Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 17:43:04 GMT
Anyone here ever met him?
Just wondering. Did Joe actually make those paper coned drivers for his earlier speakers? Or did he order them from a maker designed to his specs?
S.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,358
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 24, 2019 19:38:53 GMT
I assumed he had people working for him on this, especially as they made drivers for the Rega Ela. But I don’t know for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 24, 2019 20:29:33 GMT
Castle made some of the earliest ones I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 21:27:52 GMT
Remember reading somewhere years ago. Someone claiming that Joe was involved with making the original Goodmans Maxim Monitor Speakers.
S.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,358
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 24, 2019 22:12:15 GMT
I think thats right.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 25, 2019 7:20:21 GMT
The Maxims were NEVER monitors Shane. They were amongst the first rinky-dinky boxes, followed by the larger Ditton 15 (which were regarded as miniatures back then) to become popular in the UK, but when the BBC got interested as a predecessor to the 3/5 concept, they were found too variable and with little power handling. Goodmans couldn't produce them with a tight enough spec. It's in a published BBC Research tech sheet somewhere and with measurements to prove it.
The Royds were pretty bad measuring and to me, sounded it too, but there was a certain sect of dealers that liked them and that encouraged Joe further I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 7:38:10 GMT
I was going to say something along similar lines. The nearest Celestion equivalent to the Maxim was the Ditton 10 and it was a better speaker with higher quality drive units. Not that miniatures do much for me really.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,358
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 25, 2019 8:28:07 GMT
I like the Royd 7 litre speakers, but Joe was essentially a one trick pony, he just made variations on a theme. The reverence with which he and his speakers are viewed is undeserved imo. Still, people have to have “heroes” and “legends”, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 25, 2019 8:36:39 GMT
His way with next to no crossovers, a rising mid and simply a 'cap on the tweeter' kind of thing (from memory) seemed to influence a whole breed of copy-cat small speakers. Who cares if they shout and fizz at you, they're 'more dynamic and expressive...' I think it was because the buyers back then were still young-ish (hippy generation in their late thirties) and into more contemporary music and not really into larger scale orchestral or choral music(s), so a truthful reproduction of string tone wasn't an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 21:42:47 GMT
I thought Dan was good in "Dragnet".
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 27, 2019 8:06:04 GMT
His way with next to no crossovers, a rising mid and simply a 'cap on the tweeter' kind of thing (from memory) seemed to influence a whole breed of copy-cat small speakers. Who cares if they shout and fizz at you, they're 'more dynamic and expressive...' I think it was because the buyers back then were still young-ish (hippy generation in their late thirties) and into more contemporary music and not really into larger scale orchestral or choral music(s), so a truthful reproduction of string tone wasn't an issue. There's always been loads of speakers that just used a capacitor on the tweeter and doped the bass cone so it didn't break up too badly. Mostly budget speakers, the Wharfedale Delta30 for example. That part of the Royd 'philosophy' was not original to them. Combining it with other aspects (semi-omni design, mass loaded cabs, no damping) might have been, I don't know. Everyone gets their ideas from somewhere else. I've heard enough speakers with simple crossovers that sounded poor and enough speakers with complex crossovers that sounded excellent to know simplicity of crossover alone is no arbiter of anything. Only heard Royd speakers one time. I don't know the model, it was a floor stander with drivers angled off centre. Used with Albarry pre-power and a Marantz cd player. It was terrible. One of the worst things I ever heard. I wouldn't write them all off on that one experience though. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 27, 2019 9:42:39 GMT
I agree that the passive crossover may not be the terrible thing some have claimed it to be. before I heard them, i had an immediate pre-conceived downer on the PMC Fenestria's, as the crossover is very complex with 24db slopes. The auditioning disputed my pre-conceived notions and very-low-bass room matching aside, the mid and top is as open and clear as anyone would wish. having said that, I'd love to hear some pro QB1's though  Few here liked them I gather, but I remember being impressed by the Minstrel SE, although they didn't go very loud before bottoming out. the extreme highs could 'tizz' just a little, but it was more a pleasant sparkle to my ears and as so many 'Royd people' were vinyl lovers, it didn't matter really. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 27, 2019 9:56:01 GMT
On paper at least doing the crossover digitally gives the best of all worlds. You get the optimal slopes and level matching which are the advantages of the complex crossover and nothing between the power amplifiers and the drive units which is the advantage of no crossover.
I say on paper because the systems I have heard to date using such a method sounded impressive, very impressive, but I'm not sure I could live with them long term. That's where the personal taste bit overrides the ultimate transparency bit. No point having a super-accurate and revealing system if you never fancy listening to music on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 27, 2019 10:07:14 GMT
Open the window too wide and more muck flies in...
Wealthy pro's are increasingly looking to active with DSP (either fully digital or maybe a hybrid?) and I think Linn and Devialet have been looking to this one way or another in the fickle domestic market, but it'll be years before this becomes commonplace I believe. I've tried a humble analogue graphic equaliser to try to tame my system's excesses and it doesn't work at all well to me - it's better to deal with it at source (pulling the boomers well out into the room all but fixes it I discovered this week).
I heard the smaller stand mount Kudos Titan's fully DSP Linn active last Autumn and have to say I couldn't live with them (over-assertive monitors on steroids), yet the Kii Three's had me grinning from ear to ear (hopefully the cool running amps won't give trouble for decades as one is shafted if they break in donkey's years to come)
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 27, 2019 10:26:39 GMT
You don't need to be wealthy to implement DSP.
The Linn system seems over-simplified to me and the Devialet SAM system is also a bit crude. I've heard the Linn system and it did give very good integration between subs and speakers. Seamless. But the cost of that system was phenomenal.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 27, 2019 10:49:10 GMT
Doesn't stop people buying it - and they do apparently, even the non eq'd Naim driven version. maybe it's the pension cash pots that finance it, I really don't know.
|
|
