Visit to Audiophile Bill to hear his horns project
- Thread starter spiritofmusic
- Start date
The last one is really bad Ked , the second one matches what you say and the first somewhat too , just too much wire on the violin IMO ..
Yes but that second is on a recorder, last one is on mobile. The driver in the second one, is same as the one in the previous posts first video, which you didn't like, that was on mobile. In fact that driver is a model higher. I think if you record violin videos on your mobile, and play them back, you will see the difference. Record on your mobile on different systems and play them back
Shall you look at the amps in the video you will see there were something underneath them. Those platforms worked wonder.
Alrainbow made those wirey comments for all the videos shot by mobile, TAD and AER. Not for the the AER ones done with a professional recorder.
Hi Everyone,
As promised a few pages back, I managed to connect with Filip from AER loudspeakers and asked whether he might comment about his design philosophy especially in relation to the unparalleled high frequency performance. Filip kindly provided me with a statement that I attach herein verbatim - hope this is of use and thank you very much Filip for taking the time to provide these insights - we really like to hear from manufacturers:
“AER loudspeakers are different to all other loudspeakers and drive units.
This loudspeakers create and reproduce absolutely wonderful high-range and
treble, because the cone is optimized for that within almost 4 decades.
In contrary to all other loudspeakers the high frequencies are only emitted
by the inner portions of the membrane so that the outer portions are not
affected by that and the high frequencies are reproduce extreme fast without any
interferences with the outer areas of the diaphragm.
To make this conception fully work took me 40 years of my life and about €2.7 million.
Because the highest frequencies are only emitted from the center portions, the speed and velocity of the reproduction of mid- and high-range -to my knowledge- is the fastest known to man.
The extreme strong motor of our drivers can accelerate the coil and the center portions -which are emitting the highs- to speed way beyond the speed of sound, so we have a reproduction that is ultrafast and ultra beautiful, no other tweeter conception can compete with this. Because it’s that ultrafast, we not only have an extreme high upper maximum frequency bandwidth, we also have extreme low distortion, for the efficiency is ultimately high and we have dynamics and resolution of the sound completely unknown to other loudspeakers -no matter what design the were made of.
The reason for that is, that even ribbon tweeters or Ion-tweeters have only
a fraction of the efficiency of our drivers and so they have a much bigger
excursion of the sound emitting areas,
so that their distortions are 10 times higher then ours. That is one of the reasons why also our mid range is so beautiful and fine.
I worked on that almost daily approx. 5 hours; on every portion of the cone,
of the magnet and the frame, matching every part to each other and do it again, and do it again, and do it again, -for 40 years.
Thank you for reading.
Filip Keller
For further questions and answers:
AER www.aer-loudspeakers.com
+49 711 841077”
As promised a few pages back, I managed to connect with Filip from AER loudspeakers and asked whether he might comment about his design philosophy especially in relation to the unparalleled high frequency performance. Filip kindly provided me with a statement that I attach herein verbatim - hope this is of use and thank you very much Filip for taking the time to provide these insights - we really like to hear from manufacturers:
“AER loudspeakers are different to all other loudspeakers and drive units.
This loudspeakers create and reproduce absolutely wonderful high-range and
treble, because the cone is optimized for that within almost 4 decades.
In contrary to all other loudspeakers the high frequencies are only emitted
by the inner portions of the membrane so that the outer portions are not
affected by that and the high frequencies are reproduce extreme fast without any
interferences with the outer areas of the diaphragm.
To make this conception fully work took me 40 years of my life and about €2.7 million.
Because the highest frequencies are only emitted from the center portions, the speed and velocity of the reproduction of mid- and high-range -to my knowledge- is the fastest known to man.
The extreme strong motor of our drivers can accelerate the coil and the center portions -which are emitting the highs- to speed way beyond the speed of sound, so we have a reproduction that is ultrafast and ultra beautiful, no other tweeter conception can compete with this. Because it’s that ultrafast, we not only have an extreme high upper maximum frequency bandwidth, we also have extreme low distortion, for the efficiency is ultimately high and we have dynamics and resolution of the sound completely unknown to other loudspeakers -no matter what design the were made of.
The reason for that is, that even ribbon tweeters or Ion-tweeters have only
a fraction of the efficiency of our drivers and so they have a much bigger
excursion of the sound emitting areas,
so that their distortions are 10 times higher then ours. That is one of the reasons why also our mid range is so beautiful and fine.
I worked on that almost daily approx. 5 hours; on every portion of the cone,
of the magnet and the frame, matching every part to each other and do it again, and do it again, and do it again, -for 40 years.
Thank you for reading.
Filip Keller
For further questions and answers:
AER www.aer-loudspeakers.com
+49 711 841077”
Hi Al,
I think Filip advised to email / phone for any further queries. I believe there is data for some of his lower range drivers on the website (AER BD1 to BD3).
