never heard their work, but I invite all to see their project
> update
> > page to see that they are miles above the dumb guy category.
> > Then there are the many self taught individuals who design their
> own
> > speakers that vary from good to great.
> > Then there are the kits designed and perfected by professionals
> that allow
> > a home builder to make his own cabinet and assemble his own speaker.
> Look at
> > Madisound.com for some examples at low to mid prices, and the
> Linkwitz site
> > for a high end home built speaker that looks superb.
> > I notice that when comparisons are made the commercial speakers
> used
> > are carefully selected examples of small speakers that might also
> embarrass
> > many higher proved factory built high end speakers in the market if
> > demonstrated against them. e.g.- nobody picks Bose for their
> comparisons,
> > even though Bose is a huge seller and has far more market share than
> the
> > lesser known and lesser selling British brand mentioned. As far as
> that
> > goes there are probably more white van speakers sold than, say,
> Celestion.
> > So why not use them for comparison to home made?
> >
> > Wylie Williams
> >

[Bob-Stanton]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message

> the whole point of the question is whether for say
> $1,000, an amateur (even a talented and educated one) can build a
> speaker which is a match for one of the many *good* speakers on the
> market at this price point.

There are only a few amatuers who have the knowledge and the test
equipment necessary to design a *good* speaker.

The interesting thing about high-end speakers is they cost thousands
of dollars, but they only have a few hundred dollars worth of parts.
That makes it tempting for the amatuer speaker builder to try to roll
his own.

If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.

Bob Stanton

[Wylie Williams]

"Bob-Stanton"
> If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
> designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.

In an earlier post I mentioned www. madisound.com as a source of plans and
parts. Has no one looked? Or does the prospect of amateurs building good
speakers run against the grain?

Wylie Williams

P.S, - I am not connected with Madisound, except that I used to buy parts
from them so I saw their catalog and website often. There are others like
Speaker City, and probably many more, who offer plans of designs by
professionals as part of selling speaker parts.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 18 Aug 2003 14:27:17 GMT, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>
>> the whole point of the question is whether for say
>> $1,000, an amateur (even a talented and educated one) can build a
>> speaker which is a match for one of the many *good* speakers on the
>> market at this price point.
>
>There are only a few amatuers who have the knowledge and the test
>equipment necessary to design a *good* speaker.
>
>The interesting thing about high-end speakers is they cost thousands
>of dollars, but they only have a few hundred dollars worth of parts.
>That makes it tempting for the amatuer speaker builder to try to roll
>his own.
>
>If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
>designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.

OTOH, why would anyone who had expended the large R&D effort on the
intricacies of cabinet and crossover design required to 'voice' such a
high-end speaker, choose to give away this information?

Always assuming of course, that the amateur was able to source the
cabinet materials and assembly process equipment. Try building a B&W
Nautilus 800 cabinet, and see how far you get! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <Mh70b.143217$cF.52539@rwcrnsc53>,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
>"Bob-Stanton"
>> If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
>> designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.
>
>In an earlier post I mentioned www. madisound.com as a source of plans and
>parts. Has no one looked? Or does the prospect of amateurs building good
>speakers run against the grain?

There is a wide range of activities included in your term
"building speakers." They range from little more than the
application of solder to wires, screws to holes and oil to
veneer all the way to thinking about a design, implementing the
design, which includes evaluation, selection and qualification
of drivers, breadboarding, testing, redesign, measurement,
performance verification, diagnosis of deviations from intended
system response, and so on.

Which are you talking about?

If you are talking about the former, i.e., assembling a kit,
you'll find that there is NOT a lot of savings to be had money
wise, and, like ALL speaker designs, it presupposes the
competence on the part of the designer, something that is, as we
agree not even assured for finished commercially available
systems.

>P.S, - I am not connected with Madisound, except that I used to buy parts
>from them so I saw their catalog and website often. There are others like
>Speaker City, and probably many more, who offer plans of designs by
>professionals as part of selling speaker parts.

