Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Roy Allison interview in 1992 issue of The Audio Critic, David Ranada was the interviewer


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic

#41 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 01:55 AM

Attached is a polar curve Roy Allison ran on an IC-20 from 63 Hz on up to 16 kHz. Here, we are talking about seriously wide dispersion. The graph stops at 180 degrees (90/90), but the response is actually very wide out to a full 270 degrees, at least up to 10 kHz. Consequently, a huge amount of energy is bouncing off of the front wall with very little in the way of delay.

I know you hate that kind of thing, but I love it.

Howard Ferstler


Wow, constant directivity! Maybe it is a good speaker!

I'm a little surprised there isn't more HF lobing, although I assume it is a full octave of noise per curve which would give some averaging.

Still, fairly uniform.

David

#42 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:32 AM

David,

You've opened up a 'can of worms' here that Tom and I went round and round on a while ago.

In this same paper, Allison shows a 2-pi curve of the 3a--with decorative molding and all the warts--and the curve shows the expected lift in the bottom end that one would expect from a 2-pi environment. As a matter of fact, the entire reason for Allison showing the 4-pi curve you reproduced was to show the effect of 4-pi on the woofer's response.

But, the thing Tom and I went around on was the fact that the 2-pi measurement showed considerably more upper-mid/HF energy that this 4-pi curve--even though they were identical speakers, both measured with the grille molding, through the x-o. But at those high frequencies, the 3a's baffle is large enough to be "2-pi" in the upper mid/HF region. So why the discrepancy? The 2-pi and 4-pi curves should have been identical above about, say, 8000, where the wavelength is less than 2 inches. The 3a's baffle is "2-pi" in either case above 8k, so the HF curves should be the same, no? But they're not.

I'll try to dig out the 2-pi curve (I have the paper somewhere), but if you have it, look and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Thoughts?

Steve F.


I'm not seeing any particular discrepency. I'm looking at figure 5 and figure 9 of the AES paper. It appears that there is a 10dB shift in chart level. Then the differences in the 4 pi curve relative to the 2 pi are: 4 to 5 dB less at 100, but a couple dB more at 500 (very typical of 2 pi to 4 pi change), upper mid response is much the same except 4 pi is a little rougher. The tweeter response is similar except, again, a little rougher in 4 pi (I read this as a greater dip at 8k and 15k rather than a treble level shift). Note that figure 5 has the picture frame lip added but the system is flush, from the picture frame level, with the wall. This means that the internal reflections are present but the external edge reflection is not present, hence the generally smoother curve.

The previous curve #4 is similar to the ones in the brochure that Howard submitted yesterday. Drivers and network as stock but mounted on a flush infinite baffle, so they are generally smoother as explained in the text.

This is a very instructional look at how the raw sections of a multiway system add up to the final 4pi response.

Note that these curves are with the mid and tweeter at max, rather than at recommended positions. You can picture what the mid prominence at 400 - 500Hz in 4 pi would be with the pots at nominal. I seriously wonder if this is part of the reason for the inductor increase that came later.

Of course, none of this is audible unless you are one of those direct field hoodlums that listens to non-serious music.

David

#43 RoyC

RoyC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latham, NY

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:44 AM

I would think that if the under foam hadn't crumbled it would still fulfill its purpose.
David


Agreed...I suspect it is foam that has crumbled into the voice coil gap that may be causing some variability (along with any changes in suspension compliance).

Roy
Roy Champagne

#44 genek

genek

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Marcos, CA

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:57 AM

Don't I recall that some people were able to replace the suspension dots?

Last year I sent the dead tweeter that came off one of my 3a's to someone who wanted to try to graft it onto a 2ax tweeter with a damaged dome. He said he was able to make it work, but I never heard the result and can't judge how well.

#45 Zilch

Zilch

    DECEASED

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 10 June 2010 - 06:47 AM

Attached is a polar curve Roy Allison ran on an IC-20 from 63 Hz on up to 16 kHz. Here, we are talking about seriously wide dispersion. The graph stops at 180 degrees (90/90), but the response is actually very wide out to a full 270 degrees, at least up to 10 kHz. Consequently, a huge amount of energy is bouncing off of the front wall with very little in the way of delay.

There's an obvious broadband (up to 10 dB) suckout on axis, but since the curves are neither labeled nor in color (which I know you hate), I can only guess it's in the VHF (where there's no music :rolleyes:).

