Short of headphones, "forward' just means less coloration from the room, and that is a good thing. If you want coloration from the room, you may as well fire some full range speakers at the wall and add them in. Not a bad idea for some situations really, but basically taking the room out of the circuit is the goal. minimizing ragged fr reflections is why we like flatter polar response. Please give me "in your lap" out of your lap is called a 901 (-:
Yup, only having heard the Unity and other midbass horn designs.
Not forward. That's interesting.At what point does the soundstage (and the images within it) start relative to the speakers?
Hi Tom,
Please see my response to ra7, I'm hoping it will provide a better explanation. As for lower freq. directivity plots in room - I don't have any that I could point to. I do remember asking someone for more than a few axial points in room on an H frame dipole that was part of their design (that was kindly provided), but I really have no idea where it is in this forum.
I know, no help at all. 
I actually also have a few full-range drivers I've picked up over the years (and have played with coaxials), make use of headphones, etc.. so I'm not exactly unaware of certain benefits. While not having heard the Synergy's - I've heard many similar benefits if not all at the same time or in precisely the same manner. My viewpoint isn't entirely philosophical in this instance, yet I'll admit that is certainly incomplete. Again though, I'm factoring-in these virtues as a "given".
in fact lack of room coloration is the only source of in your lap unless you mean heightened midrange. Magnepans being figure 8 devices do not light up the side walls only front and back, therefore, in your lap, a perfect example in fact.
Not sure how different they are. What you say?
As I recall, near the half way point in depth. Mostly it seems to go back from there, but there is some forward too. To be honest I've haven't spent enough time with them to give the best answer. But they certainly didn't impress me as "forward" in the sense that some speakers can be. They sound very open, very relaxed, but with a sense of power. They give a pretty good sense of 3D space. Phantom center image can be excellent. A sort of energetic window onto the music, when cranked up.Not forward. That's interesting.
Yes, I'm not sure how different they are either - especially when concentrating on upper freq.s.. Still I'm certain Tom made improvements, and I'll take his word for it.
The Unity's I heard didn't sound particularly forward either (even if the associated equipment was all err, less than optimal
).. However I'm "looking" at this from an extreme view-point, specifically "nit-picking", or as an absolute given the thread's purpose (..even if I don't like it and think it's unrealistic).
"Forward" with respect to the soundstage IMO is anything that starts in front of the driver's. Not simply images, but rather the space in front of that performance. This usually sets the performers (all of them) well into the soundstage - with often astonishing depth (particularly if it's a "live" recording). The only time I've heard it where the soundstage is moved backwards (and even then only marginally) from the loudspeaker was with full-range bipoles where the rear bipole driver was louder than the front by more than 2db. (..yeah, another experiment.
) Particularly "dry" vocals (studio only) on this absolute are essentially moved between loudspeakers, not in front of them. Never in front unless there is some weird phasing process occurring.
"Immediacy" (for lack of a better word) does tend to become reduced in this condition - as if an accurate presentation just doesn't have the recorded capability to be reproduced for realistic sense of "something" (which is beyond me to describe). By contrast, horns seem to do this better even if they do some amount of "moving". The ultimate however (beyond live) is headphone binaural, there you get everything but a tactile sensation (without tactile transducers augmenting the playback).
Anyway..
"Forward" with respect to radiation (or higher directivity). This is one process that often moves the soundstage and imaging forward, horns seem to do this to some degree (as a general statement), but lets look at it from the extreme:
When the reproduction is extremely high/narrow in directivity it tends to push the sound to your ears - as if the sound is literally right in front of your nose (assuming you are getting "hit" with the sound equally to both ears). Some have occasionally experienced "in the head sound". If it's just one ear then the sound appears to be coming from that ear, or right next to your ear. If the sound is directed at a surface - then you hear the sound coming from that surface. Google "parametric speaker", and with videos note the reactions of those actually experiencing it.
Thanks Tom,
I'll try to read and reread your post (think about, think about it some more) and do the same for the extra materials, but it will have to be a bit later (maybe a few days) before I can respond.
