advertisement


Flat Earth Revival?

Joe evolved his designs like any good engineer. A lot of people have pointed and said your design isn't like Joe's but I ask to which of his designs do you refer? Do you have a definitive choice? If it's his approach you are talking of then ours has a lot in common.

The Troubadour is the successor to the Minstrel. As for the Royd "sound" I was heartened when a lot of Minstrel owners felt the similarity, one going so far as to say it was like stepping back into his lounge when he heard them at Whittlebury, albeit a lounge with noisy neighbours and 10 other people sat next to him!

As for the Flat Earth monika, I'll take it as a positive endearing term irrespective of its origins.

My comment was aimed at the article . Not you . Nevertheless .

You confuse me .

You have retained the ministrel shape . but since when did a wooden box determined the sound of a speaker .

Royd speakers got their sound [ it seems to me ] from Joe' ear and his perference for tuning by ear not measurement , his use of silk dome tweeters and the delpoyment of doping the mid/bass cone in preference to passive electronic filtering .

According to article , alas Joe's ear isnt available to anyone , but the rest of the techniques are .
 
It's difficult to say what his exact recipe was without talking to him and sadly that's now impossible. I certainly agree with using ears as tools in the development. I'd also urge you to listen to the Troubadour if you can and judge based on it's own merits.
 
It's difficult to say what his exact recipe was without talking to him and sadly that's now impossible. I certainly agree with using ears as tools in the development. I'd also urge you to listen to the Troubadour if you can and judge based on it's own merits.

My comments are based on what is on public record from a loudspeaker maker who met and learnt from Joe and retains many of the criteria i mentioned .

Please forgive me if i have given you the impression this is any way a criticism of the quality of your loudspeaker , i have no opinion .

This is merely a semantic argument as to legacies and revivals .

If your loudspeaker is better than the opposition then i wish it the success it will deserve .
 
My comment was aimed at the article . Not you . Nevertheless .

You confuse me .

You have retained the ministrel shape . but since when did a wooden box determined the sound of a speaker .

Royd speakers got their sound [ it seems to me ] from Joe' ear and his perference for tuning by ear not measurement , his use of silk dome tweeters and the delpoyment of doping the mid/bass cone in preference to passive electronic filtering .

According to article , alas Joe's ear isnt available to anyone , but the rest of the techniques are .

The 'wooden box', as you call it, can have a significant effect on the performance of a loudspeaker.
Just look up BBC research on the subject...
 
Thanks Gerald, I'll take your comments as they were intended. As for better, I'll leave that up to others to decide, it certainly offers more choice.
 
Back on topic, it would be interesting to list what companies people now consider as having the Flat Earth approach.
 
I didn't say it didn't .:confused:

what is it with people , deliberately ignoring what people say for the sake of a post ? :mad:

I didn't ignore what you said, or post for the sake of it.
You asked a question, even if you put determined instead of determine. Also, did forget the question mark...
 
It's difficult to say what his exact recipe was without talking to him and sadly that's now impossible. I certainly agree with using ears as tools in the development. I'd also urge you to listen to the Troubadour if you can and judge based on it's own merits.
But we do know about preferred room positioning, frequency balance, crossover slope, bass loading, directivity...
Enough to do a modern sibling
 
Adam,

Back on topic, it would be interesting to list what companies people now consider as having the Flat Earth approach.
Off the top of me 'ead...

From listening experience
  • Naim and Linn, though less so today than during their halcyon days
  • Rega
  • Manley -- I can vouch only for the Stingray, but it's flat.... obviously

From reputation
  • Heed
  • Teddy Pardo

Probably several others, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Joe
 
Heed , yep they are the company that took a benz mico ace S l , put a new cover on it and charged £100 extra for it . Even Tony Bolton when reviewing it couldn't say much more than the fact it was a benz micro ace for £100 more .

Sounds like my definition of flat earth to me .;)
 
Boundary placed loudspeakers make a lot of sense for modestly sized rooms (possibly the majority), indeed I don't really understand why Naim have gone away from them as it gave them a significant USP. Perhaps the compromises limited their appeal too much.

Yep, 100% agree . I want music in my room not speakers.
 
Gerald,

Sounds like my definition of flat earth to me .;)
Pretty good, but my favourite tautology is one after the other in succession.

Joe
 
My formative years were during the Linn/Naim ‘flat earth’ heyday. Unfortunately I was too poor to afford any at the time, but my Rega 3/Cyrus 1 was very much of the same philosophy, which I take to mean musical communication by way of dynamics, rhythm and tunefulness, rather than the alternative approaches which majored on tonal colour, imaging, soundstaging and so on.

I think that is a different thing entirely to the approach of incremental upgrades, external PSUs and so-on, which was part of the Linn/Naim business model, but not really associated with the ‘flat earth’ philosophy per se.

The ‘Flat Earth Society’ was a debating society around at much the same time. It didn’t believe the Earth was flat, it just enjoyed the art and skill of debating persuasively from a contrary viewpoint. I always assumed the name ‘flat earth’ was therefore coined because, at the time, the Linn/Naim approach of PRaT flew in the face of the conventional wisdom, which tended to favour beauty over boogie. I never met them but Ivor was, I think, something of an iconoclast, Julian perhaps less so, but together they fostered an approach which roused hifi from a rather torpid, introspective, sound-focussed methodology, and which still flourishes to this day. Think what you like of their products, and business model, but respect is due for that, at least.
 
I suppose it depends on whether you want beautiful sounds, or music that makes you want to dance. The flat earthers offered the latter, while all around them were giving customers the former. I'd argue that a beautiful, but boring, sound is also wide of the mark, if we're discussing sound quality, so it's not the binary either/or choice you're suggesting it is.
 


advertisement


Back
Top