Konnichiwa,
The appearance of being opinionated may be related to the fact that I have accepted on personal empirical evaluation certain facts as being just that, whereas others, often without having empirically evaluated the subjectmatter reject these facts and claim them to be (factually inaccurate) opinions, when they are in reality not opinion but fact.
If I present a simple fact that you consider to be a (factually inaccurate) opinion I appear opinionated, when in fact I behave and argue in the exact manner and approach you consider in this context to be "staying on the ground".
From where I stand, I ALLWAYS (well, almost, no-one is perfect) stand on solid, plain ground. It may look different fromover there, where you stand though....
And note, I am not evangelical enough to feel that I must proove to you (or anyone else) that what I consider empirically established fact is such. Discussion groups like this are not peer reviewed academical journals and hence demanding and expecting similar levels of proof is not realistic and feasible.
I enjoyed this little excursion into the perception of reality and fact. A pleasant break from having to deconstruct item by item arguments clearly in contradiction to widely established facts.
Sayonara
MBK said:
The appearance of being opinionated may be related to the fact that I have accepted on personal empirical evaluation certain facts as being just that, whereas others, often without having empirically evaluated the subjectmatter reject these facts and claim them to be (factually inaccurate) opinions, when they are in reality not opinion but fact.
If I present a simple fact that you consider to be a (factually inaccurate) opinion I appear opinionated, when in fact I behave and argue in the exact manner and approach you consider in this context to be "staying on the ground".
From where I stand, I ALLWAYS (well, almost, no-one is perfect) stand on solid, plain ground. It may look different fromover there, where you stand though....
And note, I am not evangelical enough to feel that I must proove to you (or anyone else) that what I consider empirically established fact is such. Discussion groups like this are not peer reviewed academical journals and hence demanding and expecting similar levels of proof is not realistic and feasible.
I enjoyed this little excursion into the perception of reality and fact. A pleasant break from having to deconstruct item by item arguments clearly in contradiction to widely established facts.
Sayonara
KYW
I do appreciate very much the actual experience over any theoretical sophistry. And as I said I enjoy your posts. The dilemma comes from relating one man's experience to another who has not had it. That creates the probem with Mag as well.
So, point taken, a forum like this is a far cry from a peer reviewed journal. Probably for the better, it's much more fun. And eventually, what we do here ends up coming close to peer review, at least in intent, if not always in quality.
Still the posts I enjoy most are those that show me "how to" or at least "why this works" - because that allows me to replicate that other man's experience.
I do appreciate very much the actual experience over any theoretical sophistry. And as I said I enjoy your posts. The dilemma comes from relating one man's experience to another who has not had it. That creates the probem with Mag as well.
So, point taken, a forum like this is a far cry from a peer reviewed journal. Probably for the better, it's much more fun. And eventually, what we do here ends up coming close to peer review, at least in intent, if not always in quality.
Still the posts I enjoy most are those that show me "how to" or at least "why this works" - because that allows me to replicate that other man's experience.
To come back to the actual experience, I had a fellow DIYer over today to listen to my Diatone+10" double woofer dipoles. He said he was impressed by the dynamics but couldn't clearly say what it reminded him of. Then he said, now I know, it reminds me of a good horn.
Go figure. If I had said so myself I wouldn't have believed it
Go figure. If I had said so myself I wouldn't have believed it
Konnichiwa,
First, I was not specifically noting YOU as seller, but rather the "sources" you have referenced, which are all from a commercial, rather than from a academic/research background.
Secondly, you cannot buy full size horns, you can however make your own, as quite a few people in Japan, France and Swizerland have done. I referenced earlier in the tread Mr Ruggero in Frace with pictures.
My point. In 1/8 space the majority of "directivity control" is supplied by the room, except using the room as waveguide does not help dealing with room modes at all, instead it maximises their exitation, which was my point. Of course, as also remarked, with as low a crossofer to the sensurround horns as used by you most of the room mode issues are outside relevance ANYWAY.
