- Thread Author
- #1
Clarisys Minuets undergoing first stage of measurement, testing and tuning at the factory.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Clarisys Minuets undergoing first stage of measurement, testing and tuning
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
ozzy
Member
Cool!
ozzy
ozzy
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Very cool.
I should reach out to Florian to show him how to do DOEs for optimizing Clarisys speaker R&D. This will make his R&D more effective (doing the right thing) and efficient (doing things right).
As well as show him how to perform a statistically valid MSA so that he knows with statistical rigor his measurements are accurate, precise, repeatable, and reproducible.
I should reach out to Florian to show him how to do DOEs for optimizing Clarisys speaker R&D. This will make his R&D more effective (doing the right thing) and efficient (doing things right).
As well as show him how to perform a statistically valid MSA so that he knows with statistical rigor his measurements are accurate, precise, repeatable, and reproducible.
If you do this, then I would be interested in knowing his reaction, including his view on how your recommended approach compares to his existing approach.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Yes, so would I. I know Florian, so my thought is he'd be open to considering it.
By way of some background, I did a DOE when I integrated my REL sub to my 2-channel "mains" some years ago. Used JMP as the stats package.
Used the Harman curve as the orthogonal reference:
DOE table from JMP. The DOE model was WAY significant with a p-value of 0.006 with α=0.05 and β=0.10
The R-Square and R-Square Adjusted was also really good at 0.97 and 0.95, respectively. Overall, a very "solid" model.
The model told exactly where to set the controls on the REL to match as closely as possible, the Harman curve.
Actual, in-room measured data plots from the listening position using a NIST-traceable calibrated mic from Before the DOE in Blue, and After the DOE in Green. The actual in-room, real-world measured green trace matched the "theoretical" Harman curve pretty nicely.
A Response Surface plot also showed this really interesting node at 155 Hz from before doing the DOE; you can see the shape of it here.
Did this DOE while at home from work after a surgical procedure; I was bored at home and needed to do some "bench science" as we say when workin' in the lab...
Phil A
Member
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Would Clarisys speakers be a good alternative to let's say a Magico or YG?
If one wanted to "listen" to another type of speaker that isn't a dynamic cone driver?
I prefer a sealed box dynamic driver speaker and my ears can't adjust to a Wilson and or another ported box speaker.
As much as I've tried to force my ears to enjoy such designs (ported box speakers)
The mid bass suck out and non-linearity compared to a Magico or YG doesn't do it for me.
So, brings me to investigate Clarisys
If one wanted to "listen" to another type of speaker that isn't a dynamic cone driver?
I prefer a sealed box dynamic driver speaker and my ears can't adjust to a Wilson and or another ported box speaker.
As much as I've tried to force my ears to enjoy such designs (ported box speakers)
The mid bass suck out and non-linearity compared to a Magico or YG doesn't do it for me.
So, brings me to investigate Clarisys
- Thread Author
- #11
Would Clarisys speakers be a good alternative to let's say a Magico or YG?
If one wanted to "listen" to another type of speaker that isn't a dynamic cone driver?
I prefer a sealed box dynamic driver speaker and my ears can't adjust to a Wilson and or another ported box speaker.
As much as I've tried to force my ears to enjoy such designs (ported box speakers)
The mid bass suck out and non-linearity compared to a Magico or YG doesn't do it for me.
So, brings me to investigate Clarisys
I think only a good demo will decide for you. For box speakers, Magico is one of the best. YG has some nice speakers too, their active is quite interesting. YG have a unique approach amongst their direct competitors, they just haven’t figured it out or have a clue how to market it. SMH.
But back to your question on Clarisys. Panel speakers, not unlike horn speakers, Omni’s and other designs, offer an alternative ways to produce sound. Horn speakers for example, require exhaustive attention to cables, source, electronics and more importantly, power. Omni’s require, ideally, perpendicular walls. For example, if you have a wall to the left of the left speaker and then to the right of the right speaker a big opening to another room, kitchen, hallway, whatever, then how is that Omni going to reflect off the side wall in a time coherent manner? This situation calls for some very tricky placement.
