Yes but the waterfall diagram looks pretty neat!

Crazy like his frequency measurements lol

I like to call it "the zebra special".

Danny is really a shape shifting reptilian in disguise and that’s just his cloaking shield which is having issues with the camera shutter frequency.

Yes off access it's insane...

shirt's

De-screening isn't just for tweeters. :)

Good one!

😂😂😂

What is the difference in sound quality between the finishes?

@@henrym78 I know. I would love to hear a demo of before and after.

@@henrym78 I've never heard them side by side, but the DMT-II's have a slightly higher sensitivity, and with a lighter cone material, I can only assume they will sound more dynamic. The tweeters are the same, as they use the same replacement diaphragm.

Part of the Moiré collection.

@@chanslorvalorum6905 Oh good.... So I wasn't the only one seeing that. 🤯

Reminds me of my 80s vision skateboard.

Vision Psycho Stick!

@@koprcord5338 😂😂😂 The Original Vision and Vision Gator boards!

Do you mean Natas...😄😆

You win the internet today! Good comment ☺

How did your improvements sound afterwrds?

@stephenyoud6125 cleaner bass ' better depth to the Soundstage due to non noise cabneit I should have already bought Danny Kit if I had enough subscriber's who own the speaker I will do it ' I will mention I my neared video ' maybe Danny can trade me for a bran new never used still in factory box Polk lsim 703 lol

@@tee-jaythestereo-bargainph2120 I found something like No Rez in Switzerland near where I live snd lined all my Linn home Cinema speakers with it while I was upgrading their crossovers

I'd like to do that with my DMT's, would love to get a reference on how to do that. I've thought about sending mine in for Danny to take a look at them but it's a long way from SoCal to Texas!

Acid? Yes. Mushrooms? No.

That dude has the worst hair styles 🤣

Polo shirt, not T.

+1 for a hpd network

@@merlingarnett3613 +1 for a GR Research designed x-over for Tannoy HPD drivers.

I had a pair of xt6 that I measured. They were sharp in the presence region and not super smooth. They did some things well.

I probably will.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't believe Tannoy used an autoformer in the System 10, they are only used in the larger more expensive models. I'm looking forward to hearing Danny's take on the crossover in the bigger model as the autoformer goes hand in hand with the various adjustments he mentioned.

@@electrafixion71 No, but they do use an adjustable crossover (with options for both roll-off and energy) in the Ardens which is what the OP decided to ask about when this thread was started. That is what would be interesting.

​@@yuckysamson The OP is my friend, he owns my old Arden Legacy speakers. I said the I don't think the System series used autoformers, but I know for sure that all of the "big" dual concentrics use them including vintage and current Ardens. Even the DC10A model I have now has an autoformer despite the fact they don't have HF energy or roll-off adjustments.

@@electrafixion71 then we agree--it would be good to see what Danny would do for some of the classic large Tannoys and some of the newer offerings.

Distortion plots obtained for sine wave reproduction do not reflect speaker's behaviour when playing music, most speakers' impulse response falls far short of what one would expect and don't even try to reproduce a squarewave accurately. Distortion figures for speakers generally start at 20-50% at the lower end of the spectrum before gradually reaching to between 1 and 0.1% higher up for best examples. Higher order crossover placed at a lower frequency will cause less excitation of the tweeter near its fundamental resonance frequency than a 1st order crossing higher up, for example, hence offer higher SPL capability.

And some tweeters have distortion above 1-5% even a good octave above their resonant frequency, ~2kHz so no, it is not only about resonant frequency/excursion. As for the impulse, it would be nice to see it indeed, which is more determined by cross over point, slope, and integration with midwoofer.

Oh, I did. It was transformed into a usable speaker.

Polo shirt.

impedance is pretty easy to manipulate.

Send one in and I'll take a look at it.

If only I lived in the US lol :) @@dannyrichie9743

The Fs on that tweeter is much lower than that. And it is almost impossible to get any real accurate distortion measurements outside of an anechoic chamber. Plus distortion is not all that linear. It will vary with output levels. So those measurements really don't tell you much.

@@r423sdex true! your not goin to hear them anyway.so is there any value in adding components to flatten the curve?I'm interested in knowing.

We have a kit that is a transmission line design.

I saw no signs of abuse, and that tweeter would fry long before the woofer. That woofer is a bruit.

