Vivid Audio Moya M1-World's first 8-woofer force -canceling speaker

[Viesturs Balodis]

View attachment 356474View attachment 356475

- ear is really a god stuff but needs trained brians. and age and profession is a bit of a problem to, trust but test means measure. so this is first crap for this kind of money wont provide measurements
- graphs are fake just showing relative. but you can see that xover does not sum , you have max 6 db, there is more. guy/lady who made these graphs I dont know I hope it is not inventor. insults intelligence
- subs and tweeter could best thing there I think just with geometry n stuff, but there are ways how to do it better than this exact “force cancel” , everyone can calculate distance from side to side center/center etc. for example this is 4x10” array, so we divide 1.66m (maybe they tried fibonacci, a slight miss so around 40 cm from centers so this is legit , far exceeds 125hz.
- side to side something like 80cm ? this is on the edge already, so no wonder why xover is 125. should be lower
- a lot to think about would be if they provide resonance frequency of driver, but I guess forget about it it is a trade secret, pay 0.5mil and measure
- about mids they dont give a damn I guess, why two midwoofers on “the floor” nobody knows. they say 500hz is xover for mids this is far not enough. almost 40cm from centers everything falls apart around 600hz with this distance.
- materials should be good, diamond is a good thing but I dont know aluminum, fir what reason it is there, only one thing comes to mind is bending, interesting why not use titanium alloys, for bigger diaphragms they have good damping but yeah heavy, aluminum is light but ****** resonances. i like 45mm magnetic gap. should be linear, but yeah resonance lf and response can show a lot. Too much xmax also does not make any sense only for car audio guys.

very cool design, but it is massively big and only because ported needs liters a lot and there are not much 10” with excursion , they say force cancel but I they dont capitalize on that how much weight it saves. more weight also means more energy storage.

-besides 8 woofer force canceling design like they have is 100% BS that it is first or something, is there patent? just plain ignorance with this one

-interesting how the xover is made or they use dsp? I hope dsp….

would be quite interesting to hear in a good room, but I am too poor can only bark

 

[MattHooper]

This place is full of “armchair experts.”

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

This place is full of “armchair experts.”

I would say ignorant people who cannot read much. can read but dont understand what they read

 

[AdamG]

I would say ignorant people who cannot read much. can read but dont understand what they read

So your second post here as a new member is to call out the membership as “Ignorant people who cannot read much” ? Is this what you truly mean or are we having a translation problem?

 

[EJ3]

So your second post here as a new member is to call out the membership as “Ignorant people who cannot read much” ? Is this what you truly mean or are we having a translation problem?

I took it as a joke but then thought that he might be serious, so I took my like back.

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

m

So your second post here as a new member is to call out the membership as “Ignorant people who cannot read much” ? Is this what you truly mean or are we having a translation problem?

I thought this is audio science forum. my bad, so now you’re 3 and I should give up I guess…. if you read carefully all arguments listed and analyze them and present counter arguments that would be science, otherwise calling a person without any clue of background an “armchair expert” very brave I would say. Do whatever you like guys. but I trully recommend to do science not some kind of who is who stuff .

 

[Axo1989]

- ear is really a god stuff but needs trained brians. and age and profession is a bit of a problem to, trust but test means measure. so this is first crap for this kind of money wont provide measurements
- graphs are fake just showing relative. but you can see that xover does not sum , you have max 6 db, there is more. guy/lady who made these graphs I dont know I hope it is not inventor. insults intelligence
- subs and tweeter could best thing there I think just with geometry n stuff, but there are ways how to do it better than this exact “force cancel” , everyone can calculate distance from side to side center/center etc. for example this is 4x10” array, so we divide 1.66m (maybe they tried fibonacci, a slight miss so around 40 cm from centers so this is legit , far exceeds 125hz.
- side to side something like 80cm ? this is on the edge already, so no wonder why xover is 125. should be lower
- a lot to think about would be if they provide resonance frequency of driver, but I guess forget about it it is a trade secret, pay 0.5mil and measure
- about mids they dont give a damn I guess, why two midwoofers on “the floor” nobody knows. they say 500hz is xover for mids this is far not enough. almost 40cm from centers everything falls apart around 600hz with this distance.
- materials should be good, diamond is a good thing but I dont know aluminum, fir what reason it is there, only one thing comes to mind is bending, interesting why not use titanium alloys, for bigger diaphragms they have good damping but yeah heavy, aluminum is light but ****** resonances. i like 45mm magnetic gap. should be linear, but yeah resonance lf and response can show a lot. Too much xmax also does not make any sense only for car audio guys.

very cool design, but it is massively big and only because ported needs liters a lot and there are not much 10” with excursion , they say force cancel but I they dont capitalize on that how much weight it saves. more weight also means more energy storage.

-besides 8 woofer force canceling design like they have is 100% BS that it is first or something, is there patent? just plain ignorance with this one

-interesting how the xover is made or they use dsp? I hope dsp….

would be quite interesting to hear in a good room, but I am too poor can only bark

You may not be here long to respond to, but while I don’t think there are too many 8-woofer force-cancelling loudspeakers on offer, I can think of Audio Physic Medeos as one. Isn’t Giya’s claim for something more specific?

