The low frequency distortion article was a good read. Maybe we should be paying more attention to IM distortion and less to harmonic distortion. IIRC both SL and Mark K. stressed the importance of IM distortion.
I'm excited to see the 4", though less so about the 84 dB sensitivity. One thought I've had is to use the 6.5" as an OB midrange along with either a couple SB34NRX75-16s or SDX10s per side, also OB. If I went that route, I would probably seriously consider putting the TL tweeters (or Bliesmas) in some sort of waveguide so I could cross low.
The 4 inch has more than piqued my interest. With the ultra-low HD and claimed low IMD, they are on a short list with the Satoris and maybe the new SB Textremes.
But Chahly - Stahkist don't want speakers that look good, Stahkist wants speakers that sound good!
The low frequency distortion article was a good read. Maybe we should be paying more attention to IM distortion and less to harmonic distortion. IIRC both SL and Mark K. stressed the importance of IM distortion.
The midrange distortion caused by BL modulation at low frequencies is just another reason why 3-way speakers are just better, even with less complex drivers
The low frequency distortion article was a good read. Maybe we should be paying more attention to IM distortion and less to harmonic distortion. IIRC both SL and Mark K. stressed the importance of IM distortion.
The midrange distortion caused by BL modulation at low frequencies is just another reason why 3-way speakers are just better, even with less complex drivers
The low frequency distortion article was a good read. Maybe we should be paying more attention to IM distortion and less to harmonic distortion. IIRC both SL and Mark K. stressed the importance of IM distortion.
The midrange distortion caused by BL modulation at low frequencies is just another reason why 3-way speakers are just better, even with less complex drivers
My wife and I have always preferred 3 way sound, even though I couldn't quote empirical evidence why.
But Chahly - Stahkist don't want speakers that look good, Stahkist wants speakers that sound good!
It can be difficult to narrow down exactly what the cause of a preference is with a lot of design changes. Moving from 2 way to 3 way will have changes in linear and non-linear distortion as well as power response, even doppler effects, but which one of those changes are the reason why I have such a preference, and which ones are inconsequential side effects?
Wondering if going 3 way with the 6.5 or 4 would be worthwhile or these becomes strictly 2 ways given the xmax and ability to play low... Would there be a mid range driver???
Eventually, I (along with everyone else), will build some TMs in small(ish) boxes and marvel at the bass extension and clear mids. I'm on a 3 way "kick" now, and would welcome a SOTA mid (3.5-4.5 inches) for (what looks like it will be) a reasonable price. Purifi looks like they have solved some fundamental problems, and should quickly get a lot of market share. I hope that they can stay independent....
But Chahly - Stahkist don't want speakers that look good, Stahkist wants speakers that sound good!
I hadn't seen the rear of the cone until now- that reinforcing V-Ring likely has a hand in the cone edge resonance control.
The surround is well- yeah- despite being ugly- akin to that of the for-and-aft surrounds that some car audio drivers and Fostex (called UDR/tangential, in FW168HP-X and Sigma series) have had for a couple decades now, albeit a little more extreme in profile.
If you really look at things, speakers want to be massively ugly to produce good sound. Even the enclosure is subject to this.
I agree with this to some degree. In rare cases, they can be pretty *and* functional (eg avalon), but others (eg Grimm) and my own attempts to make substantive dents in things like edge diffraction look ok on paper, but when I see them in person, they look awful more often than not.
Ha!,thanks. I chose form over function sometimes (most times). You all get what I mean, enclosures want big round overs/ champers, things offset, felt stuck to them, ect... Then drivers with the weird surrounds, proper phase plugs, cone treatments/shapes (yellow ones sound the best to me😛) So we chose where to draw the line to have some visual aesthetics and still sound good. Maybe Ben should do an ugliest great sounding speaker theme?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I actually think the mountainous surround looks neat - it makes for very easy brand recognition and a talking point for you to talk up how superior your speakers are to the feeble competition
Regarding the V shape on the backside of the cone, here's an excerpt from the Hificompass interview:
Yevgeniy Kozhushko: I think the peripheral circular rib at the back edge of the cone is made for resolving surround-edge-of-cone resonance problem? Lars Risbo: Yes, this is to strengthen the cone rim and thereby to suppress unwanted modes.
Comments
https://www.nordacoustics.co.uk/purifiaudio1et400a
http://https//www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nord-three-se-1et400a-dual-mono-stereo-amp-review.9938/
Ron
Purifi looks like they have solved some fundamental problems, and should quickly get a lot of market share. I hope that they can stay independent....
The current 6.5 should make a killer TM though.
The surround is well- yeah- despite being ugly- akin to that of the for-and-aft surrounds that some car audio drivers and Fostex (called UDR/tangential, in FW168HP-X and Sigma series) have had for a couple decades now, albeit a little more extreme in profile.
Fostex driver with UDR:
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-4-fullrange/fostex-fe108ez-4-full-range-sigma-series/
InDIYana Event Website
Wolfy's Photobucket
InDIYana Event Website
Wolfy's Photobucket
Lars Risbo: Yes, this is to strengthen the cone rim and thereby to suppress unwanted modes.