In my experience, once a compression driver on a horn or waveguide has been properly EQ'd, they are all basically the same if they have the same size diaphragm and voice coil. I know that this is blasphemy around here, but it is my experience and I have seen nothing that indicates that this is not correct, only subjective claims to the contrary. Those, of course, being less than ideal evidence of anything.
Is it also your experience that different diaphragm materials will not matter once all EQ'ed the same? I have yet to try such close enough comparisons, though it should be easy with the miniDSP.
IG
I take this to suggest they'll be free of excess phase once fixed. Suppose one wanted to locate internal reflections, the potential for IMD, breakup vs VC distortion, for finer adjustments etc., can this be done simply but reliably?
Alan
The real question is are these things audibly important?
Excess phase? Do you mean group delay? I would not expect much differences here from the drivers.
Internal reflections? These get EQ'd out so they aren't a factor.
IMD? I don't believe that nonlinear distortion is a factor.
breakup vs VC distortion? I am not sure what that is so I cannot comment.
In my studies of compression drivers with B&C we found that the only significant audible differences between drivers was in frequency response, which could be corrected with EQ.
The real question is are these things audibly important?
Excess phase? Do you mean group delay? I would not expect much differences here from the drivers.
Internal reflections? These get EQ'd out so they aren't a factor.
IMD? I don't believe that nonlinear distortion is a factor.
breakup vs VC distortion? I am not sure what that is so I cannot comment.
In my studies of compression drivers with B&C we found that the only significant audible differences between drivers was in frequency response, which could be corrected with EQ.
I tried the DE250 on 4 waveguides :
- RCF H100
- QSC 152i
- Pyle PH612 (econowave)
- SEOS-12
Each time, I got hash sounding on a lot of material, especialy female voices. In fact, it's not a matter of taste but a matter of pain : it hurts my ears. So I tried to lower the response above 10kHz (was flat before). It seems to resolve my problem : less pain.
So I guess the problem comes from the DE250 that is harsh sounding somewhere above 10kHz. I don't know about the BMS compressions. Perhaps I will give them a try.
- RCF H100
- QSC 152i
- Pyle PH612 (econowave)
- SEOS-12
Each time, I got hash sounding on a lot of material, especialy female voices. In fact, it's not a matter of taste but a matter of pain : it hurts my ears. So I tried to lower the response above 10kHz (was flat before). It seems to resolve my problem : less pain.
So I guess the problem comes from the DE250 that is harsh sounding somewhere above 10kHz. I don't know about the BMS compressions. Perhaps I will give them a try.
Hip Shot
So much for the O.S.W.G. arguments in your papers, you just equalized them “all” away.
Of course this philosophy works well in a setting where it is claimed that the distortion produced cannot be heard even though it most certainly exists and is measurable.
If Be is used to make the diaphragm of a given size it will be acoustically smaller than its plastic, aluminum or titanium counterparts; and because of this, it will certainly perform differently as the onset of breakup modes and mass roll-off will occur at higher frequencies whether we choose to hear them or not.
Regards,
WHG
So much for the O.S.W.G. arguments in your papers, you just equalized them “all” away.
Of course this philosophy works well in a setting where it is claimed that the distortion produced cannot be heard even though it most certainly exists and is measurable.
If Be is used to make the diaphragm of a given size it will be acoustically smaller than its plastic, aluminum or titanium counterparts; and because of this, it will certainly perform differently as the onset of breakup modes and mass roll-off will occur at higher frequencies whether we choose to hear them or not.
Regards,
WHG
Last edited:
I've bought and used 8 pairs of tweeters in the past year, ranging from $70 per to 500 per pair. I bought great tweeters that tested well. 7 of those tweeters sounded excellent to me. The HDS sounded sterile and not musical to me. Madisound says the same thing about them. Of course the catch all response by the technical people was that the crossover/application must have been bad because they feel if it tests well, it sounds good. To each his own. I got it right 7 times.
I'll buy the commonly used CD's and decide for myself. In the end even if it was true that it was my application that was poor for why I choose another, at least in the end I keep what sounds best to me. The better measuring tweeter isn't worth keeping if I cant get it to work right.
More
If you can hear a difference then you can measure it. But of course, it is important to know what to look for in the test data. Driver specifications are a summation of this data and as a result are only predictors of a driver’s performance and are not a guarantee that a specific unit of production will even come close to meeting them. I have yet to find a driver specification sheet that specifies tolerances for the dimensions given. So there is a reasonable chance that particular drivers from a given production run will not sound as good as those that precede or follow them. A spectrum analyzer plot will usually reveal the differences between a DUT and the standard to which it is being measured, and if pronounced, you will hear the difference. Bottom line, driver specifications are not sufficient to determine driver performance with any degree of precision or certainty. They are not measurments, only rough sumations of them.