For the rest, I offer usually a different view of foreshortened horns with undersized mouth, which can be empirically illustrated and correlated with the (uneven) frequency response of the horn when modeled. But that's beside the point here and I am not really much interested in the subject.
All the above is true at frequencies whose wavelength is short compared to the width of the waveguide (distance between the sides) but becomes progressively untrue once the wavlength becomes large compared to the width of the waveguide, which allows the sound waves to "diffract" around the waveguide. See also my other related post which you choose to ignore.
As they where not at the time for sale (and are not for sale now either), No. I had more then enough serious equiries to consider seriously getting them manufacturerd though.
Yet recommendations for "good practice" by the same body contain recommendations on reverb time (really another way of saying RT60) BELOW 200Hz. So, do we consider "papers" given at conferences or firm very recent "best practice" recommendations as relevant? I for one choose the latter.
Sayonara
Magnetar said:
First, I was not specifically noting YOU as seller, but rather the "sources" you have referenced, which are all from a commercial, rather than from a academic/research background.
Secondly, you cannot buy full size horns, you can however make your own, as quite a few people in Japan, France and Swizerland have done. I referenced earlier in the tread Mr Ruggero in Frace with pictures.
Magnetar said:
My point. In 1/8 space the majority of "directivity control" is supplied by the room, except using the room as waveguide does not help dealing with room modes at all, instead it maximises their exitation, which was my point. Of course, as also remarked, with as low a crossofer to the sensurround horns as used by you most of the room mode issues are outside relevance ANYWAY.
For the rest, I offer usually a different view of foreshortened horns with undersized mouth, which can be empirically illustrated and correlated with the (uneven) frequency response of the horn when modeled. But that's beside the point here and I am not really much interested in the subject.
Magnetar said:
All the above is true at frequencies whose wavelength is short compared to the width of the waveguide (distance between the sides) but becomes progressively untrue once the wavlength becomes large compared to the width of the waveguide, which allows the sound waves to "diffract" around the waveguide. See also my other related post which you choose to ignore.
Magnetar said:
As they where not at the time for sale (and are not for sale now either), No. I had more then enough serious equiries to consider seriously getting them manufacturerd though.
Magnetar said:
Yet recommendations for "good practice" by the same body contain recommendations on reverb time (really another way of saying RT60) BELOW 200Hz. So, do we consider "papers" given at conferences or firm very recent "best practice" recommendations as relevant? I for one choose the latter.
Sayonara
(Circling back for a small point of clarification...)
Regarding a question about a horn/driver system with an open back, I said:
Magnetar replied:
Mag: yes, I was incorrectly remembering your description of your bass horns. I rechecked your website:
"The bass is handled by the two side wall placed sand filled (ugh!) bass horns. Each horn is loaded with two JBL 2220 Alnico 15" woofers operated in dipole isobaric (the back of the rear woofer is open to the room) for ultra low distortion and realistic impact. They cover the 35 to 160 cycle range."
But doesn't that "dipole isobaric" arrangement behave like a single horn-loaded driver with an open back? If you have two drivers in your compression chamber, and one is moving into the chamber while the other is moving out, the eclosed volume is just shifted, not compressed, so there's no net rear chamber compliance, right?
Just a little confused...
Regarding a question about a horn/driver system with an open back, I said:
Magnetar replied:
Mag: yes, I was incorrectly remembering your description of your bass horns. I rechecked your website:
"The bass is handled by the two side wall placed sand filled (ugh!) bass horns. Each horn is loaded with two JBL 2220 Alnico 15" woofers operated in dipole isobaric (the back of the rear woofer is open to the room) for ultra low distortion and realistic impact. They cover the 35 to 160 cycle range."
But doesn't that "dipole isobaric" arrangement behave like a single horn-loaded driver with an open back? If you have two drivers in your compression chamber, and one is moving into the chamber while the other is moving out, the eclosed volume is just shifted, not compressed, so there's no net rear chamber compliance, right?
Just a little confused...
