Spendor BC-1

[Daniel Quinn]

The concept of tuning a thin cabinet to vibrate at a certain resonant frequency upon the assumption that it will not effect how the drive units will play music seems silly to me .

1} Do they feed it 20,000 individual test tones to see how it behaves at each possible frequency

2} how do they determine that say a flimsy cabinet designed to resonate at 80Hz will not effect the rest of the spectrum by the nature of its construction .

3] why not mass load the cabinet and take the resonant frequency outside the speakers operating frequency response

seems to be about costs not sound and an idea that as now been left in the past .

ps - for future reference "go read up on it" is an ineffectual debating technique favored by the likes of ywanker, merlin and vital . when used by them it betrays their inability to convey what they think they understand in plain English .

You are better than that , it is beneath you

[_D_S_J_R_]

I repeat, go and read up on the BBC papers which are in the public domain. A fascinating exploration and the results were ALWAYS listened to using high quality music program once the basic design work was done.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1977-03.pdf

The maths goes over my tiny head, but you should be able to understand it. The rest of us should just play some music instead


Below is a link to the BBC LS3/4, which I 'think' was the direct ancestor of the BC1/LS3/6 concept. Drivers were similar I think and the 3/4, if I'm not mistaken, was a corner-mount model (Gawd, I hope I'm right here).

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1969-05.pdf

[Daniel Quinn]

That is bizarre, it is cabinets designed by mathematics.

it is a closed theoretical tautological argument which is impervious If you do not accept the presumptions and assumptions they make .

no where is there any attempt to relate the figures to what they heard , it always to reference to frequency response . There is no attempt to say these figures will give this sort of sound , it is clap trap .

As far as i am concerned that tells you nothing about loudspeakers and how they sound .

it is also does nothing to justify your comments about tuned resonant frequencies of cabinets sounding good .

[_D_S_J_R_]

DQ, how many more times do I have to tell you that I don't NEED to justify anything to you or anyone else where audio is concerned. You're as bad as Marco once was, disputing everything I volunteered that didn't fit in with your narrow experiences and mindset where audio is concerned. I just don't have the time and certainly not the energy now for heated debate whenever anything not fitting tightly with NVA or Doc-Mods is discussed. The Doc's way is one way, but not the ONLY one.

If you won't or just cannot understand the limitations these people had to work with for smaller monitor grade speakers back in the 60's, then so be it.

Why the fugg didn't my mate's dad buy AR3a's instead as we did lengthy comparisons that day...

[joe]

Surely something either 'sounds good' or it doesn't, and isn't the only arbiter of whether something 'sounds good' the individual listener?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

THE POINT is Dave, that the same as the with The Flat Earth the bullshit needs to be countered. This bullshit nearly took over the British speaker industry, until it lost the battle with the flat earth. OK so a salesman who runs Harbeth still wants to live off the BBC name, and I am certain what he makes now is nothing like a BBC design as he claims for marketing purposes. You should know me by now, BULLSHIT like this is like a red flag to this bull, I simply will not put up with it without pointing at it and telling people the TRUTH of what happened and why it is just marketing bullshit.

It is very simple the BBC was the BBC they needed things for the BBC. A couple of their white coats decided to leave and use the name to create a marketing BULLSHIT to create hi-fi sales and make themselves MONEY!, and we still suffer with it, look at the nonsense surrounding the LS3/5a for a start.

[Daniel Quinn]

DQ, how many more times do I have to tell you that I don't NEED to justify anything to you or anyone else where audio is concerned. You're as bad as Marco once was, disputing everything I volunteered that didn't fit in with your narrow experiences and mindset where audio is concerned. I just don't have the time and certainly not the energy now for heated debate whenever anything not fitting tightly with NVA or Doc-Mods is discussed. The Doc's way is one way, but not the ONLY one.

If you won't or just cannot understand the limitations these people had to work with for smaller monitor grade speakers back in the 60's, then so be it.

Why the fugg didn't my mate's dad buy AR3a's instead as we did lengthy comparisons that day...

O dear. You need to reread the thread .if anyone is a second rate Marco in this exchange it is you my modus operandi is the same find an opinion masking itself as a universal truth and then cross examine the logistics of said opinion.

May I suggest you ignore my posts in future you are not up to the task of arguing with me and you are easily upset. Not a good combination.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

OK, getting close to ad hominem, discuss the subject not the person please.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

So little understanding Everything that happened in the late 60's / early 70's with the BBC speaker projects was COMPROMISE.

1 to the available drive units
2 to the different needs of the BBC voice and music departments
3 to the desire of the "wannabe famous" design engineers to make things complicated to justify their wages.

None of those compromises exist to any of the same extent now. Much more and better drive unit choice now. We know we want music and we do not have BBC politics interfering now. The last one still exists but within large loudspeaker companies with what I consider to be idiots justifying their jobs and salaries.

So it is rank stupidity to worship a flawed and compromised design method and principle just because it bears the name BBC.

[_D_S_J_R_]

DQ, how many more times do I have to tell you that I don't NEED to justify anything to you or anyone else where audio is concerned. You're as bad as Marco once was, disputing everything I volunteered that didn't fit in with your narrow experiences and mindset where audio is concerned. I just don't have the time and certainly not the energy now for heated debate whenever anything not fitting tightly with NVA or Doc-Mods is discussed. The Doc's way is one way, but not the ONLY one.

If you won't or just cannot understand the limitations these people had to work with for smaller monitor grade speakers back in the 60's, then so be it.

Why the fugg didn't my mate's dad buy AR3a's instead as we did lengthy comparisons that day...

O dear. You need to reread the thread .if anyone is a second rate Marco in this exchange it is you my modus operandi is the same find an opinion masking itself as a universal truth and then cross examine the logistics of said opinion.

May I suggest you ignore my posts in future you are not up to the task of arguing with me and you are easily upset. Not a good combination.

I don't need to argue with you on THIS subject because I know from experience I'm right in what I say about these designs and have said how far things have moved on since then. If you won't accept this, then I can't help or educate you in a different way (to the Doc) in speaker design, which I've known rather intimately for more than forty years for good or bad (I was privileged to know Spencer Hughes and Dudley Harwood and neither were as gung-ho in sales as many latter day charlatans from different audio companies IME). As for me not being up to the task of arguing with you, that again reflects back on you, but I'm not going further with this. End of