They offer designs, that's for sure. Whether they are
competently design by professionals experienced and skilled in
the field is another question altogether and something that is
not to be taken for granted.

Something which you seem not to realize is that given the rather
large set of often competing and contradictory requirements in
the design of the system, to do it RIGHT requires a fair amount
of skill, experience, and the mechanical and financial
resources. This includes the availability of the facilities to
verify the implementation. Not very many people have such
facilities, and even fewer know what to do with the results.

And that inlcudes not only rank amateurs building at home, it
includes the small number of dealers making kits and selling
designs and the commercial finished loudspeaker system
manufacturers. Some proportion of each of them ARE capable of
doing competent design, and the rest aren't.

Just because it's a "finished design," by your own implicit
admission (remember, you stated that a lot of commercial designs
aren't very good), doesn't mean that it's competently done. And
sticking some famous person's name on a design does NOT mean
that it's a good design. For example, I and others who provide
design consulting work to loudpeaker system manufacturers have
had to, on a number of occasions, enjoin a manufacturer from
using our names because they have taken a design and morphed it
beyond recognition. It is one reason why I, as a very general
rule, not only do not engage in brand recognition but, for the
most part, will not allow my name to be used with the designs I
have assisted in unless I have control over what happens after
the design leaves my hands.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[All Ears]

Of course it is possible to build a really good speaker, if you are lucky,
persistent or a genius. It is just that the arguments for doing so, is
mostly that it should be done only if you think it is really fun to do so,
and you do not have unrealistically high expectations about the result.

KE

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
...
> In previous posts ----
>
> > >If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
> > >designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.
> >
> > OTOH, why would anyone who had expended the large R&D effort on the
> > intricacies of cabinet and crossover design required to 'voice' such a
> > high-end speaker, choose to give away this information?
>
> Let's try these:
> 1. A person having the ability and the facilities and desire to create and
> perfect a spekaer design is a very different thing from his having the
> ability, faclities, financing, and desire to become a loudspeaker
> manufacturer. I believe that there are more of the former than the
latter.
> Mr. Linkwitz is the best example I am aware of.
> 2. Speaker manufacturers develop kits to sell more of their speakers.
> Mostly it's European makers, like Audax. Dynaudio did kits until they
> decided to sell finished speakers.
> 3. Speaker parts sellers do the same, for the same reason.
>
> >
> > Always assuming of course, that the amateur was able to source the
> > cabinet materials and assembly process equipment. Try building a B&W
> > Nautilus 800 cabinet, and see how far you get! :-)
> > --
> True, to perfectly clone a high end speaker can be an impossible
> undertaking. But I will add that I admire the energy of the
> www.klone-audio.com participants, though I have no idea how close their
> clones come to the original.
>
> Regarding earlier posts by others on this and other subjects---.
There
> is a tendency on RAHE to be critical, and to take all or none positions.
> That is very productive of argument, but it can conflict with reality. In
> this series on DIY speakers there is a tendency to disrespect all DIY
> speaker builders. My contrary statements have tended to say that some home
> builds are comparable to high end factory builds. Certainly not all. I do
> not wish to defend the idiots and braggarts in the DIY clan. In my store
> days I remember well having a Peerless 12" woofer brought in to me
installed
> in a cabinet made of 1/4" paneling. It actually danced around the floor
> while playing, which to the constructors was a sign that it was a
defective
> woofer. I wish to state that there is another end of the spectrum of
DIYers,
> so blanket statements are not true, therefore not appropriate.
> Of course I may misconstrue the purpose of RAHE. Perhaps argument is
> the point, so the inevitable arguments that proceed from all or none
> statements are true to the purpose of this newsgroup.
>
> Wylie Williams

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
> In previous posts ----
>
>> >If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
>> >designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.
>>
>> OTOH, why would anyone who had expended the large R&D effort on the
>> intricacies of cabinet and crossover design required to 'voice' such a
>> high-end speaker, choose to give away this information?
>
>Let's try these:
>1. A person having the ability and the facilities and desire to create and
>perfect a spekaer design is a very different thing from his having the
>ability, faclities, financing, and desire to become a loudspeaker
>manufacturer. I believe that there are more of the former than the latter.
>Mr. Linkwitz is the best example I am aware of.

