BBE Sonic Maximizer-what the hell?
Frankie Myers
sounds to me like it's a bunch of bullshit. Does it actually work? What
does it sound like? Are there any of these units that work (Aural
Exciter,etc.)
Dan Popp
I've used the Aphex and the BBE units. They both work. They're two very
different kinds of processing, of course. The Aural Exciter is creating
harmonics that don't exist and the BBE is altering the arrival times of
different parts of the spectrum. The BBE sounds more like EQ. The Exciter is
something you have to hear. Both are dangerous. It is *far* too easy to use
"too much" of either, and you can usually EQ your way to a similar result. Do
I really have to say that these are merely opinions?
Yours,
Dan Popp
Colors Audio
USA
Tonebarge
making something stand out in the mix without using EQ or more gain. YMMV
TB
2DJVENGAC
>
> What exactly is a BBE Sonic maximizer. I mean, I've never heard one, but it
> sounds to me like it's a bunch of bullshit. Does it actually work? What
> does it sound like? Are there any of these units that work (Aural
> Exciter,etc.)
descendants of teh APHEX AURAL EXCITER, this and all such boxes do
'sometihng' to teh audio that goes thru them to give it a more
'present' sound. THey di this in different ways, from very controlled
extreme upper end eq/dynamic twaeaking to overdriveing certain regions
of the spoectrum just enough in such a way that your ear likes it a
little better.
You mustlisten to them carefully to see if the effect ois something you
like on your mix.
Scott Dorsey
>What exactly is a BBE Sonic maximizer. I mean, I've never heard one, but it
>sounds to me like it's a bunch of bullshit. Does it actually work? What
>does it sound like? Are there any of these units that work (Aural
>Exciter,etc.)
The BBE and the Aphex both generate high order harmonics, mostly even
harmonics. This distortion makes things sound brighter. The BBE and
the Aphex sound different because they have different distortion
characteristics even though they have the same principle. The BBE is
a bit more subtle and easily controlled, but the Aphex can be used for
a very over-the-top disco sound.
Do they work? Well, they make things brighter. If you have poorly
recorded material with no top end, they can help salvage it. If you
have normal material that you want screechy and shimmery, they can do
that too. Very seventies kind of sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
schuyler
exciter has an internal side chain that derives third harmonic distortion from
the program material and mixes it back in with the original signal for increased
intelligibility or "presence" effect. The BBE "Sonic Maximizer" (nyuk nyuk), is
actually a circuit that was designed to compensate for phase non-linearities
arising from the imperfect load characteristics of moving coil loudspeakers;
their circuits employ the use of a simulated inductive load, however, so the
design approach is not entirely effective with regard to their original intent.
Both BBE Sonic Maximizer and the Aphex Aural Exciter should be thought of as
black boxes that effect signal coloration, either harmonic distortion or phase
shift, as mentioned, and in a highly subjective way. Use youre ears to judge!
The gist of it is that no, the BBE is not "bull shit" at all; it's a legitimate
and marvelously engineered circuit, although their marketing approach is
rightfully seen as being dubious. Why don't they just come out and tell you what
it really does? Because they figured nobody would buy it that way, and they're
probably right! :-)
schuyler
The U.S. Patent (drawings and text) for both Aural Exciter and BBE Sonic Maximizer
are available on the IBM Patent Server for those who want a more detailed technical
explanation. Just jot down the patent number on the backs of the units and enter
them into the search engine. :-)
DavidP
>exciter has an internal side chain that derives third harmonic distortion
>from
>the program material and mixes it back in with the original signal for
>increased
>intelligibility or "presence" effect.
So, what you're saying is that the more transistor (3rd harmonic) distortion I
add to the signal, the more intelligible it will be? You should be in
marketing.
>The gist of it is that no, the BBE is not "bull shit" at all; it's a
>legitimate
>and marvelously engineered circuit, although their marketing approach is
>rightfully seen as being dubious. Why don't they just come out and tell you
>what
>it really does?
