Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Beauty vs.Performance..or Both

72.224.232.198
Posted on July 15, 2024 at 10:38:09
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi, I just read the review in Stereophile of the new Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg loudspeaker.Then on my coffee table I grabbed the December 2023 issue of Stereophile.Out of curiosity I read the DeVore Orangutan O/baby review.Both use well known drivers,Seas and Scanspeak.Without even reading the articles go right to John Atkinsons frequency response graph.The Orangutan is ruler flat and much deeper in bass performance.The Goldberg without the stand is 13,475 and the stand is 2,500.The Orangutan is 5,700 a pair and the stands are 995 dollars.Atkinson tried to be polite in his last paragraph about the Goldberg's but if you read between the lines might be giving you a little hint.In the past Herb Reichert has compared various loudspeakers in his reviews against each other.From what I just typed above is why some readers might want to see more of that so that Stereophile becomes more of a tool that could help people of all incomes select a speaker system not just the wealthy, thanks...Mark Korda

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
HR is my favorite current reviewer because . . ., posted on July 15, 2024 at 12:12:02
Brian H P
Audiophile

Posts: 1433
Location: Oregon
Joined: December 18, 2012
 . . . he keeps a stable of diverse amplifiers, turntables, and speakers on hand, and when checking out a new component will take the time to swap around various combinations to find the most synergistic match. He seems to enjoy the process, and is far more informative than reviewers who evaluate every amplifier with one reference pair of speakers, or every pair of speakers with one reference amp.

As for your subject line, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there are some WEIRD-looking products out there. I personally would rather have butt-ugly gear that sounds great, than "beautiful" gear that sounds mediocre.

 

Which is why, posted on July 15, 2024 at 13:05:47
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 39092
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 HP had three very good systems in different rooms back in the day. He always cross reviewed a range of components.

 

RE: Which is why, posted on July 16, 2024 at 17:54:55
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi Brian and EStat, one thing the reviewer didn't explain,maybe I missed it was the grill. It looks like guitar or harp strings.Would this grill protect a errant swipe from my little mountain lion? I know you don't have to have it on but how much more money was spent on something that might be.a deterrent to the Goldberg's sound,imaging ect. The chrome around it looks kind of tacky.It might get pitted after 50 years unlike my Dyna A-25's I bought for a little over 50 bucks 50 years ago and still look spiffy ...-...-Mark

 

It's a style statement, posted on July 17, 2024 at 05:23:57
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 39092
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 HP had cats, but they were not allowed on the same floor as the audio systems. They lived upstairs.

 

RE: The reviewer also did measurements..., posted on July 17, 2024 at 08:23:46
Ladok
Audiophile

Posts: 177
Joined: November 21, 2001
 It was reviewed by Martin Colloms, he apparently did not get a response dip from 100-800 Hz in his measurements like John Atkinson did. And he really liked the speakers subjectively. So again, we have a disparity between measurements and the subjective review, which indicates to me that flat frequency response is not make or break for a speaker. In fact, when he measures this type of up and down response, JA often makes the comment (as in this case) that the perceived sound quality will "depend on which frequency region the listener takes as a reference..." That never seems to translate to what the reviewer reports. When I'm listening to music, I don't think, "Well, what frequency region am I taking as reference on this album?" Either I'm digging it or I'm not, and Martin Colloms was digging it. I've had this debate with others here before. I believe measurements have their place, but too many folks are dismissing components if JA's measurements sidebar doesn't end with "All in all, this component's measured performance indicates excellent engineering."

 

Reviewer/measurements did agree..., posted on July 17, 2024 at 09:22:12
Ladok
Audiophile

Posts: 177
Joined: November 21, 2001
 ...on the bass performance. Colloms said the speakers lacked the bass drive required for the "full rock experience" and the measurements show a steep drop-off below 70Hz. So apparently even room gain isn't enough to make these "rock speakers," which would eliminate them from consideration for me, especially in this price range. But I doubt if that's what the manufacturer had in mind with these.

 

Based on older Sonus Fabers, posted on July 17, 2024 at 11:52:57
Brian H P
Audiophile

Posts: 1433
Location: Oregon
Joined: December 18, 2012
 Something Mr. Serblin came up with long ago. I doubt if it offers much protection for the drivers, but OTOH it does little to mess with the sound. Unlike the big clonky lumber grill frames on the recently reviewed McIntosh speakers.

 

RE: Based on older Sonus Fabers, posted on July 17, 2024 at 18:53:31
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi Brian, the grill must resonate like the strings are supposed to do on a bass viol. If their solid they would cause a lot of diffraction also.Maybe that's why not much discussion on the grill. The emblem on the grill looks like a Las Vegas hotel sign to me...-take care...-.Mark Korda

 

However that equipment look or sounds, no matter what it costs..., posted on July 18, 2024 at 11:33:15
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 32363
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 Those are some truly Bonehead names.

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure



 

That dip is . . . not really a dip, posted on July 18, 2024 at 11:58:48
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 I just looked at those measurements and what's happening is this:

That dip is not really a dip at all. The way John Atkinson measures speakers overestimates the amplitude of the bass response by about 6dB. He writes about this. So take that rise at around 80 to 100Hz and pretend it is not there at all -- imagine that whole region 6dB lower.

Therefore, you get a flat-ish line that starts rising as it approaches 1000Hz, to the tune of another 6dB. What's happening there is that the driver output is transitioning from 4pi to 2pi. Some people called this "baffle step." Basically, the baffle is providing 6dB of output.

What this means is that the designer(s) hasn't compensated for the baffle step, so you get this rise that will now make the mids and highs unnaturally high compared to the bass region. To compensate for that, you'd have to get the speaker not just close to the wall behind, but to the walls on the sides to get the most amount of "room gain," which undoubtedly why John Atkinson wrote: "the low frequencies will sound somewhat lightweight without boundary reinforcement."

Yup -- likely VERY light.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

I think the "strings" are tuned too low to resonate, posted on July 18, 2024 at 12:02:56
Brian H P
Audiophile

Posts: 1433
Location: Oregon
Joined: December 18, 2012
 Probably not much tension on them. Diffraction should be minimal, given their thin diameter and probably soft texture.

I recall that Krell tried making speakers some years back, and used a similar grill.

 

RE: Beauty vs.Performance..or Both, posted on July 18, 2024 at 14:41:29
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4049
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >I just read the review in Stereophile of the new Franco Serblin Accordo
>Goldberg loudspeaker.

The review is now available on-line.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

About that bass..., posted on July 18, 2024 at 22:19:36
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 It's not only the steep rolloff below 70Hz that's a problem -- from above that to 100Hz, as I explained in another post in this thread, there's not enough energy relative to the midrange and highs. If the measurements are correct, this speaker severely lacks deep bass and upper bass. In other words, it has, basically, "no bass."

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: That dip is . . . not really a dip, posted on July 19, 2024 at 08:58:13
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi Doug, thanks for explaining that. That was a new lesson for me. I still have every old High Fidelity Mag that I bought from 1975. They always showed the frequency graph. Almost all the loudspeakers with a great review had a nice strait line with no dips or valleys before the lower bass region. Another more modern graph that I saw in Stereophile not to long ago was the KEF small monitor, coax ,I think the model 50, about 1,300. You could of used a ruler to draw the frequency line...thanks Doug...Mark Korda

 

RE: That dip is . . . not really a dip, posted on July 19, 2024 at 09:10:35
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

And it's not just a straight line that makes something good (or maybe not), but understanding what's going on here.

If you want to learn more about "baffle step," there's a link below. Another key to understanding it is that the frequencies it occurs at has to do with the width of the baffle. The wider the baffle, the lower in frequency it starts. That speaker has a narrow baffle, so higher in frequency.

That said, baffle step should always be compensated for or, as shown in that speaker, you get a mismatch of the bass to the high frequencies. Very strange they do that.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

He also acknowledges , posted on July 19, 2024 at 16:39:02
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 39092
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 that his measurement suite fails with large dipoles as well.

 

RE: He also acknowledges , posted on July 19, 2024 at 17:24:54
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Many things fail with dipoles, including predicted in-room response. Most of the research we've seen is on traditional forward-firing loudspeakers.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

RE: Based on older Sonus Fabers, posted on July 19, 2024 at 19:43:16
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

The grilled definitely doesn't resonate. It's like string, fairly loose, not sprung like on a musical instrument. It's just an alternate way of putting something in front of the drivers.

BTW, horizontal diffraction isn't going to be much, but vertical is another issue because to hang it you need to have a hard ridge, which isn't good.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

An added complication is the non-linearity of the "Phenomenon of the 'Weak Fundamental' ", posted on July 21, 2024 at 07:56:50
John Marks
Manufacturer

Posts: 8022
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I.
Joined: April 23, 2000



As far as I know, the sounds of all non-electronic musical instruments are seriously colored by physical or mechanical factors.

One example: The lowest string of a 4-string electric bass guitar is E, usually tuned to around 41Hz (the numbers to the right of the decimal point don't make a difference). 41Hz has a wavelength of 27.5 feet. To begin to do full justice to the frequency, you need a string length of 6.7 feet. Not gonna happen!!!

So, in real life, the low E of an electric bass is a "Weak Fundamental," which means that the octave harmonic of Low E, E = 82Hz, is 6dB louder, which is perceptually twice as loud. But even that harmonic is not "full voice." Not until you get up to 164Hz does the speaking length of the string get longer than the quarter-wave of the frequency.

Of course, it is a lot more complicated than that. When you hear an electric bass Low E, or a grand piano Low A = 27.5Hz, you don't viscerally feel "Wow, that sucks--so WEAK." That's because our ear-brain system, for reasons of its own, "fills in" the weak fundamental.

(I am trying my best to give the shortest possible version.)

If you give the matter some thought, it might become apparent that the problem of the Weak Fundamental has no choice other than to be inextricably intertwined with the problem of Baffle Step Compensation.

Then why, you might ask, would a loudspeaker designer omit BSC?

I can think of a few reasons.

One, both for ideological as well as expense reasons, wanting to keep the "parts count" of the crossover as low as possible.

Two, voicing a speaker entirely by ear and emotional responses, and for some designers, that is not a bug and it is not a feature. It's the farking entire Raison d'Etre!

Three, development costs. As far as I know, there is no crossover-design software that can compute BSC. Or, if it is, it's the kind of software that costs $2,500 per module to rent per year.

So, engineering a BSC network is as far as I know a trial and error iterative process, with lots of measurements. The designer of the final crossover for my current project put more than 50 hours work into it.

JA, please comment!

Thanks,

John

PS: That inductor is what it is for reasons of electrical efficiency.

 

RE: An added complication is the non-linearity of the "Phenomenon of the 'Weak Fundamental' ", posted on July 21, 2024 at 10:09:48
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4049
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >One example: The lowest string of a 4-string electric bass guitar is E,
>usually tuned to around 41Hz (the numbers to the right of the decimal
>point don't make a difference). 41Hz has a wavelength of 27.5 feet. To
>begin to do full justice to the frequency, you need a string length of
>6.7 feet. Not gonna happen!!!
>
>So, in real life, the low E of an electric bass is a "Weak Fundamental,"
>which means that the octave harmonic of Low E, E = 82Hz, is 6dB louder,
>which is perceptually twice as loud.

Fig.3 at the link below and the table below the graph show the levels of
the harmonics of the bass guitar's open E string. The second harmonic is
almost 12dB higher in level than the fundamental.

>So, engineering a BSC network is as far as I know a trial and error
>iterative process, with lots of measurements. The designer of the final
>crossover for my current project put more than 50 hours work into it.
>JA, please comment!

The baffle step compensation can be achieved in a second-order low-pass
crossover filter by using an inductor with a relatively high series
resistance. However, this reduces sensitivity. But yes, optimizing BSC
is very much a matter of trial and error.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

"However, this reduces sensitivity." Aye, there's the rub!, posted on July 21, 2024 at 12:54:44
John Marks
Manufacturer

Posts: 8022
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I.
Joined: April 23, 2000
 Thanks, John

Sorry for the memory glitch. I don't have time to fact-check it, but I vaguely now remember that it was the Stand-Up Acoustical String Bass that had the octave harmonic 6dB louder. And yes, the electric bass's harmonic series is even more sharply divergent.

My crossover designer Curt Campbell told me that the BSC on my current design was -6dB.

So, if the efficiency had been 84dB before BSC, after BSC it was... 78dB.

I can't imagine any magazine doing that measurement, and then not making a major issue of it.

Which is to say, that can be Reason #4 why a loudspeaker designer might make the Executive Decision not to implement BSC.

john

 

That's completely wrong..., posted on July 21, 2024 at 12:58:13
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 It's often said that if you can blow out a fundamental premise of an argument, then the rest of the argument falls away: "As far as I know, there is no crossover-design software that can compute BSC."

Transitioning from a 4pi to 2pi environment is well known and is easy to computer model these days.

There is absolute no reason to not remove the baffle step if you want a proper response in a room.

Doug

 

The reason is..., posted on July 21, 2024 at 13:03:21
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 The usual reason for not eliminating the baffle step typically completely is because you don't even know it's there. As soon as you measure something properly -- anechoically -- it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Furthermore, if you understand the interaction of loudspeaker and rooms -- read any version of Floyd Toole's book -- you'll know if has to be ironed out to get a respectable response.

Otherwise you'll have one of the worst sins a loudspeaker can commit: NO BASS. And if you do further reading on the importance of bass response based on the research of Toole and later Olive, you'll find out that, all things being equal, the speaker that produces deeper bass is the one favored by listeners.

In fact, Toole talks about that very thing in our latest podcast episode, linked below.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

That was NOT the fundamental premise!!!, posted on July 21, 2024 at 15:27:05
John Marks
Manufacturer

Posts: 8022
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I.
Joined: April 23, 2000
 I said "As far as I know," because I am familiar with only three such programs. "Auto-BSC" was not on any of the lists of features. I was talking about "Auto-BSC" and perhaps I was not emphatic enough on that. (I have no experience with the very expensive modules from Loudsoft.com. I am told that Harbeth uses those.)

I had a phone conversation with the designer of the program I believe to be the most respected package (X-over Pro version 3) and he said that it was not part of his software and that he did not envision it as a possible feature of any "Insert the data, press 'Process' and you get a crossover design" packages, because there are too many cabinet-related variables.

Regardless, my point was that Baffle Step Compensation, as important as JA and I (and apparently you) think it is, is not something that every loudspeaker designer thinks is worth the trouble.

I was surprised as all get-out when JA commented upon the apparent lack of BSC on a very expensive solid-rock-enclosure loudspeaker he was measuring. I thought that with all that money on the table, why no BSC?

"Though the response in the crossover region is flat, there is a broad peak in the upper midrange, which implies a lack of baffle-step compensation in the crossover. The tweeter's output between 5kHz and 20kHz is 3-5dB higher than it is in the presence region, almost matching the level of the midrange peak."

john


 

Not sure where you got this idea..., posted on July 21, 2024 at 17:12:13
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 "...is not something that every loudspeaker designer thinks is worth the trouble."

I'm not sure how you can make a statement like that. That a designer doesn't think it "is worth the trouble"?

It's about the behavior of the driver when it is attached to a box. Baffle step isn't some magic -- it's an acoustic result as the driver goes from radiating from 4pi (free space) to 2pi (half space), because of the baffle it's now attached to.

On a freestanding loudspeaker, the choice not to compensate indicates not a design compromise, but a fundamental misunderstanding of how drivers work with their enclosures. Compensating is part of designing. And once again, this is an easy thing to model, even with a calculator and a piece of paper.

Doug
SoundStage!



 

Whoa, posted on July 21, 2024 at 18:15:47
John Marks
Manufacturer

Posts: 8022
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I.
Joined: April 23, 2000
 You complained about:

"I'm not sure how you can make a statement like that. That a designer doesn't think it "is worth the trouble"?"

Did you read my reply, in the context of JA's statement about the Acora Rock Box???

Are you privy to some double-secret explanation why the Acora Rock Box had no BSC?

john

 

Nope, Didn't..., posted on July 21, 2024 at 18:43:04
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Nope, didn't read your reply in the context of anything but what baffle step compensation is and why it has to be dealt with.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

Not quite understanding sensitivity?, posted on July 21, 2024 at 18:49:22
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hello,

I came back to this comment and realized it indicates that you might not understand sensitivity well. If not, you're not alone, I made a whole video about it when Robert Harley got it wrong.

How "sensitive" a speaker is depends on the frequency or, preferably, frequencies at which you measure. The baffle step varies per speaker, and in the case of that Franco Serblin speaker, it starts happening just shy of 1000Hz. So if someone where to take a sensitivity measurement at, say, 400Hz, it would be unchanged. Instead, the rise of 6dB would be at its fullest by 1000Hz. So the entire speaker didn't change by 6dB if you compensate for the baffle step -- 400Hz remains the same, the frequencies just below, at, and above 1000Hz get reduced.

We average sensitivity over a range -- 300Hz to 3000Hz -- so by doing so, once again the sensitivity wouldn't change by the full 6dB.

Finally, if you have a speaker that's 78dB, you've got a real problem with it -- that low sensitivity will likely mean it'll blow up if someone plays it loud. It's too low.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

Are you sure you understand any of it?, posted on July 21, 2024 at 20:03:24
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 "I can't imagine any magazine doing that measurement, and then not making a major issue of it."

"Which is to say, that can be Reason #4 why a loudspeaker designer might make the Executive Decision not to implement BSC."

Are you sure you understand "baffle step"? From the comments above, saying "that measurement," perhaps no. It has to do with frequency response and simply shows up as a rise on the frequency response if not dealt with in the crossover.

Also, in another post you talked about the money involved in compensating for it -- and companies not seeing it being worthwhile because of that. It becomes part of the crossover network, and if you know how much a crossover takes to make, well, it's not exactly all that much money.

Did you say you "design" speakers?

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

You can guesstimate BSC pretty closely without fancy software, posted on July 22, 2024 at 13:13:39
Brian H P
Audiophile

Posts: 1433
Location: Oregon
Joined: December 18, 2012
 Basic rule (for many decades before design software existed) is that the -3dB point of the baffle step is 4,560 divided by baffle width in inches. So for a 15" wide baffle, that will be 304Hz. This certainly can (and should) be refined with measurements and computer modeling, but it gets you in the ballpark at the prototyping stage. In a 3-way design, the correction can be incorporated easily into the woofer-to-mid crossover, by having the lowpass transfer function down -9dB (as opposed to the usual -6dB) at the crossover frequency, and then padding down the midrange output accordingly.

In a 2-way, many designers have had good results with a "staggered" lowpass filter: an initial 3dB shelving filter of paralleled L and R, followed by the higher frequency lowpass to cross to the tweeter. Or by simply adjusting the L to C ratio in a second order (or higher) filter, usually with an oversized L1.

Prototype, measure, listen, adjust, and repeat until satisfied.


 

That seems about right..., posted on July 22, 2024 at 15:31:55
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

That all seems about right. But there are also many tools, including simple online tools like the one below I quickly looked up. It's a very well-known and definable thing, obviously.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

Good explanation of BSC and comp circuit calculators HERE, posted on July 22, 2024 at 16:03:16
Brian H P
Audiophile

Posts: 1433
Location: Oregon
Joined: December 18, 2012
 The whole site is packed with great info and useful calculators.

 

RE: Good explanation of BSC and comp circuit calculators HERE, posted on July 22, 2024 at 16:31:42
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Not surprising! What was more surprising was John Marks's comments about this being so difficult to calculate. Like, experimentation is one thing, but the tools for getting you in the ballpark are everywhere.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

RE: That's completely wrong..., posted on July 23, 2024 at 13:42:05
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 8741
Joined: July 4, 2002
 What one can do is take an anechoic measurement or one far enough from reflections for a crossover use, exported as a text file (freq/mag/phase) and use a program like LSPcad.

With a corresponding impedance measurement, one can use the computer to iterate to a target you set (like say flat response). This is the best tool for passive and some active crossovers i have run across and it can make this kind of passive filter's values a breeze.

Really.


 

One of many gaps, posted on July 24, 2024 at 08:11:50
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 39092
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 In the usefulness of measurements. Lots of information, yes. Knowledge that correlates with human perception, no.

 

RE: One of many gaps, posted on July 24, 2024 at 12:38:40
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 "In the usefulness of measurements. Lots of information, yes. Knowledge that correlates with human perception, no."

There's actually quite a bit for traditional forward-firing loudspeakers, particularly if you look the Dr. Floyd Toole work from the 1970s onward.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

What remains relevant with Toole, posted on July 24, 2024 at 13:02:06
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 39092
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 for all speakers is consistent directivity. For which Sound Lab stats excel and many speakers, especially horns, fail.

I clearly remember first hearing the IRS at Sea Cliff in 1980. Dynamic, with wonderful imaging and slam-but the woofer towers really belonged to a different speaker. Older JBLs ran their midrange drivers about an octave too high resulting in a weird hourglass shaped soundstage with upper mids pinched.

 

RE: That's completely wrong..., posted on July 24, 2024 at 19:17:47
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

Yes, interesting approach -- and it makes sense. Thanks. Obviously, crossover work takes a lot of work to dial in the sound just right, but the 50 hours to iron out the baffle step that John Marks talks about -- as well as the lack of tools to do so -- just isn't true.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

RE: Beauty vs.Performance..or Both, posted on July 27, 2024 at 12:08:23
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi, the battleing baffler's have me baffled,Their way ahead of me. In Stereophile speaker reviews don't you think it would be mandatory to show pictures or diagrams of the inside of the enclosure.It's kind of like buying a car without popping the hood ...-...-Mark Korda

 

There have been times when manufacturers have required that we not look under the hood., posted on July 27, 2024 at 16:56:16
John Marks
Manufacturer

Posts: 8022
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I.
Joined: April 23, 2000
 jm

 

RE: There have been times when manufacturers have required that we not look under the hood., posted on July 28, 2024 at 12:18:29
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi, Doug,what I learned here from you on the width of baffles makes me think of the Orangutang speakers which have a wide baffle. I don't know who the designer or company owner is but when I look at the picture and description of that speaker I can see the ideas of 2 older Dynaco designs combined in a beautiful cabinetry.The A-50 and A-35. The A-50 for it's large baffle area,2 woofers diagonally mounted and the A-35 for using what looks like a similar Seas woofer.That's what came to mind anyway...-.Mark Korda

 

Sounds like those to avoid -nt, posted on July 28, 2024 at 14:59:21
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 39092
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002

 

DeVore Fidelity, Brooklyn, NY, posted on July 29, 2024 at 13:03:26
Brian H P
Audiophile

Posts: 1433
Location: Oregon
Joined: December 18, 2012
 John DeVore names all his speaker models after apes. They appear to be beautifully crafted, and most follow the big woofer/wide baffle design approach of yore. They seem to have a strong cult following, especially among tube amp enthusiasts. Rather pricey, as would be expected of something hand-made in small quantities in NYC. I do believe he uses SEAS drivers, at least in some models.

 

Under the hood?, posted on July 31, 2024 at 22:36:13
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hello,

It's interesting to look inside speakers, but I think magazines should avoid doing that during the review because while it might seem like fun to take off a driver and see what's behind, there's no guarantee you'll get it back right and have the speaker functioning as it should. You'd need to have proper test equipment and do a before and after if you do it, which most reviewers aren't equipped to do.

Furthermore, take out a driver and what you're most likely to see is a lot of damping material, which isn't too attractive at all. To get a real look, you'd have to pull it all out, but then you've really messed things up.

So, if manufacturers were to allow it, it kind of makes for a "destruction" exercise. What's more relevant is the sound of course, but also how it measures. Those are the priorities -- and not enough publications are measuring.

That said, to see a lot of speaker internals during construction, I invite you to look at many of our YouTube videos. We travel to a lot of companies to profile new products. Part of that is profiling is filming the insides of stuff.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: Under the hood?, posted on August 1, 2024 at 08:18:06
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi Doug, thanks for the info.One way around taking the speaker apart is for the speaker on review to have provided pictures that are required to get your speaker reviewed. An issue or two ago had a McIntosh speaker system on review. There was a great illustration of all the components used including the inside.There was also a great picture of the crossover which clearly showed quality build and componantry. There were some other things I questioned,like the grill,frame?But the cards were all laid out on the table in that review.The inside of the Sonus Faber might be boring but if they don't show it they could be hiding or camouflaging something even though they have a reputation like Ferrari has in autos...thanks Doug...Mark Korda

 

RE: Under the hood?, posted on August 1, 2024 at 09:55:17
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

I agree -- there are often ways to get them. The problem is, many companies are actually so poor at taking pictures of their own products, they often have few of the outside and none of the inside. But some do.

Regarding Sonus faber, because you brought it up, that company doesn't hide anything. We were there in the spring shooting videos on their newest speakers and they gave us complete freedom to shoot anything -- and we did. You can see that in the video linked below.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: There have been times when manufacturers have required that we not look under the hood., posted on August 1, 2024 at 10:02:55
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

Those wide-baffle speakers come from DeVore Fidelity, out of Brooklyn, NY. The wider the baffle, the lower the baffle-step frequency.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: There have been times when manufacturers have required that we not look under the hood., posted on August 1, 2024 at 10:31:01
mark.korda@myfairpoint.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1319
Location: Maine
Joined: August 16, 2011
 Hi Doug, here is a good example of looking under the hood. I was always fascinated by passive preamps,ect.. There was this preamp called the Placette that was always on my wish list. I just saw the inside in a post on amps/preamps called Placette schematic. It's about 4 or 5 down on the new listings. This is not a kit....see what I mean?...Mark Korda

 

RE: About that bass..., posted on August 1, 2024 at 18:51:25
highendfan
Audiophile

Posts: 217
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 6, 2009
 I totally agree, Doug. All in the science. There are laws and then there are mere recommendations

 

RE: He also acknowledges , posted on August 1, 2024 at 18:57:30
highendfan
Audiophile

Posts: 217
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 6, 2009
 My audiophile friend has a Diptyque Model 160 set of planar magnetic panels (french). Moved on from custom open baffle bass field coil and field coil horns to the panels.

Using Allnic and Rowland Model 5,. It sounds good to me, except for a tad of lightness in the bass.

 

Diptyque, posted on August 5, 2024 at 19:17:03
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 920
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 I listened to a pair of Diptyque speakers at High End 2023. They were really impressive. We tried to get a pair in for review from the US and the Canadian distributors, but no go. Too bad -- seems like a promising design.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: Diptyque, posted on August 5, 2024 at 20:23:57
highendfan
Audiophile

Posts: 217
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 6, 2009
 Hi Doug, A friend of mine mas the 160 Diptyque model60, one down from the reference. Using a Rowland Model 5 and an Allnic L10000 or a Musical Fidelity A1. Both sound very good. A little bass shy for me though. Nothing a 6 pack of RELs would not cure. He has the room.

 

Page processed in 0.035 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]