WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Commentaries on other forums, people, events etc.
Forum rules
1. No ad-hominem
2. No spamming or shilling
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 29539
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:05 pm

PuritéAudio

Drivers shouldn’t ‘flex’ at all but remain pistonic, it isn’t just area of course but also excursion, as always implementation is everything.

Richard Dunn

"I think Shadders is saying 4 drivers with an area of 100 square cms would be equivalent to one driver with an area of 400 square cms."

Doesn't work that way.

Richard Dunn


PuritéAudio said:
Drivers should ‘flex’ at all but remain pistonic, it isn’t just area of course but also excursion, as always implementation is everything.

This shows a total lack of understanding of how music propogates across a cone.

complin

There are several other factors that have probably also influenced the design of modern speakers too

Generally houses are much smaller than they used to be so if one wants a system these days they do need to be compact with smaller box count and size

The layout in modern houses too has changed a lot over the past few decades. Each room used to have a purpose, lounge, dining room kitchen etc. These days modern houses have multi-function rooms like dining kitchens, or larger lounges but combined with a dining area. In some flats or town houses the lounge, kitchen and dining area are all combined into a single room. That also means equipment is on permanent show so SWIMBO is likely to have much more sway in what the setup will look like rather than when we were able to have our listening room..

Good design has become more important. Years ago it was really only the lifestyle brands like B&O who majored on design. Today we have access to equipment produced from all over the world, particularly from China and Europe so brands have to be able to offer something different to stand out in the market place. There are only a few companies who can just major on sound quality (i.e. Harbeth and their like)

Relationships have also changed considerably. If I compare how my parents managed their marriage and relationship with some of my 30 something friends it is much more a marriage of equals, more consultation and give and take I would suggest. :whistle:

dudywoxer

Richard Dunn said:
So they prefer to fight the room than the baffle :whistle:

probably yes, i personally find the ''backwards'' looking to when everything was so much better in hi fi confusing. Cars are designed by the same bean counters and marketing men as those involved in the hi fi industry, as are TV's and radios. I wouldn't want to go back to a 60's or 70's car everyday, or a radio come to that. If decent levels of music reproduction in the home is ever going to be anything beyond a very fringe interest again, the nature of life, and relationships has to be kept in mind. The good old days were not that bloody good especially for the women.

bobovox

Richard can you explain, please. I was under the impression that drive units remained effectively pistonic (ie deflexion of the cone / dome due to flexure was negligible relative to the movement of the suspension) right up to the frequencies at which the cone starts "breaking-up" ie vibrating in a flexural mode across the cone - and drive units would be rolled-off in the cross-over well below the start of break-up. The exception being balanced mode radiators (BMR).

This is an idea that I have developed through reading several textbooks on loudspeaker design (eg Louspeaker Design Cookbook by Vance Dickerson) so not something picked-up from forums.

FWIW I have designed and built two pairs of DIY speakers. I am intending to show a pair of small speakers (under construction) at Kegworth.
Like

Ron Hilditch

George 47 said:
I think Shadders is saying 4 drivers with an area of 100 square cms would be equivalent to one driver with an area of 400 square cms.

No it wouldn't! It's the square of the diameter x Pi /4. Giving 50% of the single drivers area.

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 29539
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:15 pm

lindsayt

Richard Dunn said:
Has WAF largely killed good speaker choices, is it all now about bling and fitting in with the better half.

I agree with this 100%

WAF has LARGELY killed good speakers.

There are exceptions amongst modern speakers. But well over 95% of speakers available to buy new today prioritise WAF over ultimate sound quality.

I like big ugly old speakers. Because it's easy to cherry pick the better sounding ones (just buy by weight and retail price when they were brand new and you won't go far wrong). And they offer either pleasantly good sound for a few hundred quid. Or they represent sound long term investments if they are a sought after rarity (preferably with a unique selling point such as 30" bass drivers).

I can however understand why the vast majority of people have no interest in big ugly speakers. And why they would much prefer to have WAF boxes. It's horses for courses. And the horse for my course is the size of a blue whale with 12 legs, and 7 heads. Where as, for most people a Shetland Pony is more.