Clarisys are panels, dipoles, so the sound is coming out the front and back. It doesn’t care what’s on the side walls as its radiation pattern is unlike a box speaker or Omni. With Clarisys, unlike some of it’s competitors (or what some claim to be full ribbon - which are really Mylar in the bass), from the lowest note to the highest note, the driver material is identical. This creates a very coherent sound. The entire frequency range is one material. Cool! I can tell you this: the company is 100% committed. I know the people behind the company very well. They are passionate, like many others in this industry.
Where are you located?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
a.wayne
Well-known member
Would Clarisys speakers be a good alternative to let's say a Magico or YG?
If one wanted to "listen" to another type of speaker that isn't a dynamic cone driver?
I prefer a sealed box dynamic driver speaker and my ears can't adjust to a Wilson and or another ported box speaker.
As much as I've tried to force my ears to enjoy such designs (ported box speakers)
The mid bass suck out and non-linearity compared to a Magico or YG doesn't do it for me.
So, brings me to investigate Clarisys
Those deficiencies has nothing to do with sealed vs vented , maybe the lack of speed and dynamic contrast is what you favor in sealed enclosures ..
Regards
a.wayne
Well-known member
Yes, so would I. I know Florian, so my thought is he'd be open to considering it.
By way of some background, I did a DOE when I integrated my REL sub to my 2-channel "mains" some years ago. Used JMP as the stats package.
Used the Harman curve as the orthogonal reference:
DOE table from JMP. The DOE model was WAY significant with a p-value of 0.006 with α=0.05 and β=0.10
The R-Square and R-Square Adjusted was also really good at 0.97 and 0.95, respectively. Overall, a very "solid" model.
The model told exactly where to set the controls on the REL to match as closely as possible, the Harman curve.
Actual, in-room measured data plots from the listening position using a NIST-traceable calibrated mic from Before the DOE in Blue, and After the DOE in Green. The actual in-room, real-world measured green trace matched the "theoretical" Harman curve pretty nicely.
A Response Surface plot also showed this really interesting node at 155 Hz from before doing the DOE; you can see the shape of it here.
Did this DOE while at home from work after a surgical procedure; I was bored at home and needed to do some "bench science" as we say when workin' in the lab...
Thats a pretty bumpy ride , 5db scaling instead of 12db would show more details ....
Regards
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Don't have JMP anymore so I can't replot it. I did the DOE "for fun" while at home recovering from back surgery 12 years ago.
The point of the post was to provide an example how effective DOEs can be for R&D, rather doing R&D by than "trial and error" or OFAT (One Factor at A Time) analysis.
crwilli
Active member
While never at your level of understanding Stephen, I used DOE / Taguchi to setup and run multi variant experimentation in a lab 40 yrs ago. It was cutting edge and the IBM PC-XT was a critical tool. WOW. The good old days.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
That's so cool, I didn't know you have also used them.
Aren't they...great? Here's a funny story: I worked for many years as a PhD-level molecular biologist before I learned about DOEs. Then, when I was in my 6 Sigma BB certification course and was taught DOEs, it was like, "OMG! I've been blind, and now I can see! :lol:
Then, when I started working as a DFSS MBB and actually teaching DOEs to my fellow PhD-level scientists & engineers, and they all would say something like, "Wait..WTF?!? OMG! Why wasn't I taught DOEs in grad school?
" And I'd reply, "Because they don't teach DOEs in grad school, it's taught in industry & the tech sector, where, during R&D, you have to make things actually work, you know...IN THE REAL WORLD."
The sharp ones, though, would get it right away and be "off and running"...
Taguchi is great for making products "robust" when transferring to Ops where the products developed during R&D have to be put into in SPC during Mfg.