Linkwitz wrote an imo excellent Steps to designing and developing an excellent speaker over 20 years ago
probably still on the website
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What role should listening play in speaker design
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Linkwitz wrote an imo excellent Steps to designing and developing an excellent speaker over 20 years ago
probably still on the website
or better his more recent designs.
eg the Klippel results and analysis of this from two years back
MoFi SourcePoint 888 Tower Speaker Review
MoFi SourcePoint 888 Tower Speaker
www.erinsaudiocorner.com
that’s also the case with maybe 10% of the speakers Erin reviews
so too Siegfried Linkwitz
which is the reality
arguably best practice speaker design
Linkwitz described the complete process for designing a (good) dipole system.
it’s the same for any speaker type
Its both objective and subjective
He begins
start with a set of drivers that I have extensively tested and measured. I listen to test signals, music and voice without baffle. The close-up frequency response, harmonic distortion, multi-tone distortion, burst distortion and volume displacement have been measured.
Linkwitz described the complete process for designing a (good) dipole system.
it’s the same for any speaker type
Its both objective and subjective
He begins
start with a set of drivers that I have extensively tested and measured. I listen to test signals, music and voice without baffle. The close-up frequency response, harmonic distortion, multi-tone distortion, burst distortion and volume displacement have been measured.
If every speaker designer, or golden ear, over the age of 50, got an audiogram and took a look and compared them, I don't know how anybody could argue that listening to a speaker is a valid way of designing one. Here's my audiogram. Fairly typical curve, but probably 15-35dB deeper than average for a 60 yr old.
Last edited:
This is an interesting step. This is, to me, rather encompassing.
As an example, years ago (early 1990s, in my 30's, could actually sense ultrasonic cutting machine noise in a production facility, actually a little painful in the wrong spot) I was in my local stereo shop, chatting with an employee. Someone started playing Eric Claptons' "Unplugged" in the next room. It sounded so real hearing it from another room that it made me stop talking and walk into the room to see what the system was being used (B&W Matrix of some kind, but not the 801). That was partly due to the quality of the recording, of course. But the realism was startling.
Without being aware of it, I would say that this was one of the primary aspects of any system I ever purchased before I even considered trying to design/build a system myself. It's also something that one may immediately notice. There may be obvious issues, lack of extended bass that can be overlooked if, say, it's not a full-range system, but outside of that any system needs to "sound realistic". That covers a lot of ground. I'd say that we probably all could say if a system was or was not "realistic". BTW, my first speaker system post-college was Dahlquist DQ-10s. Sounded most "real" or "natural".
As an example, years ago (early 1990s, in my 30's, could actually sense ultrasonic cutting machine noise in a production facility, actually a little painful in the wrong spot) I was in my local stereo shop, chatting with an employee. Someone started playing Eric Claptons' "Unplugged" in the next room. It sounded so real hearing it from another room that it made me stop talking and walk into the room to see what the system was being used (B&W Matrix of some kind, but not the 801). That was partly due to the quality of the recording, of course. But the realism was startling.
Apologies for coming late to this party. Hopefully I am not repeating another poster's thoughts.
From the podcast interview, it is clear that Andrew Jones highly values measurements and makes measurements throuought the design process. He is not rejecting measurements, he is discussing their inherent limitations. FWIW: He also agrees about the circle of confusion and how listening to favorite recordings as a baseline is also not a substitute.
His questioning of measurements appears to be two-fold. His first issue with measurements is that 90 odd percent of us are doing it wrong, and for the remaining ten percent, even with the greatest gear and care, the measurements are not 100% accurate due to issues primarily with measuring low frequencies and dealing with boundaries. I would think that every one of us on this forum would understand this from our own experience... and if you haven't used an anechoic chamber, you should be aware that they are not 100% "correct" in the deep bass and measurements must be corrected based on the particular chamber's characteristics.
His comments on the Klippel system do not take away from its great value, but he is simply pointing out that it too has limitations.
All that aside, @amirm Thank you for creating this thread and reposting the AJ interview.
I don't think that is what he is saying at all. I believe he is saying that since no speaker is perfect, we need to listen to the imperfections to choose the best compromise.
From the podcast interview, it is clear that Andrew Jones highly values measurements and makes measurements throuought the design process. He is not rejecting measurements, he is discussing their inherent limitations. FWIW: He also agrees about the circle of confusion and how listening to favorite recordings as a baseline is also not a substitute.
His questioning of measurements appears to be two-fold. His first issue with measurements is that 90 odd percent of us are doing it wrong, and for the remaining ten percent, even with the greatest gear and care, the measurements are not 100% accurate due to issues primarily with measuring low frequencies and dealing with boundaries. I would think that every one of us on this forum would understand this from our own experience... and if you haven't used an anechoic chamber, you should be aware that they are not 100% "correct" in the deep bass and measurements must be corrected based on the particular chamber's characteristics.
His comments on the Klippel system do not take away from its great value, but he is simply pointing out that it too has limitations.