Okay, let's run with this. You have come up with ONE example
fitting your former case. Now, I can come up with 100 fitting
the latter case. Just lok at any directory of speaker
manufacturers. You believe there are more of the former tha the
latter. Please show us that there are more amateurs with, to
quote you that there are more than 100 persons:

"having the ability and the facilities and desire to
create and perfect a spekaer design"

Let's look at just two of those qualitifactions:

ability
This MUST include a solid foundation in electronics,
acoustics and mechanical engineering.
facilities
This MUST include a comprehensive array of the necessary
equipment and measurement environments to ensure that
measurements are consitent and dependable, and that the
measurement equipment must perform at a level such that
it can never be indicted as a source of potential error.
That, for example, would include at least one laboratory
grade microphone of the type exeplified by a Bruel&Kjaer
4134/2619/2804 and appropriate support facilities, a
comprehensive analysis system, as well as a room of
sufficient size to enable low-frequency measurements.

Now, Dr. Linkwitz DOES have access to such facilities, and so do
I and many other professionals.

However, you CLAIM that there are more of the former that fit in
your category, but you have only mentioned one.

>2. Speaker manufacturers develop kits to sell more of their speakers.
>Mostly it's European makers, like Audax. Dynaudio did kits until they
>decided to sell finished speakers.

Directed-marketed kits are a VERY tiny portion of most driver
manufacturers total business. For the rest, they sell no kits at
all.

>3. Speaker parts sellers do the same, for the same reason.

With few exceptions, the raw parts sales to amateurs is a SMALL
part of a driver manufacturers total business and, it should be
noted, a very expensive, high-maintenance, high-annoyance way
to sell drivers. More and more large manufacturers are getting
out of that business.

>> Always assuming of course, that the amateur was able to source the
>> cabinet materials and assembly process equipment. Try building a B&W
>> Nautilus 800 cabinet, and see how far you get! :-)
>> --
>True, to perfectly clone a high end speaker can be an impossible
>undertaking. But I will add that I admire the energy of the
>www.klone-audio.com participants, though I have no idea how close their
>clones come to the original.

And, I suspect, neither do most people who engage in this
activity. And that is PRECISELY the point.

> Regarding earlier posts by others on this and other subjects---. There
>is a tendency on RAHE to be critical, and to take all or none positions.
>That is very productive of argument, but it can conflict with reality.

But, Mr. WIlliams, it is your points above that, in fact
DIRECTLY conflict with reality. You make wild claims of how many
people have what ability and what faciliites. I have,m in fact
measured THOUSANDS of loudspeakers, you, apparently have
measured none. I have been in the speaker and driver business
for a large number of years, and yet you claim that those that
would disagree with you are in conflict with reality? And you
attempt to bolster that by quite deliberately skewing
comparisons by picking the worst imaginable samples?

Really?

>In
>this series on DIY speakers there is a tendency to disrespect all DIY
>speaker builders.

No, there has not. There has been repeated attempts to correct
you deeply held but rather indefensible opinions that are not
well based in fact.

> My contrary statements have tended to say that some home
>builds are comparable to high end factory builds. Certainly not all.

Certainly VERY few.

> Of course I may misconstrue the purpose of RAHE.

No, perhaps you want to claim that any presentation of fact that
is contrary to your views constitutes "contrary argument." You
may call it what you wish, but it remains as it is.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Bob-Stanton]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message

> >
> >If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
> >designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.
>
> OTOH, why would anyone who had expended the large R&D effort on the
> intricacies of cabinet and crossover design required to 'voice' such a
> high-end speaker, choose to give away this information?
>

There are a few competent people, who have choosen to give away useful
knowledge. For example, look at: http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/

Art Ludwig knows what he is doing, and has made a lot of useful
design information available to the amatuer speaker builder.

