| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio For Dummies ™ » A DSET is better then an expensive SET (42 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 3 (42 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Ultimate HF output transformer?..  Leads to further air core heads...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     7  70776  07-14-2005
  »  New  Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special com..  I do not think so but I migh be wrong....  Audio News Forum     94  925139  09-18-2005
  »  New  5 Channel Version of Melquiades..  Very easy....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     21  165119  07-23-2006
  »  New  The most promising “best” commercial speaker..  Viva Audio...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     190  1256564  12-06-2006
  »  New  About destiny of “High-End Sound”...  Got today via email....  Playback Listening  Forum     6  44780  01-19-2007
  »  New  6 Channel Version of Super Melquiades..  The first Milq screw up....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     131  860802  08-08-2007
  »  New  Output transformer for bass-channel of Super Melquiades..  The Super Milq bass channel loading correction...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  27709  08-17-2007
  »  New  Devid Berning amplifiers: the anti-trnsformers frenzy?..  What is a "pulse converter" that you have a q...  Audio Discussions  Forum     45  297523  09-23-2007
  »  New  NAT Audio Magna -160 Watts of Single-Ended Class A..  The KR Audio ways....  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  49442  11-12-2007
  »  New  All Active! A DSET and multi-way acoustic system...  Hahaha...  Audio Discussions  Forum     14  79527  01-31-2008
  »  New  The loudspeakers for a powerful SET..  Mission Accomplished?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     48  283785  04-11-2008
  »  New  Dual channel SET..  Space exploration...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  55062  04-17-2008
  »  New  Incorporating active crossovers into DSET..  Thanks...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  29717  07-22-2008
  »  New  The DSET perspective examines the Herb Reichert article..  Are you still in Reutlingen, Germany?...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     5  66707  07-01-2009
  »  New  Think ahead how to measure the DSETs gain...  The calibration mode is for DSETs not for SET....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     2  18495  09-17-2009
  »  New  All Active! A DSET and multi-way acoustic system...  Hahaha...  Audio Discussions  Forum     14  79527  01-31-2008
  »  New  About DSET-driven multi-way acoustic system maintenance..  About DSET-driven multi-way acoustic system maintenance...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     0  17730  11-01-2009
  »  New  Thomas Mayer’s Triamp..  It is much more then juts "properly calculated and...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  25141  03-03-2010
  »  New  LF Amplifier in biamping...  DSET is tricky....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     10  51757  08-05-2005
09-23-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 21
Post ID: 5382
Reply to: 5370
Start again: the problems with a "ordinary" SET?

Still, I would like in this thread to stay with subject of advantage/disadvantage of DSET approach vs. better/expensive SET: "A DSET is better then an expensive SET" instead of turn it into thread about David Berning. Bernings certainly might be an interesting subject and if you guys are wiling to talks about it then create another thread desisted specifically dedicated to Bernings.

 Merlin wrote:
I have heard plenty of traditional SET's from Lamm to Wavac, AN, Kondo and many others. I know I could not live with their failings.

Merlin, in the context of this thread, might I ask you something... When you heard Lamm SET (presumable it was 2.0) then what speakers it drove and what specific problems you found that made you to feel that you can’t live with that sound? I think it would give me some impression what you are talking about and would set certain equalization point for comparing notes..

Rgs, Romy


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-24-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 22
Post ID: 5390
Reply to: 5382
DSET, a DIY venture
It was not so long ago that the Super Milq was a twinkle in Romy's eye,and now it has come to the point he is a strong proponent of DSET (not to be confused with DH-SET). I am always a big believer in the power of topology.  I was thinking about this a bit:

The DSET approach may be better inherently since each SET can be optimized for each speaker, but it is necessarily a DIY job and it is dedicated to a specific speaker/frequency range.  If this changes, the amplifier must change, which might be too labor-intensive for some people.