Richard Dunn

bobovox said:
Richard can you explain, please. I was under the impression that drive units remained effectively pistonic (ie deflexion of the cone / dome due to flexure was negligible relative to the movement of the suspension) right up to the frequencies at which the cone starts "breaking-up" ie vibrating in a flexural mode across the cone - and drive units would be rolled-off in the cross-over well below the start of break-up. The exception being balanced mode radiators (BMR).
This is an idea that I have developed through reading several textbooks on loudspeaker design (eg Louspeaker Design Cookbook by Vance Dickerson) so not something picked-up from forums.
FWIW I have designed and built two pairs of DIY speakers. I am intending to show a pair of small speakers (under construction) at Kegworth.

RD - A cone propogates from the centre out, the higher the frequency the nearer the centre, hence parasitic cones. The deepest bass is released at the surround. So there are multiple frequencies going across the cone and released at different points * so they cannot be pistonic that would only happen at one frequency. Spider and surround should be considered part of this process and are not often considered. A roll surround on an acoustic suspension is pistonic at low frequencies as the cone sits on the air enclose so becomes part of the mechanical load. A speaker with a crimp surround loaded by an open cabinet or baffle is designed to flex at the release point, it whips the sound out. Pistonic action is a theory fantasy in all cases.

* It is understanding this and how a cone propogates music is how I have learnt to dope cones so a crossover can be avoided, I do it mechanically because I know my drivers from experience working with them.

TheFlash

I like big ugly old speakers. Because it's easy to cherry pick the better sounding ones (just buy by weight and retail price when they were brand new and you won't go far wrong). And they offer either pleasantly good sound for a few hundred quid. Or they represent sound long term investments if they are a sought after rarity (preferably with a unique selling point such as 30" bass drivers).

I can however understand why the vast majority of people have no interest in big ugly speakers. And why they would much prefer to have WAF boxes. It's horses for courses. And the horse for my course is the size of a blue whale with 12 legs, and 7 heads. Wheras, for most people a Shetland Pony is more like it.

The vast majority of people have no interest in big ugly wives either... but, crikey, they can't half cook.

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 29539
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:25 pm

Richard Dunn

An alternative way to observe.


Music - Note that when you throw a pebble in a pool of water or into a quiet pond, the wave goes out in all directions. Yet a leaf floating on the surface of the water does not change location because of the wave passing underneath. In other words, a wave can pass from one point to another point, in the water medium, yet all the water molecules remain in their original location. That is characteristic of wave phenomena. A speaker cone behave the same way, it is not pistonic it is a wave.

Many, many have listened their whole life yet still do not understand listening energy.

Music requires “listening” energy, and transformation into emotional stimuli. Even just a discussion of “listening” will puzzle many people. Some believe that listening only practices the sense of hearing. They insist on deleting the word “listening”.

“Listening is the most appropriate word.” Just consider how we are able to hear a sound from the other side of a wall.

So remember the word “listening” is the key to understanding energy. Energy is a wave. Music is a collection of waves that move you, they stimulate you. Music in electrical or acoustic form is still the same wave, the medium has changed.

bobovox



Richard Dunn said:
A cone propogates from the centre out, the higher the frequency the nearer the centre, hence parasitic cones. The deepest bass is released at the surround. So there are multiple frequencies going across the cone and released at different points * so they cannot be pistonic that would only happen at one frequency. Spider and surround should be considered part of this process and are not often considered. A roll surround on an acoustic suspension is pistonic at low frequencies as the cone sits on the air enclose so becomes part of the mechanical load. A speaker with a crimp surround loaded by an open cabinet or baffle is designed to flex at the release point, it whips the sound out. Pistonic action is a theory fantasy in all cases.

 * It is understanding this and how a cone propogates music is how I have learnt to dope cones so a crossover can be avoided, I do it mechanically because I know my drivers from experience working with them.

Richard,

Thank you. The reference to doped cones was interesting to me as the first "hifi" 'speakers I owned were Royd Minstrels which featured doped paper cone mid-bass units, which I believe ran full-range (electrically) and presumably relied on the doping to produce a smooth and predictable roll-off, with an electrical cross-over / compensation network for the tweeter. I would be grateful if you would point me in the direction of any published guidance/research findings into doping techniques for speaker cones.