Have an excellent weekend!
Last edited:
Thanks! I appreciate your politeness. I apologize if my response came off as curt. I was just surprised by those demandsNot a demand, a request - and I think a kindly worded one at that (..as it was intended to be).
And I was typing from work... you know how that goes I can only surmise that you mean dipoles. I had my honeymoon with dipoles. It was fun while it lasted.
There are too many compromises in my mind with dipoles. It's like the dog chasing it's tail. To get flat response, you need tons of EQ and lots of power, or driver area. None of which to me atleast, are attractive propositions. Doesn't mean it can't be done. I heard the LX521 and was very impressed. But a well implemented horn system will blow the pants off the LX521, in my mind at least.
It is the combination of directivity with high sensitivity and almost limitless headroom that is the attraction here.
Can you formulate a reasonably accurate hypothesis, (within a very modest freq. range), of where this point will occur? 500 Hz? 450 Hz? 400 Hz? 350 Hz?
Actually it wouldn't matter.
As you say, it wouldn't matter. In other words, you can spec your synergy and custom build it to achieve the low frequency point and directivity you want at that point.
That is an unreasonable statement. To assume you know what a Synergy horn might sound like because you’ve heard other speakers that shared some radiating attributes is implausible. If such a feat was even possible, then all of us would already know what every speaker on the market sounds like. It’s like talking about the Zen koan “Sound of One Hand Clapping” philosophical riddle but in reverse. I would highly recommend you have a proper listening session at an authorized Danley dealer and reserve your criticisms until after you’ve actually heard them. Then you will be able to determine if the “issues” you’ve raised have any teeth when it comes to real world listening experiences. Tom hit the nail on the head in the first sentence of post #13.
Last edited:
He mentions characteristics that specifically provide the Synergy with enhanced performance.
I've specifically mentioned other designs that I've heard and designed with that can (and have) had those characteristics.
I certainly don't expect the net result to be exceedingly similar because of numerous variables.. but yes, a certain quality does tend to "transfer". The color red is generally red, even if there is spectrum of red that encompasses a wide range of "shades" of red.
It's nothing more than a point of reference to say that I understand the benefits of those positive attributes on *more* than simply a philosophical viewpoint that Tom alluded to. Nor am I discounting those positive attributes.
As far as listening to them, If they were reasonably near me I would - they aren't.
(..I checked) Thanks! I appreciate your politeness. I apologize if my response came off as curt. I was just surprised by those demands
I can only surmise that you mean dipoles. I had my honeymoon with dipoles. It was fun while it lasted.
There are too many compromises in my mind with dipoles. It's like the dog chasing it's tail. To get flat response, you need tons of EQ and lots of power, or driver area. None of which to me atleast, are attractive propositions. Doesn't mean it can't be done. I heard the LX521 and was very impressed. But a well implemented horn system will blow the pants off the LX521, in my mind at least.
It is the combination of directivity with high sensitivity and almost limitless headroom that is the attraction here.
No, prob.s.
Actually that's just it - most dipole designs display nearly "omni" behavior past a certain point (in a small room).. dido for most cardioids & all horns. It's not the loudspeaker itself, but it is the net result - and it starts close to the loudspeaker and "carries" outward. As soon as you start to sweep the mic around a directive design (at lower freq.s) past a point we would express in inches (or centimeters) - the narrow directivity pattern falls apart.
Another way of saying this is that at some point the room becomes part of the loudspeaker. That point specifically relates to the wavelength and any bounding condition.
Want a "clean" polar beyond a few feet from one of these designs down to 300 Hz? Then keep it 4 feet away from the floor, ceiling, and any wall. (..and it's just about impossible at 100 Hz.) (..and note that "clean" is a euphemism.).
This is something that Earl often comments on, but it doesn't seem to "get through". And it's a good argument, but I don't think it's complete either..
Last edited:
The Yorkville Unity line of speakers are a round version of offset midrange and central HF driver on one horn.