The DSET has advantages.  It is more flexible; it allows for moving the crossover filters freely to any point in the circuit.  But what is the best point.  We have all heard the buzzwords that it is better to use passive devices OR it is better to filter with line level currents OR it is better to not expose the amplifiers to wide frequency range and "congest" them.  However, one must also consider this: the crossover circuit by its nature alters the musical information like a horrible sieve, there is bound to be some loss in the desired information as well.  (This is the same concept as why SET circuits have different sound than a push-pull or differential circuit, in a different way).

The altered topology of DSET has the potential to have disadvantages.  There is increased overall system complexity and this often seems to be a negative.  Beyond this, it is difficult to expound, for me, on the specific differences because, well is it meaningful?  The way to reflect on this is to listen comparatively to SET and DSET and observe the differences and correlate this to the toplogical changes.  The difficulty is that when one has the DSET the urge is NOT to live with the system as is, but to begin to modify and "optimize" each frequency range, so that it becomes impossible to make a real comparison.

To this end, I would suggest to ROMY that he keep all the parameters the same from DSET as with the original SET setup and then live with the system for a period of time to make a true comparison between the two.  Only in this way can one hope to assess the topological differences' effect on the sound.  It would be nice to do this experiment, since he is in a position to do so. 

Adrian
09-24-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 23
Post ID: 5395
Reply to: 5390
The DSET disadvantages and DSET perspectives.

 drdna wrote:
The altered topology of DSET has the potential to have disadvantages.  There is increased overall system complexity and this often seems to be a negative.  Beyond this, it is difficult to expound, for me, on the specific differences because, well is it meaningful?  The way to reflect on this is to listen comparatively to SET and DSET and observe the differences and correlate this to the toplogical changes.  The difficulty is that when one has the DSET the urge is NOT to live with the system as is, but to begin to modify and "optimize" each frequency range, so that it becomes impossible to make a real comparison.

Yes, you are absolutely correct and I very much back up it. When I had my first full-range Milq then I knew exactly what I did and what I was getting as a result (Sound). Moving with Milq into the DSET operation I lost my immediate and clean view of the Melquiades sound. The result is definably better but the reason-consequences patterns are not so easily interpretable, and are absolutely not interpretable when the filters are applied. That is why I absolutely insist that any DIYer or manufacture, if they are willing to “go DSET”, must to verify all operational, construction and performance parameters/characteristics with a conext of a full-range amplifiers and only THEN to apply the success to a DSET.

 drdna wrote:
To this end, I would suggest to ROMY that he keep all the parameters the same from DSET as with the original SET setup and then live with the system for a period of time to make a true comparison between the two.  Only in this way can one hope to assess the topological differences' effect on the sound.  It would be nice to do this experiment, since he is in a position to do so. 

Well, I understand the objectives and you are right in them but the experiment will not take place as I am already out of the league of the methodological correctness. You see, the 6-chennal of Super Milq is betraying of the DSET idea as the new Super Milq uses one-stage amps. Surely I made all precautions to keep all channels to operate similarly, topologically and operationally, but they still are different amps and the new Supper Milq has basically 2 pairs of 3-chennls DSETs (even despite the HF is not even triode anymore).

So, the Super Milq is not the best illustration of the DSET concept. Also, the Super Milq-type of amps are possible only in context of targeted binding to a specific acoustic system/room. The Super Milq is an irrational aberration, a result of unwell imagination if you wish. My advocating of DSET does not base upon the Super Milq’s “prove”. Also, if we mentally go away from the Super Milq class examples, then we will see that DSET is not necessarily a “remedy” only for DIYes but might have much wider commercial implication. Do not forget that the subject of the thread is not that “DSET is the best amp” but “DSET is better then expensive SET”.

When I said DSET I am very rational. The problem that a regular SET has might be addressed by 2 channels - where one cares LF and another rest of the spectra. THAT is my primary definition of DSET. That DSET is very easily implementable and marketable commercially. We are accustomed in High-End that the speakers are bi-ampable and that the cables are bi-wireable. Why a DSET should not feel the gap where it could. A DSET should not even care a crossover – most of “better” speakers allow bi-amping and their driver-level crossovers are bridged externally… The DSET would be a perfect match in there.