We're didyou get them

I have a pair looking to upgrade also

@@mikewhite248 Bought them from a friend here in Sweden

Lol. It's looking at the time tunnel I'm getting dizzy 😅

@@r423sdex In my view as an engineer who has studied and solved this problem nobody in this industry knows anything when it comes to sound, acoustics, and hearing. Those things that work, amplifiers and preamplifiers were solved decades ago at far lower cost. The rest has gone nowhere except for the invention of the digital compact disc, a remarkable achievement whether you like how recording engineers use them or not. Study the way acoustic instruments launch sound into space. Then study how loudspeakers launch sound into space. Think about how the room affect them before they reach your ears. They are so different that it's no wonder it's a failure. All of these designs IMO stink. They are all created to the same conceptual paradigm no matter how they are executed. The sound fields they create are badly distorted in time and space. That is why it's so easy to tell a recording from live music in the same room. Creating something better requires starting from scratch and rethinking the process. However, given what most people use them for and how satisfied they are with them, they're good enough for them. Not nearly good enough for me. Nevertheless I still enjoy watching these videos and seeing what these speakers really measure like compared to the BS measurements in the magazines that give them endless unwarranted accolades. They are also far too expensive for what you get.

Fascinating stuff, and although I'm not an engineer, I couldn't agree more with your two posts here. It's simply a pointless and futile exercise, designing and selling hifi, when the main limiting factor will ALWAYS be the space in which the audio is played - an impossible factor to design for, irrespective of how automatic room correction is being touted these days. There is also the other elephant in the room that is never discussed, and that is simply our hearing health. If we don't have particularly good hearing, either simply through age or because of tinnitus etc, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at hifi equipment, none of it will meet your expectations. Do you have any thoughts on how we could approach the design of sound transmission going forward? How might we start designing a system that begins with the room as the speaker cabinet? (For example).

@@obscurazone From the time I first heard stereophonic sound when I was 12 years old until the time I built and was bitterly disappointed in the overhyped quadraphonic sound system when I was 25 years old, I was an audiophile just like the rest of you. I believed everything the audiophiles of the day believed. It was just a hobby for me, my career took me elsewhere. Totally disgusted and fed up with the hi fi industry I decided to see what I could do myself. I started from scratch throwing everything I thought I knew away and started using my analytical skills in science and engineering my superb and hard won knowledge my superb education had given me. I started by thinking about the way sound is propagated into space and how live venues like concert halls affected them before they reached my ears. I put it out of my conscious mind but my subconscious mind was working on it. Then one day a few weeks later I had an AHA moment. My subconscious mind figured it out and handed it to my conscious mind. It was startling. I understood the problem and the solution completely. And the solution was impossibly complex, far to complex to be put to practical use. This was as an exact science. However, I decided to pare down the idea to its essentials and adapt it for commercial recordings to see whether I could get any improvement at all. And my first attempt achieved results that surprised me. It was complicated but manageable. I demonstrated it to a patent attorney and as a result I received a US patent about 5 years later. I'm a much better engineer than a salesman. Nobody was interested in it. There was an infringement on a critical part of my patent. I contacted the manufacture having bought his product and after my warning he never made another one like it. Obviously I can't tell you what that product is. Starting in 2002 I began building a second prototype around his product. It had a couple of inherent problems that made it less than optimal. It took me several years to figure out what they were and how to fix them. The system has been tweaked and retweaked for these last 21 years with few minor changes except for the added signal processing power. The room itself is an integral and indispensable component part of the system. It's used as a reflector and diffuser. The principle it works on is quite straightforward. It has to accomplish two things. First it has to get the system to have flat frequency response of the first arriving sound starting with the recording microphone and ending at your ears. Second, it has to generate and propagate the signal in such a way as to have the same relationship to the first arriving sound as the reflections from a large venue reaching your ears has to the sound from the musical instruments themselves. In short it does the same thing the large venue does but it does it a different way. This is all based on a mathematical model that is the crux of the invention. The parameters have to be adjusted one time for the room and then for each recording depending on how it was made and what is suitable for the genre of music being heard. Its current goal is to equal or beat the best sound at the best live performance venues at their own game. And it works. And it cost only about $3000 having purchased a lot of the equipment used or at a substantial discount. The usual way audiophiles judge the performance of equipment doesn't apply in this case.

I had System 12's (rev1) and still have System 15 DMT-II's, and can tell you the 15's are far better than the 12's, but they are much larger, and have paper cone vs. plastic on the smaller ones. I would go for the 12's over the 10's if you have the space, and much favor the DMT-II version.

@@TheMirolab thank you. Do they all have a classic Tannoy sound?

Depends on what you’re after. I have 10” nfm ii and I always felt that size was the sweet spot and had a nice mid range. They need space to breathe. I’ve recently had to move my studio space into a smaller room and I’m not getting the best out of my speakers now. Mid range dips. Booming bass. I might have to sell them :(