| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dick Pierce
Hi Does anyone know if Dick Pierce is still around? TIA
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:16:31 -0000, (Northstar) wrote:
Hi Does anyone know if Dick Pierce is still around? TIA I just saw in that Subwoofer thread, I presume that's him. That post doesn't have the sig file I remember him having, but the website http://www.cartchunk.org has his name at the bottom. ----- http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Northstar" wrote ...
Hi Does anyone know if Dick Pierce is still around? TIA Someone calling himself "dpierce" just posted to this newsgroup a couple hours before your question. Is that who you are seeking? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does anyone know what Dick Pierce uses for loudspeakers?
I like to make my own without breaking the bank. MG |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Magnus" wrote ...
Does anyone know what Dick Pierce uses for loudspeakers? I like to make my own without breaking the bank. I'd bet that Mr. Pierce does. Or is this a game? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:24:45 -0500, Magnus wrote:
Does anyone know what Dick Pierce uses for loudspeakers? Mr Pierce usually does not name brands; not the one he design, not the one he uses. I like to make my own without breaking the bank. You mean, building one of his designs? He won't publish them either, for a good reason: his clients paid good money for them, and owns them (I suppose) Do you happen to live in Sweden, by the way? If so, check out the LTS designs by Ingvar Öhman, available at http://www.hifikit.se/. They are good, and won't break your bank. Per. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:24:45 -0500, Magnus wrote:
Does anyone know what Dick Pierce uses for loudspeakers? I like to make my own without breaking the bank. Save the bank even more money, and buy a good commercial pair from a reputable maker like KEF or B&W. Sorry, unless you go to a *really* competent kit like the Linkwitz Orion, you have no hope of competing with commercial designs. This has been done to death a gazillion times. And yes, I built my own for about twenty years. With age (and rotsa ruck!) comes wisdom.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bull**** on stilts. Many very expensive commercially built speakers are
bad enough that doing worse would take effort. A hobbyist building any of several popular kits will wind up with a pretty good speaker system. If one invests in some test equipment and is willing to put forth the time a first rate design effort is possible. Many homebuilt speakers do suck, but that's not to say building good ones is impossible. Commercial speakers built for the high end market are often overpriced because High End buyers would not consider them if they were not. Also compromises (there are always those!) have to be made between purity of design to solve particular problems and merchantability. Since you mentioned B&W, I would point out their 801 as a case in point. Most of the pro user base they had thought the old 801s were far better speakers at a better price and not goofy and stupid looking like the current one. I am not a speaker builder per se and have no axe to grind as far as speaker design goes. But it's obvious that many alleged top pros are full of **** in the home hi-fi speaker business. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On 31 Mar 2005 19:57:15 -0800, wrote: I am not a speaker builder per se and have no axe to grind as far as speaker design goes. But it's obvious that many alleged top pros are full of **** in the home hi-fi speaker business. Ah, so you're claiming to be a top pro, are you? :-) Cal has a track record of posting some of the most absurd claims ever made on RAT, as pronouncments from on high. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hard to believe one cannot make a respectable 2-way speaker with all the
new drivers out there and computer evaluation methods. Surely the new silk dome tweeters and fibre drivers would exceed anything we can buy commerically if we keep the budget down to $400. I like Quad and Apogees much more than KEF's or B&W's. Why can't we clone a Sonus Faber? MG |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Magnus wrote: Hard to believe one cannot make a respectable 2-way speaker with all the new drivers out there and computer evaluation methods. Surely the new silk dome tweeters and fibre drivers would exceed anything we can buy commerically if we keep the budget down to $400. I suppose since my name is in the topic, I might as well actually contribute to the thread, knowing full well that some idiot out there will completely misrepresent what I say anyway. Better, I suppose, to misrepresent what I say instead of misrepresenting what I don't say. Now, to the immediate question at hand. Designing a speaker to be sold into a market and designing a speaker for oneself are VERY different excercises at almost every step. The requirements are VERY different, and the results can often be very different. Why is this so? Well, let me, by example, illustrate some of the issues that are crucial in