Well you did say: "I hear tale that you're so impressed by his speakers that his poor performance electronics are an afterthought." was that not directed at me?
Jan
Not meant as inflammatory at all. I merely wanted to point out that your views do not correspond to reality, not more, not less.
Jan
It was terrible of me to quote the conclusions from the paper you cited. Likewise, I must be doing something very underhanded by complimenting them for doing full disclosure in the best spirit of science.
It's part of the conspiracy.
All the horn designs that I have seen require 'stretching' of a flat sheet to arrive at the curve/horn shape.
I had a play around with sheet of A4 paper.
I folded a sheet of A4 paper across both diagonals and then tore a circle out of the central point.
With deft holding (an extra 10 fingers would be very useful), I was able to achieve near as dammit to the M2 horn shape.
Does this say something about the maths behind the M2 horn ?.
Dan.
I had a play around with sheet of A4 paper.
I folded a sheet of A4 paper across both diagonals and then tore a circle out of the central point.
With deft holding (an extra 10 fingers would be very useful), I was able to achieve near as dammit to the M2 horn shape.
Does this say something about the maths behind the M2 horn ?.
Dan.
It wasn´t reported in detail just that they did not mention any noise.
It was terrible of me to quote the conclusions from the paper you cited. Likewise, I must be doing something very underhanded by complimenting them for doing full disclosure in the best spirit of science.
It's part of the conspiracy.
It was billshurv´s conspiracy mystery not mine.....
You were acting as usual in good faith as a true believer.
I would like to see the software that supposedly is being used to design any horn or waveguide that is based on designing using anything but plannar wavefronts. To think that you can design a simple horn and predict the wavefront from the simple curvature of the device that is driving it, whether a compression driver or a cone driven mid horn would be much more complex than what a single curvature would predict. The wavefront coming off of a curved surface such as a diaphragm of a compression driver is going to be very complex, each frequency across that surface will create a different wavefront shape, calculating and predicting the modes of the diaphragm in free air would be complex enough by themselves, now add in the effect of the phase plug and the complexity would go up by many factors. I know of nobody who besides on a conceptual basis is using curved wavefront analysis and not simple plannar wave analysis. It is all down to actual acoustical testing to know what the device is actually doing, not some simple mathematical algorithm making design decisions.
If you really look at that JBL horn you will notice that there is in fact diffraction used in the initial opening of the horn. At the same time if you think at all with a thought towards airflow you start to see the concept of the horn and changing the common assumptions about using circular cross sections and how they affect measured response in both the vertical and horizontal directions. You need to think in rectangular concepts here. If all you are concerned about is the on axis response then a simple circular horn will do everything you want. But add in off axis response over a wider area and then add in the effects of reflections off of boundary surfaces, walls, and things do change. This is a very complex interaction and there is more than one way to look at these problems and solutions. I would say, though they have very different approaches, the JMLC and JBL horns are attempting to create similar end results. More than one way to skin a cat.
Jan,
a simple high pass first order network and passive L-pad would seem a reasonable solution to the difference in efficiency between a compression driver and a cone dynamic driver. Simply to protect that compression driver without knowing what someone may connect to those speakers as RNM is proposing with Dadood's amplifier, this would seem to be a sensible solution, no matter what dsp or other control method was used for xo network or amplification.
If you really look at that JBL horn you will notice that there is in fact diffraction used in the initial opening of the horn. At the same time if you think at all with a thought towards airflow you start to see the concept of the horn and changing the common assumptions about using circular cross sections and how they affect measured response in both the vertical and horizontal directions. You need to think in rectangular concepts here. If all you are concerned about is the on axis response then a simple circular horn will do everything you want. But add in off axis response over a wider area and then add in the effects of reflections off of boundary surfaces, walls, and things do change. This is a very complex interaction and there is more than one way to look at these problems and solutions. I would say, though they have very different approaches, the JMLC and JBL horns are attempting to create similar end results. More than one way to skin a cat.
Jan,
a simple high pass first order network and passive L-pad would seem a reasonable solution to the difference in efficiency between a compression driver and a cone dynamic driver. Simply to protect that compression driver without knowing what someone may connect to those speakers as RNM is proposing with Dadood's amplifier, this would seem to be a sensible solution, no matter what dsp or other control method was used for xo network or amplification.