Jeff Mai said:
For example, consider an Edgarhorn midbass, in which the rear chamber volume raises the system Fc to perhaps three times the driver's Fs. I feel safe in saying the air spring is certainly the controlling compliance in this situation, and it's not by any means the wrong driver. And I believe this type alignment is the rule rather than the exception in midbass/bass horns.
Touche. No criticism, just an observation.
Bill
/loves the technical principle behind both dipolar direct radiators and horns...like ebony and ivory on my piano keyboard...
For example, consider an Edgarhorn midbass, in which the rear chamber volume raises the system Fc to perhaps three times the driver's Fs. I feel safe in saying the air spring is certainly the controlling compliance in this situation, and it's not by any means the wrong driver. And I believe this type alignment is the rule rather than the exception in midbass/bass horns.
Touche.
No criticism, just an observation.Bill
/loves the technical principle behind both dipolar direct radiators and horns...like ebony and ivory on my piano keyboard...
I am making some measurements right now with my horns and will be back when I have them --
Here's a picture for you Thorsten I thought you might enjoy ----- it pretty much sums up some of us audiophiles thirst that is never completely quenched--
Escher's "staircase without end" where one "goes round in circles" while being certain "to go up"?
Here's a picture for you Thorsten I thought you might enjoy ----- it pretty much sums up some of us audiophiles thirst that is never completely quenched--
Escher's "staircase without end" where one "goes round in circles" while being certain "to go up"?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Bill F. said:
Yes, I build new speakers more often then I get my hair cut.
I'm using the same MGA basshorns for subs, a Karlson 'clam' type bass system 50-250 cycles, twin Audax PR170MO mids on a board 250-5k, an APT80 5k-up and a Leson TLC1 tweeter firing out the rear 5K up to add 'air.'
It's triamped - Amps for subs, bass and 250 cycles up.
Sounds good. Very dynamic with killer tone.
I use the Altec 921 with 421 cones.
The APT80 is pretty good - never have found a perfect tweeter - one thing nice about it is it isn't metal and it isn't harsh plus it's dispersion is decent. 105-107 db sensitive tweeters are pretty rare. Most of them are either like a laser beam or harsh and resonant.
The APT80 is pretty good - never have found a perfect tweeter - one thing nice about it is it isn't metal and it isn't harsh plus it's dispersion is decent. 105-107 db sensitive tweeters are pretty rare. Most of them are either like a laser beam or harsh and resonant.
Bill F. said:
I'm still looking for the least compromised wideband mid for ~200Hz to ~4kHz (I know--isn't everyone?
). I'm considering tinkering with a Dynaudio D54af in a front horn, possibly with an expanded rear chamber, or a pair of Selenium D405s per channel, again with larger rear chambers.But that Audax looks like it's getting there. Resonant top end, yet it appears to be somewhat controlled. I wonder what could be gained from a silicone soaking and/or a felt treatment. Or how about a Mark McK-style slice-n-dice assault on the resonant cone areas...
This is a nice thread but its gone a bit off-topic so I’ll post to the original topic..
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=35509&pagenumber=1
Most of the questions have been answered or semi-answered, but this is a forum and I’ll pipe-in here with my own analysis.
First off lets understand what words we are using:
1. Cardoid, Unidirectional, and Unipole are all synonomous.
2. Dipole and Bidirectional are synonomous (*usually).
3. Omni Directional.
4. SuperDirectional and Hypercardoid are synonomous (though superdirectional often implies and even greater reduction in output off-axis).
(Note that “bidirectional” is sometimes also used to describe multiple radiation points.. like a bipole, however a bipole (two speakers back to back operating in phase) is typically utilized to create an omnidirectional radiation pattern.)
A theoretical graphical representation of the following can be found here:
http://www.sfu.ca/sca/Manuals/ZAAPf/m/microphones(mr).html
Though Thorsten alluded to the real-world omni directional nature of Cardoid responses in the bass region, GM was the “first” as far as “accuracy” goes.. Found here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=35509&perpage=10&pagenumber=8
This essentially means that anything beyond the exit mouth of a BASS horn (middle, low, and infrasonic) will be omnidirectional in a room. Additionally, utilizing the room’s corners to extend the horn (path-length and flare) will generally NOT give a cardoid response. Remember that even if the room behaved perfectly as a horn (which invariably it will not), the exit (or terminus) of the horn does NOT radiate into a non-boundry space.