I'm sure there are others like him.

Bob Stanton

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
Bob-Stanton > wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>
>> >
>> >If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
>> >designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.
>>
>> OTOH, why would anyone who had expended the large R&D effort on the
>> intricacies of cabinet and crossover design required to 'voice' such a
>> high-end speaker, choose to give away this information?
>
>There are a few competent people, who have choosen to give away useful
>knowledge. For example, look at: http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/
>
>Art Ludwig knows what he is doing, and has made a lot of useful
>design information available to the amatuer speaker builder.
>
>I'm sure there are others like him.

That's a very different thing. Ludwig is one example of many,
someone who is interested in trying to EDUCATE people, despite
the sometimes withering desire of many in the high end to resist
any advancement in their knowledge at any cost.

That's a WHOLE lot different than a company investing a large
some of money in developing a product and then giving the design
away. The question still remains: why would anyone who had
expended the large R&D effort on the intricacies of cabinet and
crossover design required to 'voice' such a high-end speaker,
choose to give away this information?

But to the original point: many people, simply don't seem or
want to understand that a speaker is much more than simply the
collection of parts. A $2000 speaker is MUCH more than $400-$500
worth of parts. Indeed, the parts are the easy part. Any idiot
can spend $500 on parts. And many do.

But, without the expertise, without the engineering and test
facilities, without the experience, without already having made
the mistakes and learned that someone with no experience, no
engineering and test facilities, no experience, shooting
randomly in the dark, making changes without having an idea of
what the effects of the changes will be, that $500 collection of
parts will forever be nothing more than a $500 collection of
parts.

Again, despite others' attempts to misrepresent what is being
said, there is a lot that the home worker can do towards making
a
credible showing at making a speaker. It requires education, it
requires the will to slog through the physical principles
involved (it ain't brain surgery and not quite rocket science,
but it involves all the same underlying physical principles).
Understand what the Thiele-Small model MEANS, be able to measure
the parameters of a woofer, measure the impedance curve or the
output of a crossover, UNDERSTAND that passive ladder filters
CANNOT EVER exist with the kinds of responses that are very
useful for crossovers when loaded by non resistive terminations,
that L-pads in passive crossovers ALMOST NEVER behave they way
you might naively think they do, that some things are VERY
important and are oft ignored, and others that the high end
worries its little soul into exhaustion about are SO
unimportant. Understand all that, and you got a shot at the gold
ring.

It's a LOT of work, and VERY few people have taken the effort.
VERY few. There are NO shortcuts. And "trusting your ears" and
using no dependable reference measurements and tweaking and
rebuilding and tweaking some more and building again is not only
NOT a shortcut, but I know of almost NO credible cases where it
has resulted in anything ANYWHERE NEAR as good as a far more
expesive speaker made out of similar parts. In fact, they've all
been pretty much worse than whole speakers that cost the same as
the raw parts cost the poor guy just got done with.

Yeah, any idot can make a loudspeaker, and, just on raw
statistics alone, there's probably a speaker out there somewhere
that really is worse. That ain't saying much, but that's the
argument that's been advanced.

On the other hand, if you get out of this preposterous myth that
all you need is your ears and enough iterations, if you loose
the concept of Eddington's monkeys as speaker designer, if you
spend the time and effort to LEARN, then you have a MUCH better
shot at it.

Shakespeare was MUCH more efficient than monkeys at producing
sonnets, because he he took the time to learn the technology
necessary: English.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Joseph Oberlander]

Richard D Pierce wrote:

> And that inlcudes not only rank amateurs building at home, it
> includes the small number of dealers making kits and selling
> designs and the commercial finished loudspeaker system
> manufacturers. Some proportion of each of them ARE capable of
> doing competent design, and the rest aren't.

Ellis Audio for instance, sells kits. The cabinet plans are
included, but honestly, his woodworking skills are better than
mine will ever be.