Best.
Was just in contact with Filip @ AER. He asked me to provide this response:
“AER has made more more than 17,000 measurings of our loudspeakers that can be published, but the fine-tuning, the intonation of the loudspeakers, is not visible in this outdated measuring concepts of today.
So it is necessary to take the most significant and complex measuring systems that were ever made to test our loudspeakers: The qualified listening human ears.”
Raw driver measurements are here on the site. Don't go below 200Hz
https://aer-loudspeakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AER-Breitbandtreiber-BD-3-BD-3B.pdf
Rob
https://aer-loudspeakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AER-Breitbandtreiber-BD-3-BD-3B.pdf
Rob
Raw driver measurements are here on the site. Don't go below 200Hz
https://aer-loudspeakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AER-Breitbandtreiber-BD-3-BD-3B.pdf
Rob
Thanks Rob!!
Bill, this description from Filip that high frequencies only emit from the central zone of the FR driver.
First, from what freqs upwards are we talking about?
Is there a whizzer cone utilised?
Sean Casey of Zu in his new flagship spkrs is using carbon fibre-doped paper membrane quasi FR drivers, and I believe they're 40Hz to 11kHz uninterrupted, with concentric supertweeters going onto 30kHz.
Is this then how all FR drivers radiate, high freqs centrally, lower freqs peripherally?
yes, the Whizzer extends and disperses the highs. Normally, though it creates a lot of breakup that gives a very ragged high frequency range. The Supravox I use can go to 18khz but without a Whizzer (the cone only weighs 7 grams). This means the highs are clean but extremely narrow dispersion and a bit lacking in “air”. This is why I made mine 2-ways. I do not understand how AER has gotten around the Whizzer breakup, at shows I thought I heard some. Cube Audio went to three whizzers to combat the issue...not fully successfully to my ears and Voxativ has met only partial success in the highs to my ears. Haven’t heard the latest Zus so won’t comment. AERs measurements suggest they have got a better result.
I am sad to read this. Why are manufacturers building dogmas and trying to belittle scientific method is beyond me. Which measurements are outdated? Why not then use and look for newer ones rather than glorifying subjective claims that can not be falsified. This is an easy way out. Why do they want to portray as if measurements do not show important data, are not accurate enough to give us idea on sound or does not and can not include subjective listening tests as well. On the contrary listening tests are already a part of complete and serious tests. However, the listening tests need to be set-up properly to be more accurate and not just be "opinions" of individuals who may or may not be effected by bias knowingly or unknowingly or have commercial reasons to skew the facts etc. A proper setup goes beyond these and leaves you with data you can trust.
A proper test in an anechoic chamber is an important part of tests. They are not limited to frequency response either and they will tell a lot about a speaker and what you can expect from them. Further than that, if you just read the tests that have been done at JBL or Harman even 20-30 years back, you will read about subjective listening tests going along measurements. To do it properly you have to first audition the listeners who are going to be listening in your tests. Are they able to accurately hear and then point out what they are hearing? If so, put them in blind tests and continue with your listening tests. After that you now have a great combination of data. Did you know %95 of the time even untrained listeners chose speakers with proper measured responses over ones with bad/uneven responses?
Please do not belittle scientific methods and portray them as something they are not. Just make better set-ups for your tests.
Hi Sami,
Filip doesn’t read the forum so won’t see your comments and questions. I can certainly try to forward to get a response.
That said, he has already stated that he has made “17,000 measurements” so I think it is probably likely that many of these measurements are going to be beyond the typically published metrics and presumably conducted under rigorous scientific conditions (otherwise why bother) including anechoic conditions.
That said I am not a spokesman for AER so will try to get a response.
Best.
Actually, if I was a manufacturer I would not audition the listeners to find those who listened critically...i would try to find those who listened average
I am sorry Bill, I am just a little vary of these arguments, I did not want to put you in a position as a spokesman for AER. Further than that, my disappointment was because I really like how Aer drivers sound. Maybe I have read into it wrong but the attitude just reminded me of manufacturers who claim to have better ears/brains whatever they call it, and can do whatever they want to do and no tests can live up to their golden standards to back them up or falsify them. Once more, I hope I have read into it wrongly.
If you go in listening for flaws you’ll find them. If you go in with an open mind you’ll maybe appreciate the music.
Maybe you would be successful commercial manufacturer, what I am talking about here is not that.
It is about data the can be trusted, that can be replicated. Why would you want data that is not dependable? If I ask you a question 10 times and you gave me 10 different answers, can I trust you? It is like a microphone that records a different thing every time you record with it. Would you use that in a test? We are not talking about making art here, we are talking about a dependable test.
Similar threads