No matter, it's obvious that a pair of divergent-mounted SpitWad waveguides could do as well, IF we desired to spray the room with response-anomaly-inducing energy.

From this perspective, we might all be thankful that Villchur's classic ARs failed to meet this ill-conceived and long since repudiated wide-dispersion design/performance objective.... :P

ZilchLab Loudspeaker Recycling Center - Crank up the SIGNAL!


#46 Steve F

Steve F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 824 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:00 PM

I'm not seeing any particular discrepency. I'm looking at figure 5 and figure 9 of the AES paper. It appears that there is a 10dB shift in chart level. Then the differences in the 4 pi curve relative to the 2 pi are: 4 to 5 dB less at 100, but a couple dB more at 500 (very typical of 2 pi to 4 pi change), upper mid response is much the same except 4 pi is a little rougher. The tweeter response is similar except, again, a little rougher in 4 pi (I read this as a greater dip at 8k and 15k rather than a treble level shift). Note that figure 5 has the picture frame lip added but the system is flush, from the picture frame level, with the wall. This means that the internal reflections are present but the external edge reflection is not present, hence the generally smoother curve.

The previous curve #4 is similar to the ones in the brochure that Howard submitted yesterday. Drivers and network as stock but mounted on a flush infinite baffle, so they are generally smoother as explained in the text.

This is a very instructional look at how the raw sections of a multiway system add up to the final 4pi response.

Note that these curves are with the mid and tweeter at max, rather than at recommended positions. You can picture what the mid prominence at 400 - 500Hz in 4 pi would be with the pots at nominal. I seriously wonder if this is part of the reason for the inductor increase that came later.

Of course, none of this is audible unless you are one of those direct field hoodlums that listens to non-serious music.

David


Yes, those are the two figures I'm referring to, 5 and 9. I superimposed the two on top of each other, then I "normalized" them between 400-1000 Hz (the midrange "perceived loudness" frequency region), and darkened the 4 pi fig 9 curve for clarity.

To my eyes, it looks as though the 4pi curve's treble region is a solid 4-5 dB lower than the 2 Pi curve--even though the 3a's baffle is providing a "2 pi" environment in both cases.

Both you and Tom say there's "no particular discrepancy." Maybe I'm just thick or stubborn or both. But a 5 dB lower treble region when the midrange regions are normalized to the same level, to me, is a big deal--and a mystery to me, if both curves are "2 pi" treble environments.

Steve F.3a_fig_5_9_normalized.jpg

#47 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:41 PM

Yes, those are the two figures I'm referring to, 5 and 9. I superimposed the two on top of each other, then I "normalized" them between 400-1000 Hz (the midrange "perceived loudness" frequency region), and darkened the 4 pi fig 9 curve for clarity.

To my eyes, it looks as though the 4pi curve's treble region is a solid 4-5 dB lower than the 2 Pi curve--even though the 3a's baffle is providing a "2 pi" environment in both cases.

Both you and Tom say there's "no particular discrepancy." Maybe I'm just thick or stubborn or both. But a 5 dB lower treble region when the midrange regions are normalized to the same level, to me, is a big deal--and a mystery to me, if both curves are "2 pi" treble environments.

Steve F.3a_fig_5_9_normalized.jpg

I wouldn't normalize the way you did. Try it again with the 700-800 region equal, which also gets the 2k to 4k region equal. Then the 400 Hz region will be a net gain and the tweeter will only be lower by a little bit.

Note that this net gain in the 2 pi move to 4 pi transition is typical and is shown in the original Olson diffraction study curves. A woofer perfectly flat in 2 pi will droop downwards at low frequencies to a max of about 4 to5 dB. At the top of the transition range there is usually a bump in response. I've attached a photo from the web of what I mean and the same trend is pretty clear on the AR curves.

Why 4 to 5 dB you ask? Always two effects. First, the radiation resistance in 2 pi is double that of 4pi and the woofer puts out 3dB more power. Secondly, all the radiation that was going around behind the cabinet is constrained to the front. Even at low frequencies the woofer and cabinet have some directivity so the back energy does not equal the front energy, so you get less than another 3db, perhaps 1.5dB, for a total of 4.5

David

ps. I will agree that you are thick or stubborn or both!

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2pi_to_4pi.jpg


#48 Steve F

Steve F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 824 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:05 PM

I wouldn't normalize the way you did. Try it again with the 700-800 region equal, which also gets the 2k to 4k region equal. Then the 400 Hz region will be a net gain and the tweeter will only be lower by a little bit.

