Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Here's one of those throwaway remarks that makes one think:
Sander deWaal wrote: I know a little about amplifiers, and almost enough about speakers to get myself into trouble every time. ;-) We discuss amps almost exclusively, regardless of present appearances. Why is this? Power amps are in fact the second easiest part of the audio chain to understand and build correctly. DACs are the easiest, preamps and control amps and booster amps not much more difficult than power amps to understand (though quite a bit more difficult to build right). But the most difficult thing of all, akin the frustratingly complex transfer functions of tires in automobiles, is speakers. Whereas almost anyone with the brains to get into a good college can design and build a good power amp, given only a few years of hitting the books and experimenting on the bench, it is really awesomely difficult to build a better than mediocre speaker, and it is virtually impossible to predict in detail how a speaker you intend building will behave. I include bought speakers in this: the best speakers on the market fall short of that theoretical adequacy daily exceeded in amp design by margins that would get an amp designer laughed out of the trade. Is it only cowardice that keeps us from spending as much time discussing speakers as we spend on the minutae of amps? Why is it that the only people every discuss speakers seriously are the ones who are considered slightly kooky by a large and vocal section of these groups? Is there anyone here who disagrees with these three points: 1. Amps are a done deal. It is trivial to build a silent amp in any topology. 2. The nature of digital transfer and reproduction methods is such that DIY audiophiles can make no perceptible difference in them. 3. Speakers are the only open frontier for the audiophile. So much is unknown, so much improvement can be made, that speakers are truly worthy of our energies. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
On 29 May 2007 06:27:19 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
Is there anyone here who disagrees with these three points: 1. Amps are a done deal. It is trivial to build a silent amp in any topology. I would not agree about "any topology". There are still topologies around that do not yield good amps - I presume when you say silent, you mean adding neither noise nor audible distortions. Certainly it is very easy to design and build "blameless" amps. There are, unfortunately still plenty of gotchas associated with the business that can turn what should have been a good amp into a cacophonous mess. 2. The nature of digital transfer and reproduction methods is such that DIY audiophiles can make no perceptible difference in them. True. 3. Speakers are the only open frontier for the audiophile. So much is unknown, so much improvement can be made, that speakers are truly worthy of our energies. I would put speakers at number two on the list. Number one, which is probably discussed even less than speakers, because it isn't sexy chat about kit, is the listening environment. You can do more to improve sound reproduction with an hour in Ikea than you will achieve by spending an extra grand on speakers. But certainly as far as sound reproduction equipment itself goes, yes speakers are right up there. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Andre Jute wrote: Here's one of those throwaway remarks that makes one think: Sander deWaal wrote: I know a little about amplifiers, and almost enough about speakers to get myself into trouble every time. ;-) We discuss amps almost exclusively, regardless of present appearances. Why is this? Power amps are in fact the second easiest part of the audio chain to understand and build correctly. DACs are the easiest, preamps and control amps and booster amps not much more difficult than power amps to understand (though quite a bit more difficult to build right). But the most difficult thing of all, akin the frustratingly complex transfer functions of tires in automobiles, is speakers. Whereas almost anyone with the brains to get into a good college can design and build a good power amp, given only a few years of hitting the books and experimenting on the bench, it is really awesomely difficult to build a better than mediocre speaker, and it is virtually impossible to predict in detail how a speaker you intend building will behave. I include bought speakers in this: the best speakers on the market fall short of that theoretical adequacy daily exceeded in amp design by margins that would get an amp designer laughed out of the trade. Is it only cowardice that keeps us from spending as much time discussing speakers as we spend on the minutae of amps? Why is it that the only people every discuss speakers seriously are the ones who are considered slightly kooky by a large and vocal section of these groups? Is there anyone here who disagrees with these three points: 1. Amps are a done deal. It is trivial to build a silent amp in any topology. Beginners find nothing is trivial. But yes, with experience, I'd agree. 