Nice speakers. It can happen. Note, though, that he's been
tweaking and working with software and cabinets for many years.
I can't imagine how many duds he went through to get to where
he is now.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 18 Aug 2003 21:11:56 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
wrote:

> In previous posts ----
>
>> >If the amatuer speaker builder could find the plans for a really well
>> >designed speaker, there is no reason why he couldn't build one.
>>
>> OTOH, why would anyone who had expended the large R&D effort on the
>> intricacies of cabinet and crossover design required to 'voice' such a
>> high-end speaker, choose to give away this information?
>
>Let's try these:
>1. A person having the ability and the facilities and desire to create and
>perfect a spekaer design is a very different thing from his having the
>ability, faclities, financing, and desire to become a loudspeaker
>manufacturer.

Indeed yes, and so far as I know, no one outside the industry (or the
NRC in Canada) has such facilities.

>I believe that there are more of the former than the latter.
>Mr. Linkwitz is the best example I am aware of.

Oh, you have not heard of Acoustic Artistry speakers, the company
part-owned by Dr Linkwitz?

>2. Speaker manufacturers develop kits to sell more of their speakers.
>Mostly it's European makers, like Audax. Dynaudio did kits until they
>decided to sell finished speakers.

Audax and Focal still sell drivers, Dynaudio do not.

>3. Speaker parts sellers do the same, for the same reason.

Indeed yes. Did you have a point?

>> Always assuming of course, that the amateur was able to source the
>> cabinet materials and assembly process equipment. Try building a B&W
>> Nautilus 800 cabinet, and see how far you get! :-)
>> --
>True, to perfectly clone a high end speaker can be an impossible
>undertaking. But I will add that I admire the energy of the
>www.klone-audio.com participants, though I have no idea how close their
>clones come to the original.

Quite so............... :-)

> Regarding earlier posts by others on this and other subjects---. There
>is a tendency on RAHE to be critical, and to take all or none positions.
>That is very productive of argument, but it can conflict with reality. In
>this series on DIY speakers there is a tendency to disrespect all DIY
>speaker builders.

Not at all, there is simply the widely held reality that the
*performance* of the finished product does not compare well with
commercial models.

> My contrary statements have tended to say that some home
>builds are comparable to high end factory builds. Certainly not all.

How about just one?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Bob-Stanton]

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message

> They offer designs, that's for sure. Whether they are
> competently design by professionals experienced and skilled in
> the field is another question altogether and something that is
> not to be taken for granted.
>
> Something which you seem not to realize is that given the rather
> large set of often competing and contradictory requirements in
> the design of the system, to do it RIGHT requires a fair amount
> of skill, experience, and the mechanical and financial
> resources. This includes the availability of the facilities to
> verify the implementation. Not very many people have such
> facilities, and even fewer know what to do with the results.
>

You tell us that commercial speaker systems are "good" and amatuer
speaker systems are "poor". But, you never give us specifics.

I know that amatuers typically get about 5 dB peak to valley response
flatness. What response flatness do you see with commercial systems?

Feel free to include other measurements, in addition to response
flatness.

Bob Stanton

[Wylie Williams]

Bill,
In comparisons of speakers trying to be sure to compare like to like
makes generalizations very difficult. You are essentially correct about the
comparative quality of typical DIY vs. factory designs in todays market from
your experience as a high end dealer who is willing to select and to carry
the great sounding $300 speakers that beat the typical DIY effort. They
also beat the majority of speakers that represent the majority of speaker
purchases in the USA. (Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, Sams, et al).
A DIY builder going to those stores might fare better in his comparison
than he would in your store, as I imagine you have selected $300 speakers
that beat the big box store's factory speakers priced at or even well above
$300.

