DIY audio folks are an independent and variegated lot- given to passion, strong opinions. and heartfelt beliefs, all of which drive the unusual efforts to which they'll go in order to develop and build their latest love and creation.
There's been a surprising amount of discussion, some pretty heated, about the idea of copying or "Kloning" commercial designs, versus doing an "original" DIY design. Some folks have some pretty strong opinions, and aren't afraid to share them, about what the "right" thing to do for DIY is, and the "wrong" things to do.
Frankly, when the discussion veers in this direction, I think it's getting a little too close to DIY "religion" for my comfort (separate the heretics from the true believers? ).
But let's explore and discuss some of these concepts and ideas together- let's talk about copying commercial designs, or "Kloning" a popular speaker (not the same thing, at "Klone Audio"! ). And let's consider how original "original" designs are- and perhaps discuss the difference between "commerical" DIY designs, and "amateur" DIY designs (I could play devil's advocate and suggest that "commerical" DIY is a wolf in sheeps clothing, and "amateur" DIY is "True Religion", but we've already agreed to abandon that metaphor.... haven't we?
(and perhaps we shouldn't mention those who get highly perturbed by ThomasW's and my site, "Klone-Audio" - I guess there's a certain number of people out there who don't understand tongue in cheek very well - life's too short not to have some fun with it- that or our sense of humor is a little too dry at times. Like my British girlfriend).
I have a very hectic schedule of travel coming up for the company over the next few months, so I'm not even going to attempt some kind of "dissertation" about this. I'd like to throw out some thoughts and tentative definitions, but just to get the ball rolling, and see if any of the spaghetti sticks to the wall.... or will it just be on my face? :LOL:
Copying Commerical Designs
There are a few well known projects out there on the web, where the clear avocation is to reproduce as closely as possible, or as closely as feasible within certain budget limitations, the look, sound, and general performance of a well known commercial design. Two of the best known examples that come to mind are Thorsten Loesch's Watt Puppy/ David-Jerico project, and the Proac 2.5 clones. Thorsten's project is interesting reading and very well documented.
In this type of project, a strong effort is made to understand and unravel the thinking behind the original design, so that a significant portion of the performance can be achieved by the home contructor, less the markup and expense which the original incurs at retail.
The reality is that this is fairly hard to do, both becuase of the paucity of relaible information for most commercial designs, plus the factor that the manufacturer invests in a lot of tooling and processes which may contribute significantly to the quality and performance of the design, and which is amortized over the construction of a large number of speakers. For the home constructer, this isn't practical, and so either a great deal more labor may be required, or the actual construction quality may suffer in comparison with the commercial product.
If you don't think this is the case, (remember, we're talking high end for the moment, not reproducing $1K a pair commercial bookshelfs), just take a look at the construction of a Wilson Watt/Puppy, or an Avalon Eidelon, or a Sonus Faber Anything! (new model Lex hasn't heard of yet - just a general comment on their construction techniques). Many DIY constructors will do some amazing things, but this certainly becomes a labor of love.
In the effort to copy designs, I've even read about hobbyists securing impedance plots of the commerical speakers, and compariing them with the plots of the copies, as an aid in reverse engineering.
"Kloning Designs"
Unlike the biological/genetic equivalent, Thomas and I are not into exact copying, or "cloning". We do think it's an interesting exercise to try to get under the skin and understand the thinking of the designer of an interesting speaker- and also to try to understand why that speaker has the positive impact on music in some specific manners, in spite of sometimes otherwise having some significant flaws.
For an example of a speaker system which was highly regarded but in my opinion DEFINITELY fell within the "flawed" category, consider the Eggleston Works Andra- speaker of the year at Sterophile, but incapable of flat axial response anywhere in front of it for 1 to 2 meters, and only possesed of smooth response in the far field reverberent response... you can get a lot of details about that system in the archives at Stereophile, if you don't have the original review lying around.
Well known speakers which did spark our interest are the Legacy Whispers (a large dipole system), and the Wilson Audio X1. You can read about the genesis of ThomasW's Whisper "Klone's" here
and a write up about the X1 project here:
Though going into this project I was well aware of some fundamental issues with the X1 design layout, including the diffraction issues with the top module, nonetheless, having heard the real Wilson X1's, and having a fair amount of suitable parts on hand that could be suitable for a revised version, I just couldn't resist trying my hand at it.
Basically, the Devil made me do it.
I could go down a long list of areas where I had specific knowledge of the Wilson design, and where I made alternative choices. Many are documented in the article. Perhaps those choices were better in some cases, perhaps not, but in all regards they were my choices, whether we're talking the order and cofiguration of the midrange to tweeter crossover, the active electronics crossover with LF room balance control (which Wilson obviously doesn't have with an all passive crossover), and so forth. Lacking in orginality? Well, that's in the eye the beholder, and since the only person I was trying to please was myself, it's really a non issue.
Then, there's a lot of true creativity out there in DIY land, many unusual cabinet designs, unusual crossover configurations, etc.
And there's also a lot of pretty standard designs out there. I couldn't begin to count how many 6-1/2" / 7" two ways there are, MT or MTM (individually designed, or "DIY" designs marketed by small companies or individuals). But I laud and salute every one who builds there own speakers and enjoys the fruits of there labor...
But how original are these designs? Why are some of the folks doing such designs so vocal about deriding a modified Legacy Whisper design- an undertaking requiring a huge amount of effort and committment on several levels? Are they more original than an adaptation of the X1 or Watt/Puppy configuration? If so, how? I'm challenging a discussion to be started- how do YOU see this, and why? And just how important is "originality" to DIY speaker construction?
If you own a copy of the AES Speaker anthology books, especially the first two, you'll see that a lot of what is being done in DIY speakers is based on the work of others that has been around not for years, but for decades. Think about when the first two way speaker was built... the first acoustic suspension designs.... the first electrostatics introduced by Quad (1957!)... etc. We literally all stand on the shoulders of giants, but I also don't think it in any way demeans the effort and work that those less gifted, but still hardworking and passionate put into building their own systems.
Let's look at some popular concepts in modern speakers.
Dipole line source speakers? Owned my first pair in 1976, courtesey of Jim Winey and his company's products.
D'Apollito array (MTM, WMTMW)? How about 1977, when we assembled a Levinson HQD array, which with the inverted Quad 57 ESL stack with a Decca Ribbon tweeter formed a three way panel array WMTMW.
Linear phase pulse perfect speakers? We built our first speaker capable of reproducing a square wave impulse on axis in 1977. MB tweeter, Audax dome mid, Audax 8. An improved version used an Audax 6-1/2 instead of the 8, with a custom Eminence woofer.
Transmission line loaded speakers? Built a four way speaker capable of strong 25 Hz in room response with a 10" woofer in 1973. It wasn't a rig for SET amps, though- it liked Phase Linear 400's and 700's. A later design with Philips woofers and Celstion mids could be content with a "mere" 50-100 watts per channel.
Lots of other folks doing similar things in those days, of course.
So, something I'd like to throw open for discussion, is just what DOES or DOESN"T constitute an "original" DIY design (though distinguishing between DIY and commerical is sort of arbitrary, isn't it?)
And is a DIY design really DIY when it's developed for sale by someone to customers, and not provided gratis? It's sounding to me like it's a commercial desgin at that point, if the only way to get the design is to buy the parts kit from the designer. I have no arguement with that as a business mode- Kit's are a long tradition in Audio- but we didn't call Dynaco "DIY". But then, they sold you the box and all the other parts along with the plans.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Jon
Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....
There's been a surprising amount of discussion, some pretty heated, about the idea of copying or "Kloning" commercial designs, versus doing an "original" DIY design. Some folks have some pretty strong opinions, and aren't afraid to share them, about what the "right" thing to do for DIY is, and the "wrong" things to do.
Frankly, when the discussion veers in this direction, I think it's getting a little too close to DIY "religion" for my comfort (separate the heretics from the true believers? ).
But let's explore and discuss some of these concepts and ideas together- let's talk about copying commercial designs, or "Kloning" a popular speaker (not the same thing, at "Klone Audio"! ). And let's consider how original "original" designs are- and perhaps discuss the difference between "commerical" DIY designs, and "amateur" DIY designs (I could play devil's advocate and suggest that "commerical" DIY is a wolf in sheeps clothing, and "amateur" DIY is "True Religion", but we've already agreed to abandon that metaphor.... haven't we?
(and perhaps we shouldn't mention those who get highly perturbed by ThomasW's and my site, "Klone-Audio" - I guess there's a certain number of people out there who don't understand tongue in cheek very well - life's too short not to have some fun with it- that or our sense of humor is a little too dry at times. Like my British girlfriend).
I have a very hectic schedule of travel coming up for the company over the next few months, so I'm not even going to attempt some kind of "dissertation" about this. I'd like to throw out some thoughts and tentative definitions, but just to get the ball rolling, and see if any of the spaghetti sticks to the wall.... or will it just be on my face? :LOL:
Copying Commerical Designs
There are a few well known projects out there on the web, where the clear avocation is to reproduce as closely as possible, or as closely as feasible within certain budget limitations, the look, sound, and general performance of a well known commercial design. Two of the best known examples that come to mind are Thorsten Loesch's Watt Puppy/ David-Jerico project, and the Proac 2.5 clones. Thorsten's project is interesting reading and very well documented.
In this type of project, a strong effort is made to understand and unravel the thinking behind the original design, so that a significant portion of the performance can be achieved by the home contructor, less the markup and expense which the original incurs at retail.
The reality is that this is fairly hard to do, both becuase of the paucity of relaible information for most commercial designs, plus the factor that the manufacturer invests in a lot of tooling and processes which may contribute significantly to the quality and performance of the design, and which is amortized over the construction of a large number of speakers. For the home constructer, this isn't practical, and so either a great deal more labor may be required, or the actual construction quality may suffer in comparison with the commercial product.
If you don't think this is the case, (remember, we're talking high end for the moment, not reproducing $1K a pair commercial bookshelfs), just take a look at the construction of a Wilson Watt/Puppy, or an Avalon Eidelon, or a Sonus Faber Anything! (new model Lex hasn't heard of yet - just a general comment on their construction techniques). Many DIY constructors will do some amazing things, but this certainly becomes a labor of love.
In the effort to copy designs, I've even read about hobbyists securing impedance plots of the commerical speakers, and compariing them with the plots of the copies, as an aid in reverse engineering.
"Kloning Designs"
Unlike the biological/genetic equivalent, Thomas and I are not into exact copying, or "cloning". We do think it's an interesting exercise to try to get under the skin and understand the thinking of the designer of an interesting speaker- and also to try to understand why that speaker has the positive impact on music in some specific manners, in spite of sometimes otherwise having some significant flaws.
For an example of a speaker system which was highly regarded but in my opinion DEFINITELY fell within the "flawed" category, consider the Eggleston Works Andra- speaker of the year at Sterophile, but incapable of flat axial response anywhere in front of it for 1 to 2 meters, and only possesed of smooth response in the far field reverberent response... you can get a lot of details about that system in the archives at Stereophile, if you don't have the original review lying around.
Well known speakers which did spark our interest are the Legacy Whispers (a large dipole system), and the Wilson Audio X1. You can read about the genesis of ThomasW's Whisper "Klone's" here
and a write up about the X1 project here:
Though going into this project I was well aware of some fundamental issues with the X1 design layout, including the diffraction issues with the top module, nonetheless, having heard the real Wilson X1's, and having a fair amount of suitable parts on hand that could be suitable for a revised version, I just couldn't resist trying my hand at it.
Basically, the Devil made me do it.
I could go down a long list of areas where I had specific knowledge of the Wilson design, and where I made alternative choices. Many are documented in the article. Perhaps those choices were better in some cases, perhaps not, but in all regards they were my choices, whether we're talking the order and cofiguration of the midrange to tweeter crossover, the active electronics crossover with LF room balance control (which Wilson obviously doesn't have with an all passive crossover), and so forth. Lacking in orginality? Well, that's in the eye the beholder, and since the only person I was trying to please was myself, it's really a non issue.
Then, there's a lot of true creativity out there in DIY land, many unusual cabinet designs, unusual crossover configurations, etc.
And there's also a lot of pretty standard designs out there. I couldn't begin to count how many 6-1/2" / 7" two ways there are, MT or MTM (individually designed, or "DIY" designs marketed by small companies or individuals). But I laud and salute every one who builds there own speakers and enjoys the fruits of there labor...
But how original are these designs? Why are some of the folks doing such designs so vocal about deriding a modified Legacy Whisper design- an undertaking requiring a huge amount of effort and committment on several levels? Are they more original than an adaptation of the X1 or Watt/Puppy configuration? If so, how? I'm challenging a discussion to be started- how do YOU see this, and why? And just how important is "originality" to DIY speaker construction?
If you own a copy of the AES Speaker anthology books, especially the first two, you'll see that a lot of what is being done in DIY speakers is based on the work of others that has been around not for years, but for decades. Think about when the first two way speaker was built... the first acoustic suspension designs.... the first electrostatics introduced by Quad (1957!)... etc. We literally all stand on the shoulders of giants, but I also don't think it in any way demeans the effort and work that those less gifted, but still hardworking and passionate put into building their own systems.
Let's look at some popular concepts in modern speakers.
Dipole line source speakers? Owned my first pair in 1976, courtesey of Jim Winey and his company's products.
D'Apollito array (MTM, WMTMW)? How about 1977, when we assembled a Levinson HQD array, which with the inverted Quad 57 ESL stack with a Decca Ribbon tweeter formed a three way panel array WMTMW.
Linear phase pulse perfect speakers? We built our first speaker capable of reproducing a square wave impulse on axis in 1977. MB tweeter, Audax dome mid, Audax 8. An improved version used an Audax 6-1/2 instead of the 8, with a custom Eminence woofer.
Transmission line loaded speakers? Built a four way speaker capable of strong 25 Hz in room response with a 10" woofer in 1973. It wasn't a rig for SET amps, though- it liked Phase Linear 400's and 700's. A later design with Philips woofers and Celstion mids could be content with a "mere" 50-100 watts per channel.
Lots of other folks doing similar things in those days, of course.
So, something I'd like to throw open for discussion, is just what DOES or DOESN"T constitute an "original" DIY design (though distinguishing between DIY and commerical is sort of arbitrary, isn't it?)
And is a DIY design really DIY when it's developed for sale by someone to customers, and not provided gratis? It's sounding to me like it's a commercial desgin at that point, if the only way to get the design is to buy the parts kit from the designer. I have no arguement with that as a business mode- Kit's are a long tradition in Audio- but we didn't call Dynaco "DIY". But then, they sold you the box and all the other parts along with the plans.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Jon
Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....
Comment