Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
By what criteria do you think the wire inside the box inferior? In the
crossover filter is several meters of wire, is it too not quality wire? Do you judge the technical design poor for including this wire? Do you think those who designed the speaker would also include wire that was not perfectly capable of performing to the specifications of the design? Unless you have informed answers to the above I would suggest leaving the wire as it is. If you doubt the technical qualifications or honesty of the manufacture, then you should perhaps sell this product for being a failure. Hello everyone I'm planning to change all inner wirings of 804, as they are quite poor compared to general quality of finishing and sound. Has anyone made these kind of modifications on nautilus ser. or even better if on 804? Any special instructions, pics or hints are welcome, like to know where am I heading. BRGDS Riku |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
wrote in message ...
By what criteria do you think the wire inside the box inferior? In the crossover filter is several meters of wire, is it too not quality wire? Do you judge the technical design poor for including this wire? Do you think those who designed the speaker would also include wire that was not perfectly capable of performing to the specifications of the design? Unless you have informed answers to the above I would suggest leaving the wire as it is. If you doubt the technical qualifications or honesty of the manufacture, then you should perhaps sell this product for being a failure. It doesn't work exactly like that. Designs from even great factories can usually easily be improved. Only in the last few years have there been completely tweeked assembly line luidspeakers. It's kinda like asking yourself could a good Mercedes be improved by AMG, or a good Ford Mustang be improved by Cobra. (Cooper and Mini also come to mind) There are reasons for this. Big names with pricing in the regular guy's budget have to play it safe and often purposely de-tune an otherwise aggressive design voor economic and sometimes marketing reasons. Also technology moves on. I would not want the inductors from 10 years ago in my speakers. Hello everyone I'm planning to change all inner wirings of 804, as they are quite poor compared to general quality of finishing and sound. Has anyone made these kind of modifications on nautilus ser. or even better if on 804? Any special instructions, pics or hints are welcome, like to know where am I heading. BRGDS Riku |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
My questions stand as is, if there is no reason to think otherwise, the
wire is as good for it's purpose as it gets, possible exceptions being such things as the gauge is too small etc. , but this would be revealed in answering the questions. If one thinks the wire lacks the majic ingredient known only to exist in wire other then that used in the speaker, well what can one say; and how exactly does one not know it does not exist in the existing wire and in spades. The manufacture would have to be very desperate for cash to skimp on a few inches of wire gauge, in which case the entire design would be suspect and support for tossing the product well considered. A more likely diagnosis in this instance is audio nervosa. By what criteria do you think the wire inside the box inferior? In the crossover filter is several meters of wire, is it too not quality wire? Do you judge the technical design poor for including this wire? Do you think those who designed the speaker would also include wire that was not perfectly capable of performing to the specifications of the design? Unless you have informed answers to the above I would suggest leaving the wire as it is. If you doubt the technical qualifications or honesty of the manufacture, then you should perhaps sell this product for being a failure. It doesn't work exactly like that. Designs from even great factories can usually easily be improved. Only in the last few years have there been completely tweeked assembly line luidspeakers. It's kinda like asking yourself could a good Mercedes be improved by AMG, or a good Ford Mustang be improved by Cobra. (Cooper and Mini also come to mind) There are reasons for this. Big names with pricing in the regular guy's budget have to play it safe and often purposely de-tune an otherwise aggressive design voor economic and sometimes marketing reasons. Also technology moves on. I would not want the inductors from 10 years ago in my speakers. Hello everyone I'm planning to change all inner wirings of 804, as they are quite poor compared to general quality of finishing and sound. Has anyone made these kind of modifications on nautilus ser. or even better if on 804? Any special instructions, pics or hints are welcome, like to know where am I heading. BRGDS Riku |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
wrote in message ...
My questions stand as is, if there is no reason to think otherwise, the wire is as good for it's purpose as it gets, possible exceptions being such things as the gauge is too small etc. , but this would be revealed in answering the questions. If one thinks the wire lacks the majic ingredient known only to exist in wire other then that used in the speaker, well what can one say; and how exactly does one not know it does not exist in the existing wire and in spades. The manufacture would have to be very desperate for cash to skimp on a few inches of wire gauge, in which case the entire design would be suspect and support for tossing the product well considered. A more likely diagnosis in this instance is audio nervosa. All factories for all kinds of products, excepting exotica, scimp all the time to bring their product into budget which is a must in a competitive economy. The production cost of a speaker is typically about 15 to 20% of its MSRP which doesn't leave much room for splurging. Then the designer's proverbial woody from his proud concept usually gets limp when the bean counters tell him to make it 25% cheaper. The crossover and connecting wire is exactly where loudspeakers tend to scimp almost without exception. This is because unitl recently, the typical consumer knew nothing about this part of the speaker, and you can scimp there to a certain extent. But in past years your speaker had to have a "kevlar cone, kapton former, neodynium magnet, super re-enforced cabinet, ect." to be cool enough to sell so those expensive quality, but also marketable bits have to be in there, so where else can you save. Now I wholehartedly agree with you in saying that if a speaker makes you happy leave it alone. That's what it is there for. But if one dares to go inside you will almost certainly find something worth replacing. Speaker manufacturing is no Walhalla and it is somewhat like sausage. You don't really want to know what's in there because you may be disappointed. Wessel By what criteria do you think the wire inside the box inferior? In the crossover filter is several meters of wire, is it too not quality wire? Do you judge the technical design poor for including this wire? Do you think those who designed the speaker would also include wire that was not perfectly capable of performing to the specifications of the design? Unless you have informed answers to the above I would suggest leaving the wire as it is. If you doubt the technical qualifications or honesty of the manufacture, then you should perhaps sell this product for being a failure. It doesn't work exactly like that. Designs from even great factories can usually easily be improved. Only in the last few years have there been completely tweeked assembly line luidspeakers. It's kinda like asking yourself could a good Mercedes be improved by AMG, or a good Ford Mustang be improved by Cobra. (Cooper and Mini also come to mind) There are reasons for this. Big names with pricing in the regular guy's budget have to play it safe and often purposely de-tune an otherwise aggressive design voor economic and sometimes marketing reasons. Also technology moves on. I would not want the inductors from 10 years ago in my speakers. Hello everyone I'm planning to change all inner wirings of 804, as they are quite poor compared to general quality of finishing and sound. Has anyone made these kind of modifications on nautilus ser. or even better if on 804? Any special instructions, pics or hints are welcome, like to know where am I heading. BRGDS Riku |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"wires really are poor and there are many unnecessary connections made
with tab terminals. " By what criteria do you judge the wire poor? I assume the "tab" terminals are what we in the US call spade. Why do you feel the terminals are not working as specified and that current flow could be increased/improved by replacement? Are you considering solder joints instead, if so to what advantage to the electrical performance of the speaker would it be? Are you aware some people think the push on friction type of tab/spade terminal a superior connection method? You mention other speakers having a "good" wire which might be to your listening advantage. How do you know that the existing wire doesn't have what ever "quality" of the "good" wire, but even more so? By your description, how do you know anything by visual inspection alone? If the wire had been thick with a vibrant colored cover would you be considering replacement? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
(Guruguru) wrote:
.....snips to content.... Well well, you all made your points while I was out. Nervosa, don't think so, this is a hobby. Last Thursday I opened my 804 and were convinced to go on with this project, wires really are poor and there are many unnecessary connections made with tab terminals. "Poor" wires can't, in my opinion, necessarily be evaluated by visual inspection unless they are defective in some way (insulation scraped or something.) But don't forget that the wire may be intentionally that way as in have a certain resistance value. I've tested literally hundreds of finished loudspeakers and have never seen tab connectors to be an issue physically or sonically. Before I opened 804, I was afraid that this modification is hard to complete (glueing and stuff), but it's not, everything is more or less loose and easy to change. I'm not going to touch on crossover components, because I have no way to measure the "end result". Tested Goertz MI 1 gables whole weekend and choosed to use that (flexible, good sound and not too expensive)http://www.alphacore.com/mispeaker.html . Have at it :-) Why not modify one of them and then compare it to the un-mod one. Put a section of acoustically transparent cloth over both; have a friend position them while you're out of the room and then test. Repeat a few times and see if you get consistent results. Remember to use a coin or something to randomize positions because individual positioning will strongly influence results. Good listening. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(Guruguru) wrote: ....snips to content.... Well well, you all made your points while I was out. Nervosa, don't think so, this is a hobby. Last Thursday I opened my 804 and were convinced to go on with this project, wires really are poor and there are many unnecessary connections made with tab terminals. "Poor" wires can't, in my opinion, necessarily be evaluated by visual inspection unless they are defective in some way (insulation scraped or something.) But don't forget that the wire may be intentionally that way as in have a certain resistance value. I've tested literally hundreds of finished loudspeakers and have never seen tab connectors to be an issue physically or sonically. About 6,3mm tab terminals, they work as funnel, transfer resistance is much higher than on spades or solder connections, think that you know that. Wire it self is made out of somekind steel mixture (not silver). Before I opened 804, I was afraid that this modification is hard to complete (glueing and stuff), but it's not, everything is more or less loose and easy to change. I'm not going to touch on crossover components, because I have no way to measure the "end result". Tested Goertz MI 1 gables whole weekend and choosed to use that (flexible, good sound and not too expensive)http://www.alphacore.com/mispeaker.html . Have at it :-) Why not modify one of them and then compare it to the un-mod one. Put a section of acoustically transparent cloth over both; have a friend position them while you're out of the room and then test. Repeat a few times and see if you get consistent results. Remember to use a coin or something to randomize positions because individual positioning will strongly influence results. Good listening. Yeah, that's what I'm gona do, but first have wait until I have new cables between amp and 804 (now there is MI 1) |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Wessel Dirksen" wrote: wrote in message ... My questions stand as is, if there is no reason to think otherwise, the wire is as good for it's purpose as it gets, possible exceptions being such things as the gauge is too small etc. , but this would be revealed in answering the questions. If one thinks the wire lacks the majic ingredient known only to exist in wire other then that used in the speaker, well what can one say; and how exactly does one not know it does not exist in the existing wire and in spades. The manufacture would have to be very desperate for cash to skimp on a few inches of wire gauge, in which case the entire design would be suspect and support for tossing the product well considered. A more likely diagnosis in this instance is audio nervosa. I agree with this :-) All factories for all kinds of products, excepting exotica, scimp all the time to bring their product into budget which is a must in a competitive economy. The production cost of a speaker is typically about 15 to 20% of its MSRP which doesn't leave much room for splurging. Then the designer's proverbial woody from his proud concept usually gets limp when the bean counters tell him to make it 25% cheaper. The crossover and connecting wire is exactly where loudspeakers tend to scimp almost without exception. But you can't save much money on a few inches or feet of internal wire. And even if you could don't forget that some internal wiring, like apparently too small wire or inductor with same, may actually contain a "hidden" resistor and your wire substution may actually be compromising a given crossover function. Another interesting side of DIY modifications is that while I heartily endorse such IF they actually improve the product. But you practically never see engineering verification of improvements.In the latter regard I guessing that the most common at-home "upgrades" to speakers simply involves replacing parts (wires, caps, inductors, resisitors) with more expensive parts that weren't sound qualilty limiting in the first place. You can never measure the difference at this level. Even with the very best 24bit/192 kHz equipment and the most modern method of analysis, you are measuring with very, very elementary and crude waveforms which will never simulate a complex musical waveform. Let's suppose that from the factory the speakers look really flat, say +/- 1 dB (although this is never the case). After even a thorough tweeking they will still look just as flat but may sound much, much better. The improvement in this theoretical scenario is not in the flatness of the curve but in the preservation of the integrity of the signal getting to your ears. Many speakers can also be hugely improved by optimizing the diffractive properties of transmission, inside and outside of the cabinet. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"Guruguru" wrote in message
... (Nousaine) wrote in message ... "Wessel Dirksen" wrote: wrote in message ... My questions stand as is, if there is no reason to think otherwise, the wire is as good for it's purpose as it gets, possible exceptions being such things as the gauge is too small etc. , but this would be revealed in answering the questions. If one thinks the wire lacks the majic ingredient known only to exist in wire other then that used in the speaker, well what can one say; and how exactly does one not know it does not exist in the existing wire and in spades. The manufacture would have to be very desperate for cash to skimp on a few inches of wire gauge, in which case the entire design would be suspect and support for tossing the product well considered. A more likely diagnosis in this instance is audio nervosa. I agree with this :-) All factories for all kinds of products, excepting exotica, scimp all the time to bring their product into budget which is a must in a competitive economy. The production cost of a speaker is typically about 15 to 20% of its MSRP which doesn't leave much room for splurging. Then the designer's proverbial woody from his proud concept usually gets limp when the bean counters tell him to make it 25% cheaper. The crossover and connecting wire is exactly where loudspeakers tend to scimp almost without exception. But you can't save much money on a few inches or feet of internal wire. And even if you could don't forget that some internal wiring, like apparently too small wire or inductor with same, may actually contain a "hidden" resistor and your wire substution may actually be compromising a given crossover function. Another interesting side of DIY modifications is that while I heartily endorse such IF they actually improve the product. But you practically never see engineering verification of improvements.In the latter regard I guessing that the most common at-home "upgrades" to speakers simply involves replacing parts (wires, caps, inductors, resisitors) with more expensive parts that weren't sound qualilty limiting in the first place. Hello to all Well well, you all made your points while I was out. Nervosa, don't think so, this is a hobby. Last Thursday I opened my 804 and were convinced to go on with this project, wires really are poor and there are many unnecessary connections made with tab terminals. Before I opened 804, I was afraid that this modification is hard to complete (glueing and stuff), but it's not, everything is more or less loose and easy to change. I'm not going to touch on crossover components, because I have no way to measure the "end result". Tested Goertz MI 1 gables whole weekend and choosed to use that (flexible, good sound and not too expensive)http://www.alphacore.com/mispeaker.html . Another high class speaker manufacturer uses also Alpha-core cables on inner wirings, but right now I can't remember which one. Seals are also poor, there are actually no seal at all under the connection panel (it actually whistles when played loud) and one seal which was under bass was heavily wrinkled. Maybe newer speakers are finished more carefully, maybe not, we will see when friend of mine does the same modifications as I do. We have already compared differences between our 804, he has serial number around 15000 and I have serial around 3500. Bottom plate is made out of plastic and mine is made from wood. His spikes are very loose, and