Anyhow, what I would like to see is the industry embraces the DSET idea and begins to educate the participants about the DSET advantages and the DSET economic reasonability. I am sure that the first company and the first marketing cheerleaders who would jump to the DSET wagon and would SPIN IT PROPERLY will make quite a good ride out off it.

Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-25-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 24
Post ID: 5408
Reply to: 5344
And it wouldn not be a DSET

 Paul S wrote:
I will eventually get another pair of ML2s to slave the bass/save the upper registers, because, as we all know by now, dedication rules. 

It wouldn’t be a DSET but rather just a simple bi-amplification. Bi-amplification has own benefits but it is not the same as a channel dedicated to own bandwidth. I was running for a few years two pairs of ML2 but I never considered that I used DSET. Well, I use some very rudimental optimization by driving the bass output tube differently, loading it differently, using different tubes, building filters in the ML2’s feedback but it system advancement not the amplifier advancement and therefore it sound not be consider that it ws a dipping into DSET world.

Rgs, the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-26-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 25
Post ID: 5426
Reply to: 5395
Disadvantages of DSET
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The result [in the 6-channel Milq] is definably better but the reason-consequences patterns are not so easily interpretable, and are absolutely not interpretable when the filters are applied.
And the explorations that led you from the original Melquiades to this current set-up are well-documented over a period on months.  Still, it might be instructive (to me at least) to hear concisely stated your dissatisfactions with the original set-up that led you to make the changes.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Well, I understand the objectives and you are right in them but the experiment will not take place as I am already out of the league of the methodological correctness. You see, the 6-chennal of Super Milq is betraying of the DSET idea as the new Super Milq uses one-stage amps ... so, the Super Milq is not the best illustration of the DSET concept. Also, the Super Milq-type of amps are possible only in context of targeted binding to a specific acoustic system/room.
This is true, but it reflects also quite accurately my own situation.  I have the EdgarHorn Titans and no intention of building new horns anytime soon.  However, I am buying up the parts to make the Melqiades amplifier.  My own personal question is whether I should proceed as planned or instead build up DSET versions to drive the four channels of the Titans separately.  I am not keen on building original Melquiades "just as an experiment to compare to DSET I will build afterwards" either because it will end up being a lot of money and time, and I am kind of in the situation where DSET might be appropriate.  However, I ask the advice of someone who has already done this whether it is worthwhile in my situation (this is the argument of course for DSET in general as well).

 Romy the Cat wrote:
The problem that a regular SET has might be addressed by 2 channels - where one cares LF and another rest of the spectra. THAT is my primary definition of DSET. That DSET is very easily implementable and marketable commercially. We are accustomed in High-End that the speakers are bi-ampable and that the cables are bi-wireable. Why a DSET should not feel the gap where it could. A DSET should not even care a crossover – most of “better” speakers allow bi-amping and their driver-level crossovers are bridged externally… The DSET would be a perfect match in there.
 I think it may be difficult since the crossover points vary and some speakers can be even triamped.  This is a rarified market already.  Most people planning to bi-amp, they are told to use the identical amps to do so, so this will build resisitance to the idea of using different amps.  Also, it is easier and cheaper to buy one more amp (or pair of monoblocks) identical to the one you already have than to buy four new monoblocks.

So really the target market demographic is audiophiles who are already bi-amping but who can be convinced that they should be bi-amping with DSETs instead of the paradigm of using the same amps, and whose speaker crossover points fit with the design parameters of the DSETs, AND whose ears and systems can appreciate the relatively subtle changes of going from biamp SET to DSET.  I am going to be honest, I think this is going to be a really small number of people. 

09-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 26
Post ID: 5427
Reply to: 5426
Multi-amping with DSETs

 drdna wrote:
And the explorations that led you from the original Melquiades to this current set-up are well-documented over a period on months.  Still, it might be instructive (to me at least) to hear concisely stated your dissatisfactions with the original set-up that led you to make the changes.