You observations about dimensions and crossovers may require elaboration, so far it’s difficult to evaluate your objections.

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

You may not be here long to respond to, but while I don’t think there are too many 8-woofer force-cancelling loudspeakers on offer, I can think of Audio Physic Medeos as one. Isn’t Giya’s claim for something more specific?

You observations about dimensions and crossovers may require elaboration, so far it’s difficult to evaluate your objections.

cool! if it is not science forum I guess not a place for me. whatever.
PA systems like line arrays use way more woofers. force canceling whatever, and besides do this in many ways. to position worlds first if it is obviously not does not produce much trust if we talk about science of course. dimensions is the same stuff as PA , 4 woofers is array distance between them gives understanding of the operational frequency range. it is available for read either fresnel huygens or Don Keele , I have done these line arrays and loading and I know not from the book. And it is in many cases that simple. if there is no line array, then it is harder to tell. dimensions tell a lot and give pretty accurate estimates. if you have worked with these things you know , because science means theory and practice and then you have stereotype to capitalize on even without seeing measurements. same goes for materials used every material has meaning, but is being used differently.

 

[MattHooper]

m

I thought this is audio science forum. my bad, so now you’re 3 and I should give up I guess…. if you read carefully all arguments listed and analyze them and present counter arguments that would be science, otherwise calling a person without any clue of background an “armchair expert” very brave I would say. Do whatever you like guys. but I trully recommend to do science not some kind of who is who stuff .

I’m sorry if you took my comment as negative. I can see why. It was a semi serious comment.

On one hand I think posts like yours are wonderful. Why not, if you have some knowledge expertise, take a bit of a deep dive into the design of that speaker and offer opinions. People do that here all the time so that’s great.

On the other hand, it is fairly common to see people weighing in on the designs of commercial loudspeakers, critiquing the design, when such people haven’t proven themselves as being able to do any better, let alone produce commercially successful, high-end loudspeakers.

(some of it even boils down to a “ look since I can identify the drivers and where they came from, anybody can do this stuff for cheaper!”)

I don’t know your level of experience, so of course I may be totally wrong on this, but I admit my first intuition is that Laurence Dickie, having heard his designs myself and knowing that he is an esteemed speaker designer, probably knows what he’s doing, more than your post suggests.

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

I’m sorry if you took my comment as negative. I can see why. It was a semi serious comment.

On one hand I think posts like yours are wonderful. Why not, if you have some knowledge expertise, take a bit of a deep dive into the design of that speaker and offer opinions. People do that here all the time so that’s great.

On the other hand, it is fairly common to see people weighing in on the designs of commercial loudspeakers, critiquing the design, when such people haven’t proven themselves as being able to do any better, let alone produce commercially successful, high-end loudspeakers.

(some of it even boils down to a “ look since I can identify the drivers and where they came from, anybody can do this stuff for cheaper!”)

I don’t know your level of experience, so of course I may be totally wrong on this, but I admit my first intuition is that Laurence Dickie, having heard his designs myself and knowing that he is an esteemed speaker designer, probably knows what he’s doing, more than your post suggests.

Nice to meet you Sorry for “joking” back. Problem was actually not in your or my joke, I guess we would not continue this… Because as I said sometimes you can read learn something pay attention. And if you read there I am not talking about the guy efforts that he did in the past. I am talking about price point and that worlds first stuff with no measurements and obvious marketing bs. because of that marketing bs speakers are stuck. what is new in speaker world? And why I should be a fan of speakers with no proof they are the best or whatever standing out from most of those kind of speakers and with obvious technical questions arising.

There is also phase , electrical , acoustical, polar response , many things I did not even touch upon. Only a tip of the iceberg. For half mil? Remember Floyd Toole very right txt about that you have on car tires more specs than on speakers. I would call out the guy to make contest, no poroblem but you want to compare me with him so you pay I would love the best a contest between him and likes of LAcoustics (not a fan) that would be awesome contest. I dont think he will agree to any of those options, “diamond” is not enough.

In many years I somehow lost all respect to those “cool” previous generation guys and actually I have more respect in early cinema speaker maker ideas, because of one very obvious thing efficiency. Therefore I have a totaly different vision, I do some DIYs, do a lot of research and practice, I did some prety decent collaborations in the past but this does not matter, because science is only way how to push stuff forward. I dont think either LAcoustics or Vivid give a sh about us, sorry. LAcoustic recently released their new stuff, where older was something very similar, so they dont know what to do. Look at all of this, they even cannot make single patent for real invention, patenting some minor stuff etc. So I dont care about those all guys. I would if they would push the boundaries of science. But it will change

And thing that will possibly be next thing it wont be cheap for many scientific reasons. So “I can do same for cheaper” is wrong way, it does not reflect reality, if such will occur.

 

[AdamG]

This place is full of “armchair experts.”

m

I thought this is audio science forum. my bad, so now you’re 3 and I should give up I guess…. if you read carefully all arguments listed and analyze them and present counter arguments that would be science, otherwise calling a person without any clue of background an “armchair expert” very brave I would say. Do whatever you like guys. but I trully recommend to do science not some kind of who is who stuff .

