And now: Uber Scanspeaks?

[dsrviola]

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/adn/adn.html

[villastrangiato]

" If our ADN chamber is the heart of the project, the brain is our ADN crossover designed by our engineers and constructed entirely by Mundorf. This essential part of the loudspeaker is placed in a chamber specially isolated from the sound pressure inside the speaker to avoid any form of contamination."
:rofl:

Obviously, another "product" intended for the "more money than brains" crowd....sheeeesh.....

Maybe someone should send the product manager an email asking him to explain what sort of "contamination" he was referring to - the response should definitely be interesting.

[Bear]

I'll try to get some of my own pictures of these from CES posted here eventually. They sounded a lot like what you would expect a 2-way SS Revelator/Illuminator system to sound like in a small ported cabinet: very clean, but with thin bass and a terrible room. They are also $20k.

The entertaining part was that they were obsessed with my comparisons between them and Magico, which I didn't have time to go hear. I was able to compare them directly to the YG Acoustics models on display right down the hall, though. Aside from a deeper bottom-end on the larger cabinets of the YG Acoustics, you'd be hard-pressed to figure out how much of the difference was due to the terrible rooms vs. the speakers themselves.

Maybe someone should send the product manager an email asking him to explain what sort of "contamination" he was referring to - the response should definitely be interesting.

Microphonics in the capacitors. Whether you believe this is a real issue or not, though, is the obvious follow-on question.

[villastrangiato]

Microphonics in the capacitors. Whether you believe this is a real issue or not, though, is the obvious follow-on question.

I don't think it's wise to presuppose too much or jump to conclusions - we've all done it and at one time or another have wound up with egg on our faces. But what gets me thinking some folks are a bit detached from reality is the mere fact they're talking about highly unlikely acoustic or electrical interactions while seeming to ignore those that are far more likely and obvious. Case in point - the crossover module pictured in the Six Moons article shows presumably high signal level passive components mounted right next to each other. Electric/magnetic field interactions between physically adjacent components that store and discharge high levels of energy are well known and documented. If the ADN folks were serious about making real world improvements - not just building solely to impress the well-heeled and less scientifically grounded among us - they'd be making an external crossover module that possessed a physical footprint more in keeping with their lofty design goals. The compact crossover they've produced suggests exactly the opposite. I'm hesitant to say it, but my immediate and probably lasting impression is - FRAUD.

[DoubleTap]

Find and read the white papers on the development of the Clarity Cap MR capacitors. They showed significant changes in measurable parameters due to pressures involved inside a typical speaker cabinet. You can even try it yourself, I did after read the papers the first time ... put any ol poly cap on a meter, then squeeze it hard and see what happens.

[villastrangiato]

Find and read the white papers on the development of the Clarity Cap MR capacitors. They showed significant changes in measurable parameters due to pressures involved inside a typical speaker cabinet. You can even try it yourself, I did after read the papers the first time ... put any ol poly cap on a meter, then squeeze it hard and see what happens.

Wow, I didn't know the pressure rose that much in speaker cabinets. If you take the average 12 inch woofer in a 50 liter cabinet - assume a peak excursion of about 1/2 inch - that would equate to a static maximum change in volume of about 40 cubic inches - in a cabinet with a total 3000 cubic inch displacement for a percentage decrease in volume of about 1.3%. Not sure how this could translate into a capacitor changing value. Yeah, if you squeeze a cap's insulated conductor layers together by physically pressing on the outer shell, I imagine that might produce measurable effects. But a slight change in static or dynamic pressure having measurable consequences? - that seems about as far fetched as $150,000 speaker cables sounding noticeably better than high purity $300 cables.

[David G]

Is it just me, or do those things look hideous?

[villastrangiato]

Is it just me, or do those things look hideous?

Vote number two for hideous here.... :toilet:

[Bear]

I don't think it's wise to presuppose too much or jump to conclusions - we've all done it and at one time or another have wound up with egg on our faces. But what gets me thinking some folks are a bit detached from reality is the mere fact they're talking about highly unlikely acoustic or electrical interactions while seeming to ignore those that are far more likely and obvious. Case in point - the crossover module pictured in the Six Moons article shows presumably high signal level passive components mounted right next to each other. Electric/magnetic field interactions between physically adjacent components that store and discharge high levels of energy are well known and documented. If the ADN folks were serious about making real world improvements - not just building solely to impress the well-heeled and less scientifically grounded among us - they'd be making an external crossover module that possessed a physical footprint more in keeping with their lofty design goals. The compact crossover they've produced suggests exactly the opposite. I'm hesitant to say it, but my immediate and probably lasting impression is - FRAUD.