there are absolutely nothing that can be done to improve those without dramatic changes (bottom plate and threads has to be unattached before anything can be done). Bass cones are different. This is not the first modification for me, succeed with Marantz CD17mkII. Amp and pre-amp are totally home made. It tooked about one year to finish those. Amps compete with Classe CA-100, not with power, but sound quality. Pure A-class, nominal power 20W with lot's of considerable low distortion overdriving capability, maybe 50W. Anyway, the power is not the point, overall sound quality is. Think that we are having a good conversation here and your opinions are always welcome, but please do not judge people by "but this would be revealed in answering the questions". I rather listen music than surf on the internet and that's why I don't have net at home. BRGDS Riku Go for it Riku! Let us know how it turns out. Chances are that you and all of your firends will be amased at how much better they sound. Wessel |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:8uQVb.12175$QA2.22118@attbi_s52... wrote in message ... I'm planning to change all inner wirings of 804, as they are quite poor compared to general quality of finishing and sound. Has anyone made these kind of modifications on nautilus ser. or even better if on 804? Any special instructions, pics or hints are welcome, like to know where am I heading. By what criteria do you think the wire inside the box inferior? In the crossover filter is several meters of wire, is it too not quality wire? And what say ye about the fact that the poor wretched woofer itself is wired wth probably FORTY FEET of VERY small (probably on the order of 28-31 gauge), VERY ordinary, decidedly non-magic copper wire. Precisely HOW much effect does on thing that replacing a couple of feet of 18 gauge wire with a couple o feet of magic 14 gauge wire will have considering that it's looking through 20 times as much that's maybe 1/10 the diameter or smaller? Really? Hi Dick, Strangely enough, if the internals have, say 18 gauge alloy wire, replacing it does often make an audible difference. It's usually subtle but obvious. Getting rid of series electrolytic caps and replacing them with equal value film caps, if the value is smaller than about 100 micF or so, is also even more audible. A weird as it may sound, even beefing up a ground (-) connection, even to a tweeter circuit can lead to obvious improvement in the details, depending on the circuit. This has repeatably and reliably been proven in the almost 20 or so years I've been doing this stuff. And I'm very sceptical about audiophile pseudo science, but I take every reasonable claim seriously until I, and other reliable ears, hear otherwise. Dick, you're a famous guy and as a newcomer to these newsgroups it's really cool to be able to communicate with you like this. As a respected technicall y oriented scientist, you must also realize that we don't know what's going on the micro level because we don't have the observable picture pegged at the electron level yet. If you look at fluid flow dynamics which is much more "observable" than electrons, it is obvious that even when micro level flow turbulence occurs, it can contribute significantly to the output. Also, I'm curious of something which maybe you can give feedback on. Intuitively I feel there is a difference between what happens to the signal at the voice coil and what happens to the signal getting to the voice coil. At the voice coil level, tranduction is occuring, the large impedance characteristic of the wire at that point is an inherent part of this process. Also the voice coil quality, be it in the composition of the metals, how hot it gets while doing its thing, or even how it is wrapped also contributes to the signal integrity. Wessel |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"You can never measure the difference at this level. Even with the very
best 24bit/192 kHz equipment and the most modern method of analysis, you are measuring with very, very elementary and crude waveforms which will never simulate a complex musical waveform. Let's suppose that from the factory the speakers look really flat, say +/- 1 dB (although this is never the case). After even a thorough tweeking they will still look just as flat but may sound much, much better. The improvement in this theoretical scenario is not in the flatness of the curve but in the preservation of the integrity of the signal getting to your ears. Many speakers can also be hugely improved by optimizing the diffractive properties of transmission, inside and outside of the cabinet." There are a few expressed and implied strawman type arguments here, all of which have been covered well on this ng before and need not be addressed. If a few inches, 24?, of wire in the box makes such a difference, why can't the several feet in the crossover and speaker coil simply continue to overwhelm any very small subtraction to whatever "problem" replacing the wire affords? If one can't measure any difference in the properties of the wire, how does one know there is a difference to make it "sound better"? How does one measure the integrity in a before and after wire swap? If there is a wave, complex or not, shape change related to integrity, how does one know it suffers in the absence of gear to measure same? If in fact such cann't be measured, how does one know that the existing wire in fact is not far superior to wave integrity then any possible substitute? On what experience of measurement, at what ever bit level and depth, can we even know in the first place or confirm anew that wire does something to wave integrity; such that you can start with that presumption on which to make deductions? The box shape effect on difraction are well known, all such for the exact theoretical basis confirmed by measurement. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Hi, this is a reply to both replies.
I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the "unknown" factor. My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Any amp guys out there? Wessel wrote in message ... "You can never measure the difference at this level. Even with the very best 24bit/192 kHz equipment and the most modern method of analysis, you are measuring with very, very elementary and crude waveforms which will never simulate a complex musical waveform. Let's suppose that from the factory the speakers look really flat, say +/- 1 dB (although this is never the case). After even a thorough tweeking they will still look just as flat but may sound much, much better. The improvement in this theoretical scenario is not in the flatness of the curve but in the preservation of the integrity of the signal getting to your ears. Many speakers can also be hugely improved by optimizing the diffractive properties of transmission, inside and outside of the cabinet." There are a few expressed and implied strawman type arguments here, all of which have been covered well on this ng before and need not be addressed. If a few inches, 24?, of wire in the box makes such a difference, why can't the several feet in the crossover and speaker coil simply continue to overwhelm any very small subtraction to whatever "problem" replacing the wire affords? If one can't measure any difference in the properties of the wire, how does one know there is a difference to make it "sound better"? How does one measure the integrity in a before and after wire swap? If there is a wave, complex or not, shape change related to integrity, how does one know it suffers in the absence of gear to measure same? If in fact such cann't be measured, how does one know that the existing wire in fact is not far superior to wave integrity then any possible substitute? On what experience of measurement, at what ever bit level and depth, can we even know in the first place or confirm anew that wire does something to wave integrity; such that you can start with that presumption on which to make deductions? The box shape effect on difraction are well known, all such for the exact theoretical basis confirmed by measurement. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Adding music as the signal source doesn't improve matters, use any source