By most all reports they work well, though not quite as well as the Synergy.
Attachments
looks to me like the Unity with the crossover improvements in the Synergy is quite plainly the ideal platform for hifi. point source to the Shroeder after which it doesn't mean a damn thing anyway in a smaller room. so really, there it is. Again I will state, the sound of this speaker is the sound of these multiple midrange firing into those holes which are not at the apex of the horn. Again, show us that curve and you have shown us the sound of the speaker
Hi peteleoni, all
Sorry I haven’t been able to reply today, been really busy and this has to be short too.
The issue is coherent addition, if you have a pair of subwoofers and you put them ¼ wavelength or less apart, they combine into one new source and feel each others radiation pressure which increases their efficiency.
Actually, that rule applies at any frequency, not just bass but it is entirely based on the wavelength or the size of the wavelength.
Once the spacing is ½ wavelength, the sources radiate independently and produce an interference pattern (a series of lubes and nulls) and in the case of the ½ wl spacing a simple figure 8 polar pattern is the result, two lobes, two nulls and as the distance is increased further, the number of lobes and nulls increases accordingly.
To drive a horn as a single source, a similar rule applies, the sources all have to be less than a quarter wl apart at the highest frequency in question.
This is how multiple mid or low drivers can couple in to what appears to be a single source. Where ever two frequency ranges combine, they also have to interact below that quarter wavelength rule in order to add coherently into one source as well.
Several other less obvious considerations are that when a driver is mounted forward of the apex of the horn, the radiated pressure goes both directions, some goes towards the throat AND a reflection occurs. When the frequency is high enough so that reflected signal is delayed a total of ½ wavelength, it causes a deep cancellation notch. This notch must be ABOVE the highest frequency one is going to use the drivers to. This is not a problem if one accounts for it, it simply limits how high the side mounted drivers will operate properly to and so you locate the holes accordingly. The last part is that the impedance transformation we want from a horn has a “high pass” effect based on how fast the horn area expands. Where an exponential horn has a constant rate of expansion, a conical horn has a variable expansion rate, fast, like for high frequencies at the apex and slowing as you move towards the mouth.
So, one can divide up the frequency range based on where the acoustic “high pass” corner would be and drive the horn body over a wide frequency range, by using drivers appropriate for each range, coupled into the horn at the correct acoustic dimensions and fed electrically in time instead of spread out like a normal crossover does and when everything is right, you get a single horn body, driven seamlessly over a very wide frequency range.
Based on what goes in and what comes out, it measures like, sounds like and radiates like a single crossover less driver.
Got to run (got your msg too) but the background in acoustic levitation might be interesting. I was interviewed a while ago for a DIY publication, there is a levitation picture here. The sample (glowing ball) is at 1600 degrees C, suspended by high intensity sound. Those transducers were one of my inventions back then.
Q&A: Tom Danley | audioXpress
Best,
Tom
Sorry I haven’t been able to reply today, been really busy and this has to be short too.
The issue is coherent addition, if you have a pair of subwoofers and you put them ¼ wavelength or less apart, they combine into one new source and feel each others radiation pressure which increases their efficiency.
Actually, that rule applies at any frequency, not just bass but it is entirely based on the wavelength or the size of the wavelength.
Once the spacing is ½ wavelength, the sources radiate independently and produce an interference pattern (a series of lubes and nulls) and in the case of the ½ wl spacing a simple figure 8 polar pattern is the result, two lobes, two nulls and as the distance is increased further, the number of lobes and nulls increases accordingly.
To drive a horn as a single source, a similar rule applies, the sources all have to be less than a quarter wl apart at the highest frequency in question.
This is how multiple mid or low drivers can couple in to what appears to be a single source. Where ever two frequency ranges combine, they also have to interact below that quarter wavelength rule in order to add coherently into one source as well.
