Jay Mitchell and the power of flat response

[Jay Mitchell]

Oh come ON Jay! You say that like I should just KNOW that!

No, I said it like I was repeating something I had very clearly stated earlier in this thread.

 

[Rex]

Whats the are the missing pieces ? How do I learn what I need to know to get good results?

The "missing pieces" in this case would require perhaps 35-40 years of academic study and professional experience to acquire.

frankiev asks a good question — one that's on a lot of people's minds — to which Jay provides a good answer.

The truth is, it takes more to become a good loudspeaker designer than can be summarized in a few sentences. You need to study the heck out of it, and you need to practice, practice, practice. You need to take your hard-earned book knowledge and apply it; learn what works and what doesn't, when to apply theory and where, how to juggle what you know with what you can do, what the risks are that can put you in technical trouble, how to work within the constraints you're presented with...even how to recognize a constraint when you see one.



How to design a top-notch speaker system, how to become a top-notch mechanic or luthier or guitar player or doctor, all boils down to a two-step formula:

1. Learn everything you can about your chosen field — continuously, for as long as you're in the game.
2. Get out there and start making mistakes.

There's just no shortcut. If there were, someone would be making a fortune teaching it.

 

[Rex]

So, let's see. The only knowledge you're willing to share on this subject is that you're the only with the knowledge (including, apparently, all the feckless designers of all the other sucky-ass products on the market) to build this Holy Grail of a product...

What would be really helpful would be a "tutorial" here about something you seem to actually know something about--the sound design questions that you and the OP have so enthusiastically primed folks to ask about.

Jay has shared his knowledge generously on the forum. No, there's no tutorial, but if you search the forum, you'll find enough useful (and often rare) tidbits to keep you busy for hours.

I've followed Jay's postings for a while now, and there's a recurring theme: Jay drops some tasty information in a post, and there's a clamor for More! More! More! I can't fault the forum members for that; I've been guilty of it myself, even in this thread. But I can't fault Jay for drawing the line on how many hundreds of words per day he's willing to write here, or how many times he chooses to answer my demands for more. While I may not always cotton to the directness of his writing style, the truth is, he's taught me things through this forum that I haven't come close to anywhere else. And he gave it to me for free.

So you two, what exactly is the point of this thread? To start a religion or what?

The point was pretty clear in the OP: to share a surprising result, and to let us know that there's more out there than most of us were aware of.

 

[brain21]

No, I said it like I was repeating something I had very clearly stated earlier in this thread.

OK Jay....

You are making it abundantly clear that you really DIDN'T read the first part of my first post, despite your claims otherwise. If you HAD, you would have read where I stated "OK, this thread is 21 pages long and I'm only a few in so its entirely possible that I am beating a dead horse here. If so, let me apologize ahead of time."

Or maybe you did, and simply didn't give a f*@K about that, chose to ignore it and act as if I didn't apologize for it to begin with?

Nice. Real nice.

Its funny how most of the time people that you are rude to don't say "you're wrong" to you or anything, they simply ask "what if" and "what about" and you manage to turn that into an excuse to be rude without sanction. They are asking you these questions because, well, for these forums you ARE the authority. But you seem to turn it into something quite different. They ask challenging questions of you because they respect you, and sometimes you simply shit on them in return. If they ask (ok, this is hyperbole, granted) "you are right, oh guru, and what is your vaulted opinion on this?" then you gladly answer. If they ask "Hey, but what about this circumstance - doesn't it contradict what you said before?" then watch out!!! Sorry, but your vast knowledge on these subjects is NOT license to act like you do towards some people. If you don't do it on purpose, maybe you should reflect (just a suggestion). However, I have a feeling that your actions are quite on purpose and calculated.

If I am out of line or wrong here, please let me know (HA! Like you wouldn't! )

 

[brain21]

frankiev asks a good question — one that's on a lot of people's minds — to which Jay provides a good answer.

The truth is, it takes more to become a good loudspeaker designer than can be summarized in a few sentences.

You are right, but is that the point? What I mean is was frankiev wanting to know how to design a loudspeaker from scratch? Or was he looking to put together the right components? He said assume he has the mentioned speak and the right amp, what is he missing. I would guess it would be things along the line of "some type of cab that imparts certain qualities, and the right crossover." Things of that nature, as opposed to "a degree in physics and 40 years of experience" - after all I don't have to know how to woodwork and finish guitar bodies and understand how to tap-tune a body in order to replace the pickups in mine, or build a parts-caster of excellent quality. Or am *I* the one misunderstanding his post?