for any reason. The basic question is what properties of a wire requires it's replacement so as to increase speaker performance. If as you claim there is an unknown variable but it can't be measured, how does one determine which wire has or doesn't have it; and is it better to have it or not? Many people are of the mind that the unknowns are well known, they are in the perception process of the person and not in the physical reality of the wire. If we eliminate these perception factors and there is no difference in electrical measurement, what remains; and still that nagging question of how do we know of an unknown? Under what situation does your experience, under which this unknown can be realized, make this possible? If 24 inches of a wire with this factor makes a difference, does 48 inches double it? Or is it subtraction, of the many feet of plain wire in the crossover and speaker coil, does replacing 24 inches of the total internal box length make the difference? Can we set up a situation where increasing or decreasing the total amount of the wire with the unknown factor makes it obvious, as compared to same amount of wire without the factor of the same electrical properties? Spectulation about electron flow and confirmation of some unknown is not the same thing. What does it afford us to speculate and measure and experiment to our heart's delite if it is all about something which doesn't exist? When all factors have been excluded, including the perceptual, and still no difference exists; on what basis can we continue to believe some unknown might still be found when the straight line answer is to exclude some unknown? I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the "unknown" factor. My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Any amp guys out there? Wessel wrote in message ... "You can never measure the difference at this level. Even with the very best 24bit/192 kHz equipment and the most modern method of analysis, you are measuring with very, very elementary and crude waveforms which will never simulate a complex musical waveform. Let's suppose that from the factory the speakers look really flat, say +/- 1 dB (although this is never the case). After even a thorough tweeking they will still look just as flat but may sound much, much better. The improvement in this theoretical scenario is not in the flatness of the curve but in the preservation of the integrity of the signal getting to your ears. Many speakers can also be hugely improved by optimizing the diffractive properties of transmission, inside and outside of the cabinet." There are a few expressed and implied strawman type arguments here, all of which have been covered well on this ng before and need not be addressed. If a few inches, 24?, of wire in the box makes such a difference, why can't the several feet in the crossover and speaker coil simply continue to overwhelm any very small subtraction to whatever "problem" replacing the wire affords? If one can't measure any difference in the properties of the wire, how does one know there is a difference to make it "sound better"? How does one measure the integrity in a before and after wire swap? If there is a wave, complex or not, shape change related to integrity, how does one know it suffers in the absence of gear to measure same? If in fact such cann't be measured, how does one know that the existing wire in fact is not far superior to wave integrity then any possible substitute? On what experience of measurement, at what ever bit level and depth, can we even know in the first place or confirm anew that wire does something to wave integrity; such that you can start with that presumption on which to make deductions? The box shape effect on difraction are well known, all such for the exact theoretical basis confirmed by measurement. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Wessel Dirksen wrote:
Hi, this is a reply to both replies. I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the "unknown" factor. My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. How does one measure with normal music? You have trouble accepting that what appears complex can be described as a summation of sine waves? (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Not at audio frequencies. PCB design is very well understood by competent electrical engineers. Any amp guys out there? Well, yes. Wessel |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"chung" wrote in message
... Wessel Dirksen wrote: Hi, this is a reply to both replies. I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the "unknown" factor. My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. How does one measure with normal music? You have trouble accepting that what appears complex can be described as a summation of sine waves? I'll second that question. If you do not have the mathematical background to understand Fourier serise then you have absolutly no business giving anyone advice on matters of audio or sound. (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Not at audio frequencies. PCB design is very well understood by competent electrical engineers. Any amp guys out there? Well, yes. Wessel This is all absurd, sorry to be so blunt but its true. If you have spent the money to own a pair of Nautilus 804's then for god sake don't go taking them apart. If you want to goof around then make your own speakers from scratch. First, you won't be screwing with what is already a well engineered design and second you might actually learn something. You can buy drivers from many sources (including B&W on eBay) and you go nuts with over built crossovers and cables made out of the rarest metals in the universe. But why oh why mess with a perfectly good pair of speakers that you WILL NOT improve? Let me repeat that, YOU WILL NOT IMPROVE THEM! These are not poorly made speakers, these are very well made, high quality speakers. Any improvement will be psychological (that is if you don't actually mess them up in the process). I have an idea, why don't you give the money that you would waste on this project to charity, then, when you listen to your speakers, you can know that you've actually done some good in the world. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Wessel Dirksen wrote:
My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Any amp guys out there? Wessel, I have been designing PCBs for a long while and I have to tell you, there is no black magic involved. To make a good design it is essential to understand the circuit perfectly and to analyze the current flow from/to the source to each consumer(sink). This is not easy, and most people forget to observe the most important thing: the flow back in the ground line to the supply. It has nothing to do with "levels" in fact no levels exist. And electrons are *not* comparable to water molecules or whatever you imagine, because they have no mass and they are *small*. They will not form eddies on corners or jumps in diameter as hydraulics or gasses, (even if there is an "eddy current", which is caused by an electromagnetic field like all current flow). In fact the flowing electrons distribute evenly and smooth in the conductor, because they repel themselves mutually, unless we have very high frequencies(skin-effect). Electromagnetic fields will govern the flow absolutly. Even if there is no current flow, all electrons are already continuously moving according to their temperature at a very high speed and not only that, they are also "jumping" instantanously. All these things can be measured and calculated. All properties of a conductor can be measured precisely and put into numbers, the transmission-line theory covers even very high frequency behaviour (irrelevant for audio). -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
wrote in message
news:3cwWb.279361$xy6.1423933@attbi_s02... Adding music as the signal source doesn't improve matters, use any source for any reason. The basic question is what properties of a wire requires it's replacement so as to increase speaker performance. If as you claim there is an unknown variable but it can't be measured, how does one determine which wire has or doesn't have it; and is it better to have it or not? Many people are of the mind that the unknowns are well known, they are in the perception process of the person and not in the physical reality of the wire. If we eliminate these perception factors and there is no difference in electrical measurement, what remains; and still that nagging question of how do we know of an unknown? Under what situation does your experience, under which this unknown can be realized, make this possible? If 24 inches of a wire with this factor makes a difference, does 48 inches double it? Or is it subtraction, of the many feet of plain wire in the crossover and speaker coil, does replacing 24 inches of the total internal box length make the difference? Can we set up a situation where increasing or decreasing the total amount of the wire with the unknown factor makes it obvious, as compared to same amount of wire without the factor of the same electrical properties? Spectulation about electron flow and confirmation of some unknown is not the same thing. What does it afford us to speculate and measure and experiment to our heart's delite if it is all about something which doesn't exist? When all factors have been excluded, including the perceptual, and still no difference exists; on what basis can we continue to believe some unknown might still be found when the straight line answer is to exclude some unknown? Wow, this is getting good. OK, you've now all heard the micro science I believe is there. But, one manipulative factor that measureably stands out are all forms of signal loss in loudspeaker design, be it electrical, mechanical or acoustic. If one makes a general attempt to reduce all signal losses in the complete signal pathway, with, very important, compensating for any effect on frequency response, there is always repeatedly an improved situation as a result. Depending on how much loss you recover, this is measureable in very slight to modest increase in efficiency, but the sonic impact is often everything but subtle. Have any of you ever truly studied the inside any hi-fi speaker at all? I should be preaching to the choir here. Have any of you ever studied what happens when you take BAF stuffing out of a vented cabinet and line the walls instead? If you had, than you would know that the increase in bass definition is huge with only a modest increase in output efficiency. Only sometimes can you see this improvement in the impulse or step response. Have any of you ever studied what happens when you reduce the DC resistance in the series pathway to a woofer, with lower loss wire and better inductors? (adjusting for frequency response of course). Well, it's also huge. Have any of you ever hard wired PCB terminals on a speaker with a PCB, or got rid of the PCB altogether? Well, it is usually not huge but very