Can you please explain what has lead you to the the conclusion that the vibration of the spider should be considered?

uzzy

dudywoxer said:
don't we all know that for big deep bass, you need a big bass driver. It could just be more of course, but big drivers in most rooms sounds bloody horrible anyway. Noting worse than overblown bass to me. I would rather have a smaller driver that lets you hear other areas of a speakers performance than a boom box.

Sorry it is not the big bass driver in a room that causes bass problems - it is one of a number of things including

- Design of the bass unit used (quality of materials/design/magnet

- the design of the enclosure

- if it is sited in the corners (even then with the right enclosure this should not be a problem)

For realistic bass there is no substitute for larger drive units - and that is just a fact of physics.

However, I do agree that overblown bloated bass is probably worse than a speaker with a strident top end (unless of course it is a speaker with both a bloated overblown bass and a strident top end) .. of course a graphic equaliser can sort a number of those problems out (for those who cannot find a speaker that does what they want in the room they have) even though it may create a few problems of its own depending on the quality etc.

Richard Dunn

bobovox said:
Richard,

Thank you. The reference to doped cones was interesting to me as the first "hifi" 'speakers I owned were Royd Minstrels which featured doped paper cone mid-bass units, which I believe ran full-range (electrically) and presumably relied on the doping to produce a smooth and predictable roll-off, with an electrical cross-over / compensation network for the tweeter. I would be grateful if you would point me in the direction of any published guidance/research findings into doping techniques for speaker cones.

Can you please explain what has lead you to the the conclusion that the vibration of the spider should be considered?

RD - Both spider and surround have to be considered as they are terminations. Music is a wave that propogates until terminated. Terminations are important due to reflections from them.

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 29539
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:26 pm

Now carry on, maybe posters will join here to get back in the thread (minus the Trolls).

SteveTheShadow
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:24 pm
Location: S Yorks
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by SteveTheShadow » Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:33 pm

_D_S_J_R_ wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:57 pm
I came into this industry in the early 70's when the best speakers were BIG!!!!! The lady of the house had little to no say at all, dems were to 'himself' back then and when he got the pair of large speakers home, 'herself' would usually accept it and maybe place photos or similar on top and probably grudgingly enjoy the superior music reproduction too. By the late 80's, 'couples' came in to choose a HiFi and I remember being horrified when the lady of the house told hubby and myself in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS what she WASN'T having in her lounge!!!!!!! This happened more and more I remember and when faced with resistance on Sara or Epos 14 'open' stands for example, a suggestion of a fern or other 'frothy leaved' pot plant placed in the stand 'well,' could usually swing it if these were liked sonically. I was ever-so-slightly luckier, as herself initially would have accepted my large ATC's, but the right hand one would have been next to a regularly used understairs cupboard in our small house and as it was almost impossible to slide an 85kg lump around, they had to go - a decision I deeply (and I admit sometimes tearfully) regret to this day, especially after hearing a brand new latest spec pair last weekend (I'd forgotten how deep the 100ASL's are - effin' huge front to back!).

So, speaking alongside the posts above, WAF dominates and most of 'us' have to live with it I reckon.
Interesting post and I would argue that the reason large speakers got "past the missus" and into lounges in the 70s was because 99.99% of them were designed to be close to the walls and thus despite their size, were relatively unobtrusive, and pot plants and ornaments could be put on them. Jeez, even Leak 2075s could have been made acceptable once that hideous set of grilles was painted anything but silver.

Re the battles with wives over Linn Saras and Kans on open stands. I should bloody well think so! Not only did they look like shite on their perches,they also sounded like bags of spanners.

I would argue that rather than WAF being the major consideration of today's speaker designs, it is competely ignored. IMO, the slim, deep floorstanders with the multiple drivers accentuated by trim rings, placed out in the room and cabled with fire hoses are nothing more than male jewellry and have zero to do with appealing to women. The macho heavy gold bracelet, bling brigade gave up trying to appeal to women years ago as they long since decided that there is no market advantage in trying to appeal to them.

I made a study of the WAF phenomenon when I was doing supply teaching. Primary schools are heavily feminised places and staff rooms were a perfect study environmment. I showed around 100 different women, aged 25-60, a set of pictures of speakers, from the 50s to the present day, all in situ, plus my own Metronome and OmniMet designs and simply asked them to tick the ones they would have in their living rooms and put a zero against those that would not get past the front door. Most of the 1950s, 60s and 70s speakers got a tick.
Virtually everything from the 1980s to the 2000s got a zero, apart from interestingly, the Linn Isobarik without the metal stands. My own designs (which they didn't know were mine) all got ticks too.