I'm guessing he is thinking like I am - OK, no way would I ever build Jay's system (cause I don't have the expertise), or buy it (cause its not for sale). But can I use even some of those principles to do something like put together a cab maybe better than say the FBT for about the same price or less? I mean I can get a B&C or RCF coax 12" neodymium speaker for around $500. Lets say I have an amp. Could I put that stuff in an Avatar or a Thiele style cab and be done? Probably not. SO what else do I need to think of? Specific cross over frequencies and how that is accomplished? What? Since I can't have Jay's system what can I take away from this thread and use not only to make smarter selections in the future, but maybe put to use in a DIY fashion, so long as I have reasonable expectations of the outcomes? Can I build a better (not best) mousetrap? Or is it even worth pursuing at all? Apologies to frankiev if I am speaking out of turn here...

 

[brain21]

Jay has shared his knowledge generously on the forum. No, there's no tutorial, but if you search the forum, you'll find enough useful (and often rare) tidbits to keep you busy for hours.

You are absolutely correct.

I've followed Jay's postings for a while now, and there's a recurring theme: Jay drops some tasty information in a post, and there's a clamor for More! More! More! I can't fault the forum members for that; I've been guilty of it myself, even in this thread. But I can't fault Jay for drawing the line on how many hundreds of words per day he's willing to write here, or how many times he chooses to answer my demands for more. While I may not always cotton to the directness of his writing style, the truth is, he's taught me things through this forum that I haven't come close to anywhere else. And he gave it to me for free.

Again, you are absolutely correct. Jay doesn't have to do any of what he does for us. He doesn't have to answer any questions, but he does and we appreciate it (yes Jay, even me, and I bet even geetarded too!). The problem at times is not necessarily with the content of what Jay posts, but in the manner in which he posts it at times. I see another recurring theme in some of the threads here and on TGP. That is his replies can be rude and temperamental (to put it nicely). Now if someone else posts "at him" in a rude way, then I can understand a rude response. But I see him responding rudely when there is no impetus for it. Think of it this way. I am reading the thread, and trying to absorb this. I see a somewhat unique opportunity to directly ask an expert in the field my questions, and sometimes I get great responses, and sometimes I get rude retorts. And I asked in a respectful, questioning manner. And its not just me. Search around.

I guess the good thing is he doesn't seem to hold grudges towards a specific poster outside of a thread (which also makes it more unpredictable, and surprising when he suddenly does react negatively). For example I asked a question here some time back about the DriveRack. His answer was concise, informative and polite.

Then there is here.

Also some of this could be due to the very nature of forums and (mis)understanding intent, etc. And again, thats not always the case either. And I'm not attacking him either. I'm expressing my shock and dismay at the tone of his responses to what were respectful inquiries hoping for an educational answer, not an accusatory one.

I'm not bitter towards him in general. I know from experience, as mentioned, in a different thread on another subject he could be very nice to myself and others, despite the contents of this thread.

Jay, can't we ALL just get along?

 

[Rex]

...was frankiev wanting to know how to design a loudspeaker from scratch? Or was he looking to put together the right components?...after all I don't have to know how to woodwork and finish guitar bodies and understand how to tap-tune a body in order to replace the pickups in mine, or build a parts-caster of excellent quality.

What I take from this thread and others is that building a good speaker system can't be accomplished by assembling off-the-shelf components. Pickup replacement and Partscaster building can be.

Could I put that stuff in an Avatar or a Thiele style cab and be done? Probably not. SO what else do I need to think of? Specific cross over frequencies and how that is accomplished? What? Since I can't have Jay's system what can I take away from this thread and use not only to make smarter selections in the future, but maybe put to use in a DIY fashion, so long as I have reasonable expectations of the outcomes?

Excellent questions. I'd love to know the answers myself. Could Jay have addressed those questions? Yes, but he chose not to, possibly for some of the reasons mentioned in my earlier post. Also, remember that loudspeaker design and sales is his livelihood. He is no more likely to divulge his design approach than Cliff is to publish his distortion algorithm.

brain21, I hear you. I wish the answers to those questions were right here. But they're not, and based on past experience, no amount of prodding is going to knock them loose. So I take what I was given, down a glass of gratitude, and move on. I get the same information as everyone else — the glass of gratitude lets me sleep without concern for what I didn't get. Sounds corny, but it works.

 

[Rex]

The problem at times is...the manner in which he posts it at times...

I hear and understand you. Your post is thoughtful and even-handed. Please forgive me if I don't address that topic. I'm not much for talking about people's ways, particularly in a public arena. But I will share what works for me.