2. The nature of digital transfer and reproduction methods is such that DIY audiophiles can make no perceptible difference in them. Hmm, I know guys who say some digital devices are far better sounding than others. Nobody ever builds digital cd players et all. All too hard; nobody can do a transport, or make a chip at home. 3. Speakers are the only open frontier for the audiophile. So much is unknown, so much improvement can be made, that speakers are truly worthy of our energies. Indeed. Their acoustic result is not controlled with a NFB loop. Every speaker is thus at the mercy of material behaviours. And the result is that each design of speaker is equivalent to having a multi channel graphic equaliser with random settings for along the band with perfect transducer at the end. Trying to work all the slides for a level response and avoid phase problems is a major problem. But DIYing electrostatics, ribbons and horns is the real difficult part. Dynamics are real easy, unless you make the magnets and cones and coils, and then they become more difficult than that other Gang of Three Difficulteos. Patrick Turner. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Don Pearce wrote: On 29 May 2007 06:27:19 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: Is there anyone here who disagrees with these three points: 1. Amps are a done deal. It is trivial to build a silent amp in any topology. I would not agree about "any topology". There are still topologies around that do not yield good amps - I presume when you say silent, you mean adding neither noise nor audible distortions. Certainly it is very easy to design and build "blameless" amps. There are, unfortunately still plenty of gotchas associated with the business that can turn what should have been a good amp into a cacophonous mess. 2. The nature of digital transfer and reproduction methods is such that DIY audiophiles can make no perceptible difference in them. True. 3. Speakers are the only open frontier for the audiophile. So much is unknown, so much improvement can be made, that speakers are truly worthy of our energies. I would put speakers at number two on the list. Number one, which is probably discussed even less than speakers, because it isn't sexy chat about kit, is the listening environment. You can do more to improve sound reproduction with an hour in Ikea than you will achieve by spending an extra grand on speakers. But certainly as far as sound reproduction equipment itself goes, yes speakers are right up there. Yeah, but you can't buy a decent listening room at a hi-fi shop, tug it all the way home, sit it down on new foundations, plug it in to the existing humble mansion, and sit back and listen later than evening. One has to talk to builders, and plumbers, and electricians, and architects, perhaps an enginneer, and the local council, and it all costs about $50 per minute for months on end..... And maybe the wife and the dog depart half way through the process.... Patrick Turner. g d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:39:48 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 29 May 2007 06:27:19 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: Is there anyone here who disagrees with these three points: 1. Amps are a done deal. It is trivial to build a silent amp in any topology. I would not agree about "any topology". There are still topologies around that do not yield good amps - I presume when you say silent, you mean adding neither noise nor audible distortions. Certainly it is very easy to design and build "blameless" amps. There are, unfortunately still plenty of gotchas associated with the business that can turn what should have been a good amp into a cacophonous mess. 2. The nature of digital transfer and reproduction methods is such that DIY audiophiles can make no perceptible difference in them. True. 3. Speakers are the only open frontier for the audiophile. So much is unknown, so much improvement can be made, that speakers are truly worthy of our energies. I would put speakers at number two on the list. Number one, which is probably discussed even less than speakers, because it isn't sexy chat about kit, is the listening environment. You can do more to improve sound reproduction with an hour in Ikea than you will achieve by spending an extra grand on speakers. But certainly as far as sound reproduction equipment itself goes, yes speakers are right up there. Yeah, but you can't buy a decent listening room at a hi-fi shop, tug it all the way home, sit it down on new foundations, plug it in to the existing humble mansion, and sit back and listen later than evening. One has to talk to builders, and plumbers, and electricians, and architects, perhaps an enginneer, and the local council, and it all costs about $50 per minute for months on end..... And maybe the wife and the dog depart half way through the process.... Patrick Turner. We're talking furninshing, not reconstruction. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
On May 29, 9:27 am, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's one of those throwaway remarks that makes one think: Sander deWaal wrote: I know a little about amplifiers, and almost enough about speakers to get myself into trouble every time. ;-) We discuss amps almost exclusively, regardless of present appearances. Why is this? Power amps are in fact the second easiest part of the audio chain to understand and build correctly. DACs are the easiest, preamps and control amps and booster amps not much more difficult than power amps to understand (though quite a bit more difficult to build right). But the most difficult thing of all, akin the frustratingly complex transfer functions of tires in automobiles, is speakers. Whereas almost anyone with the brains to get into a good college can design and build a good power amp, given only a few years of hitting the books and experimenting on the bench, it is really awesomely difficult to build a better than mediocre speaker, and it is virtually impossible to predict in detail how a speaker you intend building will behave. I include bought speakers in this: the best speakers on the market fall short of that theoretical adequacy daily exceeded in amp design by margins that would get an amp designer laughed out of the trade. Is it only cowardice that keeps us from spending as much time discussing speakers as we spend on the minutae of amps? Why is it that the only people every discuss speakers seriously are the ones who are considered slightly kooky by a large and vocal section of these groups? Is there anyone here who disagrees with these three points: 1. Amps are a done deal. It is trivial to build a silent amp in any topology. 