Regards,
WHG
If you can hear a difference then you can measure it. But of course, it is important to know what to look for in the test data. Driver specifications are a summation of this data and as a result are only predictors of a driver’s performance and are not a guarantee that a specific unit of production will even come close to meeting them. I have yet to find a driver specification sheet that specifies tolerances for the dimensions given. So there is a reasonable chance that particular drivers from a given production run will not sound as good as those that precede or follow them. A spectrum analyzer plot will usually reveal the differences between a DUT and the standard to which it is being measured, and if pronounced, you will hear the difference. Bottom line, driver specifications are not sufficient to determine driver performance with any degree of precision or certainty. They are not measurments, only rough sumations of them.
Regards,
WHG
The biggest problem is that the tests we do for the drivers aren't complete. In the case of ribbons, Zaph states that the air, transients, detail, ect are all distortion. I don't agree. I think the lack of any mass of the ribbon itself allows the ribbon to react in a fraction of the time that a dome takes to react. This lack of mass allows the foil to start and stop on a dime. I love ribbons as long as you can live with the odd dispersion. So its high in distortion....that simply means to me that distortion wont tell me if I will like a driver.
All waveguides sound pretty good (ear pain problem aside). I think you can make good speakers with all of them. I didn't push my experiments far enough to use every of them at there best, so I can't say which is best. It depends on the woofer you put with, crossover point, eq, speakers placement... I would like to, but I really can't answer to the question.
You can't exactly attach the driver to the horn the way you can sometimes attach a dome to a baffle and expect it to have the right response. This is the purpose of the crossover, not just to protect tweeters from the lows.
You also need to know what response to aim for which suits the application. You can't necessarily choose an arbitrary response shape and expect it to sound right.
Thin plastic horns can sound just like they look. Their profile isn't always ideal and there isn't usually enough to them for a good mouth transition.
The DE250 on a good waveguide can sound good, smooth, without pain, effortless, and better than a dome IMO, but it will take more than a spanner and a roll of cable to get there.
You also need to know what response to aim for which suits the application. You can't necessarily choose an arbitrary response shape and expect it to sound right.
Thin plastic horns can sound just like they look. Their profile isn't always ideal and there isn't usually enough to them for a good mouth transition.
The DE250 on a good waveguide can sound good, smooth, without pain, effortless, and better than a dome IMO, but it will take more than a spanner and a roll of cable to get there.
This comment makes no sense since the OSWG arguments have nothing to do with the frequency response of the driver. The drivers frequency response can be EQ'd, errors induced by the horn cannot. Sounds like you don't understand the concepts.
"Nonlinear distortion" is not audible, we proven this with a rather elaborate study which was peer reviewed. Get informed on the literature.
"Distortion" can be heard if it is diffraction, which is linear.
Or "whether they are audible or not" is the other possibility.
This didn't come out as I intended. The crossover is primarily used on problems that are fixable, so EQing, while required doesn't necessarily imply a compromise.
To qualify, you are talking about speakers? Branching out to amps, higher orders of HD (and higher orders that are greater in level than lower orders) are long suspected to be audible.
An example is the biasing of an output transistor at these two points (assuming this is the exact cause). One is colder and somewhat edgy, the other is warmer yet is engaging.
Attachments
Could be just that the crossover used didn't have equalization. Most CD horns and waveguides need a filter that conjugates mass-rolloff, and some need additional shaping to mitigate response ripple.
In fact, many CD horns and waveguides have strong response ripple. Unequalized, they often sound pretty bad, making the sound I'd most describe as "horn honk". It sounds artificial, sometimes throaty or nasal, sometimes downright harsh.
I personally think that is the biggest reason some people don't like horns. They've heard poor implementations. Plenty of them out there, pretty much every cheap PA "speaker on a pole" sounds like that.
I have experience with many CD horns and waveguides and some just need top-octave compensation but others need more "help". So this may be what's causing the OP to report harshness from his horns. In particular, two I've tested, the QSC horn mentioned needs some smoothing of its first quarter wave mode, and the SEOS profile also has a characteristic ripple that must be EQ'ed. Without notch filters or some other form of equalization, these kinds of devices don't sound very good.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.