one realm but largely irrelevant the other. The BIGGEST difference is that in the case of designing a system for yourself is that you don't have to worry about selling it. That alone makes a huge difference in the way you approach it, in areas of appearance, shippability, and much more. Another example: manufacturability and costs. One often hears that the ratio between the raw parts cost and suggested retail in the speaker business is around 1:4 or 1:5. This is largely true and results in an economically viable model based on some assumptions. One assumption is that labor costs are reaosnably controlled, and that assumption has a string influence on, for example, the cabinet design. If you only have to make one pair, and you're doing this in your spare time, cabinet manufacturing labor costs are of no consequence: nobody with any serious cash is competing for your spare time anyway. That's not true when you're trying to pay your employees and your rent and more. Yet another example: One can take advantage of any number of crossover optimization programs that can optimize the system acoustic response, but many if not most ignore the consequential system impedance. If you end up with a system that has dead nuts flat xial and power response and dips to 1/2 ohm impedance at 250 Hz, you do not have a speaker that has ANY hope of making it in the market, because it just won't work with most amplifiers. WHo's going to buy it? Imagine, for example, a 2-way under $700 system that's +-2 dB 50-22 kHz, but with an impedance under 2 ohms. It's price point suggests it gets mated with middle of the road receivers, all of whom are intolerant of such loads. COmmercial speaker have to survive UPS intact. They have ot be serviceable. A manufacturer must have a steady, consistent supply of specific components to support the product over its projected larket lifetime and beyond (for repairs). All these issues weigh heavily on determining the design, and are largely irrelevant for a home DIY'er. One of the consequences of all these issues is that the components that go into a commercial model may not be available, even though they look an awful lot like what you could buy off the shelf. I know of a number of manufacturers that purchase their drivers from Seas, Peerless, Scan Speak and such. I also know that the drivers these manufacturers use are different in not-very-subtle ways from the off-the-shelf versions that one can get in small quantities. On the topic of "computer evaluation methods" I assume that we are talking, among other things, about the relatively inexpensive and widely available sofwtare and hardware packages out there for measuring speakers. And, yes, their widepsread proliferation has in some respects "democratized" loudspeaker measurement. But easily available equipment DOES NOT make you an expert. Measuring speaker RIGHT is a REAL tough job. Interpreting the results and including that interpretation into the system optimization is also quite tough. In some respects, the DIYer's job is made easier by the fact that they DON'T have to sell it, fix it or support it, that they DON'T have to worry about the myriad of design contradictions (well, many they DO have to worry about, but if the system breaks because they didn't, no great harm is done). So, here are two tasks: 1. Design a speaker system that you'll like. Take as much time as you want, don't worry about how it looks, don't worry about what other people think about it. You have no size, weight or cost restrictions. You can pick the exact piece of equipment it will be used with. You're going to be the only one using it, it never has to be "finished" because you're going to be tweaking it to suit what YOU want it to be. 2. Design a speaker system that 25,000 people will like enough to make them part with a substantial junk of change. You have no more than 2 months to bring the concept to final design. It has to have a footprint not exceeding 10" wide by 14" deep, can't weigh any more than 60 pounds per cabiner, has to have a retail price of no more than $1300. It's got to look like a million smackers and fit with any plausible decor. It has to withstand abuse. It has to be able to survive a 3 foot drop off the tailgate of a UPS truck unscathed. It has to work well and ALL the time with ANY piece of electronics And, when all is said and done, you'd like to have at least a LITTLE more money than when you started. Will you end up with the same design? |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