2. The nature of digital transfer and reproduction methods is such that DIY audiophiles can make no perceptible difference in them. 3. Speakers are the only open frontier for the audiophile. So much is unknown, so much improvement can be made, that speakers are truly worthy of our energies. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain I think I know!! The group is about TUBES! or is this to simple an answer? maybe there's a group that does talk about Speakers? B |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
On May 29, 2:09 pm, Brian wrote:
I think I know!! The group is about TUBES! or is this to simple an answer? maybe there's a group that does talk about Speakers? There is that, of course. And the inevitable assumption is that all of us here have done what we can towards having the most perfect speakers possible within the most perfect listening environment achievable. So, after all that we are left with developing the most apt and perfectly conceived tube-based system to manage it all. But speakers are and remain the weakest link in a system, certainly so if combined with their environment. And some speakers will not suit some electronics, and those that do may not suit the environment... and it all becomes a compromise in the end between what is available, what is achievable and what is actually wanted. I consider myself lucky that I have three distinct listening environments, and sufficient bits to run anywhere from three to six distinctly different systems (electronics and speakers) so that mixing and matching, testing, playing and placement become doable on a larger scale than most. And it is speakers that I find the most obvious when changed after a certain pretty basic level of quality in the electronics is achieved. So, if we need good speakers and good environments to enjoy tubes (or much of anything else as it happens), then they are grist for the mill. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch.
Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote:
For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
In article .com,
Peter Wieck wrote: On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... Probably not, hows that for an understatement, if the multiplex adapter has to get all its power from the crystal FM tuner, but it could easily drive a multiplex circuit that had its own power source. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Used to be (and maybe still) you could visit the Empire State Building and go to the very top floor. The part just under where King Kong stood while fighting of the airplanes. Just under that transmitter tower (there was an access hatch with a padlock, a ladder and a huge conduit undoubtedly filled with many feedlines (TV stations) in the center of that room). Many FM radio stations use a common set of dipole antennas to transmit from, and even though the window glass has chicken wire in it (may offer RF shielding, but also slows down suicides and damage from birds and other wind blown objects), this crystal FM radio might blast your ears off... *If* you can split all 20 something stations apart... |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Andre Jute wrote:
But the most difficult thing of all, akin the frustratingly complex transfer functions of tires in automobiles, is speakers. Whereas almost anyone with the brains to get into a good college can design and build a good power amp, given only a few years of hitting the books and experimenting on the bench, it is really awesomely difficult to build a better than mediocre speaker, and it is virtually impossible to predict in detail how a speaker you intend building will behave. I include bought speakers in this: the best speakers on the market fall short of that theoretical adequacy daily exceeded in amp design by margins that would get an amp designer laughed out of the trade. How speakers behave is determined more by the room than anything else. Very few people acoustically treat their rooms and many treated rooms are done so poorly. There is no magic to building speakers, just a large number of variables. Check out RDH which has some excellent design guidelines. Ian |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Patrick Turner wrote:
Yeah, but you can't buy a decent listening room at a hi-fi shop, tug it all the way home, sit it down on new foundations, plug it in to the existing humble mansion, and sit back and listen later than evening. One has to talk to builders, and plumbers, and electricians, and architects, perhaps an enginneer, and the local council, and it all costs about $50 per minute for months on end..... No you don't. Check out Ethan Winers excellent articles on improving room sound. He even has some free videos on the net that cover the basics. And maybe the wife and the dog depart half way through the process.... Now getting the wife's approval is a whole different ball game! Ian |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. Nah, this is cheating, far too difficult for amateurs. Perhaps you and John Byrns and Steve Bench and Patrick Turner could do it, but three of that list have, judging by their facility with the concepts, most likely been in the biz and the fourth is a nut case. I'm pretty nutty myself but when I wanted a little one-station (BBC4) tube radio, I went straight to Steve and instantly passed go. Åndre Jute What's the use of having friends if you don't use them? Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg. -- Robert Casey, Irish patriot |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Ian Bell wrote: Andre Jute wrote: But the most difficult thing of all, akin the frustratingly complex transfer functions of tires in automobiles, is speakers. Whereas almost anyone with the brains to get into a good college can design and build a good power amp, given only a few years of hitting the books and experimenting on the bench, it is really awesomely difficult to build a better than mediocre speaker, and it is virtually impossible to predict in detail how a speaker you intend building will behave. I include bought speakers in this: the best speakers on the market fall short of that theoretical adequacy daily exceeded in amp design by margins that would get an amp designer laughed out of the trade. How speakers behave is determined more by the room than anything else. Very few people acoustically treat their rooms and many treated rooms are done so poorly. All of this is true, Ian, but before you can determine how your speaker reacts in any room, however treated, you first have to build a good speaker, and in order to build a good speaker, unless you're coincidentally also in the firewood business, you need to know how the notional speaker will react on y parameter if you change element z. In that perspective, the science of loudspeakers is a magnitude (or probably more) less precise than the science of amplifiers. There is no magic to building speakers, just a large number of variables. Superficially true, and then only to people who have never tried to build a fullrange horn or a large electrostat. Even with multiconed speakers there is still more magic than science, compared to say amplifiers. Check out RDH which has some excellent design guidelines. Thanks for the tip. I check it immediately. For a giggle see the reprint of my neddy guide to making the RDH digestible for you'n'me, originally published in Glass Audio, at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/J...MPS%20RDH.html Ian That reminds me. A good place for people who are starting on speakers from scratch and need an overview to commence reading is the BBC man Vivian Capel's An Introduction to Loudspeaker and Enclosure Design, published by Babani and available at every WHS for a pittance. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Ian Bell wrote: Andre Jute wrote: But the most difficult thing of all, akin the frustratingly complex transfer functions of tires in automobiles, is speakers. Whereas almost anyone with the brains to get into a good college can design and build a good power amp, given only a few years of hitting the books and experimenting on the bench, it is really awesomely difficult to build a better than mediocre speaker, and it is virtually impossible to predict in detail how a speaker you intend building will behave. I include bought speakers in this: the best speakers on the market fall short of that theoretical adequacy daily exceeded in amp design by margins that would get an amp designer laughed out of the trade. How speakers behave is determined more by the room than anything else. Very few people acoustically treat their rooms and many treated rooms are done so poorly. All of this is true, Ian, but before you can determine how your speaker reacts in any room, however treated, you first have to build a good speaker, and in order to build a good speaker, unless you're coincidentally also in the firewood business, you need to know how the notional speaker will react on y parameter if you change element z. In that perspective, the science of loudspeakers is a magnitude (or probably more) less precise than the science of amplifiers. There is no magic to building speakers, just a large number of variables. Superficially true, and then only to people who have never tried to build a fullrange horn or a large electrostat. Even with multiconed speakers there is still more magic than science, compared to say amplifiers. Check out RDH which has some excellent design guidelines. Thanks for the tip. I check it immediately. For a giggle see the reprint of my neddy guide to making the RDH digestible for you'n'me, originally published in Glass Audio, at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/J...MPS%20RDH.html Ian That reminds me. A good place for people who are starting on speakers from scratch and need an overview to commence reading is the BBC man Vivian Capel's An Introduction to Loudspeaker and Enclosure Design, published by Babani and available at every WHS for a pittance. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