All that aside, @amirm Thank you for creating this thread and reposting the AJ interview.
I missed that. Could someone point me to that please
Linkwitz (Orion, LX521, etc) method -
What is your process for designing a speaker?
I start with a set of drivers that I have extensively tested and measured. I listen to test signals, music and voice without baffle. The close-up frequency response, harmonic distortion, multi-tone distortion, burst distortion and volume displacement have been measured.
1 - Decide on a 2-way, 3-way or 4-way system depending upon output volume requirements, allowable size or intended application.
2 - Design and build a proto cabinet(s) with dimensions based on estimates of necessary baffle size, diffraction and aesthetics.
3 - Mount the drivers in the cabinet(s) and measure the free-space frequency response on-axis, off-axis, horizontally and vertically.
4 - If the response is not uniform, then change the cabinet dimensions. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until the response meets the target.
5 - Design and build prototype line level filters to equalize the drivers for flat on-axis response.
6 - Measure on-axis response and repeat steps 5 and 6 until target is met.
7 - Design and build prototype crossover line level filters.
8 - Measure on-axis response and repeat steps 5, 7 and 8 until targets for in-phase and out-of-phase response are met.
9 - Measure the free-space frequency response on-axis, off-axis, horizontally and vertically. If the result is not adequate, then go back to step 4.
10 - Listen to the speaker in mono using a wide range of program material and test tones.
11 - If the results in step 10 are acceptable, then build a second cabinet(s), otherwise go back to step 2 or 5.
12 - Assemble a second speaker.
13 - Measure the second speaker as in step 9.
14 - Build line level electronics for second speaker.
15 - Compare both channels of electronics to each other for identical measured performance.
16 - Set up both speakers in the intended listening space.
17 - Listen to the system with pink noise in single channel, dual mono and stereo for symmetry of sound.
18 - Listen to a wide range of program material.
19 - Pause, rest your hearing, relax for a day or more.
20 - Listen to material which you have recorded with omni-directional microphones and with which you are very familiar.
21 - Pause, ask yourself how realistic the speakers sound.
22 - Make small adjustments to the frequency response if deemed necessary.
23 - Listen to a wide range of program material over an extended time period. Note if you get tired or want to hear more.
24 - Go to a concert. Listen to non-amplified sound, a symphony orchestra, jazz group, chorus, people talking, singing.
25 - Listen to your new speaker system and assess its capability.
26 - Sit back and enjoy or go back and start over again.
He wrote that around +/- 2001, before eg Klippel.
The very first post in this thread.
thank you.. i came across the thread at ~ post 300
the podcast says it was posted 4 weeks ago - but in the first few minutes twice the host refers to the 888 as his “new” model - so apparently in fact it’s more like ~ three years ago. (?)
the podcast interviewer is clearly a fan/ fanboy, and one who doesn’t know a lot about the subject ..
referring to a 10 inch coaxial as an “achievement”
as John McEnroe used to say you can’t be serious. Without checking I would think they were/ are would be more than a dozen coaxials which are 10 inches or more. probably 20.
at least (?) five manufacturers would make larger coaxials
And there’s at least five +/- similar size triaxials. so the interviewer lost nearly all credibility in the opening minute
the knowledge gap between the interviewer and the interviewee is vast
referring to a 10 inch coaxial as an “achievement”
as John McEnroe used to say you can’t be serious. Without checking I would think they were/ are would be more than a dozen coaxials which are 10 inches or more. probably 20.
at least (?) five manufacturers would make larger coaxials
And there’s at least five +/- similar size triaxials. so the interviewer lost nearly all credibility in the opening minute
the knowledge gap between the interviewer and the interviewee is vast
Last edited:
I thought that too, he's unable to get to anything truly interesting as a result.
I disagree. Buried in the pleasant conversation Andrew Jones speaks volumes about speaker design, his method, and the limitations of both relying only on measurements as well as the limitations of relying only on your ears.
It is all in there, but there is a lot of content to filter through. A causal listening of ten minutes or so won't give you much.
I'm curious to know if others have had the same or similar experience as I have to the following. I used to host a small regional, annual DIY get-together. My various systems over time were as good as I thought I could make them given the drivers and my (less than stellar) wood working. Then I'd hear systems others brought. Some just sounded better than mine in one way or another, most often 2-ways as compared to my 2-ways. 3-ways were easier to reach an optimum. It made me go back to my designs to figure out why that was or what it was that made theirs sound better. It was the other way at times, I felt mine were better, but I'm sure I could have lived with most (not all) of theirs in the absence of mine. We all discussed each and offered our opinions or made suggestions based on what we heard, but it was all based on sighted auditioning. It occasionally made me question my designs that I based primarily on measurements. I still do for that matter. In fact, more so now that I have more experience.
You're right about that. He has to measure the drivers. I remember talking with him about replacement drivers for one of the speakers he designed (Infinity Composition P-FR) and he said the drivers were custom made and that there were no replacements for them. He can't tell me he's designing drivers without using measurements. You're spot on.
