Hey guys...we need a little rallying here... - Page 224

The Z-10 moniker will work fine. All of in the know realize is was named after the Z-28 Camaro which was famous for providing high performance at low cost

To the "OLD GUARDS":

Get with the time. If you can't adapt, extinction is in your near future (take a look at reccent history - Blockbuster, Tweeter etc.Circuit City).

Who really cares who invented the internet. What I care about is I am paying $40 a month for 16/2 speed. If someone else comes along with a better value, they will have my cash and business.

So my suggestion to you 'old guards', build some SEOS while it's still here. And perhaps you will then feel the need to donate a few bucks to Erich so he could enjoy a late night drink while bustin' his ass to pack up your oders.

Tux - I know you have pretty good experience with in wall design. We have a new DIY'er looking for some help and would be an easy sell for some SEOS components:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1443078/new-to-diy-faqs-in-here/30#post_22862348

There's an in wall design for the Fusion-10 Pure and I'm trying to figure out how to get that baffle cut properly. But you would have to contact MTG-90 about how to turn his Minion into a inwall design.

Please stop any fighting before the people helping us all like erich decide its not worth the trouble

Erich,
Who was the letter from? Are Zilch's designs considered public domain?

Thanks Mrkazador! That build thread was exactly what I've been looking for.
GZ

Yes. I for one appreciate LTD02's effort to find common ground and relate perspectives. That's often where conflict comes from: a difference of perspective and the difficulty in understanding another's. Let's make this more bipartisan and less "Red Team vs. Blue Team."

 

Both groups and leaders made high performance DIY speakers so much more accessible to more people. They could be considered inflection point, disruptive events/movements...only time will tell. 

As LTD, this is not a simple question, but I do find a lot of irony in it. In another forum where Geddes participated, many forum members appear to turn on him in one manner or another when they felt he was not giving away all of his IP to the DIY community, and these same critical members would question the motives of any criticisms he raised about cheaper/alternative (to his) products. At some point I remember Geddes being a little frustrated by some of the commentaries against him because some of those parties seem to be getting some financial benefits from them (i.e. they offered cheaper alternatives to Geddes' kits). Now we have a new party, offering a more refined product (i.e. SEOS vs QSC waveguides), numerous designs, financially very beneficial to the DIY community, all at the expense of the new party (time and financial),.. and the arguments against him are...

Ironic indeed


As Clare Boothe Luce is supposed to have stated, No good deed goes unpunished

Geez, Yeah call it whatever. The donation is a classy move, nice job.


The "old guard" can keep carrying their torches and beating their chests in Zilch's name all they want.......

I'll add my 2c to this.

I think Erich's intentions with the Zilch speaker are good, but what I think about that doesn't matter. I think it is appropriate for Erich and DSG to respect the wishes of Evan's estate. Evan's estate has its opinions on how the Zilch moniker should be used and they simply don't coincide with Erich's. Sadly, we can't ask Zilch himself.

I think that Erich can still sell the design because IMO it is public domain. The issue is with the use of the name. The wishes of the estate must be respected IMO.

I am a friend of Erich's and a SEOS contributor. I'm also a friend of Wayne and many in the "old guard" as LTD put it. The fact is that the two groups are quite separate beyond some similar principles like constant directivity and high sensitivity speakers.

I think that at this point it would be best to simply eliminate any formal ties or references between the two groups unless the official stakeholders (Erich with DSG and Chris with ZilchLabs) can come to a peace in private. Short of that, I think we need to move on.

I don't recall Zilch partaking in much drama and we should all honor him by following his example (that goes for all sides...myself included). We are all able to honor Zilch's memory simply by building speakers and helping others enjoy this hobby...which was Zilch's real contribution. I don't think anybody would argue that he would object to that.

Amen. The times Zilch did employ drama are memorable...drama can serve a purpose just as any tool...often the intent was to put a stop to the drama.

Erich, continue the quest. Thank You for your service.

More data, less Wank.
Edited by bg40403 - 1/22/13 at 10:32am

+1

Let's just march on. Those that want to live in the past, let them be.

Erich - Any plans for kit(s) using the DE750 driver? Any 2 way compression drivers in the works from Denovo? It would be cool to see a monster kit out there - something like 2 15's and a >1.4" exit compression driver.