On May 29, 10:55 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article .com, Peter Wieck wrote: On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... Probably not, hows that for an understatement, if the multiplex adapter has to get all its power from the crystal FM tuner, but it could easily drive a multiplex circuit that had its own power source. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ John: I have two MPX adaptors. Both of them plug into the wall independently, and take a simple mono "line in" from a monaural tuner and provide a stereo line-out from that. If you are thinking of on- board units, I would tend to agree with you depending on where they were in the circuit. http://www.mcmlv.org/Archive/HiFi/EicoMX99.pdf This being one of two similar as mentioned above. But I am thinking that a crystal radio may have other issues rather than actual power-out difficulties. Such as either too narrow a reception or not selective enough. It would also be simple enough to make a one-transistor (or one-tube) amplifier for the crystal set if more output voltage was required. But if possible, it would certainly be a minimalist design. When I next get some bench time (summer is hard on this sort of thing), I might just try and see. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. It needs a really strong signal to work at all. It produces audio based on slope detection, which fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference. Linearity is often poor. To recover audio efficiently, the slope has to be high, requiring a high-Q tuned circuit, but putting any kind of load on the detector drops the Q. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message oups.com On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. It needs a really strong signal to work at all. It produces audio based on slope detection, which fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference. It's not really because of the slope detection that it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference, after all the traditional discriminator circuit used in tube FM radios is little more than a push-pull slope detector and doesn't provide resistance to interference at sideband frequencies. The real reason it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference is because it lacks a limiter circuit. Slope detectors work just fine interference wise when proceeded by a good limiter. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Andre Jute wrote: Ian Bell wrote: Andre Jute wrote: But the most difficult thing of all, akin the frustratingly complex transfer functions of tires in automobiles, is speakers. Whereas almost anyone with the brains to get into a good college can design and build a good power amp, given only a few years of hitting the books and experimenting on the bench, it is really awesomely difficult to build a better than mediocre speaker, and it is virtually impossible to predict in detail how a speaker you intend building will behave. I include bought speakers in this: the best speakers on the market fall short of that theoretical adequacy daily exceeded in amp design by margins that would get an amp designer laughed out of the trade. How speakers behave is determined more by the room than anything else. Very few people acoustically treat their rooms and many treated rooms are done so poorly. All of this is true, Ian, but before you can determine how your speaker reacts in any room, however treated, you first have to build a good speaker, and in order to build a good speaker, unless you're coincidentally also in the firewood business, you need to know how the notional speaker will react on y parameter if you change element z. In that perspective, the science of loudspeakers is a magnitude (or probably more) less precise than the science of amplifiers. There is no magic to building speakers, just a large number of variables. Superficially true, and then only to people who have never tried to build a fullrange horn or a large electrostat. Even with multiconed speakers there is still more magic than science, compared to say amplifiers. I won't dwell on the science and calculations that need to be considered for ESL or horns because -4 ppl worldwide are interested. 99% of diyer efforts are for dynamics, and a lot of work needs to be put into making boxes of the right sizes, well damped, internallt braced, baffled, wooled, and ported. This is done in conjunction with driver selections. Calculations have to be made for dynamic drivers intended for use when in the boxes. Impedances must all be measured, graphed, and equalizing networks applied after calcs, then speakers re-checked and Xover load values calculated. After making the xover coils with several taps to allow for tweaking a purchase of a range of bipolar electros is made, soa range of C values can be tried. Never think your are finished until you really have. The xovers cannot be guessed. the response cannot be guessed. The chance of guessing a good sound after guessing RLC values and box and drivers and everything is ZERO within a lifetime. So one has to learn basic LCR theory, and set up a measuring system, perhaps at least get what's offered at http://www.testaudio.com/testaudio/ Please feel free to copy the designs of my speakers shown at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/loudspeakers-new.html http://www.turneraudio.com.au/loudspeakers-diy.html There's a catch! The crossover details are missing. Price for a free design is that you have to learn about LCR basics. Its a cruel price to have to pay, really, and I am a sod for leaving out important details, but why not, everyone bold and brave enough to make something should be made to understand what they are doing, and never need spoon feeding