discernable. Getting to my point, replacing the wire in this example can be of benefit if replacing it would improve the overall DC resistance going to the woofer. Some British designs have up to 1 ohm of series resistance going to the principle low frequency driver(s). You get this down to 0.1 or 0.2 ohm and the difference is phenomenal but your test equipment, in its current form, will never specifically "show" this improvement to you. In the tuning of an existing speaker which you don't want to re-design, you really only need test equipment to restore the tonal balance. (i.e. flat, smooth SPL response) Once more thing about measuring. Do you really think that measuring frequency response, impulse response, ETC, or distortion of any kind actually gives you any comprehensive picture as to what's going on? It's only scratching the surface. So to spice it up some, why don't you prove to me why Riku's B&W's could never be improved. Wessel I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the "unknown" factor. My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Any amp guys out there? Wessel wrote in message ... "You can never measure the difference at this level. Even with the very best 24bit/192 kHz equipment and the most modern method of analysis, you are measuring with very, very elementary and crude waveforms which will never simulate a complex musical waveform. Let's suppose that from the factory the speakers look really flat, say +/- 1 dB (although this is never the case). After even a thorough tweeking they will still look just as flat but may sound much, much better. The improvement in this theoretical scenario is not in the flatness of the curve but in the preservation of the integrity of the signal getting to your ears. Many speakers can also be hugely improved by optimizing the diffractive properties of transmission, inside and outside of the cabinet." There are a few expressed and implied strawman type arguments here, all of which have been covered well on this ng before and need not be addressed. If a few inches, 24?, of wire in the box makes such a difference, why can't the several feet in the crossover and speaker coil simply continue to overwhelm any very small subtraction to whatever "problem" replacing the wire affords? If one can't measure any difference in the properties of the wire, how does one know there is a difference to make it "sound better"? How does one measure the integrity in a before and after wire swap? If there is a wave, complex or not, shape change related to integrity, how does one know it suffers in the absence of gear to measure same? If in fact such cann't be measured, how does one know that the existing wire in fact is not far superior to wave integrity then any possible substitute? On what experience of measurement, at what ever bit level and depth, can we even know in the first place or confirm anew that wire does something to wave integrity; such that you can start with that presumption on which to make deductions? The box shape effect on difraction are well known, all such for the exact theoretical basis confirmed by measurement. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"citronzx" wrote in message
news:aLAWb.288604$na.448590@attbi_s04... "chung" wrote in message ... Wessel Dirksen wrote: Hi, this is a reply to both replies. I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the "unknown" factor. My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. How does one measure with normal music? You have trouble accepting that what appears complex can be described as a summation of sine waves? I'll second that question. If you do not have the mathematical background to understand Fourier serise then you have absolutly no business giving anyone advice on matters of audio or sound. Well, what I shall I say to this. I'm just getting used to this forum discussion thing and I'm amazed at how we seem to need to appear to be "smarter" than each other and be destructive. Actually we should be helping each other understand more. I try to understand enough of Fourier summation to understand the composition of sound and how loudspeakers work. Obviously so do you. I think we are all intelligent affectionado's of audio so lets get on with a friendly discussion then. If music can defined as a very complex Fourier waveform composed of seemingly pretty close to an infinite number of individual wavelets superimposed on each other than my point over the state of the art in acoustic measuring stands for itself. We have no choice but to "measure" with music and our ears because speakers must reproduce all those superimposed wavelets, it's their job. With rudimentary test signals which currently have a Fourier breakdown count with ussually no more than the number of fingers on your hand (noise excepted), you aren't really looking at what a speaker does in real life. If I really want to know how to reproduce a cello, do you really think that a simple MLS or a sine sweep comes close to helping me really truly understanding this? A tip of the iceberg at best. In this whole B&W 804 string, there seems to be a collective scientific "we know about it and have a formula for it or it doesn't exist" mentality going on. If you want to build a better mousetrap, take apart all the mousetraps you come accross and do your best to understand how they work. In doing this you will discover many unknowns about mousetraps. Wessel (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Not at audio frequencies. PCB design is very well understood by competent electrical engineers. Any amp guys out there? Well, yes. Wessel This is all absurd, sorry to be so blunt but its true. If you have spent the money to own a pair of Nautilus 804's then for god sake don't go taking them apart. If you want to goof around then make your own speakers from scratch. First, you won't be screwing with what is already a well engineered design and second you might actually learn something. You can buy drivers from many sources (including B&W on eBay) and you go nuts with over built crossovers and cables made out of the rarest metals in the universe. But why oh why mess with a perfectly good pair of speakers that you WILL NOT improve? Let me repeat that, YOU WILL NOT IMPROVE THEM! These are not poorly made speakers, these are very well made, high quality speakers. Any improvement will be psychological (that is if you don't actually mess them up in the process). I have an idea, why don't you give the money that you would waste on this project to charity, then, when you listen to your speakers, you can know that you've actually done some good in the world. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Wessel Dirksen wrote:
In this whole B&W 804 string, there seems to be a collective scientific "we know about it and have a formula for it or it doesn't exist" mentality going on. You seem to be espousing the "we don't know everything, so absolutely everything has to be equally possible/plausible" mentality. Your statements such as "I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the 'unknown' factor." exemplifies this, IMO. It presupposes that: a) The parameter(s)/characteristic(s) *you* purport to exist are, in fact real (defining them as "unknown" is somewhat telling IMO), and; b) What is 'unknown' to you, is universally unknown (there are a number of folks around here - myself excluded - who have rather extensive speaker knowledge that may well exceed yours). Saying, in effect, 'there are things I know about, that no one, including you, understand' is likely to cause the more knowledgeable folks to take umbrage. On RAHE or elsewhere. If you want to build a better mousetrap, take apart all the mousetraps you come accross and do your best to understand how they work. In doing this you will discover many unknowns about mousetraps. Well, let's recap. This thread started with a post stating: "I'm planning to change all inner wirings of 804, as they are quite poor compared to general quality of finishing and sound." This seems, clearly, to imply a desire to replace parts with "better" parts, irrespective of original design criteria. This in no way equates to "take apart all the mousetraps you come accross and do your best to understand how they work", which would be an engineering/redesign exercise, and seemingly outside the scope of the original posters' desires. Most responders seem to be of the opinion, logical IMO, that random changing of components/wires, without analysis of the effect on original design parameters, is highly unlikely to improve anything. You seem to be a minority dissenter in that view. Personally, I don't claim any expertise in speaker construction or crossover design, but what strikes me about the whole concept (relative to this specific thread) is *how* can the wiring be "quite poor" when compared to the quality of the sound? IOW, there appears to be no problem with the 'sound quality', and if that's the case, there *is* no problem with the wiring quality (unless one is concerned about stability and longevity criteria, but having owned B&W's for 20 years, that doesn't seem an issue to me). Keith Hughes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"Ban" wrote in message
