The trouble with that is that we are so much smarter now than the ancients were.
A 1dB measured difference is most likely audible - depends of course. Assessing the audible effects of every little diffraction point is not feasible, but it is well known that diffraction, in general, is audible. I take extreme measure to reduce it everywhere, even in the room itself, and find that it makes a difference.
Last edited:
Of course I know that diffraction is to be avoided, but it was a compromise I took willingly because loudspeaker sounded great and it would took so much more effort to flush mount it and it looked good like this. I thought of attaching some ring of absorptive fabric (acoustic foam/ felt etc) on the hole edge, but at the end left it as it was.
Friend made the other pair of loudspeakers with flush mounted 414-16b's and fr measured almost the same as 414z (which I found amazing regarding a decade span in production years).
At the end, after some crossover adjustment they also sounded almost the same (no, 414-16b wasn't better).
Friend made the other pair of loudspeakers with flush mounted 414-16b's and fr measured almost the same as 414z (which I found amazing regarding a decade span in production years).
At the end, after some crossover adjustment they also sounded almost the same (no, 414-16b wasn't better).
Why must one have a "large" room to use horn speakers? My understanding, FWTW, is that one of virtues of horn speakers is that they yield their full range response even when played at very low levels. And the Altec 416 midwoofer succeeds at this too. That's one of the mains reasons why I want to build Gary's system.
Last edited:
It's difficult to integrate the crossover at close distances, My experience is that a crossover at 1.5 meters will be wrong at 3 meters and greater distances.
Annoyingly, Stereophile measures speakers at 50 inches, which is too close. A crossover optimized for this distance (unless it is a small speaker with small drivers close together) will definitely not be right at typical listening distances of 3 meters or more.
I would be hesitant to use a large-format studio-monitor speaker in a small room. I know the Japanese like to do this, since living space is extremely expensive in Japanese cities (and I imagine the same applies to Manhattan studio apartments), but big horn systems can sound pretty weird when you're within a 2-meter distance.
And by "weird" I mean beyond-the-scope-of-equalization weird. The apparent impression of multiple sound sources coming from different locations isn't something equalization or DSP can correct. Put another way, there is a minimum listening distance for large systems ... in subjective terms, I'd put it around 3 meters.
The disjointed sound of big systems with simple "textbook" crossovers might have been an asset back in the mono days, since it makes things sound more open and spacious. Mono coming from an ideal point-source loudspeaker isn't that pleasant to listen to ... been there, done that. A single big system parked in the corner is much more pleasant and natural-sounding when all you've got are mono recordings.
Nobody expected stereo sound to be the tidal wave it became in the 1958~1961 timeframe. Mono was expected to co-exist with stereo for at least a decade or more ... but that didn't happen. The market shift put enormous pressure on manufacturers of large speakers designed in the early Fifties; they responded to the market success of AR, KLH, and Advent with "bookshelf" speakers of their own.
When high-power amplifiers like the Crown DC-300, Phase Linear 700, and the GAS Ampzilla arrived in the early Seventies, that further undercut the market for large, efficient speakers, since power levels seemed now seemed unlimited. It took the reality of burned voice coils and slammed-against-the-stops woofers for people to realize that SPL's were not, in fact, unlimited.
Annoyingly, Stereophile measures speakers at 50 inches, which is too close. A crossover optimized for this distance (unless it is a small speaker with small drivers close together) will definitely not be right at typical listening distances of 3 meters or more.
I would be hesitant to use a large-format studio-monitor speaker in a small room. I know the Japanese like to do this, since living space is extremely expensive in Japanese cities (and I imagine the same applies to Manhattan studio apartments), but big horn systems can sound pretty weird when you're within a 2-meter distance.
And by "weird" I mean beyond-the-scope-of-equalization weird. The apparent impression of multiple sound sources coming from different locations isn't something equalization or DSP can correct. Put another way, there is a minimum listening distance for large systems ... in subjective terms, I'd put it around 3 meters.
The disjointed sound of big systems with simple "textbook" crossovers might have been an asset back in the mono days, since it makes things sound more open and spacious. Mono coming from an ideal point-source loudspeaker isn't that pleasant to listen to ... been there, done that. A single big system parked in the corner is much more pleasant and natural-sounding when all you've got are mono recordings.
Nobody expected stereo sound to be the tidal wave it became in the 1958~1961 timeframe. Mono was expected to co-exist with stereo for at least a decade or more ... but that didn't happen. The market shift put enormous pressure on manufacturers of large speakers designed in the early Fifties; they responded to the market success of AR, KLH, and Advent with "bookshelf" speakers of their own.
When high-power amplifiers like the Crown DC-300, Phase Linear 700, and the GAS Ampzilla arrived in the early Seventies, that further undercut the market for large, efficient speakers, since power levels seemed now seemed unlimited. It took the reality of burned voice coils and slammed-against-the-stops woofers for people to realize that SPL's were not, in fact, unlimited.
Last edited:
Maybe you need an updated Ariel. With the Radians will be able to raise the dead from the grave.
