Cabinet, crossover,
driver or amplifier- where are the limitations?
I think today’s amplifiers (if designed properly)
are the least limiting factor-viewed against their performance.
Their power and distortion figures can be considered sufficient.
Passive crossovers can many times perform quite acceptably,
but their design has so many limitations and tradeoffs that
luck presents itself as a big factor in the final result. The
passive electronic crossover can be considered as the next evolution
from a purely mechanical one.
With an active crossover there is almost total freedom to design
the responses, equalizations and transition bands, within good
engineering practice of course.
The driver and the cabinet form an inseparable combination (together
with the crossover ) and that’s how we always approach
the design. The limitations here are many driver excursion,
stroke volume, cabinet volume and front baffle size. The three
first ones affect the LF-limitations, the last one the directivity.
To summaries this : a small box has more LF and directivity
limitations than a bigger one. To compensate this, a small speaker
should be listened to at a shorter distance so that it sounds
louder and delivers more direct sound to the listener’s
ears.
The market is full of highly affordable monitors, how are those
price points hit and where are the compromises?
Genelec has never got into the lowest price Pont battle because
that would have meant sacrificing our engineering philosophy.
Our only goal has been to be the technology leader because there
are alwys customers for the best. Low-level engineering is sometimes
called ‘compromising’ but the term is equally applicable
to a certain human state of mind.
Where do you stand on the use of ‘domestic reference’
loudspeakers in many studios?
‘Domestic reference’ as a definition is as vague
as it cab be. First one should define the ‘domestic’
i.e. whose house or lodgings we are talking about? Then apparently
the ‘reference’ here means speaker systems possessing
flaws or imperfections-isn’t that what people’s
home systems are supposed to have? Now we only need some wise
guy to decide whether these ‘domestic references’
are dull sounding or overly bright, are they boom-boxes or dry
in bass and if they have a nasal over-emphasised midrange or
a valley response. The number of variables soon become endless,
hardly a desirable feature for something called a ‘reference’.
It’s much more useful to call a reference something that
lacks all these imperfections to the least and has its performance
accurately specified and is widely available. |
 |
Ari Varla - A SELF –
DECLARED AUDIO hobbyist
What’s special about Genelec’s
approach to monitor manufacture?
Are we restricted in monitor design by
the industry’s conservatism?
Cabinet, crossover, driver or amplifier- where are the limitations?
Are end-user expectations of low-end
unrealistic for the small sizes of cabinet that most are actually
listening on?
The digital monitor is as much of a misnomer
as the digital microphone, but what are the real advantages
and where could it lead?
In an ideal world, should monitors that
are used in a multichannel configuration be similar to from
those used for stereo? |