LISTEN (isn't that our job as engineers?) What it really does is a very mild
chorus effect. Maybe it's a wee bit more complex that a REV7, but not much.
Try a stereo detune of +6to8 cents on one side and -6to8 on the other. Stop
wasting your money on such crap and learn to use the boxes you have.
Captain Analogue
Rich Holler
maximizer manipulates the various freq ranges of the incoming signal
so that they all arrive *at the speaker* at the same time. So I've
always considered them to be a unit that makes my *speakers* sound and
perform better, and should have nothing to do with the material being
fed to them.
In other words, they really shouldn't be used as an "effect" but
rather as a "finished signal" processor (similar to how a crossover is
used -- you don't record from the crossover outputs, do ya?).
But I've only used them on a live SR system... I'm not sure I'd want
to use them in the signal path for recording.
-----
Rich Holler, bass player
Darrel Young & The Last Stage West
http://www.bandsites.com/lsw/
Scott Dorsey
schuyler <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>It's entirely different from the Aural Exciter. No resemblance. The aural
>exciter has an internal side chain that derives third harmonic distortion from
>the program material and mixes it back in with the original signal for increased
>actually a circuit that was designed to compensate for phase non-linearities
>arising from the imperfect load characteristics of moving coil loudspeakers;
>their circuits employ the use of a simulated inductive load, however, so the
>design approach is not entirely effective with regard to their original intent.
That's what the manual says, but I notice that if you put a pure tone into
the thing, the spectrum that results sure looks like large amounts of even
harmonics are being generated.
They can say all they want about it being a device that introduces group
delay, but I know what group delay sounds like and that's not it.
Scott Dorsey
>
>So, what you're saying is that the more transistor (3rd harmonic) distortion I
>add to the signal, the more intelligible it will be? You should be in
>marketing.
No, to a great extent that is the case. There are a lot of communications
microphones out there that are deliberately designed with certain
nonlinear distortion characteristics to help the voice come across better
on a poor quality radio channel. The old Turners are a good example of
a combination of odd-harmonic distortion and extreme mechanical limiting
that combine to make better intelligibility of consonants over the radio.
Of course, you sound like a Cylon warrior rather than a human being, but
when you're a police officer getting shot at, voice intellibility can be
much more of an issue than naturality.
Ty Ford
<franki...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What exactly is a BBE Sonic maximizer. I mean, I've never heard one, but it
>sounds to me like it's a bunch of bullshit. Does it actually work? What
>does it sound like? Are there any of these units that work (Aural
>Exciter,etc.)
>
>
The late 80's and early 90's spawned a lot of these sorts of things. I
reviewed one of the BBE boxes and, while it's probably not on my site, I
remember it as being sold as a box that changed the time alignment of the
low and high frequencies so that the highs came out a bit earlier. That
seemed to brighten the sound a bit, depending on how much you used.
The Aphex Aural exciter was a circuit that resulted from a malfunctioning
circuit in one channel of an amp section in a console. By itself, it sounded
like crap, mono-ed together with teh other chennel they actually liked the
sound. It is a combination of 10k shelving and harmonics that brighten the
sound. Adding too much is very easy. The best approach on all of these boxes
is never to commit to a setting when your ears are tired and add only enough
so that you miss it when you take it away, but hardly haer it when you kick
it back in.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's equipment reviews and V/O files can be found at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Chris G.
problems which can result in a clearer mix. I used to have a BBE 462 that I
was borrowing, and while on some mixes it didn't to a hell of alot, on other
mixes it would do wonders by tightening up the bass frequencies giving a
definite improvement to the mix. The danger is in the Hi frequency knob
which often is badly abused. Boosting that too much results in the "nails
on chalkboard" effect. But if you lay off on that and don't boost it too
much (along with not going nuts with the Lo frequency control) it can often
beef up a mix nicely. I'll probably pick up a newer model eventually,
although I really wish they made a direct-X plugin version for PC's as I
usually do all my mixing within my computer.