once over the age of 18. Instead of making plain boring looking rectangular boxes for speakers, try always to excel my making things more difficult to gain the tiny sonic benefits by means of having sloping sides to all boxes. Tip for the day :- speaker boxes should be sonically as lively as a dead cat. second, really fabulous veneer or cabinet work with rare exotic timbers won't make the sound the slightest bit better over using crude plywood/mdf composite with a coat of acrylic semigloss housepaint rolled on with a little roller. Don't forget to fill and sand all the poor joints in the woodwork. ( people then say "gee what lovely plastic speakers you have" Check out RDH which has some excellent design guidelines. RDH4 is not bad on speakers, but we have had Theile and Small since then, and a potpourie of dynamic speaker driver makers who have saved us from failed DIY horn, ribbon and ESL projects. They have presented us with what 1957 could never give us. Few amps existed that could drive what needed to be invented, and pay packets of Joe Average and Mr Ordio Nutter were very lightweight. Loungerooms were grubby places with screaming brats throwing biscuits around, and grumpy drunk husbands a bit miffed that the missus was damn pregnant, again. The family room, quiet listening room and Home Theatre were in the distant future awaiting invention and take up by the brats when they grew up. Thanks for the tip. I check it immediately. For a giggle see the reprint of my neddy guide to making the RDH digestible for you'n'me, originally published in Glass Audio, at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/J...MPS%20RDH.html Read all the articles in Wireless World / Electronics World on audio since 1917, and you will know a lot about amps and speakers and stuff. This grand old mag is as good a read as RDH4. Lots of challenging incomprehensibles. Patrick Turner. Ian That reminds me. A good place for people who are starting on speakers from scratch and need an overview to commence reading is the BBC man Vivian Capel's An Introduction to Loudspeaker and Enclosure Design, published by Babani and available at every WHS for a pittance. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
"John Byrns" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message oups.com On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. It needs a really strong signal to work at all. It produces audio based on slope detection, which fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference. It's not really because of the slope detection that it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference, after all the traditional discriminator circuit used in tube FM radios is little more than a push-pull slope detector and doesn't provide resistance to interference at sideband frequencies. I'm under the impression that this article describes accepted practice for FM detection in common tubed FM radios. http://www.tpub.com/neets/book12/51d.htm "The ratio detector is not affected by amplitude variations on the fm wave." The real reason it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference is because it lacks a limiter circuit. That, too. Slope detectors work just fine interference wise when proceeded by a good limiter. That, too. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
John Byrns wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message oups.com On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. It needs a really strong signal to work at all. It produces audio based on slope detection, which fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference. It's not really because of the slope detection that it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference, after all the traditional discriminator circuit used in tube FM radios is little more than a push-pull slope detector and doesn't provide resistance to interference at sideband frequencies. The real reason it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference is because it lacks a limiter circuit. Slope detectors work just fine interference wise when proceeded by a good limiter. Solomon forgot to include the audio de-emphasis circuit in his schematic. But because of gross conversions of the recieved FM into AM, the diode peak detector works. If the circuit limited, and the RF had the same amplitude, the peak detector wouldn't work. Output would be low, but a single grounded gate fet could used to amplify the recieved signal before detection. Patrick Turner. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message oups.com On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. It needs a really strong signal to work at all. It produces audio based on slope detection, which fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference. It's not really because of the slope detection that it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference, after all the traditional discriminator circuit used in tube FM radios is little more than a push-pull slope detector and doesn't provide resistance to interference at sideband frequencies. The real reason it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference is because it lacks a limiter circuit. Slope detectors work just fine interference wise when proceeded by a good limiter. Solomon forgot to include the audio de-emphasis circuit in his schematic. But because of gross conversions of the recieved FM into AM, the diode peak detector works. If the circuit limited, and the RF had the same amplitude, the peak detector wouldn't work. Why wouldn't a slope detector work with a limiter? Keep in mind that a "slope detector" places the carrier on the sloped skirt of a tuned circuit, that's why it's called a "slope" detector. The slope provides FM to AM conversion, the resulting AM is then detected by by the "peak detector". A "slope detector" will still work just fine when preceded by a limiter. The traditional "discriminator used in tube FM radios also depends on FM to AM conversion via tuned circuits which feed a pair of AM "peak detectors" connected in push-pull. The main difference being that the push pull connection of the discriminator reduces even order distortion and cancels noise at the carrier frequency, although not at the frequencies occupied by the modulation sidebands. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