... Wessel Dirksen wrote: My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Any amp guys out there? Wessel, I have been designing PCBs for a long while and I have to tell you, there is no black magic involved. To make a good design it is essential to understand the circuit perfectly and to analyze the current flow from/to the source to each consumer(sink). This is not easy, and most people forget to observe the most important thing: the flow back in the ground line to the supply. This is what I was referring to with the "ask an amp guy" line. And may perhaps explain why beefing up the ground connections to a loudspeaker driver tends to improve overall damping properties. It has nothing to do with "levels" in fact no levels exist. And electrons are *not* comparable to water molecules or whatever you imagine, because they have no mass and they are *small*. They will not form eddies on corners or jumps in diameter as hydraulics or gasses, (even if there is an "eddy current", which is caused by an electromagnetic field like all current flow). In fact the flowing electrons distribute evenly and smooth in the conductor, because they repel themselves mutually, unless we have very high frequencies(skin-effect). Electromagnetic fields will govern the flow absolutly. Even if there is no current flow, all electrons are already continuously moving according to their temperature at a very high speed and not only that, they are also "jumping" instantanously. All these things can be measured and calculated. All properties of a conductor can be measured precisely and put into numbers, the transmission-line theory covers even very high frequency behaviour (irrelevant for audio). -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy Thanks for the informative reply. I now realize that I had given the wrong impression in this thread in that I never intended to imply that there was any kind of voo-doo involved, only that electrical conduction is more that just connecting the dots and measuring the impedance factors between those dots. I was not under the impression that electrical conduction was actually measureable at this level yet. Thanks for the input. A few questions if I may about your reply and your field of study as it pertains to mine. I have heard that paying attention to the pathway length (or overall mass of a pathway) of certain areas of an amplifier circuit make audible differences. In particular, grounding at certain areas and also important current sensitive areas. An example would be how distributed are the ground pathways throughout the circuit. This is really what I was implying, that the "style" of laying out the PCB also lends a hand in things. Do you believe this is true then or hogwash. I guess what I'm asking is if all the dots are connected, is this enough, or do you have to pay special attention to how they are connected to optimize results? Second, from your perspective, do you believe that reducing significant electrical transmission loss improves the transduction process in an EMF setting such as a standard electro magnetic loudspeaker? Wessel |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
news:3fUWb.301294$na.452469@attbi_s04... Wessel Dirksen wrote: In this whole B&W 804 string, there seems to be a collective scientific "we know about it and have a formula for it or it doesn't exist" mentality going on. You seem to be espousing the "we don't know everything, so absolutely everything has to be equally possible/plausible" mentality. Your statements such as "I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to agree on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the 'unknown' factor." exemplifies this, IMO. It presupposes that: a) The parameter(s)/characteristic(s) *you* purport to exist are, in fact real (defining them as "unknown" is somewhat telling IMO), and; b) What is 'unknown' to you, is universally unknown (there are a number of folks around here - myself excluded - who have rather extensive speaker knowledge that may well exceed yours). Saying, in effect, 'there are things I know about, that no one, including you, understand' is likely to cause the more knowledgeable folks to take umbrage. On RAHE or elsewhere. If you want to build a better mousetrap, take apart all the mousetraps you come accross and do your best to understand how they work. In doing this you will discover many unknowns about mousetraps. Well, let's recap. This thread started with a post stating: "I'm planning to change all inner wirings of 804, as they are quite poor compared to general quality of finishing and sound." This seems, clearly, to imply a desire to replace parts with "better" parts, irrespective of original design criteria. This in no way equates to "take apart all the mousetraps you come accross and do your best to understand how they work", which would be an engineering/redesign exercise, and seemingly outside the scope of the original posters' desires. Most responders seem to be of the opinion, logical IMO, that random changing of components/wires, without analysis of the effect on original design parameters, is highly unlikely to improve anything. You seem to be a minority dissenter in that view. Personally, I don't claim any expertise in speaker construction or crossover design, but what strikes me about the whole concept (relative to this specific thread) is *how* can the wiring be "quite poor" when compared to the quality of the sound? IOW, there appears to be no problem with the 'sound quality', and if that's the case, there *is* no problem with the wiring quality (unless one is concerned about stability and longevity criteria, but having owned B&W's for 20 years, that doesn't seem an issue to me). Keith Hughes As a newbie to forum discussion but not to loudspeaker design or manufacturing processes, I've seemed to annoy people during this string and infer to others that I'm ignorant in these matters both of which don't normally apply to me. A matter for some self reflection for sure. The fact is that I have been designing, improving, and repairing loudspeakers for quite awhile now for a living and I have never advertised, the projects just keep coming on their own. I've had the priveledge to work on quite a few B&W's through the years and I've always been impressed at their ability to in general wonderfully engineer their products doing the budget limbo like everyone must do. This what hallmarks a good loudspeaker in the real world. I don't believe I have used the word "poor" at all in this discussion. But like most all regular guy's budget, real world, mass produced loudspeakers, with individual TLC you can often improve things. I find it amazing that this concept is so difficult to believe. It's not about good or bad; its about performance. Terms like "high end" and "audiophile" usually imply a search for high performance in sonic reproduction. The analogy to loudspeaker manufacturing does not differ much in this regard to cars, both in terms of technology advances in time and economic restraints. You could want a "good" high performing modified race car so to speak and not a "good" off the showroom sportscar. In which case some people come to me. The departure from the original post started as a general indication as to what the owner could expect to gain from making modifications to his speakers. I thought I could help. Others seem to be offended to even think improvement is possible. Lastly, yeah I like thinking about kooky and philosophical beyond the envelope stuff because I have dedicated much of my lifetime to mastering the technical knowledge to be able to do the regular technical loudspeaker stuff half of my work week. In this endevour, I have discovered that the tools of the trade are not comprehensive and the picture is far from complete. It seems to me that if loudspeakers are by far the worst link in the audio chain that thinking beyond the current paradigm, even philosphically, should be paramount. That's it for this thread for me. Wessel |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
On 17 Feb 2004 06:20:25 GMT, "Wessel Dirksen"
wrote: It's not about good or bad; its about performance. Terms like "high end" and "audiophile" usually imply a search for high performance in sonic reproduction. The analogy to loudspeaker manufacturing does not differ much in this regard to cars, both in terms of technology advances in time and economic restraints. You could want a "good" high performing modified race car so to speak and not a "good" off the showroom sportscar. In which case some people come to me. It's a given that a Le Mans winning car of the '60s would be thrashed by a modern production car such as the Porsche 966 Turbo. To return to loudspeakers in particular, the final production version from an engineering-led company such as B&W will have been carefully 'voiced' for the exact components used. Put a 500 BHP engine in a car designed to handle 200 BHP, and the result will not be pretty............... The departure from the original post started as a general indication as to what the owner could expect to gain from making modifications to his speakers. I thought I could help. Others seem to be offended to even think improvement is possible. As noted above, unauthorised tweaking by the substitution of nominally 'superior' crossover components and wiring, may well destroy the voicing of the speaker, which has been *designed* to use the standard components. Of course, some people may prefer the result (especially if they've paid lots of money for it!), but it's *very* unlikely to be an improvement in absolute terms - indeed, you'd almost certainly be better off buying the next standard model up the range, rather than paying for 'custom' tweaks! Lastly, yeah I like thinking about kooky and philosophical beyond the envelope stuff because I have dedicated much of my lifetime to mastering the technical knowledge to be able to do the regular technical loudspeaker stuff half of my work week. In this endevour, I have discovered that the tools of the trade are not comprehensive and the picture is far from complete. It seems to me that if loudspeakers are by far the worst link in the audio chain that thinking beyond the current paradigm, even philosphically, should be paramount. Can't argue with that - always a good philosophy. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:18:27 GMT, "Wessel Dirksen"