Chris G.
Rich Holler <rho...@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:OSmUOH8CZEDfO1...@4ax.com...
hank alrich
> >What exactly is a BBE Sonic maximizer. I mean, I've never heard one, but it
> >sounds to me like it's a bunch of bullshit.
How can it "sound to you" anything at all, if you _have never heard it_?
Seeing the threads you've started and the tone of this one, I must ask
you if you just discovered the trade magazines? A BBE Sonic Maximizer is
a tool kind of like a bandaid. Sometimes it can help stem the bleeding.
Most times it just sticks to the skin and makes a mess.
Trade magazines are not recording studios, nor equipment, nor music.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
schuyler
Well, Scott's opinions aren't exactly unsolicited here, even if you don't agree
with him. He's right on about a lot of stuff. Don't give him such a hard time :-)
Schuyler
hank alrich
> Hee hee...
>
> Well, Scott's opinions aren't exactly unsolicited here, even if you don't
> agree with him. He's right on about a lot of stuff. Don't give him such a
> hard time :-)
>
> Schuyler
Uhh, Schuyler? Please note the text of my reply, which while having been
linked to Scott's post, picked up at FM's beginning post, since I only
came into this thread when I saw Scott's reply to the original. Here's
how my post began:
_____________________
BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
Frankie Myers <franki...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >What exactly is a BBE Sonic maximizer. I mean, I've never heard one, but it
> >sounds to me like it's a bunch of bullshit.
How can it "sound to you" anything at all, if you _have never heard it_?
<snip>
END QUOTED MATERIAL
_____________________
See there? What I want to know is how Frankie can say _"sounds to me"_
when he states outright that he's never heard it? I thinks that's kind
of confuseritating. Maybe he was reading a talking magazine.
schuyler
of this stuff too seriously, heh heh...
Your post makes it 'sound like' you were taking Frankie literally. Was he speaking
figuratively? Do people think in metaphors?
Schuyler
> Uhh, Schuyler? Please note the text of my reply, which while having been
> linked to Scott's post, picked up at FM's beginning post, since I only
> came into this thread when I saw Scott's reply to the original. Here's
schuyler
The military funded a truck load of private research in this area and yes, it was
determined that distortion of a very specific nature was indeed conducive to
inceased inteligibility. That's essentially how the Aural Exciter idea originated:
A communications research spin off.
Schuyler
> >The aural
> >exciter has an internal side chain that derives third harmonic distortion
> >from
> >the program material and mixes it back in with the original signal for
> >increased
> >intelligibility or "presence" effect.
>
> So, what you're saying is that the more transistor (3rd harmonic) distortion I
> add to the signal, the more intelligible it will be? You should be in
> marketing.
> >The gist of it is that no, the BBE is not "bull shit" at all; it's a
> >legitimate
> >and marvelously engineered circuit, although their marketing approach is
> >rightfully seen as being dubious. Why don't they just come out and tell you
> >what
> >it really does?
>
> LISTEN (isn't that our job as engineers?) What it really does is a very mild
> chorus effect.
The BbE a chorus effect? Well, phase shift yes... But there's no LFO modulation
and the phase shift is frequency dependent, which is definitely not the case with
a chorus... The BBE is a different animal.
> Maybe it's a wee bit more complex that a REV7, but not much.
It's actually a very simple, elegant circuit; you should check it out! I'll see
if I can borrow a scanner and post the schematic; it's pretty neat!
Schuyler
schuyler
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ach is not entirely effective with regard to their original intent.
>
> That's what the manual says, but I notice that if you put a pure tone into
> the thing, the spectrum that results sure looks like large amounts of even
> harmonics are being generated.
>
> They can say all they want about it being a device that introduces group
> delay, but I know what group delay sounds like and that's not it.
> --scott
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
schuyler
> chorus effect.
The BbE a chorus effect? Well, phase shift yes... But there's no LFO modulation
and the phase shift is frequency dependent, which is definitely not the case
with
a chorus... The BBE is a different animal.
> Maybe it's a wee bit more complex that a REV7, but not much.
It's actually a very simple, elegant circuit; you should check it out! I'll see
if I can borrow a scanner and post the schematic...
Schuyler
hank alrich
> Does your schematic include the innards of the 'special modules',one per
> channel.?
> Every time I see something like this,pretending to be TOP SECRET and
> wildly esoteric,I think: "yeah,I bet it's just three 4558's, three
> transistors and some resistors".
You forgot the hamster.
> So I get one in that's gone down,burrow into a module with my nasty
> chemicals and what do I find.........
That's not "borough"? I hope to gawdawful it's not "burro". (Hey,
Novak... nevermind.)
> Mmmmmmm......sounds lovely.
Yes, when it does. When it doesn't, well, it doesn't. Saved the premixed
drum tracks three times now in only half-a-decade. But it _was_
inexpensive. Some bandaids are worth a coupla hundred bucks, 'long as I
don't have to buy 'em too often.
BTW, are you Blake or his former assistant? Is he not so sharp with the
crossbow afterall?
schuyler
> Does your schematic include the innards of the 'special modules',one per
> channel.?
> Every time I see something like this,pretending to be TOP SECRET and
> wildly esoteric,I think: "yeah,I bet it's just three 4558's, three
> transistors and some resistors".
> So I get one in that's gone down,burrow into a module with my nasty
> chemicals and what do I find.........
> Mmmmmmm......sounds lovely.
>
> Blakey Boy.
Oh brother :-)
There's nothing "top secret" about it...
Here's the URL for the IBM patent server:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/
Here's the patent number for the BBE Sonic Maximizer:
4,482,866
Here's the patent number for the Aphex Aural Exciter:
4,150,253
One of the previous patents upon which the idea for the Aural Exciter
depends: 3,755,626
Please note that neither of these documents will refer to the "Exciter" or
the "Maximizer" as these are merely names that were used for marketing
purposes. The patented design for the BBE is referred to a "reference load
amplifier correction system." The Aphex patent is referenced as "signal
distortion circuit and method of use."
BBE Sonic Maximizer:
"A system which corrects for adverse characteristics such as reactance,
inertia and resonances of a power amplifier driven load such as a speaker or
multiple speaker system. Program voltage is applied to a reference load
which has electrical characteristics that simulate characteristics of the
reference load, and the response of the reference load to the program is
used to develop
a correction voltage signal for the driven load. The program and the
correction voltage signal are simultaneously applied to the power amplifier
to simultaneously reproduce the program and correct for the adverse
characteristics of the load."
There's a marvelously written text that follows, which provides an easy to
understand explanation, for those with a modest electronics or physics
background
Have fun!
Schuyler
ma...@greatlinfordmanor.com
king...@my-deja.com
schuyler <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
I run my LP's through a BBE 422A on the way to the CD-burner. Goes a
long way toward making up for the years of abuse by my family's old
Magnavox "Hi-Fi" (can you say "nail on a stick"?). :-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I run my LP's through a BBE 422A on the way to the CD-burner. Goes a
>long way toward making up for the years of abuse by my family's old
>Magnavox "Hi-Fi" (can you say "nail on a stick"?). :-)
Seems to me that would just make the tracking distortion more offensive.
You considered a van den Hul?
ma...@greatlinfordmanor.com
Only kidding!Sorry for messing up your chance of decent commission,but I
don't find modern 1U boxes that exiting.
Blakey Boy.
kingart88
klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Seems to me that would just make the tracking distortion more
offensive.
> You considered a van den Hul?
I'm using an Audio Technica 8008 cartridge that features a "Linear
Contact" stylus that (supposedly) reads deeper into the groove, similar
to a van den Hul stylus. It sounds great on its own, and I have done
some LP-to-CD transfers without any outboard processing that sound
great. But, when I remembered that I had the 422A sitting idle in my
studio, I wonder "what if", and hooked it up. I was pleasantly
surprised with what I heard.
