New project ....what the hell is it?

[chucky3042]

And to think I thought it was a laundry drying rack.

But, as you said, the frequency response is remarkable.

It might get a bigger market as a drying rack!

 

[kfbkfb]

Any plans for an custom EQ to raise the 16Hz volume level nearer to the 20Hz level (and then maybe a sharp cutoff at 15Hz)?


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

Any plans for an custom EQ to raise the 16Hz volume level nearer to the 20Hz level (and then maybe a sharp cutoff at 15Hz)?


Kirk Bayne

Yes but every woofer design is a compromise of diaphragm displacement, tension, SPL, sensitivity and ultimately polarisation Voltage (before you become an ozone generator!). This is all tagging on the end of my "super electrostatic" speaker design that is awaiting PCB design completion (delayed due to SOLAR battery work) and my insane mate Russell's insistence that 16 Hz is nirvana.

Shhh! - Secret super speaker!!

To hit 16 Hz you need twice the excursion as a 32 Hz speaker just to maintain SPL but if you widen the gap say to 3.2 mm instead of 2.4 mm (fiber glass pcb thicknesses) then the sensitivity drops dramatically and you have to increase the polarisation probably to around 6 KV and also increase the panel width to tune the mylar to the lower resonant frequency (think guitar string), maybe even a 300/1 ratio step up transformer!

Right now I would be happy with a LOUD 32 Hz given most woofers struggle to hit 40 Hz and still manage to sound woolly.

This is hard stuff

 

[kfbkfb]

Maybe a bass boost limiter - smooth boost from 20Hz to 16Hz limited to low and moderate volume levels, boost declines above a certain volume level so to not exceed the ES subwoofer mechanical limitations.


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

Maybe a bass boost limiter - smooth boost from 20Hz to 16Hz limited to low and moderate volume levels, boost declines above a certain volume level so to not exceed the ES subwoofer mechanical limitations.


Kirk Bayne

All you could do is boost lower level signals (a bit like Dolby B encode)

 

[audiomaster]

4.5kV? So you will be powering this off your microwave oven?

 

[chucky3042]

4.5kV? So you will be powering this off your microwave oven?

Or an ozone generator

 

[DuncanS]

Or an ozone generator

I reckon it needs an

 

[par4ken]

I suggested electrostatic headphones in another thread about Headphone Upgrade suggestions and aside from a couple of likes was basicly ignored. People there are still talking about phones with dynamic drivers! If people would just try electrostatics they wouldn't go back!

All that has stopped me in regard to (electrostatic) speakers is the price. If I would lay off all those eBay (vintage electronic) bargains for a while maybe I could one day afford some! Oh and I would want to drive them directly from a tube based amplifier!

 

[chucky3042]

I suggested electrostatic headphones in another thread about Headphone Upgrade suggestions and aside from a couple of likes was basicly ignored. People there are still talking about phones with dynamic drivers! If people would just try electrostatics they wouldn't go back!

All that has stopped me in regard to (electrostatic) speakers is the price. If I would lay off all those eBay (vintage electronic) bargains for a while maybe I could one day afford some! Oh and I would want to drive them directly from a tube based amplifier!

I have a set of Stax Lambda's prior to that Audio Technica elecret (discharged), Prior to that Stax SR 3..........Prior to that a set of JVC " quadraphonic" headphones with 2 drivers per can - did not work!

 

[par4ken]

I have a set of Stax Lambda's prior to that Audio Technica elecret (discharged), Prior to that Stax SR 3..........Prior to that a set of JVC " quadraphonic" headphones with 2 drivers per can - did not work!

Blasphemy, quad headphones don't work? Actually you are part right in that they don't image like speakers, but still they provide a pleasant much fuller richer sound than regular stereo. Too bad nobody ever made a quad set of electrostatics.

Quad phones sound so cool using a simple Dyna style decoder, making the sound field huge around your head. Fixler Effect anyone!

 

[chucky3042]

Blasphemy, quad headphones don't work? Actually you are part right in that they don't image like speakers, but still they provide a pleasant much fuller richer sound than regular stereo. Too bad nobody ever made a quad set of electrostatics.

Quad phones sound so cool using a simple Dyna style decoder, making the sound field huge around your head. Fixler Effect anyone!

