Beyond the Ariel

[gedlee]

Originally posted by graaf
Hi Mr Olson and Dr Geddes and everyone else in this thread!

I woud like to know Your opinion on this: http://www.niji.or.jp/home/k-nisi/gs-1.htm

Onkyo Grand Scepter

Of course this is not an OB design but I can see some common features with Mr Olson's "Beyond Ariel" project and even more with Dr Geddes' designs. I mean high directivity, high efficiency, high power handling, mighty midtweeter in a big waveguide, no bass augmenting resonators and so on

best,
graaf

The waveguides are way too small to be effective and they terminate in shrp edges - both very bad ideas.

[gedlee]

Originally posted by Lynn Olson

Anyway, with computer techniques, we can look at things that should have been investigated many decades ago - and time-domain performance of high-efficiency speakers is right at the top of the list. Will the compression driver & horn (or waveguide) outperform the stacked array of direct-radiator midranges (I already have a quartet of 18Sound 6ND410's)? We'll see.

Lynn

Those companies that you mentioned are just about the strongest NIH places that I have ever seen. They use others ideas and then act as if they thought of them - the ultimate NIH.

Its your time domain ideas that I agree with most since this is where I am finding the strongest correlation with subjective sound quality. Its the nonlinear distortion things that I agree with least because I used to believe in nonlinear distortion, but then as I studied it I found that it wasn't a factor, but time domain stuff was.

And, by the way, you do know that line arrays always have "tails" in their impulse responses - they have to - which means that they can never have compact impulse responses. Only point sources can have a compact impulse response.

Good luck

[soongsc]

Originally posted by graaf
Hi Mr Olson and Dr Geddes and everyone else in this thread!

I woud like to know Your opinion on this: http://www.niji.or.jp/home/k-nisi/gs-1.htm

Onkyo Grand Scepter

Of course this is not an OB design but I can see some common features with Mr Olson's "Beyond Ariel" project and even more with Dr Geddes' designs. I mean high directivity, high efficiency, high power handling, mighty midtweeter in a big waveguide, no bass augmenting resonators and so on

best,
graaf

I have to agree with Earl on this.

Additionally, I think that the sphere type baffle that smooths the edges to minimize edge diffraction is very necessary for good imaging.

[chrismercurio]

Are their AES papers or other peer reviewed sources to look at that show:

"And, by the way, you do know that line arrays always have "tails" in their impulse responses - they have to - which means that they can never have compact impulse responses. Only point sources can have a compact impulse response."

Regards,

C

[gedlee]

Originally posted by gedlee

And, by the way, you do know that line arrays always have "tails" in their impulse responses - they have to - which means that they can never have compact impulse responses. Only point sources can have a compact impulse response.

To add to the above, line arrays do help with directivity - thats a plus, but as they do so they degrade the impulse response - thats a negative. A directive point source solves both problems - thats the bottom line to me.

[chrismercurio]

Is there anywhere in the San Francisco bay area where a pair of your Summa speakers can be auditioned?

Thanks,

C

[graaf]

Originally posted by gedlee


The waveguides are way too small to be effective and they terminate in shrp edges - both very bad ideas.

Originally posted by gedlee



The waveguides are way too small to be effective and they terminate in shrp edges - both very bad ideas.

are they to small?
I surely don't know - so I trust You
but the midtweeter (800 Hz and up) waveguide looks bigger than in Summa or AI-Audio
it's about 60x30 cm
and the midbass waveguides match the midtweeter waveguide and it looks that this was just their purpose, no bigger needed

as to sharp edges - they quite standard, aren't they?
also among horn classic like Klipschorn, big JBLs etc.

I know (from Your posts) that it is very bad idea from theoretical point of view (and I can't argue and don't want to) but apparently not always very bad sound for everyone
in fact quite the contrary - quite a good sound for many, isn't it?

those Grand Scepters also won international acclaim and many prizes worldwide
so perhaps the ideas were indeed very bad (who am I to argue?) but sound apparently not so bad at all though

best,
graaf

[Russell Dawkins]

graaf,

Irritants don't always produce pearls.

[gedlee]

Originally posted by graaf


those Grand Scepters also won international acclaim and many prizes worldwide
so perhaps the ideas were indeed very bad (who am I to argue?) but sound apparently not so bad at all though

Since I have never heard those speakers I didn't think that you were asking for my subjective response, so I gave you a technical one. As to "we have always done it that way" - what can I say. If you are perfectly content with the sound of those old style horns then go for it. I always found them to have particularly poor sound quality.

The Summa waveguide does not go down to 800 Hz and it would be way too small at that frequency.

If you buy into "international acclaim and many prizes worldwide" as a testiment to good sound quality then you are pretty nieve about how those accolades come about.

It sounds a little like Lynn and I were being baited into an arguement here. If you already liked those speakers so much then why did you ask my opinion of them? If I thought that was the way to go then I would have done my speakers that way.

[graaf]

Originally posted by Russell Dawkins
graaf,

Irritants don't always produce pearls.

and?

are You irritated?