Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jon Hodgson]

I know about sampling, and it's really not that interesting going over the basics again and again. Speakers are far more variable, and I know less about them, so maybe we can talk about them for a bit and I can learn something new?

Let's start with something by John Watkinson

http://www.celticaudio.co.uk/articles/science.pdf

Has anyone used the Watkinson/Salter speakers they've developed as Celtic Audio?

Has anyone used any other "unusual" speakers? Electrostatic, Flat Panel, Telepathy? How did they work, how did they sound?

Does anyone know of things that are being done to improve speaker accuracy?

Monitors, PA, HiFi, I'm interested in all of them.

NOTE : This forum is about science and engineering, so it isn't enough to say "I prefer Genelecs to PMCs", we need some techinical reasons or theories why

Oh, and the first person to mention speakers going to 100kHz without being able to explain some interesting technical innovation associated with this wins the "most annoying poster of the month" award.

[Level]

I enjoy talking about and learning new things about loudspeakers. With loudspeakers, so many parameters exist and quite frankly, that they work 'at all' is nothing less than phenomenal. this said..over the years, several objectives have been sought after by 'most all' loudspeaker manufactures at a given time.

Just to put some perspective on this, I will start by saying I have built loudspeaker systems since the early 70's and have had some rather good designs but as we all know..marketability is the key deal with speakers. Look at the number one selling loudspeaker brand in the world. Many here will say they are junk while others think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Some loudspeakers that stand out over the years as unique and enjoyable (not necessarily accurate) are:

The Quad ESL57 system (electrostatic)
Kef 104.2 (Dynamic)
Klipschorns (Full range 3 way horn system)
Bozak Concert grand (infinity baffle/phased array tweeters)
The Hill plasmatronic (ionic tweeter array, gas driven)
Infinity Reference VI (4 enclosure array/12 woofers, dozens of ribbons)
Auratone cube (wide range high power single driver)
JBL 4435 (Hi Power studio monitor w/ biradial horn)
JBL 4310/4311 (Studio standard for 12 years)
Altec A7-500 (Voice of the theater, front loaded reflex bass horn, multicell mid/tweeter)
Yamaha NS1000 (Very low distortion direct radiators using beryllium deposited domes)
Rogers LS3/5 (Small BBC monitor)
Dynaudio confidence
SP Tech Timepiece 2.0

Every one of these systems have an intended use but all of them can excite emotion when used with good program material in a proper room.

As far as exotics go..until the way we record and reproduce sound has evolved, we are basically stuck with variations on a theme.

Here is a project I am involved with in the demonstration/validation phase.

http://www.integraltransference.com/

yes, to reproduce music, their are so many ways to do it..like I say, it is a wonder any of it resembles music at all. I compare various loudspeakers to the various types of flying machines actually. they all do the same thing..but come in all shapes and sizes and levels of performance.

Just don't forget, room interaction plays a huge role in the outcome.

[Jon Hodgson]

Thanks,

That's a great start, and a nice chunk of reading for me to get stuck into.

[dcollins]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 16:16

Thanks, That's a great start, and a nice chunk of reading for me to get stuck into.

Too bad it's all BS...

DC

[dcollins]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 14:41

Has anyone used the Watkinson/Salter speakers they've developed as Celtic Audio?

I did try the "Cabar" many years ago.  It sounded pretty good.  No high SPL's but very low distortion and nice image.  But where do you put it?  Hanging from chains?  On the meter bridge?

Iirc, they have some more conventional designs.

DC

[Jon Hodgson]

dcollins wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 00:19

Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 16:16 Thanks, That's a great start, and a nice chunk of reading for me to get stuck into. Too bad it's all BS... DC

Hi DC,

I haven't read any of it yet, so I can't comment.

But that's fair warning, just because it's in print and has lots of technical words, doesn't mean it's true... I've seen sites by "engineers" with theories that Terry Pratchett would be proud of.

From what I've seen you post in the past I respect your opinion, but I won't pass judgement either way until I've read it myself.

But at least Level has started by supplying a list of speakers which appear to have different technologies and implementations, which is a good start to looking at the reasoning behind thwm and how well they work.

I just want to get us away from focusing on one small element of sound reproduction.

[Jon Hodgson]

dcollins wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 00:22

Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 14:41 Has anyone used the Watkinson/Salter speakers they've developed as Celtic Audio? I did try the "Cabar" many years ago.  It sounded pretty good.  No high SPL's but very low distortion and nice image.  But where do you put it?  Hanging from chains?  On the meter bridge? Iirc, they have some more conventional designs. DC

They appear to have a number of standard and bespoke designs including the Cabar, which you know, the Legend (their big speakers), and the obelisk, more medium sizeish.

Their original design, which John Watkinson gave a talk on years ago (what an odd sense of style that man has!) were their own bass units combined with modified QUAD electrostatics... but I don't know if they do any electrostatic stuff these days.

John Watkinson is a man with a straight forward down to earth, but quality oriented approach to engineering that appeals to me, and Richard Salter is also to be respected, so I am very interested in how well their ideas translate to the real world.