wrote: "Ban" wrote in message ... Wessel Dirksen wrote: My position is based on a wealth of experience where the intangable "that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very obvious audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines, chirps, noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more complex. (usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of electron flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you that PCB design is also very weird in this way. Any amp guys out there? Wessel, I have been designing PCBs for a long while and I have to tell you, there is no black magic involved. To make a good design it is essential to understand the circuit perfectly and to analyze the current flow from/to the source to each consumer(sink). This is not easy, and most people forget to observe the most important thing: the flow back in the ground line to the supply. This is what I was referring to with the "ask an amp guy" line. And may perhaps explain why beefing up the ground connections to a loudspeaker driver tends to improve overall damping properties. This is not true - I'm an amp guy......... :-). Electrical damping is only of relevance *below* the fundamental resonance of the system, although excessive source impedance (including cable resistance) may certainly affect frequency response. Signal return paths (and ground planes, which may be quite separate) are certainly of importance in PCB design, particularly at higher frequencies, but IME most competent engineers have no problem with this. It has nothing to do with "levels" in fact no levels exist. And electrons are *not* comparable to water molecules or whatever you imagine, because they have no mass and they are *small*. They will not form eddies on corners or jumps in diameter as hydraulics or gasses, (even if there is an "eddy current", which is caused by an electromagnetic field like all current flow). In fact the flowing electrons distribute evenly and smooth in the conductor, because they repel themselves mutually, unless we have very high frequencies(skin-effect). Electromagnetic fields will govern the flow absolutly. Um, this isn't entirely true at high frequencies and/or high voltages, but near enough for audio! Even if there is no current flow, all electrons are already continuously moving according to their temperature at a very high speed and not only that, they are also "jumping" instantanously. All these things can be measured and calculated. All properties of a conductor can be measured precisely and put into numbers, the transmission-line theory covers even very high frequency behaviour (irrelevant for audio). Quite so. I now realize that I had given the wrong impression in this thread in that I never intended to imply that there was any kind of voo-doo involved, only that electrical conduction is more that just connecting the dots and measuring the impedance factors between those dots. I was not under the impression that electrical conduction was actually measureable at this level yet. Actually, it's been measurable at this level for more than 30 years. Thanks for the input. A few questions if I may about your reply and your field of study as it pertains to mine. I have heard that paying attention to the pathway length (or overall mass of a pathway) of certain areas of an amplifier circuit make audible differences. In particular, grounding at certain areas and also important current sensitive areas. Only if you *really* screw it up! :-) An example would be how distributed are the ground pathways throughout the circuit. This is really what I was implying, that the "style" of laying out the PCB also lends a hand in things. Do you believe this is true then or hogwash. I guess what I'm asking is if all the dots are connected, is this enough, or do you have to pay special attention to how they are connected to optimize results? For highly sensitive circuits such as phono amplifiers, I've found that 'star' earthing is useful in keeping PSU noise and RFI to a minimum. These are artifacts which are likely below the level of audibility, however. Second, from your perspective, do you believe that reducing significant electrical transmission loss improves the transduction process in an EMF setting such as a standard electro magnetic loudspeaker? Yes of course, but you don't need to go to less than about 10% of the minimum speaker system impedance in the combined amplifier source impedance and cable loop resistance. This is easily achieved with most SS amps and most speakers. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:WitYb.51895$uV3.103980@attbi_s51...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:18:27 GMT, "Wessel Dirksen" wrote: This is what I was referring to with the "ask an amp guy" line. And may perhaps explain why beefing up the ground connections to a loudspeaker driver tends to improve overall damping properties. This is not true - I'm an amp guy......... :-). Electrical damping is only of relevance *below* the fundamental resonance of the system, No, this is most certainly not true. Damping is most significant AT fundamental resonance. Why? Because this is the point where the system is storing the most energy, it is the frequency at which the total system losses are most significant, since it is those losses (all of them) that determine damping. Above resonance, the system is mass-controlled. Below resonance, the system is stiffness-controlled. At resonance, it's resistance controlled. Now, that being said. the notion that "beefing up the ground connections tends to improve overall damping properties" simply does not hold at all under scrutiny, UNLESS the ground connections are som abysmally bad as to be a significant source of the total system loop resistance to begin with. And, if that's the case, the system is broken. TO explore this requires us, once again, to dispell the myth of "damping factor." The damping of the system is essentially a measure of the energy stored to energy dissipated through loss mechanism. That energy storage is greatest at resonance. Remember that the energy stored in the moving mass goes as velocity squared which goes directly as frequency below resonance, and as the inverse of frequency above resonance, and in a stiffness, it goes as excursion squared, which is constant below resonance, and goes as in inverse square above resonance: combine the two, and we find that energy stored is maximum AT resonance. There are three basic means of dissipating this energy, removing it from the resonant system and thus damping the system: energy can be removed through the resistive part of the radiation impedance, i.e., we do work on the air and it makes sound. It can be removed through mechanical friction in the surround and spider, or it can be dissipated in the effective total series electrical resistance. I state these in increasing order of importance: by far, the LEAST amount of energy is dissipated by producing sound, typically less than 1% in direct-radiator loudspeakers. The mechanical damping comes next, and is on the order 5-25% of the total damping. By far, the largest portion of the energy dissipation, or damping, in speaker that have any pretentions is electrical. Now, that may SEEM to be arguing FOR "beefing up the ground connections" and rewiring the two feet of wire between the crossover and the driver, BUT, such notions ignore the fact that BY FAR, the single LARGEST resistance in the ENTIRE loop, by an order of magnitude and most often much greater, is the simple DC resistance of all that wire in the voice coil. Unless those whimpy ground connections and that awful ordinary wire from the crossover to the drivers has a total loop resistance that is significant compared to the DC resistance of the voice coil, beefing them ground connections and replacing that awful wire, WILL NOT change the system damping in ANY significant fashion. I now realize that I had given the wrong impression in this thread in that I never intended to imply that there was any kind of voo-doo involved, only that electrical conduction is more that just connecting the dots and measuring the impedance factors between those dots. I was not under the impression that electrical conduction was actually measureable at this level yet. Actually, it's been measurable at this level for more than 30 years. Try twice that long! |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Well one last reply now that this has become somewhat interesting. Here's
