Anyone know anything about this speakers?

[ken kantor]

Lots of obvious ones:

1. Overly complex cabinet shape for no apparent benefit,
2. With the largest driver here being 6" (guessing), it should be a 2-way - needless complexity, especially if it has a proper crossover network,
3. Mid and tweeter domes look good together, but based on size, poorly chosen as their ranges likely very much overlap more than supplement each other,
4. Midrange/tweeter plate looks like a single plate with two drive units - order of magnitude more difficult to manufacture plates with both drivers in spec; and far more difficult to find two decently matching mid/tweeter sets to assemble a matched pair of speakers,
5. Top mounting the woofer directs most of its output very far off axis from the midrange/tweeter pair,
6. Midrange/tweeter pair look to be spaced too far apart, (lobing? comb filtering? I forgot the big reason you try to minimize their distance)
7. Uhhhhh... backplate with binding posts looks needlessly oversized. More expensive than the chunk of wood that was cut out, and probably more resonant / less damped than the wood that was there.

What else do people notice?

I too am thinking it's meant as a demo for manufacturing capability and detail. It's one thing to try break all the rules and "do something different", but other than the cabinet work, there's no clue that much thought was put into it.

As with everything, speaker building included, there's a pretty good reason that conventional designs are so common.

This is an >excellent< list. You know your speaker stuff! You listed some I hadn't particularly thought of. And I might add:

- Larger baffle area around woofer; smaller around MR and HR.

- Reverse positions of MR and HR to minimize combing with woofer.

- Using a single faceplate makes repair a pain in the butt. Note that the Phase Tech wisely uses separate FP's.

Now we can watch people here gotcha-attack our list point by point like a bunch of high-priced defense attorneys, while missing the forest for the trees. (Which is why I didn't want to post such in the first place. )

-k

 

[ken kantor]

I'm not buying these points, sorry. The AR9LS and AR9LSi, AR98LS and AR98LSi all use tweeter/mid mounted on the same top plate. The driver T/S parameters can be measured without the top plate if the effects of the top plate and built into the design once it is mounted.

And pretty much every ADS speaker has a dome tweeter/mid arrangement mounted very close to one another.

Also, Bose mounted tweeters and woofers at all different angles and in all different places. Sonab is another example. Design Acoustics did that also. Braun did that at one point. There are tons of "name brand" speaker companies that use different box designs to different effects. I still don't think these are WV and I stand by my opinion that they should be investigated further.

Coincidentally, I was on the design team that developed the AR Dual-Dome. It was a different concept than either the Phase Tech or Mystery Speaker, as it used a combined magnetic circuit.

It also was a commercial DISASTER and has disappeared from the marketplace for that reason. If either driver blew, the entire, expensive unit was useless. AR designed them out as soon as possible.

-k

 

[ken kantor]

I'm not buying these points, sorry. The AR9LS and AR9LSi, AR98LS and AR98LSi all use tweeter/mid mounted on the same top plate. The driver T/S parameters can be measured without the top plate if the effects of the top plate and built into the design once it is mounted.

And pretty much every ADS speaker has a dome tweeter/mid arrangement mounted very close to one another.

Also, Bose mounted tweeters and woofers at all different angles and in all different places. Sonab is another example. Design Acoustics did that also. Braun did that at one point. There are tons of "name brand" speaker companies that use different box designs to different effects. I still don't think these are WV and I stand by my opinion that they should be investigated further.

I don't think you are understanding the differences between the approaches. But this is exactly why I did not want to list the design errors... it leads to these kind of fairly pointless debates.

Rhetorical questions:

- How can one measure a tweeter without a top plate? It cannot possibly be done. If you imagine it can, there is something you are misunderstanding.

- "Thiele Small Parameters" have almost no meaning for tweeters and mids. Why would one want to measure them?

-k

 

[doucanoe]

For a long time, I have been meaning to sort and upload some of the hundreds of photos taken at dozens of speaker companies I have in my collection. For now, suffice it to say that it is trivial to buy drivers made to look like any brand you want. (Of course, patent and trademark restrictions may try a dissuade you from selling them in certain markets, but that is not the factory's problem.) If I want drivers that look like PT's, I could have samples in a week. I might even be able to buy 3rd-shift production or QC rejects under the table. Reputable brands don't do this, but it is exactly how "White Van" makers operate. It is also how big retailers can sell 2x6" speakers in decent cabinets for <$50.

A more detailed discussion of the procurement and cost accounting strategies of Chinese manufacturers is beyond the scope of this thread, but it is quite different than the way that US, Japanese and European factories operate. It is a very interesting subject to me, professionally and socio-politically. Perhaps another time...

-k

I wonder how many pair of these would have sold if the title of the thread would have read The Best $50 Pair Of White Van Speakers Ever ??