Note that this net gain in the 2 pi move to 4 pi transition is typical and is shown in the original Olson diffraction study curves. A woofer perfectly flat in 2 pi will droop downwards at low frequencies to a max of about 4 to5 dB. At the top of the transition range there is usually a bump in response. I've attached a photo from the web of what I mean and the same trend is pretty clear on the AR curves.

Why 4 to 5 dB you ask? Always two effects. First, the radiation resistance in 2 pi is double that of 4pi and the woofer puts out 3dB more power. Secondly, all the radiation that was going around behind the cabinet is constrained to the front. Even at low frequencies the woofer and cabinet have some directivity so the back energy does not equal the front energy, so you get less than another 3db, perhaps 1.5dB, for a total of 4.5

David

ps. I will agree that you are thick or stubborn or both!


Thanks, Dave.

From figures 5 and 9, it would appear that a 3a mounted flush in a bookshelf (5), surrounded by books roughly flush with the front of the speaker's cab (the classic 'bookshelf mounting') will sound a bit brighter in the treble and fuller in the mid bass than a 3a mounted out into the room on an 'x' stand (similar to figure 9).

Regarding the charges of 'thick' and 'stubborn,' I plead guilty to both--probably more 's' than 't,' but a bit of both, to be sure!

Steve F.

#49 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 04:29 PM

Thanks, Dave.

From figures 5 and 9, it would appear that a 3a mounted flush in a bookshelf (5), surrounded by books roughly flush with the front of the speaker's cab (the classic 'bookshelf mounting') will sound a bit brighter in the treble and fuller in the mid bass than a 3a mounted out into the room on an 'x' stand (similar to figure 9).

Regarding the charges of 'thick' and 'stubborn,' I plead guilty to both--probably more 's' than 't,' but a bit of both, to be sure!

Steve F.


Yes, assuming the bookshelves are fairly full then you would be getting back to the 2 pi (#9) curve, at least at LF. I doubt that you would have a smooth enough surface around the picture frame to get the HF curve back, at least entirely.

If you re-normalize as I suggest, it looks like there is still a 2-3dB discrepency in general tweeter level. Since reflection effects are largely to blame, it will shift around with small observer position changes. (Doesn't mean it doesn't matter!)

David

#50 Steve F

Steve F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 824 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 04:43 PM

Yes, assuming the bookshelves are fairly full then you would be getting back to the 2 pi (#9) curve, at least at LF. I doubt that you would have a smooth enough surface around the picture frame to get the HF curve back, at least entirely.

If you re-normalize as I suggest, it looks like there is still a 2-3dB discrepancy in general tweeter level. Since reflection effects are largely to blame, it will shift around with small observer position changes. (Doesn't mean it doesn't matter!)

David


2 pi #5 curve, right? Not #9. Just want to be clear......

Steve F.

#51 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 05:39 PM

2 pi #5 curve, right? Not #9. Just want to be clear......

Steve F.

Yes, #5 is still 2pi but has the picture frame "lip" added as a reflective edge. Before that #4 has a perfectly flush baffle for all drivers. #9 is a full cabinet with the lip or molding and is therefore the 4pi case as most owners would experience.

Now if you cut off the molding and flush mounted them into your wall.....#4, The ultimate in-wall speaker.!

David

#52 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 06:13 PM

Well, if we are showing off our polar curves, then here are the curves from the 4430/35 JBL monitors. Grandaddys to the Zilch econowaves and others. This would be the horn, from 1000 to 16,000. These are 1/3rd octave curves, so less averaging than Roys. The only two that stand out are the 12.5k and 16k.

The most uniform polars I have seen, before or since.

I plotted these out and my wife lettered the captions as part of generating the AES paper on the systems.

David

Attached Thumbnails

  • page1.jpg


#53 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 06:19 PM

As for the "long-since repudiated" view Allison and others have regarding wide dispersion, well I am not sure at all that everybody in the business or doing research on speaker behavior feels that way, and maybe if classical music ever encounters a renaissance the approach will be reborn.

Howard Ferstler


I would be interested if you could offer any paper written in the last 20 years that emphasized power response over the direct/early soundfield. For the ones that suggest the opposite, search my posts, as I have listed them numerous times.

David

#54 Zilch

Zilch

    DECEASED

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:02 PM

Well, if we are showing off our polar curves, then here are the curves from the 4430/35 JBL monitors. Grandaddys to the Zilch econowaves and others. This would be the horn, from 1000 to 16,000. These are 1/3rd octave curves, so less averaging than Roys. The only two that stand out are the 12.5k and 16k.