No. That's my point, I don't disagree with anything you said in this post. The earlier anti-DIY post was along the same line of thinking as "you shouldn't build a homebuilt airplane because you're not Kelly Johnson, and no homebuilder or kit maker is, because none of them have ever built a SR-71 yet." A homebuilt speaker is as different from a manufactured design as a SR is from a Wittman Tailwind. I use these airplane analogies because a lot of people build airplanes to get around the high price of factory built ones. Eventually the Asians will start building a type certified light airplane at a reasonable price, Cessna and Lycoming will DIE, and we will all cheer.... (maybe not...).Right now it's one of the few things you can't get via Wal-Mart from China-built by Chinese workers for nothing and financing the Chinese military which will level Los Angeles if we try to stop them when they invade Taiwan. (They were, however, good enough to tell us so, so you can't be angry at them.) You generally build a speaker for performance, education and satisfaction as opposed to purely saving money because if price is the goal used speakers of supportable design are available inexpensively. Unlike used airplanes they have no colossal fixed maintenance costs. Homebuilt speakers trade off your time, energy, and willingness to learn and the savings on material costs (you don't mark them up by a factor of five) and freedom from shippability, supportability, esthetic issues vs. the quantity purchase discount, amortized R&D, and in some cases competent professional design and construction (inhouse or outside hired gun) of the factory. Both can be excellent or ****ty. If you like building things and want to learn how they work building a speaker is OK. If you just want to plug them in and listen buying is OK too. In my case I am having built some speaker cabs by pro woodworkers, to designs I roughly drew up and had turned into high quality CAD drawings by a friend who does it for a living, derived from some old published drawings. I will then finish and stuff the cabs and will be soley responsible for their performance. If the sound sucks I have no recourse. I am assuming the liability (an overused word in aviation where corporate stupidity got it rammed up their ass, and deservedly so in large part!) and benefitting from the risk-my speakers will cost, when finished, a little less than had I bought new factory built examples of the design whose IP I essentially stole (although legally no IP exists anymore unless the company wants to pull a Fender and claim its configuration as a trademark thirty years after the fact.). However, mine will use more expensive components and be built heavier and more ruggedly, and wll incorporate handles and jack/wheel points so to make moving easier. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:05:03 -0500, Magnus wrote:
Hard to believe one cannot make a respectable 2-way speaker with all the new drivers out there and computer evaluation methods. Surely the new silk dome tweeters and fibre drivers would exceed anything we can buy commerically if we keep the budget down to $400. You need to remember that the drivers are connected to a cabinet, and are connected via a crossover. There's a reason why the Dynaudio Contour range is twice the price of Audiences which use the same drivers............................ I like Quad and Apogees much more than KEF's or B&W's. So do I (I own Apogees), but I wouldn't attempt to build a clone of either! :-) Why can't we clone a Sonus Faber? Because they spent many years voicing the cabinet and crossover. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Somewhat off-topic, but you're an utter arsehole vis-a-vis general aviation. Perhaps the most brilliant airplane designer of the second half of the 20th century, Burt Rutan, pulled out of GA (as did everyone else) because chicken-**** Americans refuse to take responsibility for their own dumbery, and insist on sueing other people for *their* stupidity. Thank you. I wear it as a badge of, if not honor, at least honesty. It's a VERY unpopular opinion. I have the same kind of respect for Burt and Dick I do for someone who can memorize the phone book, and does. They can do something I can't. But they are still nearly idiot savants. The Vari-EZ started with VW power. That went away because unlike the rest of the entire sport aviation world they couldn't make a VW work. So they promoted the piece of **** direct drive beat and pound museum piece 1930s technology lawn tractor piece of **** Lycoming. The Pond Racer was another no-common-sense deal that got Rick Brickert killed, then of course it was the fault of the no good auto conversion engines. They were blowing **** out their ass on product liability from day one because they were never sued. AFAIK they haven't been to this day. Canards suck, moldless sandwich composite for homebuilders sucks, Lycomings suck, and Burt and Dick suck. Let them go back to ****ing corporations out of millions with goofy concept prototypes and leave GA alone. **** Burt and Dick. Is that nice and polite and noncomittal enough for you? |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com A homebuilt speaker is as different from a manufactured design as a SR is from a Wittman Tailwind. More calcified ******** from one of the most calcified minds on Usenet. A homebuilt speaker and a highly-regarded commercial speaker can be quite similar, if not absolutely identical. The design of a loudspeaker is one of the easier things in the world to nondestructively discern from a working example. In many cases the drivers are off-the-shelf designs. The crossover components are relatively easy to purchase or fabricate. The enclosure is often just a fairly small woodworking project. There ain't a whole lot else in most speakers. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:52:56 +0200, Per Stromgren wrote:
Do you happen to live in Sweden, by the way? If so, check out the LTS designs by Ingvar Öhman, available at http://www.hifikit.se/. They are good, and won't break your bank. Per. A friend of mine built a pair of those - the monitor sized two element model - last year. I made a fairly thorough but totally non-scientific listening test in January. Verdict: Very good indeed. Exceptional stereo imaging (holographic is a popular buzz word) that wasn't compromised by big orchestras getting really worked up (Shostakovich and Prokofiev). Chamber-trad-jazz was another a jaw- dropper - that big saxophone sounded so real, dry and big. I heard new details in most of the music I listened to. A few times I couldn't decide if my own speakers or those LTS speakers were the better ones. Were the LTS speaker sharpish at the very highest frequencies or were my speakers simply doing that recording a favour (John Holloway playing Biber violin sonatas on an ECM CD)? Value for money? He got those speakers for some 400 Euro. Out of curiosity I sampled wat is currently available on the market in Stockholm and found that to get similar sound quality one would have to tripple the money - at least tripple the money. Note: The base model is a three element floor stander. I am tempted to go for that one once I get my room in order but last time I checked them out I was told Seas is not producing that low-freq. element any more. -- ================================================== ================== Martin Schöön * * * * * * * * * *"Problems worthy of attack * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * prove their worth by hitting back" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Piet Hein ================================================== ================== |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. Pierce:
Would it be possible to critique any of the designs found at the site listed below? http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius/ |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah Arny, just build a box about so big, put a couple of drivers in
there and some random coils and caps (and a light bulb, like Peavey!) and you're good to go. The speaker itself may indeed be identical, but _how the design got there_ from an evolutionary point, is different. (Unless you just copy the existing one, which actually is how most things are "designed" today. Richard Stallman makes a very good point on this, but eight to five you never heard of him.) That was Dick Pierce's point, _with which I agree_, in the context of Stewart's anti-DIY fountain of vinegar water. As for Burt and Dick Rutan and their designs, I don't actually think they are stupid. I think thy are somewhat common-sense-challenged, as are most really futuristic thinkers. I bear them no ill will. But I DO think their homebuilt designs were poor choices for a project for most people who would want to build their own airplane. And I DO think that the Lycoming aircraft engine is like a single-ended triode amp in that far better choices exist today for people not needing a type certificated powerplant, because it has ben long superceded and because using a general purpose engine with a redrive offers huge advantages-such as being able to run the engine without a prop for maintenance and protecting the engine from internal damage in the event of a prop strike. It may sound surprising for someone who drives Corvairs to say, but air cooled engines are obsolete now. No one but Harley-Davidson and Lycoming-both overpriced junk for retarded yuppies-builds them anymore. You could not get an air cooled plant to pass EPA emissions in a car anymore. Air cooled VW's, Porsches, Corvairs, and Tatras are OK for hobby cars but for gneral purpose ownership are vulnerable to total engine failure if driven with a dysfunctional fan (e.g. broken belt). Even Deutz quit making their trusty loud Airdiesel engines. Liquid cooling, electronic ignition, and a good Gilmer belt or gear-and-quillshaft redrive on the back of a good flywheel, are literally the only way to fly as far as I am concerned. (Unless you can afford a PT-6.) |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:57:09 -0800, dpierce wrote:
big snip One of the consequences of all these issues is that the components that go into a commercial model may not be available, even though they look an awful lot like what you could buy off the shelf. I know of a number of manufacturers that purchase their drivers from Seas, Peerless, Scan Speak and such. I also know that the drivers these manufacturers use are different in not-very-subtle ways from the off-the-shelf versions that one can get in small quantities. This is pretty much the reason given for Seas not being interested in continuing to manufacture those bass elements I mentioned elsewhere in this thread: Too tailored compared to the standard (off the shelf) product for the small production volume. The kit market isn't big enough. The other two elements are also modified but only midly so. another big snip -- ================================================== ================== Martin Schöön * * * * * * * * * *"Problems