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72390


RC

 

[ken kantor]

Ken, I respect your opinion a lot, and I don't want to derail the thread. The very fact that you are extremely knowledgeable is why everyone wants to know what you see that they don't on first glance. It's like having Neil Degrasse Tyson look up in the sky and say "No, that star is not what you think it is," and then he won't tell you why, except to say, "Because I'm effing Neil Degrasse Tyson, and I said so." People really do want to know what your 28 years of experience has to say. You may not have asked for that, but there it is. You're stuck being you.

It's all good, I just wanted to get that off my chest.

Carry on!

Well, thank you very much for the compliment! However, I see an important difference. I don't want to come off as too much of a crank, but this is my take:

In the case of NDT, 99% of the viewers watch to learn something and be entertained.

In the case AudioKarma, 25% want to learn something. 25% want yes or no type answers, and don't care about the reasons. 50% want to argue, often endlessly (For the sake of argument, or to defend a belief system, or to show off to themselves or others.) Many times I have posted the most basic and widely-accepted facts, only to be dragged into long debates with people who made it through 20 pages of The Loudspeaker Cookbook or maybe earn $300/month writing for some online audio site, and thus consider themselves loudspeaker experts.

I'm not even talking about hot-button issues like amp audibility and such. I'm talking basic, easily verifiable facts. As is widely discussed, the Internet has spawned a crisis of expertise, where there are no barriers to entry, popularity is often equated to knowledge, and the average person has no way to know who has real credentials and who doesn't. Nowhere is this more problematic, IMO, than in hifi audio. It is the main reason why almost no real pros even bother to participate on line. Just look at this thread for one example of the problem. Anyone can say, "I respectfully disagree!" And people ALWAYS do.

-k

 

[Andyman]

As is widely discussed, the Internet has spawned a crisis of expertise, where there are no barriers to entry, popularity is often equated to knowledge, and the average person has no way to know who has real credentials and who doesn't.

Thank you, Sir!!!
Quote of the month stuff here :thmbsp:

 

[toxcrusadr]

I feel your pain. :yes:

25% want to learn something. 25% want yes or no type answers, and don't care about the reasons. 50% want to argue,

In which case my answer is comprised of the following:

1/4 "Thanks for sharing.'
1/4 "So is that a yes or a no on that?"
1/2 "I beg to differ..."



Seriously though, I am generally in the first 1/4, and as such, I enjoyed reading all the gory technical details from everyone who posted. :yes:

 

[bshorey]

Now we can watch people here gotcha-attack our list point by point like a bunch of high-priced defense attorneys, while missing the forest for the trees. (Which is why I didn't want to post such in the first place. )

Guilty as charged..

For what it's worth, while I enjoy the debate and discussion, I am here to learn, and I could point you to more than one thread here on AK where I've changed positions on topics based on some of the discussion within.

This is a discussion forum, so I'd like to think there is room for that during the learning process.

Yeah, I realize that some people are deliberately argumentative, sorry if I've come across that way in this discussion.

Cheers,

bs

 

[janikphoto]

I think the binding post plate is so big, so the company can use the same one for larger bi-amp and tri-amp models... more room for more posts. They save some money by keeping a single plate in stock.

 

[cubdog]

I still don't see these as representative of "White Van" speakers. In no way do they resemble the accepted standards of that type of speaker. Call them what you will, the majority of AKers would not recognize them as White Vans. I'm drawing no conclusions as to how they were constructed or how they might sound. But simply put they look like no Dahlton, Kirsch, or Digital Dogg Audio speaker I've ever seen.

cubdog

 

[Beatnik]

Could be a crossover on that plate ?

 

[ken kantor]

I wonder how many pair of these would have sold if the title of the thread would have read The Best $50 Pair Of White Van Speakers Ever ??

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72390


RC

Indeed!

The thing that bothers me about this kind of product is that the customer has no way of knowing if any two pair of speakers are alike. They read a rave review and run down to the nearest Best Buy to get a speaker that might well have been built with an entirely different tweeter, or even in an entirely different factory. So, even if the first batch of the speakers was excellent, and completely deserving of the buzz, you wind up with 2 or even 3 or 4 variations on the market, all being discussed as if they were the same.

On the other hand, the customer who pays more for an entry level speaker from a reputable brand is (presumably) paying for attention to detail and a real commitment to quality control. When they read a review of their speaker, hear one in a dealer or at a friend's house, etc., they can be assured that what they buy will perform the same way. That is NOT the case with these mass market, special deals that come around every few months.

-k

 

[ken kantor]

I feel your pain. :yes:



In which case my answer is comprised of the following:

1/4 "Thanks for sharing.'
1/4 "So is that a yes or a no on that?"
1/2 "I beg to differ..."