The big Fane speakers I have at the moment have all gained approval from female friends, both for sound and looks. My five foot Metronome tapered truncated pyramid speakers also got approval despite their height, although the four foot and three foot six inch versions were better liked, as were the original OmniMets I designed. The flatbacked ones failed outright because they "looked too wierd" and I have to agree with them; the flatties were a bridge too far, although they sounded good. The original OmniMet sounds just as good and, importantly is acceptable. Not that I'm about to go into business with speakers, but I think the research I did was very interesting and proved to me at any rate, that good sound and WAF do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Trouble is, the "industry" has given up and IMO they are missing a trick.
DIY NVA amplification ( roughly equivalent to NVA A60) BTE Designs passive preamp, BTE Designs Lenco L75 turntable, Rega R200 arm, Goldring E3 cartridge, NVA Phono 1
Musical Fidelity M1 DAC, AppleTV4 with Apple Music subscription, ripped CDs streamed via WD MyCloud Home Duo NAS, with PLEX media server.
Speakers - Large sealed cabs, with Fane 12-250-TC 12" full range drivers.

User avatar
karatestu
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:40 pm
Location: North Yorkshire
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by karatestu » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:12 pm

Wife has not seen my beautiful isobaric bass cubes and little cuboids sat on top. :pray: She will get to see the final build though. :guiness;

My wife loves music as much as me and values a good emotional experience from it. I don't really put my foot down about anything but I will when it comes to the sound system - she can have her way with everything else (I couldn't give a crap), but this :hand: :naughty:

Some men need to grow some bollocks
Naim, Linn & Harbeth fanboy

_D_S_J_R_
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:53 am
Location: The end of the road in Suffolk Coastal.
Wales

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by _D_S_J_R_ » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:48 pm

Hey Steve, Not sure how near to my age you are, but thirty plus years ago, we used to get GREAT sounds from Sara's - on the music we played and the fruitbox source we mostly used... the original issue of 'Slave To The Rhythm' (with spoken parts between the tracks) has a couple of tracks that nearly blew the bass cones out ;)... yep, as Doc says, a domesticated PA system, but perfect for bods 'our' age back then and the 80's music we played, if not now. I was never a Kan fan, but there were other smaller boxes needing stands such as the Linn 'perches' (wonderful description).

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 29539
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:56 pm

My point is speaker are no longer built for musical ability, they are built to sell, nothing more, something to impress on dem, even if they would be irritating you like hell latter. Built for bling all the money spent to impress, open them up and if you know what you talking about you would laugh, a pair of old M series Goodmans or Wharfedale or smaller companies like Richard Allen spent the money on what was in them. IMO it is a disgrace, but it is the big marketing companies that do this there are still smaller guys, trying to make good stuff not marketing men and accountants deciding what they will con you with.

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 2576
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Marshall Islands

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by Lindsayt » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:39 pm

The design priorities for too many modern speakers seems to be based around

1 WAF.
This leads to a subest of priorities / parameters.
1 (a) make it look small from the front. As per the fashion in speakers.
1 (b) don't make it too big.
1 (c) make it look fashionably modern.

2 Having settled on a size and shape to meet the WAF requirements. It's then a matter of achieving some headline grabbing specifications. Such as bass extension. Almost always this results in the use of a port and mid-bass drivers suitable for ported enclosures.

3 total costs to the manufacturer balanced against selling price. Designing the speaker to fit into a budget that sits nicely in the model range.


Small speakers, with ports, built down to a cost just sound... relatively shit. Especially for instruments like bass drums and bass guitars.

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 29539
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Great Britain

Re: WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor)

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:11 pm

But Royd managed it to a degree IMO no one since then. Also JPW managed to do an effective job as well with little cost. Even the early Wharfedale Diamonds made a good attempt at life and music if a degree unruly. Not the latest version, everything cheapened, bottom line the only important thing - you are being conned.

NOTE - for me nothing beats nva Cubes, so they are not part of this discussion.

Post Reply