In the above quote. Matt was not saying that you are an Armchair Expert. He was saying that we have a few here. Not you. I then read your reply and thus my question to you to clarify before I made any assumptions. Which I could have but didn’t. As hinted in my response I think we are wrestling with translation troubles from all sides. Please keep trying and don’t give up just yet. We are a Science/Evidence based Community. However, we are also an online Audio Enthusiasts Forum and we do not (yet) require new members to pass an Engineering Test to post.

Welcome Aboard @Viesturs Balodis .

 

[pablolie]

Not sure about why this discussion has turned into who is the most legitimate scientist. Raise your hand, PhDs in electrical engineering and psychoacoustics?

Science is most certainly not about arguing about who has the more “scientific" mind...

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

In the above quote. Matt was not saying that you are an Armchair Expert. He was saying that we have a few here. Not you. I then read your reply and thus my question to you to clarify before I made any assumptions. Which I could have but didn’t. As hinted in my response I think we are wrestling with translation troubles from all sides. Please keep trying and don’t give up just yet. We are a Science/Evidence based Community. However, we are also an online Audio Enthusiasts Forum and we do not (yet) require new members to pass an Engineering Test to post.

Welcome Aboard @Viesturs Balodis .

Thanks nice to meet you! and actually a second thought, can I have that nick name Armchair Expert? Seriously I think I earned it the hard way as always and without fun there is no point

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

Not sure about why this discussion has turned into who is the most legitimate scientist. Raise your hand, PhDs in electrical engineering and psychoacoustics?

Science is most certainly not about arguing about who has the more “scientific" mind...

This is nice. I think those who specialize in radar systems and antenas-arrays, definitelly can give very valuable insights!

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

Actually I am serious. I think babies with a curious mind looking at the world and observing it and try to make sense of it ("wow I burned my finger twice, I will not touch this thing again") are more "scientific" than those who just consume prepackaged facts and defend them as science without understanding the limitations of the model. And there are ALWAYS limitations in the applicability of a model.
To a certain degree, that is the difference between a scientist and an engineer... scientists create new models, engineers reuse those models to build new practical things.

what unserious I said here? should we start over?

 

[pablolie]

what unserious I said here? should we start over?

You are reading something I never stated. I just stated no one in this topic is likely to be backed by science 100%.

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

You are reading something I never stated. I just stated no one in this topic is likely to be backed by science 100%.

ok. this does not contradict with cool idea you said. guys with hands on experience in radar systems antena arrays can tell a lot. they know this stuff, because they care about polar patern manipulations, side lobes and what not. it is very very interesting topic and it is not science it is a fact. science should go beyond this. push things forward. so I dont see any problem. good idea about “electronics guys”

 

[pablolie]

Science is never ever a fact, never a truth *if* you peel enough layers. The experts you talk about are educated in the use of models that apply to a certain environment where the model is valid. And I am in no way disputing the value of that (we are all experts in some field if we get paid to provide a function). But take the model out of its valid environment and you need "new scientific breakthrough" so to say.

 

[Viesturs Balodis]

Science is never ever a fact, never a truth *if* you peel enough layers. The experts you talk about are educated in the use of models that apply to a certain environment where the model is valid. And I am in no way disputing the value of that (we are all experts in some field if we get paid to provide a function). But take the model out of its valid environment and you need "new scientific breakthrough" so to say.

sure sure, but I said with HANDS ON experience not only theoretical. and also optics guys… I had experience with communicating with radar expert , I would say a pleasure. and it is also good to see from slightly different angle to make “view wider” because cylinder is neither a cirlce, elipse or rectangle, it is 3D all at once (neglected by some famous theories) various angles help to understand matter better, as I said theory plus practice is only way. and key is to avoid wishful thinking even for smartest guys, it hurts sometimes .

 

[pablolie]

sure sure, but I said with HANDS ON experience not only theoretical. and also optics guys… I had experience with communicating with radar expert , I would say a pleasure. and it is also good to see from slightly different angle to make “view wider” because cylinder is neither a cirlce, elipse or rectangle, it is 3D all at once (neglected by some famous theories) various angles help to understand matter better, as I said theory plus practice is only way. and key is to avoid wishful thinking even for smartest guys, it hurts sometimes .

Indeed very true. Sometimes getting caught in what we think we totally know bites us as engineers. We need to stay curious and learn every day, and approach new challenges like that. Cookie cutter mentalities are very limiting.

To give an example: let's assume we measure a device and come up with certain parameters such as sinad and thd and frequency response. Then we conclude the frequency response needs to be corrected for linearity. Do we re-test to establish if distortion and such has changed and go and re-optimize to find balance between things that may be mutually exclusive? The number of possible permutations becomes silly. It's more practical to optimize "enough". Measuring for repeatability of a model or to check a product is mandatory both in science and good engineering. But capturing the entire possible essence of interactions between different optimization parameters is unpractical. We always work off limited models that work well enough. Newtonian physics work great if you want to calculate many things, but they are utterly insufficient to address relativity or quantum physics.

And wow sorry, I have gone way off track here.