Or maybe a fullrange in a TQWT. You could add a small sub. Or a small fullrange in a horn even better.
I think I made some mistakes with that build. As there's no easy way I can see to guide on to the walls without a bump somewhere, the horns were large.
I'm using a smaller LeCleach mid horn flared on to the walls (normal to 3 of them) so the wavefront can continue spreading through the reflection.
I use the space behind this for the woofers which sit at the base against the back wall facing down.
Room is 8m long. I can listen at 2.5m or much further back, the difference is not great.
I think this method could be scaled to fit other room sizes.
Reflections can be stronger close to walls, it may be more useful in a small room.
I don't know if anyone's interested, but Erich at DIY Sound Group has a limited re-supply of the BA-750 compression driver. It has a 2" voice coil and a 1" throat (exit angle 6.5 degrees), a ferrite magnet (10 lbs each) and doped aluminum diaphragm. In light of the recent conversation regarding room size, the BA-750 can be crossed as low as 700Hz, making it a good candidate for horns just a bit smaller than the ones under consideration.
Here's Bill Waslo's measurements (I hope he doesn't mind me re-posting these here), smoothed 1/48th octave, taken with the BA-750 mounted on a SEOS-18, which holds directivity down to around 650 Hz:
Waterfall (not sure what that is at 8500 Hz):
And impulse response:
Source: The BA attitude
Anyway, I know it's not exactly mix'n'match since the Le Cleac'h horns Gary is using have a 1.4" throat. However, this CD has some interesting possibilities, falling somewhere between the CDs with 3" diaphragm / 1.4" throat and the CDs with 1.7" diaphragm / 1" thoat. So the trade-off is extended HF system response at the cost of slightly higher LF cutoff. It's worth considering.
Here's Bill Waslo's measurements (I hope he doesn't mind me re-posting these here), smoothed 1/48th octave, taken with the BA-750 mounted on a SEOS-18, which holds directivity down to around 650 Hz:
Waterfall (not sure what that is at 8500 Hz):
And impulse response:
Source: The BA attitude
Anyway, I know it's not exactly mix'n'match since the Le Cleac'h horns Gary is using have a 1.4" throat. However, this CD has some interesting possibilities, falling somewhere between the CDs with 3" diaphragm / 1.4" throat and the CDs with 1.7" diaphragm / 1" thoat. So the trade-off is extended HF system response at the cost of slightly higher LF cutoff. It's worth considering.
That SEOS 18 graph with the 1" 750- driver - looks like a 1.8k crossover candidate. 650 cycles? Not for me I have the 18" and 12" SEOS here and really don't like the soft sound. I imagine other non-horn type of waveguides have the same "soft dome" coloration and have decided to stop trying to get them to sound right because of this. I'm glad they didn't cost me much. The waveguide sound to me is like a dome but it will play louder provided there is enough motor for the direct radiator midbass.
I have the 18" and 12" SEOS here and really don't like the soft sound. I imagine other non-horn type of waveguides have the same "soft dome" coloration and have decided to stop trying to get them to sound right because of this. I'm glad they didn't cost me much. The waveguide sound to me is like a dome but it will play louder provided there is enough motor for the direct radiator midbass.
That SEOS 18 graph with the 1" 750- driver - looks like a 1.8k crossover candidate. 650 cycles? Not for me
Be that as it may, the horn/waveguide profile is not the salient point.
If what POOH is saying is that a soft dome/waveguide doesn't have the sound of a compression driver horn that should be obvious. Now to say that there is something inherently wrong with a waveguide in front of a dome tweeter would go against what many companies have done. It really is an apples to oranges comparison. You can't load a soft dome like you can a hard diaphragm in a compression driver but who would think to do that? I don't expect anybody to place a dome tweeter behind a 300hz horn any more than I normally see a compression driver on a shallow 1" deep waveguide. I will say though out of context that I have seen a compression driver turned around with the rear cover removed and used as a sort of dome tweeter, and this was in a fairly highly regarded recording studio, the now name changed Ocean Way studios.
name of the game is ....... fun
Bah dum , tish!
DIYaudio in a sentence.
ok, 2.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure he doesn't like the wider directivity of "waveguides" and near wavelength diffraction and bounding. Image clarity (including extreme positional cues) tends to result in a bit of reduction as dispersion increases, as it does with diffraction and bounding.
The "data" is there - you just have to consciously look for it.
Of course I think broader dispersion is more technically correct at higher freq.s.. but that wavelength bounding (to waveguide/horn/baffle) is not. Small source omni's like the MBL that have no "baffle" seem to be the correct solution (..at least with respect to the issues above), but of course are far worse with things like dynamics and non-linear distortion. They are by the way, very clear sounding.
Last edited:
Well you do if you want people to take you seriously. Otherwise your comments are just blowing in the wind.
Your sure!? If that's what he meant then he wasn't very clear about it.
I don't like "wide" directivity waveguides either, they lack control. And poor waveguide termination is also a serious error. And there is lots of data to show those things .... if that's what he meant!