Now bidirectional dipoles and super-directional speakers are VERY different - more having to do with HOW they achieve their directional nature, rather than the actual directivity itself. Refer back to the graphical link I posted on the various directivities. Note that a Hypercardoid response is very similar to the cardoid response - the only difference is a small amount of out-of-phase signal being directed toward the rear. The key here is that the additional rearward signal is OUT OF PHASE, as is the additional rearward signal of the dipole.
It is the out-of-phase summation with the in-phase signal that contributes to a null (or a reduction in spl). THIS is what decreases the effect of room mode in the bass region, NOT directivity. In effect, these null points reduce interaction with room modes.
So then, what are the answers to the questions in differences between horns and dipoles?
-“Which deals with room modes most effectivly?”
Answer: Hypercardoids because they have the most nullification, dipoles run in second place here. Horns in general will provide no room node reduction, HOWEVER sub horns (especially those utilizing the room) may make alterations that COULD be an improvement (often offering an improvement with one node while offering a detriment to another node). The difference here is that the designs with nullification tend to suppress differences “across the board” (freq.-wide that is).
Note however that this is by no means the only way to reduce room nodes. Just altering placement of a monopole subwoofer can change things dramatically (but again there is usually “give and take” here). Perhaps another method that is every bit as competent with room nodes as dipole operation is by utilizing 2 monopoles in opposing pressure zones - like near an inner corner with one sub and an outer corner with another sub (assuming you have an “outer corner”, like in an L shaped room would have). Yet another (that CAN be effective) is by simply loading the room with multiple (3+) monopole subs. A subjectively similar effect for at least one point in the room can simply be derived with eq.. There are of course more effective digital “eq.s” that can help with eq. in a variety of room locations.
Understand though that this answer is with regard to room node reduction alone - utilizing a nullification design does other things perceptually that may or may not be advantageous. In other words - Supercardoids and dipoles will sound different (than omnipoles) regardless of room mode reduction.. not simply because of room node reduction. Additionally, dipoles are often single driver affairs so that the driver is velocity (as opposed to pressure) driven, which also is subjectively dissimilar.
-“Which system is more accurate?”
Answer: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, this depends on SOOOOoooooooooooo many variables that there really isn’t an answer. (..and it can lead to quasi-****ing contests about which is better without really knowing why.) Certainly if room mode reduction was your only requirement then see the answer to question 1 above.
-“Which has a better transient response?”
Answer: Again a LOT of variables here, but I can offer some meaningful generalizations. 1st off this is HIGHLY bandwidth dependent.. both for the signal and the output. The primary factor here is driver excursion. The longer it takes for a driver to “rise” and “settle” for a given freq. - the worse the transient response. Fortunately though most music does not contain fairly continuous low freq.s - and often those that are present are synthetic and highly regular (with regard to time). (If you’re an orgelwerk or acoustic bass fan then you may be “out of luck”.) Essentially this allows us to “fudge” with transient response below about 50 Hz (excepting of course those musical tracks that have low bass material that is more time dependent). Sure, transient response at these lower freq.s IS important - but not nearly as important. In fact distortion levels are more important subjectivly at these lower freq.s, more so than an even freq. response*. As far as horns vs. dipoles goes with regard to driver excursion levels.. This is highly dependent on the driver(s) used and the accompanying horn (for the horn). For the most part compare total dipole driver sd to horn mouth exit sd (provided that the horn doesn’t unload the driver causing “pumping”). Generally the greater the sd the less the excursion level and the better the transient ability.