It might be true but the dissatisfactions did not derive from dissatisfactions about a single SET vs. DSET. If I have 2 channel DSET (LF + HF) then it would be fine with me. I think my desire to make chinches were more driven by me desire to optimize the channels of loudspeakers then the dissatisfactions of amplification.

 drdna wrote:
This is true, but it reflects also quite accurately my own situation.  I have the EdgarHorn Titans and no intention of building new horns anytime soon.  However, I am buying up the parts to make the Melqiades amplifier.  My own personal question is whether I should proceed as planned or instead build up DSET versions to drive the four channels of the Titans separately.  I am not keen on building original Melquiades "just as an experiment to compare to DSET I will build afterwards" either because it will end up being a lot of money and time, and I am kind of in the situation where DSET might be appropriate.  However, I ask the advice of someone who has already done this whether it is worthwhile in my situation (this is the argument of course for DSET in general as well).

Well, I would say EdgarHorn Titans do not need DSET and the lowest EdgarHorn channel go down to 100 Hz and a regular full range SET will do juts fine. If you decide to drive the EdgarHorn’s subwoofer then you can consider DSET, still, considering the idiosyncrasies of the bass-horn topology it might be advisable to stay with a regular SET. However, if you feel like to drive each speaker channel with individual amplification channel then it is a totally different game. I presume that it would be better result but it also a considerably higher amount of efforts, both in building and in support.

 drdna wrote:
Most people planning to bi-amp, they are told to use the identical amps to do so, so this will build resisitance to the idea of using different amps.  Also, it is easier and cheaper to buy one more amp (or pair of monoblocks) identical to the one you already have than to buy four new monoblocks.

The identical amps but with different power capacity, different damps power supplies, different output stage loading and different amount of inductance in output transformer. It would not violate anything in the speaker or it’s crossover but would enable a cheap and small SET in DSET configuration to drive loudspeaker better.

 drdna wrote:
So really the target market demographic is audiophiles who are already bi-amping but who can be convinced that they should be bi-amping with DSETs instead of the paradigm of using the same amps, and whose speaker crossover points fit with the design parameters of the DSETs, AND whose ears and systems can appreciate the relatively subtle changes of going from biamp SET to DSET.  I am going to be honest, I think this is going to be a really small number of people. 

It is very seldom that people who bi-amp use the same amps. Most frequently peopel who bi-amp (unfortunalsy) use with different amps. The DSET idea might enable then to use basically the same amps.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,143
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 27
Post ID: 5429
Reply to: 5408
I might have been more specific
Romy, that passing remark about 4 ML2s and DSET was not my complete thought on the matter.  In this case the LF  slaves would be topologically just that, meaning changed to suit the role of dedicated LF-only amps.  If that still does not fit your definition of DSET, I'm OK with that, but that's what I'm talking about, in any case.  I am aware that this is +/- how you already did it, and I would at least begin by +/- copying your proven formula.  I want to hear my set-up with bass slaves before I consider dedicted HF, although I am very interested in your experiments on that front.

I might as an alternative do 2-channel "Milqs" with a 3rd channel option, but I am still not clear about how the ML2s could be improved upon overall, realistically as opposed to abstractly, even though I am now, naturally, more familiar with their limitations.  More to the point, I am not at all sure what it would take in terms of electrical junk to make an overall improvement to the ML2s; it's not like they are sitting ducks.  Remember that I am still using ~97 dB speakers, and this will not change on some flight of fancy but will have to wait until I hear something that convinces me I could do better, overall.  So far the best else I've heard has been the big Wilsons, but I would not even consider trying to deal with the problems I peceive with those.  Meanwhile, I am unsure about the Milqs with lower efficiency speakers, since I think you said not to try it.

Like Adrian, I have not yet gleaned from your aggregate posts exactly what it was that you sought to change about the ML2s, let alone the succession of Milqs, although I think i understand your contrasting amplification versus sound qualities.


Best regards,
Paul
09-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,143
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 28
Post ID: 5430
Reply to: 5429
Oops, I trailed off again...
I meant to continue, to say that I think I understand your contrasting amplification with sound/qualities of various channels.

