Acoustic Suspension Recommendation

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4903 times.

VonHess

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 43
Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #20 on: 19 Sep 2016, 03:20 am »
Many of the Boston Acoustics designs from the late 80s through the 90s are great sounding AS speakers.  I have a pair of HD8s, refoamed them recently and they sound incredible.  Always a few of these on Ebay for cheap.  HD5 and HD7 would be closer to bookshelf size.

Norman Tracy

Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #21 on: 19 Sep 2016, 06:08 pm »
This is an interesting thread resulting from Funnehaha’s request for NS-10 replacement suggestions. I am old enough that when I started my audiophile journey the market was evenly split between sealed and vented speakers and then observed as vented types came to dominate the market. I have also recently further optimized my speaker system that is presently based on a sealed box bass section. I am very pleased with the results and thus in a pro-sealed box mood; the reader should of course discount that statement by the usual amount due to pride of authorship I have for my system.

Like Funnehaha I was pleased to learn that I had not noticed NHT remains true to sealed box designs. Of course the big name using (or shall I say reviving) that technology is Magico up in the funny money call the piano movers for the install part of the market. Back in the real world if a clean well-kept pair of ADS speakers of the desired size is available I remain a big fan for that sadly defunct brand. I have my ADS 500s in storage awaiting a binding post and capacitor refresh.

I want to add to the discussion some more engineering details when comparing sealed vs. vented designs and my opinions on how those translate to our experiences in the listening room. Let’s begin quoting from this thread then go a little deeper.

Above dB Cooper wrote “While it is true that not all sealed boxes are acoustic suspension, all acoustic suspension speakers are sealed boxes, which is the point Carl V was making. Both approaches seem to have largely fallen out of favor in recent years- acoustic suspension because of advances in drivers and cabinet loading technique which make it possible to avoid the 'one-note' bass which was the trademark of many older bass reflex designs while preserving the sensitivity advantages, and because ports seem to have become something of a 'selling point' (I have seen computer speakers with 1" deep 'reflex' tubes... Useless.) Infinite baffle speakers fell out of favor at least partially because they are usually fairly large (the Bozak Concert Grand is the size of a refrigerator).”

And JLM wrote about a Jordan based system “But it's also available in a slightly larger ported design where F3 moves (again as I recall) from 90 Hz to 50 Hz.  Which explains why sealed designs are less popular.”

I agree with both dB Cooper and JLM. I will add that most HiFi sales are a result of buying with our eyes over our ears. My thesis is vented has come to dominate because customer’s eyes like the extra feature of a port on the box and the ‘apparent’ deeper bass for a given box size on specification sheet. I quote apparent because while the F3 measured low end cutoff yields a lower frequency for the vented speaker in my experience the sealed design sounds deeper, cleaner, and more capable. Let’s dig into my somewhat contrary contention.

As Graham Bank and Julian Wright write in chapter 7 of John Borwick’s book ‘Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook’ comparing sealed vs vented enclosures “Superficially, this configuration (vented) provides ‘more bass’ than the closed box, but the fourth-order (24 dB/octave) low-frequency roll-off generally results in greater output in the upper bass (circa 80 Hz) but less ‘deep bass’ (circa 30 Hz).”

In the previous paragraphs Bank and Wright review the dipole baffle, sealed box, and vented box options for turning woofers into bass systems. These systems act as high-pass filters passing frequencies above their cutoff (F3) frequencies and progressively attenuating output below F3. For dipole woofer on-a-baffle systems the filter is a 1st order type output dropping at -6 dB/octave below F3. For closed or sealed box types we get a 2nd order filter output dropping at -12 dB/octave below F3. And vented/ported systems are 4th order with output dropping at -24 dB/octave below F3.

Now back to Borwick’s book ‘Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook’ in chapter 8 authored by Glyn Adams and revised by John Borwick part of the summary of a through derivation of a speaker interacting with its room is: “We can conclude from these examples that, when the loudspeaker system is positioned some distance away from the boundaries, the power output will be increased by 9 dB at low frequencies but will fall to the free-space value at high frequencies.”