Wylie Williams

"Uptown Audio" > wrote in message
news:mnt%a.127471$cF.33282@rwcrnsc53...
> Absolutely. I don't think anyone who has evaluated a lot of speakers
> and is commenting about commercial designs being superior has said
> that those that wish to build their own are incompetent or idiotic,
> etc. They are just saying that there are so many things in favor of a
> commercial design that it makes the prospect of building your own
> actually more expensive if you wish to achieve the same sonic
> standards. In other words, you could build a $500 speaker that sounds
> better than a $200 speaker with some luck and loads of effort, but
> other than the bragging rights you have less cash to show for it. I
> think many people that have built their own speakers have compared
> them to their own old speakers that they needed to replace and got the
> desire to replace them after hearing new speakers elsewhere. They then
> assume that they got that sound for a better price. How many have
> actually brought those to a showroom and compared to some new
> commercial speakers? I think that everyone wants to feel that their
> efforts have been rewarded or perhaps that they are superior in some
> way such as intellectually or in the ability to design and craft a
> project on one's on, etc. That would be normal and it would be
> somewhat damaging to that ego to have the result nullified. Just being
> more practical and using the research, development and skills of
> others to your advantage may also be considered wise. Especially when
> your purchase decision was based upon sound and not name recognition.
> So brag if you like on either accomplishment, but in the end it is you
> who have to both pay for and listen to them.
> - Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250
>
> "Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <Ep_Za.87046$Oz4.21697@rwcrnsc54>,
> > Wylie Williams > wrote:
> > >The assumption of several members to the speaker building posts is
> that
> > >home builders are making their own Some home speaker builders
> are
> > >building pre-engineered designs, so the only issue is their
> workmanship.
> >
> > No, the "assumption" which was pretty well stated at one point
> > in the thread, is that home builders are attempting to duplicate
> > and existing commercial design, not some "pre-engineered" kit.
> > As an example, someone may decide they don't want to spend the
> > money on a finished pair of Aerial 10t's or B&W's, so they
> > attempt to get the same drivers and so on. Well, in most cases,
> > they can't, so they're already starting with a serious
> > handicap.
> >
> > >Are the home designs inherently flawed?
> >
> > Nobody said they were "inherently" flawed.
> >
> > >Some are; some aren't, and the same can be said of many name
> > >brand factory speakers.
> >
> > Indeed, and usually for precisely the same reason: lack of
> > experience, lack of expertise, lack of proper design facilities,
> > lack of proper components, and so on. SO what?
> >
> > >There is more competence in the world of home speaker builders than
> is
> > >being credited in these posts.
> >
> > Really? I think you need to read the posts and understand what
> > IS being talked about. And as one who has, in fact, measured the
> > results of a couple of hundred such home speaker builders, I
> > think I might have a somewhat different perspective.
> > --
> > | Dick Pierce |
> > | Professional Audio Development |
> > | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> > | |
>

[Joseph Oberlander]

Richard D Pierce wrote:

> That's a WHOLE lot different than a company investing a large
> some of money in developing a product and then giving the design
> away. The question still remains: why would anyone who had
> expended the large R&D effort on the intricacies of cabinet and
> crossover design required to 'voice' such a high-end speaker,
> choose to give away this information?

I could see a manufacturer like Tannoy giving away the information
on its older Gold series speakers. They have no use for them and
are currently making superior products. Eventually the older
designs are no longer produced, so why NOT give away some of the
data to DIYers?

I just wish it wasn't 30 year old designs we were being given
data for.

[Nousaine]

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

...snips.....
>
>>2. Speaker manufacturers develop kits to sell more of their speakers.
>>Mostly it's European makers, like Audax. Dynaudio did kits until they
>>decided to sell finished speakers.
>
>Audax and Focal still sell drivers, Dynaudio do not.

What a break. In the 80's the Dynaudio tweeters seemed to be one of the
speakers of choice. But the Dynaudio woofers and mids were really strange. It
was common to buy a woofer withj an advertised Fs of 45 Hz which turned out to
be 60 or 75 Hz.

I finally figured out that Dynaudio was probably selling OEM batch overruns and
rejected drivers to us DIY guys all under the same part number.

Nothing inherently wrong with that but I';d have been more comfortable with a
disclosure up-front that the speaker I was buying may not come close to the
specifications published in the catalog.