It seems to me that this channel-per-driver technique could give you the means to tune each channel very finely.

I can appreciate this on the conceptual level but it might in practice just make me even crazier than I am already.

I still need some more ML2 education before I take on something like that.

Best regards,
Paul S
11-13-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 5869
Reply to: 5344
High power SET - what I would actually would like to see…
Continuing the thoughts from the post: A powerful full-range SET? What a bogus idea!

What I would actually would like to see is the industry not to furnish idiotic loudspeakers with granite drivers and then trying to push high power SETs to drive the essentially deal load but rather more companies go for higher sensitively loudspeakers and DSET applications, preferably 2-way amplification: bass and MF.  It would be VERY simple to engineer and to build high power lower frequency only DSET. The same 160W NAT Audio Magna if it would not case anything above 500Hz would be very simple amp with way better bass that it currently has. It is truly ridicules how effective DSET approach is and how much yields it offers in context of system design and integration. Only God knows why DSET approach is not widely accepted as the only way to make SET-centric playback installations

The Cat.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 30
Post ID: 5870
Reply to: 5869
Wavac 833
I listened to $$$ Wavac amps with 833 tube driving Kharma speakers and I found it sounds like the old tube radio in my garden hut at 40°C. Why not more semi-active speakers with high-sensitivity mid/treble and transistor-powered bass? 
11-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 31
Post ID: 5871
Reply to: 5870
There is a difference between multiamping and DSET…

 el`Ol wrote:
Why not more semi-active speakers with high-sensitivity mid/treble and transistor-powered bass?
… and it is very important do not overlook this difference. Multiamping is fine but is it severely suffer in case of different amplifiers were used. Preaty much a multiamping where each amp has own TTH characteristic is assurance of crap overall sound. How to maintain the same TTH balance across all amplification channels?  If I was a knowledgeable amplifier designer then I might answer this question or would feel that I could answer but it is not who I am. To me the TTH equilibrium is more an empirical and not necessary predictable thing (though within a certain scale I can manage it). So to be in the save side I do not necessarily advocate multiamping but rather DSET.

Multiamping is using of dedicated amps for different channels. DSET is the use two or more of the SAME AMPLIFIERS (SETs in the given case) optimized for a given frequency range (output transformer in case of DSET). Here is the illustration: 3-channal Super Melquiades was a pure DSET with 3 6E5P-6C33C parallel channels. The late 6-channal Super Melquiades with it’s single-stage amps is a deviation from the DSET evangelism and it is more multiamping. We can make some excuses that the Sound of Milq is not determined by out stage and many other excuses but realty it that it is still not DSET but multiamping. I did spent a substantial amount of efforts and time (~3 month) to make sure that that way how I use the Super Milq channels do not break (or “almost” do not break) the TTH weighing scale but the 6-way Super Milq success is still arguable.

In case of pure DSET – where each channel is IDENTICAL there are many problems not there anymore and with an identical loading of the plates via different transformer of the same type a user is in a very “save” environment.

Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
guy sergeant
United Kingdom
Posts 258
Joined on 08-03-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 5872
Reply to: 5871
Commercial DSET
Romy,

A few months ago, iirc, you linked to a Canadian? amplifier which seemed to be made as or perhaps could be applicable for DSET use but I can't find the link.  Can you remember where its is (or what it was called)?
11-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 33
Post ID: 5873
Reply to: 5872
Yes, I remember there was something like this.
 guy sergeant wrote:
A few months ago, iirc, you linked to a Canadian? amplifier which seemed to be made as or perhaps could be applicable for DSET use but I can't find the link.  Can you remember where its is (or what it was called)?
It was Canadian or perhaps Czechoslovakian company (I do not remember already) that offered a complete system: a pair of multiways minitower loudspeakers driven by a pair of DSETs. The direction of cause is very lucrative itself but it was not exactly what I would like to see. In their description (if I remember correctly) they claim that they went for multiamping because it allowed them to get rid of speaker-lever filters and more accurately control drivers damping. This is certainly a noble direction to look into but I did not see in their presentation that they went for optimized the LF and HF channels for own frequency ranges. In a way I might undusted it as their speaker had a small porter bass that looked like had no needs to bigger LF transformer or more power…


