In , Ruud Broens wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: In , Ruud Broens wrote :
:
: so, how about some audio content, sir ?
: (think Wargames : "A strange game. The only winning move is not to
: play.
: How about a nice game of chess?")
:
: the question i recently put to Arny, how would you go about
: comparing different drivers for some loudspeaker design
: (assuming a multi-driver setup) ? say, a tweeter:
: you'll have different frequency range, different frequency response,
: different sensitivity , different dispersion, different power handling
: capacity, different impedance, etc., etc.
:
: Up to now I understand.
:
: now, say you'd have a perfect 10 Hz - 6 kHz 'lower part' of the design
: ready, how to compare these different tweeters ?
:
: The game finishs here since (hopefully ?) I even cannot imagine the
: above. ;-)

it's using a hypothetical position to level the field somewhat;
otherwise (as is the case in the real world) you'd have to take into
account the nonperfection of that lower part design and the
problem of assigning differences to differences-in-the-tweeter
is compounded.
what i'm really getting at is that at this point a builder can say:

"in the end i chose brand X model Y because it sounded best"

but that doesn't tell us much, does it ?
there are many different aspects and unless there is the very
unlikely case of a clear 'winner' in all categories evaluated,
it is a weighing game say less distortion vs. better pulse response
a small high frequency dropoff from 18 kHz but flawless dispersion
vs. ruler flat on-axis, but lousy dispersion,
etc.etc.

The DIYer, when armed with tools, time, etc.,
is at an advantage here - he can set those weighing factors
himself (m/f) ;-)
:
: for starters, you'll need different xo's for the drivers
: so you're not _really_ comparing apples with apples
: as some tweeters will 'use' more of the range produced
: by the lower part
: than others :-)
:
:
: I'm sincerely sorry Rudy but speaker DIY is just like cooking : it
: cannot be dematerialized. Your question is a little bit naive, would you
: ask to a chef "imagine that you have the perfect saulce what kind of
: meat will you prepare with it ?"
:
i assume you meant "cannot be decomposed" ?
so it's an Art ? :-)

Exactly. An *Art*.
That doesn't mean that I think that I am an artist even not an artisan.
I'm just like the guy who made a few months attempt with a musical
instrument and has suddenly understood all the difficulty of the
interpretation.
I've seen a guy on this forum who used to sign with the slogan "music is
art, audio is engineering".
I know that he is wrong, at least, for the speakers.
To built a good speaker is as difficult as to create a good perfume, you
have the chose among an infinity of elements and solutions for your
assembly and you have to make *the* choice.


: any practical ideas ?
:
: No theoric ideas.
: If you feel that you have already assembled the "perfect" 10 hz - 6 khz
: I must say that you are in a deep mud !!! Without any divine
: intervention you are running to the greatest deception that one can
: imagine... ...You know the axiom, "no good bass with a poor tweeter".
:
: I mean that "perfection" would be achieved only when you will have find
: *THE* good tweeter. All the rest is rhetoric only, not speaker building.
:
: BTW, IMHO perfection isn't a human goal. It is a lure for paranoids,
: borgs.
:
: "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
: But what's new around here?"
:
: Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15