worthy of attack * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * prove their worth by hitting back" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Piet Hein ================================================== ================== |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 2 Apr 2005 14:40:36 -0800, wrote: It may sound surprising for someone who drives Corvairs to say, but air cooled engines are obsolete now. The engine is not the problem in the Corvair. No one but Harley-Davidson and Lycoming-both overpriced junk for retarded yuppies-builds them anymore. You could not get an air cooled plant to pass EPA emissions in a car anymore. Air cooled VW's, Porsches, Corvairs, and Tatras are OK for hobby cars but for gneral purpose ownership are vulnerable to total engine failure if driven with a dysfunctional fan (e.g. broken belt). All engines are vulnerable to total failure if imprtant belts break, e.g. the cambelt or the main ancillary drivebelt (you know, the one that drives the water pump). There is nothing 'obsolete' about either the Beetle or the 993, aside from tree-hugging emissions laws. Liquid cooling, electronic ignition, and a good Gilmer belt or gear-and-quillshaft redrive on the back of a good flywheel, are literally the only way to fly as far as I am concerned. (Unless you can afford a PT-6.) No, the only way to go is the turbine, not that obsolete suck-squeeze-bang-blow rubbish..................... Re gas turbine engines: At what horsepower does the gas turbine become cheaper than an ever larger internal combustion engine? Thanks, Norm Strong |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 2 Apr 2005 14:40:36 -0800, wrote: (snip) Re gas turbine engines: At what horsepower does the gas turbine become cheaper than an ever larger internal combustion engine? Most turbines are built using total disregard for build cost, but beautifully, whereas most modern recips are built with build cost as the number one consideration. A PT-6 or a 331 Garrett uses fully machined high energy metals in areas where a good aluminum sand casting or even Detroit Wonder Metal would work fine if you accepted a certain weight gain. (It would still be lighter than a piece of **** Lycoming.) So its apples vs. oranges. Despite their cost-no-object design, the price is even higher because they are selling to cost-insensitive markets in low volume and are protected by type certification and the perception of serious product liability issues-a perception they created perhaps (in hindsight) for this purpose. When sophisticated multiaxis CNC machines came into use the tooling costs of manufacturing such engines (a stated cost factor in explaining the price) as the PT-6 plunged-the price did not. Turbines can be manufactured inexpensively-every diesel engine on the American road today has one attached to it, in the form of a turbocharger. A simple centrifugal flow turbine, such as the Turbomeca/Continental J69, could very certainly be built for the same cost as a four cylinder Lycoming. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you are going to spend that much money isn't passive crossover a
little ridiculous anyway? |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
Re gas turbine engines: At what horsepower does the gas turbine become cheaper than an ever larger internal combustion engine? It depends on whether you count operational costs. It depends on operational conditions. Gas turbines as sea-level power sources, are significantly less fuel-efficient than say diesels. I believe that at 30,000 feet in an high-performance airplane, gas turbines are net more economical than a diesel. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message Re gas turbine engines: At what horsepower does the gas turbine become cheaper than an ever larger internal combustion engine? It depends on whether you count operational costs. It depends on operational conditions. Gas turbines as sea-level power sources, are significantly less fuel-efficient than say diesels. I believe that at 30,000 feet in an high-performance airplane, gas turbines are net more economical than a diesel. Gas turbines running at design power and designed to run continuously at that power at sea level are roughly comparable to diesels-large slow speed diesels have only a small advantage in BSFC. Getting efficiency from a gas turbine over a wide range of speeds and conditions requires thermal feedback in the form of regeneration or recuperation. Chrysler and GM in the United States and Rover in the UK all demonstrated entirely succcessful powerplants-in some markets some of these designs could be profitably marketed today. Indeed, WIlliams Research was in effect financed by Chrysler stockholders. Sam Williams left Chrysler just as Edson de Castro split from DEC to form Data General around what would have been the PDP-11 as the Nova. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Apr 3, 12:31 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech From: - Find messages by this author Date: 3 Apr 2005 12:31:28 -0700 Local: Sun, Apr 3 2005 12:31 pm Subject: Dick Pierce If you are going to spend that much money isn't passive crossover a little ridiculous anyway? Why, so long as they achieve a smoth transition, what difference does it make how it's achieved. Why add unneccessary expense? |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
