[Andre Jute]

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

[Don Pearce]

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

[Patrick Turner]

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

[Patrick Turner]

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

[Don Pearce]

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

[Brian]

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

[Peter Wieck]

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

[robert casey]

For some real fun, build a high performance FM tube tuner from scratch.
Getting 100MHz circuits to behave is another ballgame.

[Peter Wieck]

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

[John Byrns]

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/

[robert casey]

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...

[Ian Bell]

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

[Ian Bell]

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

[Andre Jute]

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

[Andre Jute]

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

[Andre Jute]

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

[Peter Wieck]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[John Byrns]

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/

[Patrick Turner]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Patrick Turner]

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/

[John Byrns]

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/

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Ian Bell]

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

[Andre Jute]

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