(*extended low freq. ability and low distortion at these freq.s is more important than most other factors. There are two reasons for this. Number 1, an extended low freq. response subjectively balances the upper freq. response of a loudspeaker. Number 2, lower freq.s typically are present on recorded material though they are often not musically significant (other than for the aforementioned balancing). What these low freq.s do have is room pressurization of the source (or a digital re-creation thereof). Because they are so low in level and freq., AND are broad-band (covering more than an octave), they require low distortion reproduction to be able to discern their fluctuations in pressure. The subjective result is clear/transparent view of the dimensions of a source’s room (real or digital) as well as the space between performers (i.e. you get a much more defined “soundstage”). Personally I think that neither dipoles or horns are domestically acceptable here because of the extreme low freq.s down to 10 Hz or less near level. I think a T-Line with a low distortion driver at low freq.s is FAR preferable for these low freq.s.).
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=35509&pagenumber=1
Most of the questions have been answered or semi-answered, but this is a forum and I’ll pipe-in here with my own analysis.
First off lets understand what words we are using:
1. Cardoid, Unidirectional, and Unipole are all synonomous.
2. Dipole and Bidirectional are synonomous (*usually).
3. Omni Directional.
4. SuperDirectional and Hypercardoid are synonomous (though superdirectional often implies and even greater reduction in output off-axis).
(Note that “bidirectional” is sometimes also used to describe multiple radiation points.. like a bipole, however a bipole (two speakers back to back operating in phase) is typically utilized to create an omnidirectional radiation pattern.)
A theoretical graphical representation of the following can be found here:
http://www.sfu.ca/sca/Manuals/ZAAPf/m/microphones(mr).html
Though Thorsten alluded to the real-world omni directional nature of Cardoid responses in the bass region, GM was the “first” as far as “accuracy” goes.. Found here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=35509&perpage=10&pagenumber=8
This essentially means that anything beyond the exit mouth of a BASS horn (middle, low, and infrasonic) will be omnidirectional in a room. Additionally, utilizing the room’s corners to extend the horn (path-length and flare) will generally NOT give a cardoid response. Remember that even if the room behaved perfectly as a horn (which invariably it will not), the exit (or terminus) of the horn does NOT radiate into a non-boundry space.
Now bidirectional dipoles and super-directional speakers are VERY different - more having to do with HOW they achieve their directional nature, rather than the actual directivity itself. Refer back to the graphical link I posted on the various directivities. Note that a Hypercardoid response is very similar to the cardoid response - the only difference is a small amount of out-of-phase signal being directed toward the rear. The key here is that the additional rearward signal is OUT OF PHASE, as is the additional rearward signal of the dipole.
It is the out-of-phase summation with the in-phase signal that contributes to a null (or a reduction in spl). THIS is what decreases the effect of room mode in the bass region, NOT directivity. In effect, these null points reduce interaction with room modes.
So then, what are the answers to the questions in differences between horns and dipoles?
-“Which deals with room modes most effectivly?”
Answer: Hypercardoids because they have the most nullification, dipoles run in second place here. Horns in general will provide no room node reduction, HOWEVER sub horns (especially those utilizing the room) may make alterations that COULD be an improvement (often offering an improvement with one node while offering a detriment to another node). The difference here is that the designs with nullification tend to suppress differences “across the board” (freq.-wide that is).
Note however that this is by no means the only way to reduce room nodes. Just altering placement of a monopole subwoofer can change things dramatically (but again there is usually “give and take” here). Perhaps another method that is every bit as competent with room nodes as dipole operation is by utilizing 2 monopoles in opposing pressure zones - like near an inner corner with one sub and an outer corner with another sub (assuming you have an “outer corner”, like in an L shaped room would have). Yet another (that CAN be effective) is by simply loading the room with multiple (3+) monopole subs. A subjectively similar effect for at least one point in the room can simply be derived with eq.. There are of course more effective digital “eq.s” that can help with eq. in a variety of room locations.
Understand though that this answer is with regard to room node reduction alone - utilizing a nullification design does other things perceptually that may or may not be advantageous. In other words - Supercardoids and dipoles will sound different (than omnipoles) regardless of room mode reduction.. not simply because of room node reduction. Additionally, dipoles are often single driver affairs so that the driver is velocity (as opposed to pressure) driven, which also is subjectively dissimilar.