I suppose that the BBE process would tend to accentuate tracking
distortion, but I have the 422A set to very gently process the signal --
Lo-contour and Definition controls set to the 12-o'clock position (no
boost or cut), and the process control set to "auto". It very
definitely adds "clarity" to the sound of my old LP's. It takes away
the "mush" in the lower-mids, makes the lows "fuller and tighter" (not
boomy), and accentuates the highs, but doesn't make them "sizzle".
The effect may not sound great to everyone, but it was just the thing
that my old LP's needed to sound really great to my ears, which
unfortunately, have gotten used to that "CD" sound. I'm happy.
Scott Dorsey
> klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that would just make the tracking distortion more
>offensive.
>> You considered a van den Hul?
>
>I'm using an Audio Technica 8008 cartridge that features a "Linear
>Contact" stylus that (supposedly) reads deeper into the groove, similar
>to a van den Hul stylus. It sounds great on its own, and I have done
>some LP-to-CD transfers without any outboard processing that sound
>great. But, when I remembered that I had the 422A sitting idle in my
>studio, I wonder "what if", and hooked it up. I was pleasantly
>surprised with what I heard.
Yeah, the 8008 should do the trick, though it doesn't track as well
as the better A-T cartridges. It's still going to be pretty good about
older, worn material. One thing you can do is fiddle with the VTA for
best high end; sometimes the adjustment that gives you the best stereo
imaging doesn't give you the most detail on badly damaged records.
>I suppose that the BBE process would tend to accentuate tracking
>distortion, but I have the 422A set to very gently process the signal --
>Lo-contour and Definition controls set to the 12-o'clock position (no
>boost or cut), and the process control set to "auto". It very
>definitely adds "clarity" to the sound of my old LP's. It takes away
>the "mush" in the lower-mids, makes the lows "fuller and tighter" (not
>boomy), and accentuates the highs, but doesn't make them "sizzle".
I'm really paranoid about this kind of thing, you may have noticed.
>The effect may not sound great to everyone, but it was just the thing
>that my old LP's needed to sound really great to my ears, which
>unfortunately, have gotten used to that "CD" sound. I'm happy.
That's what matters, when it all comes down to it.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
schuyler <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:38965CAB...@mail.utexas.edu...
> ma...@greatlinfordmanor.com wrote:
>
>
> There's nothing "top secret" about it...
>
>
> Here's the URL for the IBM patent server:
> http://www.patents.ibm.com/
>
>
> Here's the patent number for the BBE Sonic Maximizer:
> 4,482,866
>
>
> Here's the patent number for the Aphex Aural Exciter:
> 4,150,253
>
>
> One of the previous patents upon which the idea for the Aural Exciter
> depends: 3,755,626
>
>
> "A system which corrects for adverse characteristics such as reactance,
> inertia and resonances of a power amplifier driven load such as a speaker
or
> multiple speaker system. Program voltage is applied to a reference load
> which has electrical characteristics that simulate characteristics of the
> reference load, and the response of the reference load to the program is
> used to develop
> a correction voltage signal for the driven load. The program and the
> correction voltage signal are simultaneously applied to the power
amplifier
> to simultaneously reproduce the program and correct for the adverse
> characteristics of the load."
I just read the patent and it is interesting. This is actually an adaptive
filter of the "instrumental variable" type. The principal is not wrong, but
there is a limit on how well the reference load resembles the overall signal
path. The patent shows a simple RLC filter with adjustments. Most of the
signal path from microphone to speaker is linear, and so a very accurate
reference load is in principle possible. This type of idea is used for many
sorts of system identification and adaptive control systems.