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
05-29-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 20912
Reply to: 5344
Defending some DSET ideas....
fiogf49gjkf0d
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5023&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-01-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 35
Post ID: 20924
Reply to: 20912
Another Brits' take over DSET idea.
fiogf49gjkf0d
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5596&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=5911a3973d08037f3068aa212841128a


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-01-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
decoud
United Kingdom
Posts 241
Joined on 03-01-2008

Post #: 36
Post ID: 20927
Reply to: 20924
Pudding
fiogf49gjkf0d
I know you do not want to do it, but it is a shame not to do it: actually manufacture a version of the Macondo with an integrated dset, cut down enough (say three channels) to make it feasible while still demonstrating the advantages of the dset idea. Indeed, was not Jessie thinking of spinning something commercial out of his elegant plaster horns? The point of making it commercial is only to make the dissemination of the idea tangible, not just talk. 
06-02-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 37
Post ID: 20929
Reply to: 20927
About playback waterfall sequence.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 decoud wrote:
I know you do not want to do it, but it is a shame not to do it: actually manufacture a version of the Macondo with an integrated dset, cut down enough (say three channels) to make it feasible while still demonstrating the advantages of the dset idea. Indeed, was not Jessie thinking of spinning something commercial out of his elegant plaster horns? The point of making it commercial is only to make the dissemination of the idea tangible, not just talk.
 
Decoud,

fist off all I have no interest to become audio industry professional and to call an army idiots out there as my colleges.

Second, I am not sure that the idea of Generic DSET is a viable idea. You see, if you read the debate at the Brit site above then you will see that there was a gentleman in there who build amplification and then match his acoustic system to his amps. I very much disagree to his approach and in fact it serve great deserves to the whole DSET notion. The whole idea of DSET is that an amp address need of the given speaker canal  not only serve a given frequency range. The inversion that this Brit buy suggest is very faulty. I think the right playback design sequence is following
1) Appraisal of listening space and choosing the an acoustic system topology that would be suitable for the given listening space.

2) Proposing and real-estate testing the acoustic system details
3) Implementing the acoustic system with full-range amplification
4) Proposing DSET configuration and altering the acoustic system details with regard of DSET capacity.
5) Implementation of DSET and fine-tuning the acoustic system and DSET details.

I do think that thinking about amplification and a beginning of everything in playback is kind of "wrong", to say the least.
Rgs, Romy
 


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-02-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
decoud
United Kingdom
Posts 241
Joined on 03-01-2008

Post #: 38
Post ID: 20930
Reply to: 20929
Point vs profit
fiogf49gjkf0d

The model here is not that of the audio industry but of contemporary art.  You have spent years refining the physical instantiation of a compelling idea. A patron now wants a piece of it. You have a workshop of assistants to make it for you, at some cost. You do not market it, you do not change it to suit other people, it is subject to no constraint but your own idea, just as it would be for a sculptor. You do it not to make money, but to make your legacy tangible.
Note also that what I am suggesting is not a generic DSET but a basic Macondo with a Melq built in, including the pre-amp cross over. So the beginning is the specific set of channels, not the amplification. Of the variables you list therefore only the room remains an unknown. Well, at this level of play the buyer shall adjust his room for you. 
06-02-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 225
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 39
Post ID: 20931
Reply to: 20930
Turn Macondo/DSET into DIY?
fiogf49gjkf0d
I think the problem starts when we short circuit the process. It is easy enough to sell "the Best" of anything and still get mediocre results. If we are looking for a modular approach to DSET/speaker, then the results are also best guess because there is no real formula for success. The "conductor" of the "audio orchestra" needs to earn their baton before real "results" are possible.