Hahaha...I just sent you a message about this like 15 minutes ago. I have a feeling that we may get each other in a lot of trouble.

I would love to take on project like this..

I would think when using the BA-750 you should be using the SEOS15. At that point you're way up there in cost. So you're also using a very expensive woofer. So that would be for very high end builds. In that case, I don't think a kit is a good idea. If going that high end, a custom designed cross over should be used. Whether you can do it yourself, or you hire someone to do it, or follow someone else who has done it for themselves. For instance, I don't use the cross overs in my kits because I can do things like adjust an inductor by 0.1mH at a time to adjust for baffle step losses for their in-situ positioning. Or pad the tweeter exactly where I want it. Or lower the cross over point with lower power handling. At the BA-750 level, this should be happening, imo.

Bill measured it with the SEOS18

http://www.diysoundgroup.com/forum/index.php?topic=31.0

I think that goes without saying.

Yes, my mistake, I was referring to the Big-A$$ 750. I haven't seen any measurements yet though.


This discussion is purely conceptual for me at this point as I haven't even finished my Sentinel builds. Always the one to 'look ahead', I was just curious what the steps would be to take the next significant step up. I would agree a crossover would have to be designed for a decent blend. I would also assume that this type of "kit" wouldn't be a big seller as it would be overkill for 99.1% of the guys out there so I can understand not wanting to tie up lots of R&D. Thinking about it all one would really need would be a custom front baffle and the rest could be refined and built by the owner. I also would expect the costs to be higher, but probably on par with the performance one would receive.
Edited by Gorilla83 - 1/22/13 at 11:35am

Even though it seems to have decent extension on the high frequencies, my guess is if one is going this route it would be worth considering a 3 way with a smaller CD handling the high frequencies.

This comment intrigues me - I haven't seen or heard the Noesis, or seen any detailed specs, but at a glance their waveguide doesn't look wide enough to hold a CD pattern down to where one might cross that pricey coax compression driver. Do you think what you described is how the Noesis behaves? Or am I just way off in my estimation?

Interesting for sure...amking me wonder as well. If so, one would think that with the right design, we could get similar sound and better coverage with this project.

Info/images on the Noesis

The pics of the noesis are deceptive. That horn is just about the same width as the SEOS12, it just looks not wide enough because it is taller as well.

My $.02.

An OS (or conical) style waveguide profile is use to provide constant directivity to as high a frequency as practically possible. However, this profile provides virtually no loading of the bottom end of the pass band. This means in most cases the WG can be used down to 1khz plus or minus some depending on the size of the WG.

When the woofer is chosen judicially, the near directivity of the woofer, which starts at omni at its lowest range, narrows to match the directivity of the WG at the woofers upper end making a matched directivity handoff. Note the woofer itself does not have constant directivity throughout its passband.

With the above in mind, if a three way speaker is the goal, there are likely better options for the midband channel then OS IMO. Keep the CD of the OS WG up top, keep the widening directivity of the woofer down below and choose an appropriate horn with "some" loading, i.e. not OS, but directivity matching the other two elements near where you want to cross. This isn't easy to design! The benefit of the loading of the horn are many at this freq range as the horn will be much smaller than an equivalent OSWG, which will make the crossover design and polar pattern much easier to deal with.

An interesting idea LTD.

This is fascinating to me, thanks to all who contributed links/pics/knowledge. I'm sure I've never heard a speaker done this way, probably because the compression drivers are mostly so darned expensive like LTD said - mainly TADs and high-end JBLs I'd guess - but speakers done with bigass compression drivers crossed low seem to garner huge amounts of praise from the few fortunate enough to own, say, Everests and K2s and, well, the big JTRs.

Didn't one of the more famous (among audio geeks, anyway) studies done by Harmon or some such entity conclude that people generally prefer the sound of splashy midrange/treble over more tightly controlled dispersion up high, at least decades ago when the study was done? My memory is hazy.

Someone with skill and equipment and time (not to mention the driver and waveguide) would probably need to run distortion sweeps on a BA in a waveguide appropriate to the task, as a next step to see if this might really work. Dunno if it will ever get to that point, but it's fun to think about.