I wouldn't go that far. The biggest question I have is the placement of the connection terminals nearly in-line with a large inductor. The rest of it looks less controversial to my untrained eye. I'm not saying that these guys gave me a lot of confidence when I spoke to them, but I wouldn't go all the way to "fraud". The cast and machined stacked cabinet work has a distinct heritage in Gaudi (apparently very purposefully), and that thing is heavy and expensive to build. Toss in distributor margin and retailer margin, and $20k isn't THAT absurd. At least they used top-end ScanSpeak drivers. YG Acoustics competitor at about this price point uses a Vifa XT25 tweeter. :T

Here's a slightly better picture of the crossover:

[Bear]

For comparison, here is YG Acoustics, which sounded the best for what are bad demos. Six figures on the outside, and five figures on the inside. The inside one is an 18cm Revelator + XT25 in a waveguide.



Compared to the ADN TM:

[JonMarsh]

I wouldn't go that far. The biggest question I have is the placement of the connection terminals nearly in-line with a large inductor. The rest of it looks less controversial to my untrained eye. I'm not saying that these guys gave me a lot of confidence when I spoke to them, but I wouldn't go all the way to "fraud". The cast and machined stacked cabinet work has a distinct heritage in Gaudi (apparently very purposefully), and that thing is heavy and expensive to build. Toss in distributor margin and retailer margin, and $20k isn't THAT absurd. At least they used top-end ScanSpeak drivers. YG Acoustics competitor at about this price point uses a Vifa XT25 tweeter. :T

Here's a slightly better picture of the crossover:

Hey! I gots some of them thar Mundorf resistors!

And I think pawning off an XT-25 as a high end tweeter for a two way IS fraud... just my 0.02.

Apart from that, the necessary requirement for a moderator to exhibit political correctness and only make appropriate comments, as well as setting a good example, prevents me from further comment. :W

[gmed]

How else are you gonna sell snake oil for 20K?

Come on!

[Dave Bullet]

" If our ADN chamber is the heart of the project, the brain is our ADN crossover designed by our engineers and constructed entirely by Mundorf. This essential part of the loudspeaker is placed in a chamber specially isolated from the sound pressure inside the speaker to avoid any form of contamination."

My body does that several times a day. My body places unwanted liquids into a chamber (pot) specifically isolated to avoid any form of contamination.

Wow, I just invented a toilet. :rofl:

[Bear]

And I think pawning off an XT-25 as a high end tweeter for a two way IS fraud... just my 0.02.

Yeah, but that was the YG Acoustics folks. Did you know that they make the Best Loudspeaker on Earth? :E :T

[villastrangiato]

For comparison, here is YG Acoustics, which sounded the best for what are bad demos. Six figures on the outside, and five figures on the inside. The inside one is an 18cm Revelator + XT25 in a waveguide.

Anyone who feels comfortable using YG Acoustics as a yardstick for value in high end - from where I'm standing - has a " value compass that is spinning like a wayward hubcap" I agree, for 20K, this ADN looks like a lot went into its design and construction - but comparing it or for that matter anything - to YG's stuff? LOL......

Anyone arrogant enough to claim they've built the best speaker in the world is not worth the CO2 talking about them. Just looking at his so called reference (Anat II) speaker, I can tell right off it has design flaws. The distances between tweeter/mid and low frequency drivers is excessive and not necessary. The "perfect" point source radiator has drivers as close as possible to one another. And clearly, this is not a line source design. Does it sound great - I'm sure it does. Does it have the balls to blow the doors off (power and distortion wise) of the best Genesis speaker - I doubt it. Is it more coherent and does it "disappear" better than the top Magico or Rockport Technology models - I doubt it. The only claim to fame Mr. Geva has is his extra special crossover software. But with all the claims for his crossover and perfect cabinets, the most recent Stereophile write up indicated that the speaker's tweeter height forced a specific listening position for proper balance - something that Wilson Audio has the sense to address by designing adjustability into its products - and Dave Wilson doesn't exactly claim he builds the best speaker in the world. In my book, a little humility goes a long way. And Geva apparently lost his humility somewhere along the line. If I had 100K to blow on speakers, his would be the last model I'd consider just for the arrogant shnooky factor.

Ok, now that I'm done venting and :rant: 'ing......I'll tell you how I really feel.....

[Face]

Yeah, if you squeeze a cap's insulated conductor layers together by physically pressing on the outer shell, I imagine that might produce measurable effects. But a slight change in static or dynamic pressure having measurable consequences?

Most notably in soundstage and imaging.

[villastrangiato]

Most notably in soundstage and imaging.

Just for giggles, I looked up the Clarity "white paper" that was referenced earlier. I saw nothing in that paper indicating acoustic energy within a speaker cabinet as a source of crossover distortion. The paper I read suggested that at the conclusion of a two year study, it was found that caps exhibited "resonances" arising from the oscillating electrical energy applied to them. Regardless of how significant this resonance was, it was electrical in nature - not acoustic. Therefore, I'd reiterate, it would be nice to know what contamination is being avoided by removing a crossover from a vented speaker enclosure. Until someone provides a solid scientific basis - this should be considered nothing more than high end snake oil salesmanship. Assessing high end speakers with the same kind of subjective observations wine critics use to describe the latest and greatest vintage is kind of embarrassing just to witness - let alone participate in. This is the 21st century, last time I checked. And distortion of all kinds can be measured and quantified. If I were to suggest my speakers had an "oaky" finish, I would hope most reasonable people wouldn't think I was talking about how they sound.

[Bear]

Ok, now that I'm done venting and :rant: 'ing......I'll tell you how I really feel.....

I don't think it's wise to presuppose too much or jump to conclusions

Slow down there, big fella. It's not like anyone is making you crank out the cash for either.

[Face]

If I were to suggest my speakers had an "oaky" finish, I would hope most reasonable people wouldn't think I was talking about how they sound.

How about taste?

If you have your doubts about them, why not try a pair and see for yourself. There are some for sale on Agon. I happen to like the ESA and MR better than the Duelund VSF, but YMMV.

[villastrangiato]

How about taste?

If you have your doubts about them, why not try a pair and see for yourself. There are some for sale on Agon. I happen to like the ESA and MR better than the Duelund VSF, but YMMV.

LOL!! I just finished dinner and my daily Klondike bar (what would you do for a Klondike bar?).. :B

....so I'm full....but I hear Jon has a nice pair of Beryllium Scans lying around - why not ask if he'll let you give them a lick - then you can give us your candid impressions tomorrow?

I'm predicting high levels of acidity, a full flower bouquet, and a slight velvety finish with mild Swedish meatball overtones......so let me know how this squares with your experience.... :rofl:

[numberoneoppa]

Omg, I want swedish meatballs so bad right now!

[mgrabow]

I don't think it's wise to presuppose too much or jump to conclusions - we've all done it and at one time or another have wound up with egg on our faces. But what gets me thinking some folks are a bit detached from reality is the mere fact they're talking about highly unlikely acoustic or electrical interactions while seeming to ignore those that are far more likely and obvious. Case in point - the crossover module pictured in the Six Moons article shows presumably high signal level passive components mounted right next to each other. Electric/magnetic field interactions between physically adjacent components that store and discharge high levels of energy are well known and documented. If the ADN folks were serious about making real world improvements - not just building solely to impress the well-heeled and less scientifically grounded among us - they'd be making an external crossover module that possessed a physical footprint more in keeping with their lofty design goals. The compact crossover they've produced suggests exactly the opposite. I'm hesitant to say it, but my immediate and probably lasting impression is - FRAUD.

I think the spacing on the inductors is fine, it is the orientation of them that will help cut that emf from transmitting into the adjacent inductor.

Yes they are ugly for sure...

[villastrangiato]

I think the spacing on the inductors is fine, it is the orientation of them that will help cut that emf from transmitting into the adjacent inductor.

Yes they are ugly for sure...

I agree with Bear's post, the incoming signal connectors are pretty close to the stray magnetic field of one of the inductors. Either way, the point is there's a lot more science to support concerns over passive component proximity than the presence of acoustic pressure waves having a deleterious effect. I wouldn't have a problem building a board like the one pictured. But I'd be more inclined to fiddle with spaces between those components than completely remove the board from a vented cabinet because I felt the crossover might be "contaminated" with sound pressure. - That just sounds like "flux capacitor" foolishness.

[Bear]

http://www.google.com/search?q=capacitor+microphonics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics

Film capacitors using soft dielectric materials can also be microphonic due to vibrational energy physically moving the plates of the capacitor. Wiring and cables can also exhibit microphonics as charged conductors move around, and various materials can develop triboelectric ("static") charges that couple to the electronic circuits. Glass capacitors, while quite expensive, are essentially nonmicrophonic.

External crossovers have been around for a long time, and it was not necessarily just for aesthetic reasons. Whether the magnitude of the problem is significant enough to warrant concern is one thing, but when you are selling a speaker for $20k, you have to pay as much or more attention to the "psycho" part rather than the "acoustic" part.

I'm not saying I agree with the concern under the vast majority of listening conditions/situations, but there were a lot more things that seemed odd to me about the speaker to take them to task on being sensitive to potential induced microphonic noise in the capacitors.

[villastrangiato]

http://www.google.com/search?q=capacitor+microphonics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics

External crossovers have been around for a long time, and it was not necessarily just for aesthetic reasons. Whether the magnitude of the problem is significant enough to warrant concern is one thing, but when you are selling a speaker for $20k, you have to pay as much or more attention to the "psycho" part rather than the "acoustic" part.

I'm not saying I agree with the concern under the vast majority of listening conditions/situations, but there were a lot more things that seemed odd to me about the speaker to take them to task on being sensitive to potential induced microphonic noise in the capacitors.

Trying to keep an open mind about something like this is difficult. If someone could actually cite a study where a direct correlation is made between sound waves within a speaker cabinet and capacitor value fluctuations with actual test data - I'd be happy to embrace the concept of external crossovers intended to provide real world benefits with acoustical isolation. But I haven't seen anything like this yet. I hear a lot of talk and speculation (and stuff alluded to on Wikipedia with reference to the susceptibility of tubes and soft capacitors - so I guess it must be true :roll: ) - no data to back up the speculation. I went through the trouble of calculating static pressure changes in a sealed cabinet - not the vented one cited in this case. On paper, a 1.3% increase in pressure from 14.7 to 14.89 lbs appears minuscule. Until someone presents actual test data, I'll remain unconvinced and any claimed effect of acoustic waves on cap performance will remain, for me anyway, a "psycho" phenomenon - not an acoustic or electrical one.

[Face]

Forget pressure and changes in capacitance, how about cabinet vibration interfering with the signal while it's passing through the capacitor? Play some loud music, tap on your HF capacitors and you'll see what I mean.

[villastrangiato]

Forget pressure and changes in capacitance, how about cabinet vibration interfering with the signal while it's passing through the capacitor? Play some loud music, tap on your HF capacitors and you'll see what I mean.

Uh....getting back to the thread at hand, I think the fine folks at ADN have the mechanical cabinet vibration issue firmly under control - or is there something beyond thick aluminum castings and sand or lead filled cavities that you'd have them do? It's a hunch, but my guess is the floor upon which you'd place an external crossover would be more mechanically "alive" than the speaker enclosure itself with loud music being played.

And besides, I don't generally tap my HF capacitors when listening to loud music....I don't tap dance on them either....... :B

[JonP]

Trying to keep an open mind about something like this is difficult. If someone could actually cite a study where a direct correlation is made between sound waves within a speaker cabinet and capacitor value fluctuations with actual test data - I'd be happy to embrace the concept of external crossovers intended to provide real world benefits with acoustical isolation. But I haven't seen anything like this yet. I hear a lot of talk and speculation (and stuff alluded to on Wikipedia with reference to the susceptibility of tubes and soft capacitors - so I guess it must be true :roll: ) - no data to back up the speculation. I went through the trouble of calculating static pressure changes in a sealed cabinet - not the vented one cited in this case. On paper, a 1.3% increase in pressure from 14.7 to 14.89 lbs appears minuscule. Until someone presents actual test data, I'll remain unconvinced and any claimed effect of acoustic waves on cap performance will remain, for me anyway, a "psycho" phenomenon - not an acoustic or electrical one.

Think I remember reading a paper on Sigfried Linkwitz' site, on box internal pressure for a sealed 12" in a small (1 cu ft?) box. Was some disturbingly high level like 158dB (for only 95dB out?)... :E Wish it wasn't 1am on a worknight when I should be sleeping rather than reading strange, fringe hobby
theory... :W or I'd give a whack at translating that into PSI from ambient.

What I really wanted to do as an experiment, is build a small sealed box with a fairly beefy driver and hefty amp... and put caps or inductors in it to measure them under "serious excitation". Measure and see how much, or if at all, various parts get affected. That would go a ways to determining if there's a significant effect to worry about or not. Might try it sometime...

[villastrangiato]

Think I remember reading a paper on Sigfried Linkwitz' site, on box internal pressure for a sealed 12" in a small (1 cu ft?) box. Was some disturbingly high level like 158dB (for only 95dB out?)... :E Wish it wasn't 1am on a worknight when I should be sleeping rather than reading strange, fringe hobby
theory... :W or I'd give a whack at translating that into PSI from ambient.

What I really wanted to do as an experiment, is build a small sealed box with a fairly beefy driver and hefty amp... and put caps or inductors in it to measure them under "serious excitation". Measure and see how much, or if at all, various parts get affected. That would go a ways to determining if there's a significant effect to worry about or not. Might try it sometime...

I realize this is a DIY site and most of the folks that participate are not scientists or engineers but............If you are going to post information on the site with the intent to discredit or cast doubt on what others are saying - others who make a reasonable attempt to obtain real scientific data to back up their perspectives, the least you could do is back up your conjecture or extrapolation with a little bit of data and science. Perhaps better yet, it might be more useful for all concerned that you do a little bit of reading of data posted by others who've done a lot of homework on the subject in question. I don't want to casually suggest that only "expert" opinions be relied upon - but wild speculation is the other extreme.

In the current example, there is a wealth of information for those who care to look here:

http://www.eie.fceia.unr.edu.ar/~acustica/comite/soundlev.htm

to understand the correlation between sound and 'absolute' pressures. To put it bluntly, the force of sound radiated either in a room or in a sealed box is infinitesimal by comparison to other pressurized forms of gas. In other words, there is very little actual energy in sound. The fact that most transducers have an efficiency rating of less than 5% with regard to their ability to convert electrical energy into acoustic energy - that should tell you something.

I encourage discourse, that's what often leads to new discovery and enlightenment. But being argumentative just for the sake of tearing others down is not constructive discourse or dialog.
:W

[synthguy]

I have to isolate my unpowered subs with feet made of erasers, or the low frequency volume increases dramatically. To disco levels, to my ears. And this isn't at concert volume, either.

I'd also have to add that I sincerely doubt that there's a scientific way to measure soundstage depth and imaging. You should be able to tell how good a speaker sounds by looking at how flat its frequency plot lies, but it almost never works out that way.

Just a recording engineer's 0.02.

[Saurav]

FWIW, here's Linkwitz's write-up:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/graphics/enclosure-spl.gif

He uses a similar example - a 12" woofer in a 40L sealed enclosure results in 159dB inside the box.

But as CJ says, in terms of pressure, that still seems fairly low, unless I did the math wrong.

[villastrangiato]

I have to isolate my unpowered subs with feet made of erasers, or the low frequency volume increases dramatically. To disco levels, to my ears. And this isn't at concert volume, either.

I'd also have to add that I sincerely doubt that there's a scientific way to measure soundstage depth and imaging. You should be able to tell how good a speaker sounds by looking at how flat its frequency plot lies, but it almost never works out that way.

Just a recording engineer's 0.02.

Your observation concerning the ability to measure "soundstage" and "imaging" is correct up to a point. While these are high level, somewhat subjective characteristics of a system under examination, there are a number of measurable characteristics that do in fact indicate whether a system delivers a realistic projection of the soundfield that is embedded in a given recording. Imaging and soundstage capability are measures of a speaker's ability to maintain a temporally and spatially correct rendering of the signal that is fed to it. I'm sure you've seen a comprehensive review published by John Atkinson of Stereophile. Time and again, his reviews seek and actually succeed in correlating what the auditioning reviewers hear with cumulative spectal delay plots and impulse response plots - in addition to the familiar frequency response plots. The three dimensional frequency response plots that are provided give a clear indication of the speaker's ability to project an image in the spatial domain while the CSD plots establish fairly accurately the speakers ability to deliver that image in a time coherent fashion with minimal distortion byproducts. While these are not "imaging" or "soundstage" graphs showing on a percentage basis how close a given speaker is to the ideal (100% correct soundstage or image), they do provide a visual rendering of collected performance data that does bear directly on a speaker's performance in these realms - and as noted above, the measurements are very often supported by listening tests. Measurement and numerical evaluation of speakers of all types - moving coil, electrostatic, and magnetic planar - in the year 2010, has become highly refined to the point where we can indeed derive from physically measurable parameters a speaker's ability to image and project properly - we simply don't need to rely solely on subjective analysis anymore. In fact, I would venture to say that nowadays, if a speaker measures very well in all these aspects and a reviewer gives it flunking grades in listening tests, the average person would question the reviewer's credentials first - then the measurement accuracy - in that order.

[villastrangiato]

John Krutke, someone with a little more than passing experience in measuring speakers and speaker transducers, gives a very direct and informed assessment of "subjectivity" in describing system performance. For those who haven't read it, I recommend doing so highly. It can be found here:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/evaluation.html

[Paul Spencer]

When I look at that speaker, I can't help but think "fish gill speaker!" And when I look at the fancy SS Illuminator midwoofer, I can't help but think "why give it a pretty bum and an ugly face?"

[agrippa]

WAF is 0