If we look at what gets sold commercially, the opportunities to do it right are there, but are either raped/dead before the product gets to market or not accepted once it does. I think that even although Romys Macondo/Mélquiades are custom made, they are very much Anti DIY and VERY personal.

If we look at what the market in the "Macondo" range (front loaded horn, acoustically phase alignable, at least 4 way) is doing we find: Cessaro, Musique Concrète and perhaps one or two others. Sure there is plenty of room for more solutions, but the real solution - the educated consumer, generally runs away when confronted with "no choice". For those that are convinced, Romy has given away the technical blueprint. The solution is not even necessarily expensive - but how many really do it? To be honest, I am convinced that Jeffery Jackson is doing exactly this - when asked. I am not sure how many Applied Audio installations he really has - or how many are unfortunately only design statements (with the opportunity to sound great unused by the owner!).

I believe there is enough room in this world for another Jeffery Jackson. Whether or not that person will kill themselves out of frustration after 5 years in the market, I don't know. I see great opportunity for the worst.............


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
06-02-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 40
Post ID: 20932
Reply to: 20931
Yes, it is so.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 rowuk wrote:
I think the problem starts when we short circuit the process. It is easy enough to sell "the Best" of anything and still get mediocre results. If we are looking for a modular approach to DSET/speaker, then the results are also best guess because there is no real formula for success. The "conductor" of the "audio orchestra" needs to earn their baton before real "results" are possible.

Very truthful observation.   For sure there is a formula for success - to be somebody, to have identify of what you want and integrity to discriminate difference between your objective and random results that 99.999% of all audio people get. The problem is that "to be somebody" is not saleable or buyable commodity and neither DSET or any other topology would help.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 3 (42 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Ultimate HF output transformer?..  Leads to further air core heads...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     7  70776  07-14-2005
  »  New  Lamm Industries: a special interview with a special com..  I do not think so but I migh be wrong....  Audio News Forum     94  925139  09-18-2005
  »  New  5 Channel Version of Melquiades..  Very easy....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     21  165119  07-23-2006
  »  New  The most promising “best” commercial speaker..  Viva Audio...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     190  1256564  12-06-2006
  »  New  About destiny of “High-End Sound”...  Got today via email....  Playback Listening  Forum     6  44780  01-19-2007
  »  New  6 Channel Version of Super Melquiades..  The first Milq screw up....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     131  860802  08-08-2007
  »  New  Output transformer for bass-channel of Super Melquiades..  The Super Milq bass channel loading correction...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  27709  08-17-2007
  »  New  Devid Berning amplifiers: the anti-trnsformers frenzy?..  What is a "pulse converter" that you have a q...  Audio Discussions  Forum     45  297523  09-23-2007
  »  New  NAT Audio Magna -160 Watts of Single-Ended Class A..  The KR Audio ways....  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  49442  11-12-2007
  »  New  All Active! A DSET and multi-way acoustic system...  Hahaha...  Audio Discussions  Forum     14  79527  01-31-2008
  »  New  The loudspeakers for a powerful SET..  Mission Accomplished?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     48  283785  04-11-2008
  »  New  Dual channel SET..  Space exploration...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  55062  04-17-2008
  »  New  Incorporating active crossovers into DSET..  Thanks...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  29717  07-22-2008
  »  New  The DSET perspective examines the Herb Reichert article..  Are you still in Reutlingen, Germany?...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     5  66707  07-01-2009
  »  New  Think ahead how to measure the DSETs gain...  The calibration mode is for DSETs not for SET....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     2  18495  09-17-2009
  »  New  All Active! A DSET and multi-way acoustic system...  Hahaha...  Audio Discussions  Forum     14  79527  01-31-2008
  »  New  About DSET-driven multi-way acoustic system maintenance..  About DSET-driven multi-way acoustic system maintenance...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     0  17730  11-01-2009
  »  New  Thomas Mayer’s Triamp..  It is much more then juts "properly calculated and...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  25141  03-03-2010
  »  New  LF Amplifier in biamping...  DSET is tricky....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     10  51757  08-05-2005
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts