Comments on: An Unknown Quantity: My Loudspeakers

By: Mzisserson

Mzisserson — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:09:00 +0000

Hello Charlie,
Apologies for the delayed response. It seems the sound achieved by my loudspeakers appeals to many listeners, including myself. I am unsure I could ask for more! When looking from 30 kilo-feet, the reason is the preservation of the music and message behind it. This does not undermine any of the science involved, nor does it provide an excuse for measurably poor performance.

Have you ever experienced a loudspeaker that was built to measurable perfection (at least in frequency response), only to have it disappoint? It seems companies/designers forget at times that loudspeakers interface with us, and while signal preservation is extremely important, music was mixed on imperfect loudspeakers in a studio by human ears. The work Toole has done regarding Pscyoacoustics is eye-opening in this regard. I am currently going through this a bit with a large 4-way I am working on. Their frequency response is ruler flat at the moment, but may not necessarily stay that way.

All is not lost, nor doom and gloom. I try to abide by the abundance mentality and believe that well over 90% of loudspeaker designers and companies big and small are doing great work while following the roads that they feel make a great loudspeaker. Even if their marketing has to put on paper only what the collective "we" like to see :p

By: Charlie Garfuncal

Charlie Garfuncal — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:29:00 +0000

"High resolution with a gigantic sound stage while preserving a non-fatiguing nature and a neutral timbre with perhaps touch of warmth." you'd think everyone was striving for that. Cool article. Sounds to me are you saying many designers are thinking too black and white about their goals for their works.

By: Rushton

Rushton — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:26:00 +0000

In reply to Mzisserson. Thanks, Michael. You've just outlined a possible next article, imo. Take ONE of your speaker designs and discuss the choices you made for the crossover in that speaker. For me, that would be an interesting commentary to read.

By: Mzisserson

Mzisserson — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:13:00 +0000

In reply to Rushton.

Greetings Rushton,
Thank you for the kind words. There is a great deal of work done prior to assessing the crossover and the slope/roll-off/alignment that is to be used in any given design. The work in selecting the drivers to be used for any given design can be very labor intensive as each driver in a system needs a full work-up measurements to make sure it will suit the overall loudspeaker system goal. The work done in this phase is critical for optimizing the crossover later on.

While each kind of crossover filter had trade-offs such as a -3dB power response dip at the crossover frequency for the widely utilized Linkwitz-Riley type of crossover alignment, placing the crossover frequency appropriately and this alignment's no-frills simplicity while providing low cost is a large advantage of this 2nd order (12dB/octave) crossover variety. At times, leveraging these advantages while using a higher order such as 4th order (24dB/octave) can create the summed response in all domains that is desired by the designer, even though the filters are asymmetric in nature.

Like so much else it gets muddy quickly and the whole answer is not as black-and-white as the very science that builds its parts. It is, however, understandable and can be a long-winded discussion. If there are any specific questions I will be happy to provide some information here, or via e-mail.

Warmest,
Michael

By: Rushton

Rushton — Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:05:00 +0000

Excellent contribution, Michael! I look forward to more articles from you about some of the trade-offs made in different speaker designs and how those trade-offs impact what we hear. Given your interest in crossover design, I'd love to read your thoughts of the various trade-offs that occur in this most critical of components.