|
Post by mody on Oct 29, 2009 22:12:42 GMT -7
Just bumped in these, there are a few youtube vids but not much info on field tests. They've managed to effectively control the magnetic strength of a speaker, besides that they've got this tech into a bunch of vintage speaker clones! A blue goes for 850$, comes with a little box that takes AC power. Pricey, but sounds like it's in the right direction promising the least tone disruption. fluxtone-speakers.com/Anyone know about this first hand?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2009 23:28:46 GMT -7
This is very interesting. Pricey but it sounds good in theory.
|
|
|
Post by Russell B on Oct 30, 2009 4:51:56 GMT -7
They sure are expensive.
|
|
|
Post by benttop (Steve) on Oct 30, 2009 6:08:59 GMT -7
There is another thread about this speaker here on Z-Talk from about a year ago or so. It is an interesting idea, but there are probably as many down sides as an attenuator, if not more. For that much money, yikes... I could buy another whole amp! edit: Got interrupted there... If I recall, in the earlier discussion, we asked Ted Weber to comment, or one of us went on his forum and asked. He pointed out a couple things you wouldn't consider. First and foremost was the fact that the way speakers work, the motion of the cone provides some cooling to the voice coil. In the Flux Tone speaker, you have all the power being developed in the voice coil, but the motion is significantly reduced by virtue of the reduced magnet flux. Ted was concerned that it would lower the wattage rating on any speaker so treated. How much would be anyone's guess. Second, and probably less of an influence; some of the tone of a speaker comes from what happens when it's operating at its maximums - distortion. That's going to disappear as the flux goes down and the cone motion is less. So even though this seems like an interesting idea, it may be that you have similar tradeoffs as you might have with an attenuator. But here's the deal - I could buy five Brake Lites for what one of these things costs. I'd hate to spend $850 on one of these only to discover I could have just kept using my Brake Lite that I already have, and be just as pleased with my tone. YMMV I'm certain... 2nd edit: found that other thread: drzamplifiers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=lounge&action=display&thread=19252&page=1#234764 but there is no mention of Ted in that thread. Now I'm wondering if I imagined all that. Oh, maybe I looked in the wrong place... be right back. 3rd edit: No, I don't see anything from Ted here. Must have been over on TGP or someplace else. In any event, there is one other issue with this method that we can't really say much about - normally when a speaker is functioning correctly the movement of the voice coil introduces some back EMF into the output windings of the output transformer. Since the motion will be less, the back EMF will be less. What does that do to your tone? I don't think that's real clear. Attenuators get a lot of bad press for how they affect this back EMF as well. Yet I like my attenuators just fine, thanks. So it may be that it's just a talking point for guys who want to argue about it.
|
|
|
Post by teleric on Oct 30, 2009 8:26:16 GMT -7
The theory sounds like it's got some wheels, but doesn't it discount the percieved loss of bass at lower volumes (fletcher/munson curve)?
Even if the speaker doesn't change the tone that's coming from the amp, your ears are hearing it differently at different volumes. So to your ears, your tone would be changing. hmmmmm......
Cool concept, and the chrome baskert is gorgeous, but a little pricey.
|
|
|
Post by mody on Nov 5, 2009 21:01:07 GMT -7
True dat Steve, very pricey. I really got to give the AirBrake another chance, it's been collecting dust since my amp had issues last year. But your last post in that thread is very valid, I just hope more folk attempt making strides in this direction and come up with something reasonably priced. What the heck's in there that cost an arm n' leg! It's probably time Celestion and other industry stalwarts get into the game, or may the fact that they've restrained themselves is a clue!
Since I've had the bluegrass country bug, I'm playing super clean mostly and really haven't craved any gain from my amp lately. Z amps, I presume this is true for all of them, sound awesome right from the get go. Man I haven't felt like this in ages, connecting with the guitar more than ever through hybrid & chicken pickin. It's almost like why I switched from vodka to whiskey years ago, eliminates the need for bubbly sweet liquids. And you can improvise endlessly without boring yourself to death.
|
|
|
Post by benttop (Steve) on Nov 5, 2009 22:00:55 GMT -7
teleric has it right though - no matter what technology is used, no matter how good it is, we have this wonderful thing called the human ear that just isn't linear, and none of ours are the same. As far as I'm concerned, it is the main reason that I like attenuators and other folks hate them. YMMV by quite a large margin...
|
|
|
Post by montego on Nov 6, 2009 16:58:30 GMT -7
I have wondered why no speaker manufacturer has produced a speaker with low SPL-rating for home use. Especially since so many amp makers produce low wattage amps these days to cover the "Cranked but not too loud" dilemma. It sure would be nice if there was a good sounding speaker you could hook up for practise as an alternative to the more efficient stage box! I beleive we all want to use our amps in both situations, especially if it says Dr Z somewhere on it....
Does anyone know if there are any major drawbacks concerning inefficient speakers, soundwise or elsewise? I realise that the tone-curve in our ears is volume-dependent, but the manufacturers should be able to compensate for that.
I have a FedFang for my MAZ, and it's rated 102 dB 1W/1M which is rediculous in livingquarters. My poor old HotPlate has to work real hard, and I would much rather have a well made quiet speaker as an alternative.
montego.
|
|