Though often tongue in cheek responses I will take Sy's observations as very scientifically based and more than reasonable most of the time. If you don't believe in the scientific method that is your choice, but to say that this is incorrect you better have some proof to your assumptions besides my ears tell me! To many confounders to go with ears only testing except for the basis of is there some difference in sound or not, not what is accurate.
Of course I understand scientific method.
When I give 'subjective' observation it is after 40, 60, 100+ trials on a bunch of different systems.
I also understand confounders....I have also spent a lifetime of gear going over my bench, so I have no expectations of any particular piece of gear, I have heard them all.
I have also spent a lifetime of experimenting to arrive at the direct/instant control over system sound that I now have.
I do not have the physics explanations, but I do know what I and others readily hear.
I find this subject intensely interesting, perhaps I can provide explanations in the future.
Dan.
Last edited:
CH says ferrites, even on the mains side, can destroy the sound - are you using iron core inductors? Be careful on this point. Further, maple cable lifters will reduce common mode coupling between the cables and the floor. Failure to do this causes broadband standing waves and that of course can also result in muddled sound from non horn speakers. Alternatively, you can just go for book shelf ones and hang the cables over the drapes.
More L8r
That must be why tube amps sound better with their output transformers. The transformer
won't pass the common mode.
Dan,
I am not saying that you don't hear differences, that I believe as I can also hear differences in devices and electronics. I just don't give my reasoning for why much weight, I hear it but don't have the EE background to make claims of why. Nor do I say that what I might like in sound is more correct or more accurate than what someone else thinks is how it should sound. I often when listening to a PA when I was younger would think something was amiss, I knew something wasn't sounding correct. My brother-in-law would walk up to the console and hear the same thing, twiddle a few setting and all the sudden the sound was right, he just knew what he was listening for, all intuitive, a Golden ear if you want to call it that. I watched him constantly upgrade amplifiers as he thought one sounded better than another, not because one had better slew rate than another but purely on his hearing, but I don't remember him trying to explain why one sounded better than another. I know he hated Crown amps back in the day even though others talk about how good the specs were supposed to be. he hated those DC300 and such. He changed consoles the same way, not sure what he uses now but they surely did sound different. He had his favorite mics for particular applications and probably still does use some of those same mics. That was all ears only, but as I say that didn't make him make some crazy claims about why one sounded better or different than another.
So I have nothing against people selecting equipment based on their personal preferences, but I do understand that is what they are. not scientific conclusions.
I am not saying that you don't hear differences, that I believe as I can also hear differences in devices and electronics. I just don't give my reasoning for why much weight, I hear it but don't have the EE background to make claims of why. Nor do I say that what I might like in sound is more correct or more accurate than what someone else thinks is how it should sound. I often when listening to a PA when I was younger would think something was amiss, I knew something wasn't sounding correct. My brother-in-law would walk up to the console and hear the same thing, twiddle a few setting and all the sudden the sound was right, he just knew what he was listening for, all intuitive, a Golden ear if you want to call it that. I watched him constantly upgrade amplifiers as he thought one sounded better than another, not because one had better slew rate than another but purely on his hearing, but I don't remember him trying to explain why one sounded better than another. I know he hated Crown amps back in the day even though others talk about how good the specs were supposed to be. he hated those DC300 and such. He changed consoles the same way, not sure what he uses now but they surely did sound different. He had his favorite mics for particular applications and probably still does use some of those same mics. That was all ears only, but as I say that didn't make him make some crazy claims about why one sounded better or different than another.
So I have nothing against people selecting equipment based on their personal preferences, but I do understand that is what they are. not scientific conclusions.
You need a reality check, really, as in doing some reading into what has been discovered about the wonderful world of electrons.
Your description sounds like a Maya contemplating class-D - an act which should not be surprising at all, since they also were the first to depict astronauts in functional wear.
Speakers have 100 % common mode rejection.
Edit: after reading your post again, I have become half convinced that you were joking.
Last edited:
Yes, if "for philanthropy" = "for fun." I don't sell equipment, parts, boards, or recordings. EDIT: I'm eagerly waiting for those big fat checks from Harman and Bose, which will supplant my support from the Elders of Zion and The Illuminati.
Of this I have seen no evidence. But having been a working scientist for the past 40 years, I may not be an expert judge.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.