I have zero control over what a poster writes. But I have absolute control over my reaction to it. When I find myself in a fight, it's usually because I haven't exercised that control. If a post rubs me the wrong way, I take a breath, do the dishes, sleep on it...generally let it sit until I no longer feel compelled to defend myself. Then, if I feel the post warrants a reply from me, I look it over, find the good in it, address the bad if I feel it's important to do so, and compose my response, giving as little thought as possible to any real or perceived affront. It's positively liberating to sit and watch while the storm rages around you.

Also some of this could be due to the very nature of forums and (mis)understanding intent, etc.

So true. There have been times I've read one of my own posts and thought, "Man, I sounded like a jerk in that one." It's spooky-easy to come off entirely differently from what you intended.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

If you HAD, you would have read where I stated "OK, this thread is 21 pages long and I'm only a few in

Oh, I read that part too. Why anyone would bother writing the epic post you wrote when the answers you sought were, for the most part, already present in the thread in which you asked them is an open question. "Apologizing" in advance changes nothing. If you're really interested in the answers to your questions, you should at least read through the thread before asking them.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

What I mean is was frankiev wanting to know how to design a loudspeaker from scratch? Or was he looking to put together the right components?

It doesn't matter. The "missing pieces" cannot be acquired by reading posts in an online forum, any more than learning to play guitar or achieving spiritual awakening can be. Awareness of what you do not know must precede knowing. Thinking you can assemble the speaker in question from some recipe is prima facie evidence that you don't know what you don't know.

I'm not going to go any deeper than that, except to say that those who are truly interested in the subject are not asking for knowledge to be handed to them here.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Here's a list of some of the issues that affect the behavior of a loudspeaker. All of them - and some additional ones not listed here - must be thoroughly understood and taken into account in order to produce a satisfactory result.

Individual transducers:

1. Maximum available acoustic power output.

2. Absolute bandwidth.

3. Amplitude vs. frequency response.

4. Phase vs. frequency response.

5. Directivity vs. frequency as implemented in the design (IOW, in the final enclosure).

Enclosure:

1. Structural integrity of materials/construction. This is by far the easiest issue to address. Any halfway-decent carpenter can do this, yet many people think this is the main part.

2. Internal standing waves.

3. Diffraction of acoustic energy from edges and surface transitions.

4. Placement of transducers relative to each other and to the enclosure.

System:

1. Absolute bandwidth.

2. Maximum available acoustic power output.

3. Amplitude vs. frequency response.

4. Phase vs. frequency response. This item and 1. immediately above are both contained in the speaker's impulse response.

5. Directivity vs. frequency.

6. Amplitude and phase response at all angles within the intended coverage of the device.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, nor will I be elaborating on individual items beyond the explanations I have already provided on the forum over the past 4 years.

 

[burningyen]

LOL at people getting so exercised over this stuff. There is gear out there in the world that is better than yours and that you can't afford. This has zero bearing on your ability to make great, life-changing music.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

LOL at people getting so exercised over this stuff. There is gear out there in the world that is better than yours and that you can't afford. This has zero bearing on your ability to make great, life-changing music.

I'm in complete agreement with that. To quote a local bass player talking about gear-related OCD, "It ain't the arrows, it's the Indian."

 

[brain21]

What I take from this thread and others is that building a good speaker system can't be accomplished by assembling off-the-shelf components. Pickup replacement and Partscaster building can be.

Excellent questions. I'd love to know the answers myself. Could Jay have addressed those questions? Yes, but he chose not to, possibly for some of the reasons mentioned in my earlier post.

Well, what I take is that assembling a high-end system from off the shelf components is near impossible if not impossible. Probably the same with creating a simply great one. Something that I just good? I don't know the answer. Probably not too likely either.

To defend Jay for a moment - unless I missed a few posts (entirely possible) I don't know if anyone asked those questions to Jay directly, and in a direct manner, and therefore I wouldn't expect him to answer. Hes not psychic (afaik )

And if someone did, it might very well behoove him to not answer from a business perspective, but I am guessing him telling us wouldn't hurt HIS business. As we mentioned, no one is going to build a system like the custom ones he builds with off the shelf components. However, it could very well be considered "bad form" in his line of work to tell us how to build a better mouse trap. If so, I would expect him not to really tell us. I know that in MY line of work if, even in a forum on my own time, I told people how to assemble software and tools to try to recreate stuff that we sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if they couldn't quite get there, people at my company and others in the industry might very well frown upon that. SO either way, I would totally understand if he were asked if he were reluctant to say.

 

[brain21]

I have zero control over what a poster writes. But I have absolute control over my reaction to it. When I find myself in a fight, it's usually because I haven't exercised that control. If a post rubs me the wrong way, I take a breath, do the dishes, sleep on it...generally let it sit until I no longer feel compelled to defend myself.