Their attitude is basically that you shouldn't hear speakers, they shouldn't colour the sound, they shouldn't affect the phase. I don't know how well they've achieved it, but I like the aim.

[Level]

dcollins wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 18:19

Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 16:16 Thanks, That's a great start, and a nice chunk of reading for me to get stuck into. Too bad it's all BS... DC

Dave, you simply have no clue to the papers so just state you have neither read them nor are interested in them. I know for a fact you have not seen the experiments but those who have...know better than to even think of stating what you have here.

You have no proof at all..so your vague subjectivism is not welcomed in this case.

Did you not (Dave Collins) enter into a verbal agreement that you would leave my posts alone? This alone proves the integrity level I am dealing with...concerning you.

It would seem when someone does anything other than the status quo..you profess "BS" and proudly raise your chin. Your ego knows no bounds so howabout honoring your agreement?

Are you really transparent to your own integrity? Do you have ANY integrity at all?

It would seem..only in certain areas..but not that of honoring an agreement.

Is your memory that bad?

[dcollins]

Level wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 16:53

Is your memory that bad?

Well, I remember the last time you told us about the great Paradigm Shift that was about to occur, and submitted this same paper.

On George's board, maybe 8 months ago?

I'm sure you can look it up.  

And you can stop PM'ing, and emailing me about how I'm "Libleing" you.

I think the paper speaks for itself.  

And I especially like when he calls Dr. Toole of JBL Floyd Tool.

DC

[Level]

I met Floyd 4 times and he has read the papers and even he did not point out the typo..so who cares?

The experiment speaks for itself, the paper is the accumulation of 20+ years of research and 5 patents by the author himself.

Yes, it speaks volumes..too bad some folks fail to understand it.

[Johnny B]

Bill,

What's that famous phrase by Spencer...It's has something to do with "contempt prior to investigation" is what keeps people forever in a state of ignorance.

Is it not always the case, that one should either qualify their statements with frank introductions such as "I have not tried it myself...but...." thereby alerting the reader that the writer is offering a personal opinion without having any direct experience whatsoever...

Now, an opinion based on zero experience, can still have value, but the logical links and chain-of-reasoning must be set forth in an explicit manner...otherwise, it is more of a "fire, ready, aim" or "shoot-from-the-hip" kind of expression of someone's purely personal opinion. Even this kind of expression *could* have value, but generally, it has little or no value in my purely personal opinion.  

[12345]

Didn't Bill say he was involved in the Integral Transference project?  What gives?  The contact info for Integral Transference is listed in FL...so...

I am fundamentally interested in the 3d (as opposed to 2 and-a-half D) propogation of sound, and it is nice to see research along these lines...

And here's another "speaker" medium:
www.atcsd.com
...strange because the audio actually starts out in the ultrasound range.  


I have some weird stuff in the works, too...hopefully will get past the proof-of-concept stage soon...but have discussed it a bit as of late.  It is an interferometric speaker...sound is decoded via a "carrier wave" for true 3-D imaging.  I have also been experimenting with density-based speakers, meaning I change the density of the air in the speaker cabinet (i.e. I replace the air with helium--lower density and therefore different harmonic properties), and surrounding the speaker cabinet.  Also in the proof-of concept stage.  But patents have been filed and hopefully I'll be sharing some more soon!

MW

[Level]

MW, in the 70's, Cerwin Vega actually had a bag of nitrogen in the enclosure of some of their designs. Heavier than air was how the research went back then.

Here is an interesting thread about the use of gas other than our atmosphere inside the enclosure.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-65687.html

[12345]

Bill,

Very cool!  

I am working with:
1) changing the density of the fluid in the sealed enclosure
2) varying the density of the fluid in the enclosure so that it can be modified on-the-fly
3) changing the rate at which the density in the enclosure can be modified
4) changing the density of the fluid in the room

Applications include:
1) high-altitude speakers
2) "corrective eq"
3) effects
4) a playback system with a high degree of fine-tuning
5) testing to find out how harmonics that could not normally be reproduced sound via transposition.  

Fun...

Good idea for a thread.

Cool stuff on the Integral Transference, Bill!

MW

[dcollins]

Level wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 20:23

I met Floyd 4 times and he has read the papers and even he did not point out the typo..so who cares?

And he approved of it?  Or was there a spit-take involved?

That stuff is so full of gobbledygook, new made-up terms, I defy anyone to understand it, as presented.  But willing to be proved wrong.

Is it the Gerzon one million speakers system?

Would it be cheaper to actually hire musicians to play?

Is it "Son of "Q-Sound?"

Figure 1 is a gem.


The later use of the word "Ontology" seems almost painful...

Quote:

Yes, it speaks volumes..too bad some folks fail to understand it.

Hey, if it's really something new, we would all love to understand it. We saw it here first, etc.

So describe it as simply as you can.  We don't need ten pages of references.

No hand-waving, new made-up terms no one has ever heard of, and of course fuzzy stuff like "Sonic Holy Grail" is right out!

Give it to us in two paragraphs.

DC