what I do in modding a speaker: I usually replace areas of the electrical pathway that I would deem possibly significant in reducing series resistance. Unless the internal wire is say 18 or 20 guage alloy wire, I don't worry about it too much although when in doubt my standard 14 guage OFC is always more than good enough. PCB's and high Rdc inductors I remove/replace as policy. The difference heard in overall bass tightness at low frequencies is always significant and usually very pronounced. Customers tend to love this difference especially if the overall series resistance to the VC is cut by 40% or more. Obviously I don't do this blindly without response compensation as previously stated. For example, the Joseph Audio infinite slope filter models (at least from 3 years ago) have close to 2 ohms of series resistance and in one experience benefited greatly from a complete simpler filter redesign with much less series resistance. Tweeters, particularly older un-chambered high fs models, seem to respond to beefing up the ground if it appears to be lacking and if the corner freq is not on the high side. (you see this often in KEF and B&W's from the 80's and early 90's) which I believe is the same principle at work. Replacing series electrolytic cap's with an appropiate film type, particularly the older rough foils ones in any HP circuit, is subtle but usually absolutely worthwhile. This is particularly audible when listening to high frequency transient signals in mono. (Yup mono, IMO the center image in mono is a great addition to evaluate overall imaging properties, but maybe this is general knowledge, I don't know) I also really like MOF resistors. As a rule I replace the whole crossover and give the complete old unit back as a back out guarantee but usually ends up as a souvenier. The new hardwired filter is in general overall improved even if fundamentally unchanged in total response. Impedance compensation to a near resistive load has been proven to be interesting to tube amp owners who have low power or little to no negative feedback. Then there is the cabinet and low frequency system itself. Often there is alot which can be improved on the inside and outside and if desired you can sometimes grant a wish to the owner to change the tuning profile of a vented system to help aleve a deficiency or problem, often in combination in their listening environment. I pay attention to many details here which cumulatively can become extensive. Increasing Qp and Qb in vented systems if possible is usually worthwhile especially if highly lossy to begin with. A very over diffractive acoustic field in and around the front baffle (including a highly diffractive grill) is usually also worth tending to and if replacing the baffle anyway for this, improves cabinet mechanical stability. All of which can be done without changing any fundamental tuning parameters by compensation if the preservation of the personality of the loudspeaker is an objective. Obviously a bit of the character will always change somewhat in the process but not to its detriment overall. "Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:WitYb.51895$uV3.103980@attbi_s51... On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:18:27 GMT, "Wessel Dirksen" wrote: This is what I was referring to with the "ask an amp guy" line. And may perhaps explain why beefing up the ground connections to a loudspeaker driver tends to improve overall damping properties. This is not true - I'm an amp guy......... :-). Electrical damping is only of relevance *below* the fundamental resonance of the system, No, this is most certainly not true. Damping is most significant AT fundamental resonance. Why? Because this is the point where the system is storing the most energy, it is the frequency at which the total system losses are most significant, since it is those losses (all of them) that determine damping. Above resonance, the system is mass-controlled. Below resonance, the system is stiffness-controlled. At resonance, it's resistance controlled. Now, that being said. the notion that "beefing up the ground connections tends to improve overall damping properties" simply does not hold at all under scrutiny, UNLESS the ground connections are som abysmally bad as to be a significant source of the total system loop resistance to begin with. And, if that's the case, the system is broken. TO explore this requires us, once again, to dispell the myth of "damping factor." The damping of the system is essentially a measure of the energy stored to energy dissipated through loss mechanism. That energy storage is greatest at resonance. Remember that the energy stored in the moving mass goes as velocity squared which goes directly as frequency below resonance, and as the inverse of frequency above resonance, and in a stiffness, it goes as excursion squared, which is constant below resonance, and goes as in inverse square above resonance: combine the two, and we find that energy stored is maximum AT resonance. There are three basic means of dissipating this energy, removing it from the resonant system and thus damping the system: energy can be removed through the resistive part of the radiation impedance, i.e., we do work on the air and it makes sound. It can be removed through mechanical friction in the surround and spider, or it can be dissipated in the effective total series electrical resistance. I state these in increasing order of importance: by far, the LEAST amount of energy is dissipated by producing sound, typically less than 1% in direct-radiator loudspeakers. The mechanical damping comes next, and is on the order 5-25% of the total damping. By far, the largest portion of the energy dissipation, or damping, in speaker that have any pretentions is electrical. Now, that may SEEM to be arguing FOR "beefing up the ground connections" and rewiring the two feet of wire between the crossover and the driver, BUT, such notions ignore the fact that BY FAR, the single LARGEST resistance in the ENTIRE loop, by an order of magnitude and most often much greater, is the simple DC resistance of all that wire in the voice coil. Unless those whimpy ground connections and that awful ordinary wire from the crossover to the drivers has a total loop resistance that is significant compared to the DC resistance of the voice coil, beefing them ground connections and replacing that awful wire, WILL NOT change the system damping in ANY significant fashion. I now realize that I had given the wrong impression in this thread in that I never intended to imply that there was any kind of voo-doo involved, only that electrical conduction is more that just connecting the dots and measuring the impedance factors between those dots. I was not under the impression that electrical conduction was actually measureable at this level yet. Actually, it's been measurable at this level for more than 30 years. Try twice that long! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
On 19 Feb 2004 00:25:41 GMT, "Wessel Dirksen"
wrote: Well one last reply now that this has become somewhat interesting. Here's what I do in modding a speaker: I usually replace areas of the electrical pathway that I would deem possibly significant in reducing series resistance. Unless the internal wire is say 18 or 20 guage alloy wire, I don't worry about it too much although when in doubt my standard 14 guage OFC is always more than good enough. PCB's and high Rdc inductors I remove/replace as policy. The difference heard in overall bass tightness at low frequencies is always significant and usually very pronounced. Customers tend to love this difference especially if the overall series resistance to the VC is cut by 40% or more. Unfortunate that the total internal speaker resistance *including* the VC is reduced by much less than 1%, making your other claims highly dubious. Of course, I could easily demonstrate to you that I had achieved significantly improved bass tightness in your speakers - without changing anything! It's called salesmanship............. Obviously I don't do this blindly without response compensation as previously stated. For example, the Joseph Audio infinite slope filter models (at least from 3 years ago) have close to 2 ohms of series resistance and in one experience benefited greatly from a complete simpler filter redesign with much less series resistance. Oh, you totally revoiced the speaker and *you* think it was of great benefit? Perhaps the designer would disagree, since the precise crossover design is a key element of JA speakers......... Tweeters, particularly older un-chambered high fs models, seem to respond to beefing up the ground if it appears to be lacking and if the corner freq is not on the high side. (you see this often in KEF and B&W's from the 80's and early 90's) which I believe is the same principle at work. Now *that* is absolute balderdash, I have seen no such problems in any of the many such speakers I have examined. snip of contentious claims Basically, you are tweaking perfectly competent designs, no doubt achieving a *different* sound, which you *claim* to be an improvement and are able to sell as such to your clients. Personally, I'd back the multi-million pound research labs at Revel, B&W and KEF against anything which you are likely to achieve. A loudspeaker is a complex and carefully designed *system*, and you cannot 'improve' any one component without upsetting the overall voicing. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification
Nips
Hello to all I have a new question for all of you. If engineers would calculate wires in crossover parameters, should wires be pair cable or atleast be installed symmetrically. Resistance value stay the same if cables are installed one way or another, but mH and µF values vary depending how poles interfere each other. Think that this overturns the point that by changing wires, you may or you will end up with worse end result than orginal wires. Still can't point out the result, because new cable for amp-speaker is under purchase. BRGDS Riku |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Help - wiring identity Pioneer OEM CD changer | Car Audio | |||
VW Factory CD Changer - Wiring Diagram? | Car Audio | |||
Wiring for component "drawers"? | General | |||
B&W Nautilus 804 inner wiring modification | High End Audio | |||
wiring a used DVA-5205 to test? | Car Audio |