-“Which system is more accurate?”
Answer: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, this depends on SOOOOoooooooooooo many variables that there really isn’t an answer. (..and it can lead to quasi-****ing contests about which is better without really knowing why.) Certainly if room mode reduction was your only requirement then see the answer to question 1 above.
-“Which has a better transient response?”
Answer: Again a LOT of variables here, but I can offer some meaningful generalizations. 1st off this is HIGHLY bandwidth dependent.. both for the signal and the output. The primary factor here is driver excursion. The longer it takes for a driver to “rise” and “settle” for a given freq. - the worse the transient response. Fortunately though most music does not contain fairly continuous low freq.s - and often those that are present are synthetic and highly regular (with regard to time). (If you’re an orgelwerk or acoustic bass fan then you may be “out of luck”.) Essentially this allows us to “fudge” with transient response below about 50 Hz (excepting of course those musical tracks that have low bass material that is more time dependent). Sure, transient response at these lower freq.s IS important - but not nearly as important. In fact distortion levels are more important subjectivly at these lower freq.s, more so than an even freq. response*. As far as horns vs. dipoles goes with regard to driver excursion levels.. This is highly dependent on the driver(s) used and the accompanying horn (for the horn). For the most part compare total dipole driver sd to horn mouth exit sd (provided that the horn doesn’t unload the driver causing “pumping”). Generally the greater the sd the less the excursion level and the better the transient ability.
(*extended low freq. ability and low distortion at these freq.s is more important than most other factors. There are two reasons for this. Number 1, an extended low freq. response subjectively balances the upper freq. response of a loudspeaker. Number 2, lower freq.s typically are present on recorded material though they are often not musically significant (other than for the aforementioned balancing). What these low freq.s do have is room pressurization of the source (or a digital re-creation thereof). Because they are so low in level and freq., AND are broad-band (covering more than an octave), they require low distortion reproduction to be able to discern their fluctuations in pressure. The subjective result is clear/transparent view of the dimensions of a source’s room (real or digital) as well as the space between performers (i.e. you get a much more defined “soundstage”). Personally I think that neither dipoles or horns are domestically acceptable here because of the extreme low freq.s down to 10 Hz or less near level. I think a T-Line with a low distortion driver at low freq.s is FAR preferable for these low freq.s.).
Not sure if I agree with all statements above. For instance, 'dipole' and 'horn' are words that convey a type of construction, while cardioid is a word that relates to a radiation pattern. A dipole radiation pattern for instance is a figure-eight pattern created by cancellation effects. The driver's directivity is ordinary, but the arrangement changes the directivity.
I'd summarize it like that:
- dipoles achieve their radiation pattern through cancellation
- horns do this through the horn walls
Main advantages of dipole systems:
- relatively power flat. This is because the directivity/dispersion/radiation pattern is controlled from bass through treble. This is the single main factor why dipoles sound less 'boomy' thasn other arrangements. Directivity index over frequency changes less than in other arrangements.
- minor advantage in exciting less roome modes (4.8 dB reduction in off axis room raditaion vs monopole)
Dipole disadvantages: must be placed at minimum distances from walls, treble dipole effect may give unwanted room effects, excursion limits places enormous demands on bass units.
Main advantages of horn systems:
- narrow directivity index except for bass horns where practical size limits prevent 'proper' horn mouth size to achieve this
- high sensitivity, low distortion, less demanding on amp and driver output limits
Horn disadvantages: size limits in the bass lead to compromises in construction. Narrow dispersion leads to tight sweet spot. Construction compromises may lead to unwanted resonances, and to dispersion discontinuities, which in turn may lead to non-power flat output and dirver integration problems.
My own conclusion is that a non-compromised horn system would be close to ideal for minimum room effects and maximum output with low distortion. In practice a good compromise is easier to achieve using dipoles, for normal room sizes. The effects of greater directivity of the horn vs dipole (less early reflections) are likely a matter of taste.