First, it's not unnecessary and secondly, in the grand scheme of
things, it's not that expensive. I think the best way to use "modern" amp technology is to build it into the speaker. I like active, multi-amped speakers in principle. The execution hasn't been there yet, except maybe for some really expensive products. Active speakers by prosumer recording /sound reinforcement companies are not realistic choices for serious home listening (although I'd love to have a pair for barbecues and so forth). If you are determind to have more channels than ears this makes even more sense. The Sonus Faber speakers-I assume you are talking about the expensive one that has an airfoil leading edge cross-section, looking for all the world like someone attacked a junked Bellanca-sounds merely okay. I have heard them. A frst rate horn system blows them so far away it is incomprehensible anyone would pay serious money for them except for the belief visitors will think they are massively endowed to own such a speaker. (As they would have to be, financially at least.) Reviews by audiophile magazines aside, there is no question that a determined amateur could build at least as good sounding a speaker. In fact, it's sort of a low goal. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Apr 5, 11:39 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech From: - Find messages by this author Date: 5 Apr 2005 11:39:07 -0700 First, it's not unnecessary and secondly, in the grand scheme of things, it's not that expensive. If a smooth transition can be made with a passive xover, why not use it? I think the best way to use "modern" amp technology is to build it into the speaker. If the drivers you choose are going to work well with that kind of technology. Drivers and xovers need to be implemented in whatever way accompishes the end of a smooth transition. I like active, multi-amped speakers in principle. As do I, in principle. The execution hasn't been there yet, except maybe for some really expensive products. There's that cost factor I was referring to. Active xovers tend to cost more. Active speakers by prosumer recording /sound reinforcement companies are not realistic choices for serious home listening In your opinion. (although I'd love to have a pair for barbecues and so forth). If you are determind to have more channels than ears this makes even more sense. I'm determined to use whatever number of channels gives me the most realistic sound. The Sonus Faber speakers-I assume you are talking about the expensive one that has an airfoil leading edge cross-section, looking for all the world like someone attacked a junked Bellanca-sounds merely okay. I have heard them. A frst rate horn system blows them so far away it is incomprehensible anyone would pay serious money for them except for the belief visitors will think they are massively endowed to own such a speaker. Again, your opinion. Not everybody likes horn speakers, I've heard some good ones and some not so good. Just like any speaker design, or any other choice of playback, people choose what they like, sometimes for reasons other than sound, like space. SF's look and sound very nice, but for me they are more about furniture than sound. I'd take a pair of Merlin VSM's over SF's any day. (As they would have to be, financially at least.) Reviews by audiophile magazines aside, there is no question that a determined amateur could build at least as good sounding a speaker. In fact, it's sort of a low goal. As has been pointed out before, DIY speakers can be very good, but unless one has the proper equipment for measurement, they are likely to be second to professionally designed systems. There is also the question of drivers available for DIY being different or flat out unavailable for DIY. I love the satisfaction of building my own, but the older I get and the more Iearn, the less likely I am to try and design a system from the ground up. Stil there are some great kits available, not the least of which is the Linkwitz Orion. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
still learning wrote:
If a smooth transition can be made with a passive xover, why not use it? First there is the "if" part of it, next there is the cost. Quality components are costly, big high quality components are costlier, be it polypropylene caps or be it air cored copper coils. If that doesn't make the point, the do try listening to the same system as active and as passive. I have once upon a time rolled a system back, but that was because the intended mid- and high range amplifier (Luxman, possibly called the MQ80, dual 40 watt valve amp, ca. 1977) was too noisy for use with the compression driver of a Tannoy 12" dual concentric. Which is to say that there are always trade-offs to consider, what I did do was to trade the valve-amp off .... O;-) ... sold it to a guy running dual Lowther PM6's in ACE horns so that he could have one amp channel pr. unit. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter Larsen Apr 6, 1:12 am Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
