Interesting, on the few examples i looked at, the skiver surrounds appear to have gaps between the sections of skiver.
On the original early speakers i've owned with skiver surrounds, the sections were always overlapped slightly, and glued such that the surround remains essentially airtight.
Not all vegetables make good leaders.
Thanks for the observations.
I am wondering what performance was left on the table, when cost cutting and convenience (technology) are applied to commercialize a product. I understand that the windings are complex to do and another power supply is required with the field coil. Was the permanent magnet solution actually better or merely more commercially viable.
It looks like this guy has worked to optimize the field coil, rather than eliminate the inconvenient bits. Even the old Telefunken / Klangfilm variants might convey the special flavor. I would really like to hear one, just to get a sense of whether there is something special there.
This has happened to me a couple of times looking for great sound. One time was reading about the Altec 604, which is what brought me here. I enjoy my 604 speakers no end, and I am certainly glad I went there. Another time was when I read about the Ultra Analog DAC chip, and got a DAC with 2 of them and a tube output stage. 'Antiquated technology', but so far surpasses other DACs I have heard that the other DACs are not listenable any more.
I certainly don't need another project, but this may be another going backwards to go forward opportunity (that I likely won't take).
Right, max acoustic efficiency was the overriding pioneer's goal.
- - - Updated - - -
Let me put it this way....until the advent of Samarium-Cobalt magnets, nothing was as powerful as a field coil.Was the permanent magnet solution actually better or merely more commercially viable.
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
Bookmarks