"John Byrns" wrote in message
In article , Patrick Turner wrote: John Byrns wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message oups.com On May 29, 4:28 pm, robert casey wrote: For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch. Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame. There is a crystal FM tuner out there. I wonder if it is powerful enough to drive a multiplex adaptor... http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_CrystalRadio.html I have to try that some time. It needs a really strong signal to work at all. It produces audio based on slope detection, which fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference. It's not really because of the slope detection that it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference, after all the traditional discriminator circuit used in tube FM radios is little more than a push-pull slope detector and doesn't provide resistance to interference at sideband frequencies. The real reason it fails to exploit FM's resistance to interference is because it lacks a limiter circuit. Slope detectors work just fine interference wise when proceeded by a good limiter. Solomon forgot to include the audio de-emphasis circuit in his schematic. But because of gross conversions of the recieved FM into AM, the diode peak detector works. If the circuit limited, and the RF had the same amplitude, the peak detector wouldn't work. Why wouldn't a slope detector work with a limiter? No reason. Keep in mind that a "slope detector" places the carrier on the sloped skirt of a tuned circuit, that's why it's called a "slope" detector. The slope provides FM to AM conversion, the resulting AM is then detected by by the "peak detector". A "slope detector" will still work just fine when preceded by a limiter. The traditional "discriminator used in tube FM radios also depends on FM to AM conversion via tuned circuits which feed a pair of AM "peak detectors" connected in push-pull. The main difference being that the push pull connection of the discriminator reduces even order distortion and cancels noise at the carrier frequency, although not at the frequencies occupied by the modulation sidebands. I agree with the gist of this. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Andre Jute wrote:
Ian Bell wrote: snip There is no magic to building speakers, just a large number of variables. Superficially true, and then only to people who have never tried to build a fullrange horn or a large electrostat. Even with multiconed speakers there is still more magic than science, compared to say amplifiers. I was thinking more of speakers as building a given (selected) driver into an enclosure. RDH has a good intro to horns although I agree they are a lot more complex than a speaker in a box. Check out RDH which has some excellent design guidelines. Thanks for the tip. I check it immediately. For a giggle see the reprint of my neddy guide to making the RDH digestible for you'n'me, originally published in Glass Audio, at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/J...MPS%20RDH.html Not forgetting it is available in a less eye straining form on the web as a pdf. Ian That reminds me. A good place for people who are starting on speakers from scratch and need an overview to commence reading is the BBC man Vivian Capel's An Introduction to Loudspeaker and Enclosure Design, published by Babani and available at every WHS for a pittance. Vivian Capel, there's a name from the past. Didn't he used to write for Studio Sound? Ian |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
What's difficult in DIY audio?
Ian Bell wrote: Vivian Capel, there's a name from the past. Didn't he used to write for Studio Sound? Ian Very likely. I don't know why I said he was with the BBC; for some reason I connected him with the LS3. Now that I read the author blurb in "An Introduction to Loudspeakers and Enclosure Design" (Babani, London, 1988) I see he was an engineer with Philips and then a consultant in large PA systems. Also thirty years of articles in the technical press and a dozen books on audio, acoustics and related subjects. Studio Sound isn't particularly mentioned but seems to fit. Interestingly, he was/is also an accomplished amateur violinist, playing in several orchestras. I always on audio trust the opinions of musicians well above those of engineers... Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
See, it's not so difficult | Audio Opinions | |||
Backing up your DAW part 2 (more difficult...) | Pro Audio | |||
Battery Powered "Busking" amp choice is difficult | Pro Audio | |||
how difficult is it to install a remote starter? | Car Audio | |||
Please help! Difficult question... | Tech |