But the problem is that in the case of audio application what a very
accurate reference load would do is essentially produce the sound of a very
accurate transducer located very close to the sound source. Not unlike the
difference between miking an acoustic guitar and taking the signal from an
undersaddle transducer. I guess it's no surprise that Barcus Berry came up
with it.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Schuyler
going on out there in the load/ transducer. There are all kinds of crazy patents
for servo-like feedback loops to effect improvement of system response, but none
of them are very practical. The Barcus Berry idea is neat, but it doesn't really
work in terms of it's original intent. Maybe such an approach would be of more
practical use if one employed a digital model of the load, something that's
driver or system specific that you could program into the simulated
load/correction circuit? Even then, it would still only be a simulation. Better
to improve on the design of the load/transducer's themselves, aye? Self powered,
time aligned near field monitors have come a long way, but we're still dealing
with moving coil, permanent magnet, conical or domed drivers... Seems like we've
been stuck on this technological plateau for a long time now... Heck, the
earliest loudspeakers date back to the 1920's and the earliest U.S. patent for
'direct radiator' moving coil loudspeakers is what, over fifty years old now?
I'll have to look it up, but I think that's close.
Hey, have you heard about the sound projection technique involving the direction
of a column of ultrasound toward the object you want it to sound like it's
emanating from, then using some kind of heterodyning process (between two
carriers) to produce audible byproduct? I'd like to find the patent for that,
but I haven't had time to search lately... It would be interesting to read I
think. :-)
Schuyler
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Schuyler <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:389E821D...@mail.utexas.edu...
> The Barcus Berry idea is neat, but it doesn't really
> work in terms of it's original intent.
That's true of almost every piece of gear that's old enough.
> Maybe such an approach would be of more
> practical use if one employed a digital model of the load, something
that's
> driver or system specific that you could program into the simulated
> load/correction circuit?
If you wanted an accurate load model, there's lots of ways to do that.
Sending a known signal through the load and measuring would do.
> Better to improve on the design of the load/transducer's themselves, aye?
Not in many applications. Really good loads can be expensive. And if you get
a "magic load" (i.e. signal path) there's the problem of wanting to get the
"other" magic load. Synthesizing the magic loads under computer control
makes it a lot more likely that you can get the ones you want in a box.
> Self powered,
> time aligned near field monitors have come a long way, but we're still
dealing
> with moving coil, permanent magnet, conical or domed drivers... Seems like
we've
> been stuck on this technological plateau for a long time now...
Electrically steered phased arrays are used in many other applications for
this sort of stuff. I don't really know why they haven't come up in audio
yet.
> Hey, have you heard about the sound projection technique involving the
direction
> of a column of ultrasound toward the object you want it to sound like it's
> emanating from, then using some kind of heterodyning process (between two
> carriers) to produce audible byproduct?
No. I expect that is essentially the reverse of the old microwave
illumination trick used for half a century in bugging, e.g. the notorious
"Great Seal" bug. And explanation of that particular one is to be found in
Peter Wright's _Spycatcher_. It's probably explained elsewhere but that's
one place to find it.
This sort of trick also crops up in photo-acoustic infrared spectroscopy,
although there the measured sound is used to determine the composition of
the surface layers of the object.
> I'd like to find the patent for that,
> but I haven't had time to search lately... It would be interesting to read
I
> think. :-)
Try the synthetic aperture stuff. Now that you can buy for $30 a chip that
can do a Gigaflop and draws 450 mA, the processing power is no longer any
objection to phased arrays.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
mjgu...@faa-engineers.com
Schuyler <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Better to improve on the design of the load/transducer's themselves,
aye?
> time aligned near field monitors have come a long way, but we're still
dealing
> with moving coil, permanent magnet, conical or domed drivers... Seems
like we've
the
> earliest loudspeakers date back to the 1920's and the earliest U.S.
patent for
> 'direct radiator' moving coil loudspeakers is what, over fifty years
old now?
> I'll have to look it up, but I think that's close.
>
direction
> of a column of ultrasound toward the object you want it to sound like
it's
> emanating from, then using some kind of heterodyning process (between
two
for that,
> but I haven't had time to search lately... It would be interesting to
read I
> think. :-)
>
What about ESL's (ElectroStatic Loudspeakers)? I've been reading a bit
on these, and they sound rather interesting - especially for a DIYer
like me. (OT question: Would it be wise to use these in a studio as
monitors?)