A few years ago I did an experiment with test monkeys by putting 2 drivers en each headphone cup and played rear and front music. I then asked the question is that front or back- NO ONE GOT BETTER THAN STATISTICAL CHANCE. So our conclusion is that it does not emulate a surround presentation. It may make a bigger sound maybe- dunno.

If you believe it works then it will work!

 

[par4ken]

It may make a bigger sound maybe- dunno.

Exactly! As for sideways separation, phones with the drivers spaced far apart horizontally work the best. I never understood the reasoning behind Koss placing the drivers vertically on top of each other (early attempt at Atmos?).

Fixler effect phones placed the drivers far apart and angled at 90 to the ear. I've never heard an actual pair of those but the phase blending does work well with any phones using vertically placed drivers.

Those Koss phones actually sound OK with discrete Quad, giving that bigger fuller richer sound quality.

The Koss phase 2+2 actually have horizontally placed drivers, but the rear channels are in front! The control box by swapping phase and I assume mixing the signals in various ways is rather cool. The sound field can be radically altered. Is it natural sounding? Not really, but it is very cool. You can sit there and flip the switches back and forth to find the sound that you like the most.

Think of it this way with two drivers per ear cup you can feed the same signal in phase to one driver and out of phase to another, impossible to do with stereo phones. That alone produces a much bigger sound.

All that being said Quad phones were always a bit of a novelty and I still prefer speaker listening.

 

[chucky3042]

Exactly! As for sideways separation, phones with the drivers spaced far apart horizontally work the best. I never understood the reasoning behind Koss placing the drivers vertically on top of each other (early attempt at Atmos?).

Fixler effect phones placed the drivers far apart and angled at 90 to the ear. I've never heard an actual pair of those but the phase blending does work well with any phones using vertically placed drivers.

Those Koss phones actually sound OK with discrete Quad, giving that bigger fuller richer sound quality.

The Koss phase 2+2 actually have horizontally placed drivers, but the rear channels are in front! The control box by swapping phase and I assume mixing the signals in various ways is rather cool. The sound field can be radically altered. Is it natural sounding? Not really, but it is very cool. You can sit there and flip the switches back and forth to find the sound that you like the most.

Think of it this way with two drivers per ear cup you can feed the same signal in phase to one driver and out of phase to another, impossible to do with stereo phones. That alone produces a much bigger sound.

All that being said Quad phones were always a bit of a novelty and I still prefer speaker listening.

I never liked Koss, so bloody uncomfortable

 

[par4ken]

I never liked Koss, so bloody uncomfortable

The fluid filled ear pads either dry up or leak out over time. I was able to find new foam pads that fit available on eBay (from China of coarse). The foam is a bit more comfortable but the phones are still rather heavy!

 

[barfle]

I remember seeing headphones with two drivers in each earcup, and rather quickly decided that if I wanted a stereo mixdown, I could get that in easier and cheaper ways. I never had a chance to listen to any, though. Perhaps my mind could have been changed, but nobody tried.

 

[par4ken]

I remember seeing headphones with two drivers in each earcup, and rather quickly decided that if I wanted a stereo mixdown, I could get that in easier and cheaper ways. I never had a chance to listen to any, though. Perhaps my mind could have been changed, but nobody tried.

I would have thought that anyone growing up during the Quad days would have a set of phones for the cool factor alone!

Why would you want to listen to a stereo mixdown? Quad phones do not sound like a mixdown! Why would anyone think that?

Although direction is sensed with both ears you can get some sense of direction with only one ear. The shape of the ear helps to contribute to that ability. It helps with the drivers placed horizontally as far apart as practicable.

 

[mandrix]

Well good luck with you experiments, Chuckie. Don't electrocute yourself!

I had a set of awful wireless earphones made by RCA that my wife bought me to listen to music while watching TV.
Big, bulky heavy suckers.
Back in the Quad days I had a decent set but long forgot what brand.

 

[Quadmon]

I had David/Clark quad headphones back in the day. They were rectangular and large enough to cover my ears. I’m gonna guess approximately 3” by 5” in size. There were two speakers in each that I thought were larger than stereo headphone speakers. I used them with the Q8’s. It was the best quad ever sounded to me. They were very comfortable to wear with thick padding that gave room between the speakers and the ears. Very clear and the quad sound field was awesome.

 

[chucky3042]

It does not work