You know, you make an excellent point here. Something a lot of us (obviously myself included) should think about!

 

[brain21]

Oh, I read that part too. Why anyone would bother writing the epic post you wrote when the answers you sought were, for the most part, already present in the thread in which you asked them is an open question. "Apologizing" in advance changes nothing. If you're really interested in the answers to your questions, you should at least read through the thread before asking them.

Forgive for reading a third of the thread, getting really interested in the subject, and maybe jumping the gun. I read the stuff, had thoughts and questions in my mind, and wanted to get them out while they were fresh in my mind rather than an hour or two later. Thats me. Sorry if it rubs you the wrong way there Jay. As far as my apologizing in advance changes nothing, well, that says a lot, and thats all I'll say about that....

 

[brain21]

It doesn't matter. The "missing pieces" cannot be acquired by reading posts in an online forum, any more than learning to play guitar or achieving spiritual awakening can be. Awareness of what you do not know must precede knowing. Thinking you can assemble the speaker in question from some recipe is prima facie evidence that you don't know what you don't know.

I'm not going to go any deeper than that, except to say that those who are truly interested in the subject are not asking for knowledge to be handed to them here.

See Jay, you answered him, possibly without realizing! IOW, its more than simply the sum of its parts.

As an analogy, you can't simply bolt any guitar neck on any body and have a playable guitar. You have to be aware of the scale that the neck is and the scale that was used to place the bridge in it's spot, and even if you get that right you now have to contend with the proper neck angle, bridge saddle adjustments, nut adjustments, truss rod adjustments, trem spring adjustments (if appropriate), shimming the neck pocket if necessary, etc.. So,the same thing goes with piecing together a system. You can't simply take a coax speaker throw it in a 12" cab, even one designed for it glue on some tolex and expect professional results, etc.

 

[brain21]

It doesn't matter. The "missing pieces" cannot be acquired by reading posts in an online forum

I think a good part of the reason why people ask these things is because you CAN easily assemble an absolute top-notch guitar cab from off the shelf stuff. You can be "careless" in the speakers you select vs what the cab is designed for and often still get good, if not great results. So, why can't we apply the same principles to an FRFR design? Its just a speaker in a box, right? Well, obviously its NOT just a speaker in a box. with guitar cabs, often the speakers are designed to take advantages of the imperfections that exist. Color is imparted and that actually becomes PART of the design and sound. However, FRFR is a whole different animal. Taking advantage of color is a whole different world from attempting to remove it entirely! And not getting that, and the complications that that entails, is why you see a lot of posts on forums like the ones that may irk you from time to time.

Its quite easy to add salt to a stew that is cooking. Removing that salt from the stew, however adds another world of complications and specifically designed filters, etc. that like requires specialized knowledge or your just gonna get a few messy pots and nothing to show for it!

 

[youngmic]

Nicely said, brain21. It's interesting to note that even among audiophile systems priced in the $100K's there are differences in sound across solutions. I am not a professional or even a true audiophile, but I think it's safe to say that no speaker is truly transparent. Currently, I don't believe it's possible to create a completely transparant speaker. Of course, I could be wrong. Even with all the objective science available to us today, there is still a subjective element in speaker selection - if you care enough to notice : ). And while there might be science in music, music isn't science. (I'm talking to myself here : ). )

I hope someday to have the opportunity to play through some of the high end systems that have been discussed here. But I think until I have a few more years and a few more dollars, I'm going to stick with what I have for now. And I arrived at what I have now by listening to everything I could possibly get in front of me, then picked what I thought was best (which, it turned out, wasn't even the most expensive of the available choices). Maybe it has to be as simple as that.

I think about people who have played acoustic for years and are just getting started with an electric. They ask me about my tone. "Which amp, which guitar, which pickups, which pedals"....etc. It's impossible to answer that. If you handed them the best of everything, they would probably never have the opportunity to learn through trial and error - i.e. from their "mistakes". Going with what you like has to be part of the process. If you "learn" that you should, or better yet, actually do like something different in the future, then that experience will guide your next selection.

I think I could write on this for a while so will stop now. Besides, I need to read what I just wrote and try to apply it to my own search. : )

 

[Jay Mitchell]

You guys seem to be assuming that the questions you have asked can even be answered in posts in an online forum. They cannot. It really does take years of study, followed by decades of hands-on experience, to learn to do a really good job designing a loudspeaker. It's similar in degree of difficulty and commitment required to the task of mastering guitar. Those who are looking for easy answers will always be disappointed. I will not pretend that such answers even exist.