I've also read about some sort of plasma tweeter(?) Apparently the
electrical field directly manipulates a charged region of air - no more
weighty drivers in the way.
I'm not sure either one of these would be safe with small children/pets
around though. ZAP!
Matt Gundry
Scott Dorsey
>
>What about ESL's (ElectroStatic Loudspeakers)? I've been reading a bit
>on these, and they sound rather interesting - especially for a DIYer
>like me. (OT question: Would it be wise to use these in a studio as
>monitors?)
Monte uses them. I use planars, although not ESLs. Turns out that building
good ESLs is nontrivial, although my ex's husband is currently writing a
book on the subject.
>I've also read about some sort of plasma tweeter(?) Apparently the
>electrical field directly manipulates a charged region of air - no more
>weighty drivers in the way.
Yes, I saw one of these (the Ionophone) at a Stereophile show once. I
think the idea is very silly.
>I'm not sure either one of these would be safe with small children/pets
>around though. ZAP!
The ESL is pretty current limited. A good friend of mine had his cat
urinate on one of his Quads. The cat was uninjured, but won't do that
again. And the Quad isn't as current-limited as it ought to be (which
is partly why it has arcing problems when overdriven).
Schuyler
to work either way, input or output transducer... You'll be able to set up a
particular voice in the mix at any location in the room. BTW, have you read much
about time reversed acoustics yet? I wonder if such experiments will lead to any
practical recreational type audio applications?
> > Hey, have you heard about the sound projection technique involving the
> direction
> > of a column of ultrasound toward the object you want it to sound like it's
> > emanating from, then using some kind of heterodyning process (between two
> > carriers) to produce audible byproduct?
>
> No. I expect that is essentially the reverse of the old microwave
> illumination trick used for half a century in bugging, e.g. the notorious
> "Great Seal" bug. And explanation of that particular one is to be found in
> Peter Wright's _Spycatcher_. It's probably explained elsewhere but that's
> one place to find it.
The technique I was referring to doesn't involve electromagnetic radiation, but
acoustic radiation, i.e. ultrasonic transducers, or maybe you were just making
an analogy? Anyway, one of the problems they're having is limited low frequency
response, relatively high levels of distortion, and the real zinger: Very
inefficient; apparently it takes enough energy to make this ultrasound
carrier/Heterodyn demodulation scheme work, that it's actually creating a lot of
heat, perhaps even on the cusp of being a health hazard if one is intersected by
the ultrasonic column? They'll probably find some nifty application, though it
may have nothing to do with music.
Schuyler
Schuyler
great! They're a lot less efficient than conventional moving coil types
though, and they're relatively expensive.
Electrostatics remind me of hydrogen fuel cells a little, though they're not
as exotic of course. But it's that way with many technologies. Some really
neat stuff I've read about over the years has never out of the laboratory.
Fuel cells are remarkable energy converters/power plants that should replace
internal combustion, fossil fuel powered ones. There's already a great deal
of R&D going into their development. It'd be nice if a breakthrough would
occur before our finite reserves of fossil fuels become much more costly to
extract. Also, if a more practical fuel cell were developed, our country
wouldn't be so dependent on the Middle East for inexpensive fuel. Anway,
from what little I've read, fuel cells haven't caught on because the best
known catalyst for the small, light engines that would be suitable for
automobiles, is expensive! (platinum). We may see hydrogen fuel cells in
domestic use in the not too distant future though.
Hope there's no one out there who has the next big break through speaker
design, but the transducer has to be made out of platinum! :-)
Schuyler
Schuyler
I've seen ads for kits... Commercial versions are too rich for my taste. I'd
rather buy a pair of state of the art NFM's, though I've heard planars are much
more enjoyable for the living room type of deal, as opposed to using them for
critical listening.