The most uniform polars I have seen, before or since.


Superb!

Does Zilch object to this kind of performance? I certainly do not.


As posted at #45, SpitWad is coming pretty close.

I suspect, when complete, it will be a reasonable match to AR3a.

[It has already bettered it at 0° - 45° in comparison to AR's published polars.... :P ]


I was referring to the wide-dispersion issue and not to power response.


It's not terribly difficult to put together a directivity Q of 2 with a flat on-axis response and know the outcome.... :rolleyes:

ZilchLab Loudspeaker Recycling Center - Crank up the SIGNAL!


#55 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:17 PM

Okay, if you like constant directivity and Zilch likes constant directivity, the only difference is how directional.

The polars I showed have a d.i. of 10dB (meaning the axial response is 10dB louder than the power averaged response). Now if the Allison has perfect semicylindrical radiation (the polars suggest this, but also remember that there will be a little greater directivity in the unseen vertical polars), lets guess that the average d.i. is 5dB. (In both cases we are talking about midrange and treble, the LF directivity will be negligible and determined by system mounting. The Allison will be against the wall for a d.i. of 3, the JBL in a studio would possibly be soffet mounted for the same).

So with a d.i. difference of 5 dB either of you could be happy with the other's speaker just by moving closer or farther. That is the difference due to different d.i.: the distance from the speaker you would need to move to experience a given balance of direct to reflected sound. Howard, with Zilch's speaker you could back up to double the distance and hear the direct to reflected balance that you like. Zilch, with Howard's speaker you could move to about half the distance and hear the direct to reflected balance that you like.

What were we arguing about?

David

#56 Zilch

Zilch

    DECEASED

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:25 PM

What were we arguing about?

The deleterious impact of early reflections generated by excessively wide dispersion upon both spatial and spectral quality in typical home listening spaces, which Howard has long since conceded.... :rolleyes:

ZilchLab Loudspeaker Recycling Center - Crank up the SIGNAL!


#57 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 10:56 PM

The deleterious impact of early reflections generated by excessively wide dispersion upon both spatial and spectral quality in typical home listening spaces, which Howard has long since conceded.... :P



I know exactly what you mean about too much dispersion. It's a terrible problem with pianos and violins. Do you think if I could get them all to each play inside a big closed box with a hole in it they'd sound more like speakers? Should I put a constant directivity horn in front of the hole? :rolleyes:

#58 Pete B

Pete B

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut, NE USA
  • Interests:Electrical Engineer (see my web site link)
    Interest in Audio for over 30 years, got started early
    The Classics, Amplifier Design
    Available for engineering consultations

Posted 10 June 2010 - 11:30 PM

When we were putting together the AR restoration document, we sent Ken K. a number of tweeters to test in an effort to develop an appropriate crossover modification for the AB Tech replacement tweeter. At that time, Ken compared a number of original, used 3a tweeter specimens to Tom T's NOS tweeters, and there was a measurable difference between them. Two of mine died during testing.

Roy


Hi Roy,
Just wondering how your tweeters failed during that
testing, was it a wire break or something else?

#59 Zilch

Zilch

    DECEASED

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 11 June 2010 - 12:09 AM

I know exactly what you mean about too much dispersion. It's a terrible problem with pianos and violins. Do you think if I could get them all to each play inside a big closed box with a hole in it they'd sound more like speakers? Should I put a constant directivity horn in front of the hole? :P

Alas, STEREO is most commonly practiced using a minimum of TWO laterally displaced sources.

Do we believe for a minute that two pianos or violins similarly deployed would generate an accurate phantom image of a single instrument midway between them in a typical semi-reflective home listening room?

[It's déjà vu we're doing; we've been here a couple of times before.... :rolleyes: ]

ZilchLab Loudspeaker Recycling Center - Crank up the SIGNAL!


#60 RoyC

RoyC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latham, NY

Posted 11 June 2010 - 02:01 AM

Hi Roy,
Just wondering how your tweeters failed during that
testing, was it a wire break or something else?


Hey Pete,

I really don't know, nor do I know what sort of testing was being conducted when they failed. The results for the surviving original tweeters generally showed diminished output, and faster/steeper lower frequency roll off as compared to Tom's tweeters. I'm convinced that decomposed foam in the vc gap, and/or stiffening, deteriorating suspensions are the primary culprits.

Roy
Roy Champagne




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users