Seriously though, I am generally in the first 1/4, and as such, I enjoyed reading all the gory technical details from everyone who posted. :yes:

-k

 

[ken kantor]

Guilty as charged..

For what it's worth, while I enjoy the debate and discussion, I am here to learn, and I could point you to more than one thread here on AK where I've changed positions on topics based on some of the discussion within.

This is a discussion forum, so I'd like to think there is room for that during the learning process.

Yeah, I realize that some people are deliberately argumentative, sorry if I've come across that way in this discussion.

Cheers,

bs

Nah, you haven't bugged me in the least. But, remember, every time I post in a thread like this, there might be 5 or 10 people I have to dialog with. Individually, they may range from well-meaning and a pleasure to talk to, on through to a couple of those intentionally or unintentionally irritating, but the aggregate can rapidly become tiring when everyone wants to get the last word in.

-k

 

[ken kantor]

I still don't see these as representative of "White Van" speakers. In no way do they resemble the accepted standards of that type of speaker. Call them what you will, the majority of AKers would not recognize them as White Vans. I'm drawing no conclusions as to how they were constructed or how they might sound. But simply put they look like no Dahlton, Kirsch, or Digital Dogg Audio speaker I've ever seen.

cubdog

I'm sincerely curious was to what you consider the "accepted standards" of "White Van" speakers are. I've never really thought it through.

-k

 

[Putterman]

So did the OP buy them or at least check them out? I realize the consensus is they might be crap even if they're not actually white van speakers ,but they still might sound decent and they do look pretty cool.

 

[cubby01]

Well, for what it's worth they look absolutely DIY to me. I can only see the two larger photos that are in the body of the OP. The two smaller photos don't enlarge. It would be nice if they did.

The plate with the tweeter/mid plate doesn't look self fabricated, someone was probably manufacturing these this way. I get the since that it's repurposed parts, maybe all some other speaker, settled into a self-built cabinet (which looks like solid wood in some areas). The back connector/crossover plate is a kluge. It almost looks like they've taken one from somewhere, removed everything, inset a self-stick black plastic covering over the original bottom, and drilled for two banana pin binders. (I've done something similar actually to hide the previous name plate info)

 

[cubdog]

I'm sincerely curious was to what you consider the "accepted standards" of "White Van" speakers are. I've never really thought it through.

-k

I'm pretty certain that if you were to ask anyone familiar with the concept of White Van speakers to describe them they would never describe anything that look like the speakers in question. And that is all I'm trying to say. White Van is generally associated with cheap cabinets, flashy drivers and specifications spelled out on the baffles. How do the speakers in question, in any way, resemble what I've described? I'm not trying to start anything or nitpick, just expressing my opinion. You Ken, and anyone else are free to disagree. :yes:

cubdog

 

[HTWillie]

#4, I disagree. They're making one plate instead of two. The drivers screw into the plate, and therefore can be tested and selected individually. So, lower cost and complexity than two separate drivers and plates.

I didn't notice the mounting bolts, so yeah. Good point. The part I didn't get to was that two countersunk holes in the baffle to mount the drivers would likely be simpler for assembly - getting rid of the plate entirely. After all, holes are already being drilled to fit the magnets.

#1, maybe. Just because you may not see what the designers were aiming for doesn't mean there isn't a benefit (or intended benefit, whether it was achieved or not certainly is subject to debate). Infinity built a couple of enclosures where the face tapered away from the mids and tweeters, IIRC.

#2, again maybe. It would be helpful if we knew what the xover frequencies were.

#3, again we don't know without knowing xover frequencies.

#5, Ohm I's use a top mounted 8" woofer. AR 9's use side mounted woofers. Lots of precedence from reputable manufacturers for having woofers off axis.

#6, I'd disagree. There are plenty of speaker designs that have the midrange and tweeter on opposite sides of the face of the enclosure (Ohm C2), or mounted vertically further apart than these (Infinity RS 5000). In a speaker like this, combing effect would only be noticeable if the drivers were spaced far apart and you were either well above or well below center. With the tweeter mounted directly above the mid, being off center sideways won't matter.

#7, My guess is that the rear plate is that size to allow for a label.
bs

Of course these might all be valid reasons or exceptions. Surely we can come up with countless more to explain away whatever we wish. My approach was simply a first-pass estimation.

If it was a used car I was evaluating and the front tires didn't match the rear, the windows didn't roll up and the doors didn't open, I wouldn't spend any time trying to understand why those might be legitimate design choices.

But if it was a 1969 Dodge Charger painted like the General Lee, well then - different story entirely!

 

[pauldrewry]

Is it safe to say the cabs look sealed?