So the room tends to add +9 dB of bass at low frequencies. My belief from experience is when a vented system rolls off at -24dB/octave the addition of +9 dB of boost courtesy of room gain is far less apparent that a sealed system rolling off at -12 dB/octave that gets +9 dB back from the room. In other words when we compare speaker+room systems rather than the speaker alone the vented case rolls off at (-24+9)=-15 dB/octave vs. sealed (-12+9)=-3 dB/octave. I believe this is why when listening to sealed box systems I more often hear the very low frequency information on a program.

Correlating the market vs. the engineering I believe Bank and Wrights observation “greater output in the upper bass (circa 80 Hz) but less ‘deep bass’ (circa 30 Hz)” observation shows vented systems are a better fit for most popular music. As has often been pointed out a great deal of what we call bass is in that second octave circa 80 Hz, to get something in the lowest first octave we need to pull out the organ, synthesizer, and movie effects sources.

Two more points as this is long enough already. First admitting the audibility of low frequency phase shift is a matter of great contention it is true that sealed systems exhibit a gradual phase shift of +90 to -90 degree shift across the LPF range vs. vented where at both the vent and woofer tuning frequencies the output does an abrupt -180 to +180 degree shift. Second (and finally) perhaps the biggest advantage I see for sealed systems (especially in smaller systems like the NS-10 size) is that below F3 the woofer remains loaded by the trapped air volume. In like sized vented systems below 50ish Hz the only thing keeping the woofer from pounding its mechanical stops is its mechanical suspension.

jupiterboy

Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #22 on: 19 Sep 2016, 06:45 pm »
You might look to NSMT. It's a very small shop, but they do many variations on acoustic suspension. It's really the designer's specialty.

I think many people are confused by some of his language, but what I've come to understand is that, at least in my monitors, he uses nearly identical mid-woofers in an MTM design. One driver is specified for semi-vented, which feeds into a transmission line. The other is designed and implemented as an acoustic suspension driver. They do need the right stands, but are front ported.

He has many variants, including concentric two-ways that are acoustic suspension designs. I listened to many speakers before purchasing, and am generally a Snell/Vandersteen fan.

HsvHeelFan

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 452
Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #23 on: 19 Sep 2016, 08:21 pm »
Does anyone know what happened to ADS and when they went out of business?

I had one of their powerplate car amplifiers in a mid 80's Honda that I really liked.

HsvHeelFan

Funnehaha

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 74
Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #24 on: 20 Sep 2016, 01:54 am »
You guys...you guys...>grin<

  This has been great! The link to the discourse provided by JCarney, and the discourse from Mr. Wright have been very good and are much appreciated. Sorry, Spendor D-1s at $3K+ are a bit north of reality for me. The Spendors and the NHTs are both available for a listen at the same local bricks and mortar store, so I may visit there soon.

  I have tried to bid on NS-10M Studios on fleaBay, but have been unsuccessful so far. I've been looking for ADS, Spica TC-50s and maybe Cizeks too.

Onward.


jupiterboy

Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #25 on: 20 Sep 2016, 01:45 pm »
NSMT has a 30 day trial, and I note they have two of their acoustic suspension monitors on clearance—Model 15 and 20M. 20M appears to use the TPX drivers, which is the material that inspired the current Harbeth driver material.

Funnehaha

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 74
Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #26 on: 21 Sep 2016, 03:58 am »
Okay...

  The local Craigslist has someone selling a pair of ADS CM6 compact two-way monitors. No grills, but 5-way binding posts. Does anybody here have any love for these? I believe these would be from later in the company's timeline....

  They're pretty cheap, so I'm not too worried about taking a chance on buying them without going through my usual thorough listening analysis.

This is fun.

Russell Dawkins

Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #27 on: 21 Sep 2016, 06:50 am »
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=144539.0


Russell Dawkins is selling an excellent pair of Powered
Studio Monitors. these would seem to meet all your needs.
8" woofer, 3" dome Mid-range& Tweeter. Sealed Acoustic suspension.
Powered with active XO.

Thanks for the plug, Carl V. I have updated my listing just now.

Russell Dawkins

Re: Acoustic Suspension Recommendation
« Reply #28 on: 21 Sep 2016, 07:06 am »
These appear to be sealed boxes and apparently Yamaha NS10-inspired:
https://www.studiospares.com/Headphones-and-Speakers/Studio-Monitors/Studiospares-SN10-Passive-Studio-Monitors_248000.htm#tabs-rev|rtabs1
Not in stock now, but what a bargain at £99!