I'd summarize it like that:
- dipoles achieve their radiation pattern through cancellation
- horns do this through the horn walls
Main advantages of dipole systems:
- relatively power flat. This is because the directivity/dispersion/radiation pattern is controlled from bass through treble. This is the single main factor why dipoles sound less 'boomy' thasn other arrangements. Directivity index over frequency changes less than in other arrangements.
- minor advantage in exciting less roome modes (4.8 dB reduction in off axis room raditaion vs monopole)
Dipole disadvantages: must be placed at minimum distances from walls, treble dipole effect may give unwanted room effects, excursion limits places enormous demands on bass units.
Main advantages of horn systems:
- narrow directivity index except for bass horns where practical size limits prevent 'proper' horn mouth size to achieve this
- high sensitivity, low distortion, less demanding on amp and driver output limits
Horn disadvantages: size limits in the bass lead to compromises in construction. Narrow dispersion leads to tight sweet spot. Construction compromises may lead to unwanted resonances, and to dispersion discontinuities, which in turn may lead to non-power flat output and dirver integration problems.
My own conclusion is that a non-compromised horn system would be close to ideal for minimum room effects and maximum output with low distortion. In practice a good compromise is easier to achieve using dipoles, for normal room sizes. The effects of greater directivity of the horn vs dipole (less early reflections) are likely a matter of taste.
MBK - I'm sorry I reacted to your question the way I did. I thought you were just out trolling for trouble - I may seem close minded but I'm really pretty open minded. What it comes down to I've had good examples of both dipole and horns in my room and the horn systems when set up properly 'did if for me' where the dipoles surely can sound good - but lacked key ingredients that I feel is important. Another system that 'does it for me' in the bass is the Karlson - You are right there are ALOT of variables - the key (to me) is actually expirimenting with working systems and finding which combinations of those fit your objective (subjective objective!) best. Just the other day I saw a single driver back loaded horn posted at a forum (Nelson Pass beast) with like a 12' path off the back of the little 8" driver and a mouth the size of a small car. This is a horn bass system designed to be driven with an amplifier with an 80 ohm output impedence- BUT I guess I'd be considered closed minded for something like that because of the limitations it presents (based upon my expirements with trying to get satisfyimg sound out of a single 8" driver) versus what can be achieved in different ways. To me it is a difficult line to walk when it comes to what is 'best' because we have no real idea what exact criteria it takes to fullfill that promise to each individual listener.
Hi,
I post this message only for the information of those people who are thinking of building open baffle but are a bit worried about bass response. I had the pleasure of hearing Thorsten's system a few weeks back. He's using the supravox signature bicones (laquered with c37) in an open baffle. What was interesting was that he was supplementing the low end very slightly with the small rel subs, I recall him telling me, that they were only supplementing slightly from 60 hz to 30 hz. To prove his point he unplugged the subs completley whilst playing reggae music thru his system, and you could barely notice the difference. The bass produced by the speakers was very good indeed, and I could not define it as overly weak at all. Given the benefits of accross the rest of the audio range, which sounded incredibly humanised, the sound really shines.
Although I cannot comment on comparisons with horns as I've never had the pleasure of listening to any.
Thanks
Raja
I post this message only for the information of those people who are thinking of building open baffle but are a bit worried about bass response. I had the pleasure of hearing Thorsten's system a few weeks back. He's using the supravox signature bicones (laquered with c37) in an open baffle. What was interesting was that he was supplementing the low end very slightly with the small rel subs, I recall him telling me, that they were only supplementing slightly from 60 hz to 30 hz. To prove his point he unplugged the subs completley whilst playing reggae music thru his system, and you could barely notice the difference. The bass produced by the speakers was very good indeed, and I could not define it as overly weak at all. Given the benefits of accross the rest of the audio range, which sounded incredibly humanised, the sound really shines.
Although I cannot comment on comparisons with horns as I've never had the pleasure of listening to any.
Thanks
Raja
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.