Several other less obvious considerations are that when a driver is mounted forward of the apex of the horn, the radiated pressure goes both directions, some goes towards the throat AND a reflection occurs. When the frequency is high enough so that reflected signal is delayed a total of ½ wavelength, it causes a deep cancellation notch. This notch must be ABOVE the highest frequency one is going to use the drivers to. This is not a problem if one accounts for it, it simply limits how high the side mounted drivers will operate properly to and so you locate the holes accordingly. The last part is that the impedance transformation we want from a horn has a “high pass” effect based on how fast the horn area expands. Where an exponential horn has a constant rate of expansion, a conical horn has a variable expansion rate, fast, like for high frequencies at the apex and slowing as you move towards the mouth.
So, one can divide up the frequency range based on where the acoustic “high pass” corner would be and drive the horn body over a wide frequency range, by using drivers appropriate for each range, coupled into the horn at the correct acoustic dimensions and fed electrically in time instead of spread out like a normal crossover does and when everything is right, you get a single horn body, driven seamlessly over a very wide frequency range.
Based on what goes in and what comes out, it measures like, sounds like and radiates like a single crossover less driver.
Got to run (got your msg too) but the background in acoustic levitation might be interesting. I was interviewed a while ago for a DIY publication, there is a levitation picture here. The sample (glowing ball) is at 1600 degrees C, suspended by high intensity sound. Those transducers were one of my inventions back then.
Q&A: Tom Danley | audioXpress
Best,
Tom
Thanks Tom, that's crystal clear to dolt like me (not) So now I will try it this way. Does anyone have a curve of JUST THE MIDRANGE DRIVERS firing sideways into a horn in this manner? I understand that all the drivers will combine into one driver. Given. Done. Accepted. Old news. It is that other issue, the forward and backward thing that I am concerned with, I see what you are saying the cutoff is going to be outside of the back refelcted area. Great. I would like to see a curve of this situation with *only* the mids firing. I feel that visualizing this curve alone without the other drivers firing in the horn may tell us a great deal regardless of the other woofer,tweeter crossover interference patterns. I know those areas can be dealt with. What may be difficult is a up and down jagged curve inside the "mid-range only" area. Yes this is a head on question, might be a stupid head on question, but that is why I am here. BTW I totally do not see the need to continue to do passive crossovers, DSP is wonderful, but not if it is going up and down and up down like an overcommited souls singer doing the national anthem. (-:
Last edited:
Here you go, mid only. This is a DIY Synergy by Paul Spencer in Australia, using the same mid driver as some of the DSL products (black curve is a Horn Response simulation):
Here's the link to the page I stole that pic from: Red Spade Audio: Synergy horn - simulations vs measurements
A lot of good info there.
Here's the link to the page I stole that pic from: Red Spade Audio: Synergy horn - simulations vs measurements
A lot of good info there.
Wow ! Am I wrong or is that not too shabby at all????
So....in thinking about this, the only thing you lose with a more shallow conical horn might be a bit of efficiency, but man is that ever made up for in the multiplicity of drivers! Hate to use the phrase no brainer, but damn! Starting to think there really are no gotchas here! So far then, the only thing anyone has really put forward is a lack of 'radiation depth' which to me and my kind is really a plus (for mixing not mastering) Starting to think this would make one hell of a near field monitor unit, far field soffit mounted too for the matter!
So....in thinking about this, the only thing you lose with a more shallow conical horn might be a bit of efficiency, but man is that ever made up for in the multiplicity of drivers! Hate to use the phrase no brainer, but damn! Starting to think there really are no gotchas here! So far then, the only thing anyone has really put forward is a lack of 'radiation depth' which to me and my kind is really a plus (for mixing not mastering) Starting to think this would make one hell of a near field monitor unit, far field soffit mounted too for the matter!
Here you go, mid only. This is a DIY Synergy by Paul Spencer in Australia, using the same mid driver as some of the DSL products (black curve is a Horn Response simulation):
Here's the link to the page I stole that pic from: Red Spade Audio: Synergy horn - simulations vs measurements
A lot of good info there.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.