From: Peter Larsen - still learning wrote: If a smooth transition can be made with a passive xover, why not use it? First there is the "if" part of it, next there is the cost. The if part is determined by driver choice. The cost for xover components is certainly a variable, but big speaker companies buy in large lots which brings the price way down. Quality components are costly, big high quality components are costlier, be it polypropylene caps or be it air cored copper coils. Polypropylene caps don't sound any better than Mylar so that choice is one that is made depending on who the systems are being marketed to. Reasonable people don't spend extra money on parts that make no sonic difference. A good engineer won't use drivers that don't mesh well. If that doesn't make the point, the do try listening to the same system as active and as passive. I have. As long as the xover was implemented properly it doesn't make any difference. Joseph Audio seems to win countless awards with their passive xovers. Joe D'Appolito seems to be able to design excellent speaker systems that don't use so called premium xover components and don't need active xover networks. I have once upon a time rolled a system back, but that was because the intended mid- and high range amplifier (Luxman, possibly called the MQ80, dual 40 watt valve amp, ca. 1977) was too noisy for use with the compression driver of a Tannoy 12" dual concentric. Which is to say that there are always trade-offs to consider, what I did do was to trade the valve-amp off .... O;-) ... sold it to a guy running dual Lowther PM6's in ACE horns so that he could have one amp channel pr. unit. Yes there are always compromises in speaker design, but well thought out systems still sound excellent without active xovers. Virtually all of the most highly regarded speaker systems do not use active xovers. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
still learning Apr 2, 1:01 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech From: "still learning" - Date: 2 Apr 2005 13:01:42 -0800 Local: Sat,Apr 2 2005 1:01 pm Subject: Dick Pierce Mr. Pierce: Would it be possible to critique any of the designs found at the site listed below? http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius=AD/ OK, I f not Dick Pierce, how about any of the EE's here? Notice the Soup speaker is nearly a clone an Avalon system. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
still learning wrote:
still learning Apr 2, 1:01 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech From: "still learning" - Date: 2 Apr 2005 13:01:42 -0800 Local: Sat,Apr 2 2005 1:01 pm Subject: Dick Pierce Mr. Pierce: Would it be possible to critique any of the designs found at the site listed below? http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius*/ OK, I f not Dick Pierce, how about any of the EE's here? It's difficult to look at a loudspeaker design on paper and obtain a sense of how it would sound. OTOH, the designs appear to be fairly orthodox, using reasonably high quality parts, etc. They might sound pretty good. One major weakness is that the only performance information provided is an on-axis frequency response curve. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny sez:
It's difficult to look at a loudspeaker design on paper and obtain a sense of how it would sound. OTOH, the designs appear to be fairly orthodox, using reasonably high quality parts, etc. They might sound pretty good. One major weakness is that the only performance information provided is an on-axis frequency response curve. Orthodox is OK by me, although the "Progress" is not a design that shows up all that often, and it does include graphic evidcence of off axis response, which looks pretty damn good. I wonder if the fact that the Netherlands has had a voucher type school system for about 100 years ahs anything to do with the seemingly higher level of interest and accomplishment (IMO) of audio DIY projects that oringinate there? |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was raised in Holland..but what on earth do you mean by voucher
type? The Dutch are well trained in math etc, with the world's best highschools (with Japan, typically). The TU Delft is also excellent. The Dutch also spend the most money per capita on audio of any country. Not sure what there is to explain here, but yes, we're damn smart  But lotsa great audio engineering goes on elsewhee too ofcourse! I wonder if the fact that the Netherlands has had a voucher type school system for about 100 years ahs anything to do with the seemingly higher level of interest and accomplishment (IMO) of audio DIY projects that oringinate there? |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Improving One's Speakers - On the mark or way off? Dick, Tom Nousaine, Stew, etc. | Tech | |||
| BUSH , DICK AND COLON Made in China !!! I thought so ! | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Led Zeppelin: Moby Dick | Pro Audio | |||
| Led Zeppelin: Moby Dick mix | Pro Audio | |||
| the expertise of Leon "where's my dick???" North ;-) | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
