Is there a "perfect speaker" in the sense of "preference"? Certainly not. But in the sense of accurately delivering a signal to a sound field, we are perhaps very close to "the best that we can do". Is this ever going to satisfy everyone? No, certainly not. Even a perfect speaker will never give the illusion that a small listening room is a large auditorium. That is simply impossible, so if that's ones goal then I am afraid that one will die unfulfilled.
I see two camps in these discussions: one wants to achieve a "you are there" reproduction of a concert hall venue; and the other wants to achieve an accurate reproduction of what is on the source. The later can be achieved, but not the former. Hence, in the former there is always going to be a compromise about which is "closer" to that event that can never be obtained precisely.
The concert hall crowd is very interested in "spaciousness" and very wide directivity speakers can add to this effect yielding a "preference" for this kind of directivity. This wide directivity is said to "enhance" or "widen" the sound stage and indeed it does. But this exact same effect is seriously degrading to "image" as perceived by people like me who prefer recording studio work that has no "reference venue" or "auditorium acoustic" basis.
Clearly there is a tradeoff here between imaging and spaciousness. A wide directivity can achieve spaciousness and enhance the "auditorium" effect, but only at the loss of imaging, and it can never really get to its goal since the real playback room acoustics will always come through. But, with a narrow directivity that suppresses the very early reflections one can achieve superb, precise imaging that is present on many, if not most, studio based recordings. In a small room you cannot have both, you pretty much have to pick one.
Gary Dahl and Lynne clearly interested in the concert hall. I listen almost exclusively to studio work. Our goals and preference are going to be different. I can live without a simulated spacious sound if that means the imaging is enhanced. I don't think that they would take that tradeoff.
And no, a speaker cannot be wide and narrow at the same time. However, a narrow speaker in a reverberant room can get spaciousness from the room and imaging from the source, but a wide speaker can only have spaciousness.
I see two camps in these discussions: one wants to achieve a "you are there" reproduction of a concert hall venue; and the other wants to achieve an accurate reproduction of what is on the source. The later can be achieved, but not the former. Hence, in the former there is always going to be a compromise about which is "closer" to that event that can never be obtained precisely.
The concert hall crowd is very interested in "spaciousness" and very wide directivity speakers can add to this effect yielding a "preference" for this kind of directivity. This wide directivity is said to "enhance" or "widen" the sound stage and indeed it does. But this exact same effect is seriously degrading to "image" as perceived by people like me who prefer recording studio work that has no "reference venue" or "auditorium acoustic" basis.
Clearly there is a tradeoff here between imaging and spaciousness. A wide directivity can achieve spaciousness and enhance the "auditorium" effect, but only at the loss of imaging, and it can never really get to its goal since the real playback room acoustics will always come through. But, with a narrow directivity that suppresses the very early reflections one can achieve superb, precise imaging that is present on many, if not most, studio based recordings. In a small room you cannot have both, you pretty much have to pick one.
Gary Dahl and Lynne clearly interested in the concert hall. I listen almost exclusively to studio work. Our goals and preference are going to be different. I can live without a simulated spacious sound if that means the imaging is enhanced. I don't think that they would take that tradeoff.
And no, a speaker cannot be wide and narrow at the same time. However, a narrow speaker in a reverberant room can get spaciousness from the room and imaging from the source, but a wide speaker can only have spaciousness.
Last edited:
Defintly more far more complex than my poor understanding. For me it was as simple as the lower frequencies needed just the right amount of watts (like the 50 W involved for the hugest bass multiple peaks) without the supply collapse... and the drivers/loads were able to follow with the flatest impedance line possible and the less amount of distorsions on the audible range to avoid they hide the harmonics of Fundamentals !
without saying that those old french papers favor strong passive supplies with enormous caps ( 50 000 uF to the limit of imagination of the designer). At least there is always a trade offs about parts and hifi when it beginns to talk about high voltages involved in tubes. And also the limitations of the output traffos...
What are the most powerfull SET involved in this thread !
E.G. the ones here : The Amity, Raven, and Aurora ?
DOn't answer, I will find by going back in this thread... reading you guys with more and more pleasure. Sorry for my too simple assertions !
@musical Noise, would you have please a reference for a book with not too much math (first ingeneer level curse max) to understand the physical of sound reproduction in a closed space : as you described just above ?
Last edited:
No different than any other speaker, but I may be missing your point.
The room is critical to perception, in many ways dominate. The speaker must work with the room to be optimal, but the room should also not be taken as a given. Good room design matters. That is precisely what I set out to do.
To be clear, my room designs are exceedingly reverberant for a small room. Hard wood floor, no carpeting, one wall is stone, hardwood ceiling, (although there are diffusers on the ceiling and floor for the early vertical reflections.) Hardwood, hard leather furniture. Virtually no intentional damping at all, except the wall behind the speakers - that wall is extremely damped.
Last edited:
Thanks for your interesting experience. I remember years ago some JMM LeCleac'h presenting some color maps at a European audio seminar which showed HOMS generation in colour graduated sound pressure gradient.
for Hypex, Tractrix, LeCleac'h, OS, Kugelweller LeCleac'h using a range of CDs jncluding TAD1401 driver, but the Kugelweller and the JMMLC had the least HOMS. From more time than I can remember I have always favoured the OS or the LeCleac'h but only in a round profile. I am not saying the others all sound horny, but these two may sound the least horn like, if used carefully with proper matching to the CD. I take your point about commodities , but would the dome material and magnet put them in a class of their own with Be and Alnico.
Also what do you personally attribute to cause the 'horn sound' which I think we all perceive as the same recognised honky sound?
We all appreaciate the work you have done on HOMS reduction, and one wonders whether there wil be even another renaissance for horns fairly soon. You are set up to be part of that, and so is Lynn and Gary alongside with the Ariel replacement. And Pierre of course.
The problem is that there are still many factors to be discovered.
So it is difficult to isolate them.
Your latest posts are very interesting and useful. This extremely damped wall reminds me of my own "trick". I believe that many of us have had retired bed mattresses. I'm using old/used king size foam [non spring] bed mattress on the wall behind the speaker
Could your speakers have an increased matching with rooms below the involved FR of your patended Horn (700 hz again for the Xo and around that for your horn itself?) with DSP for frequencies like reverb with delay in time domain ?
Is it possible to a DSP to work on time delay on a restricted band frequencies ? I mean it's hard to forgive we have all a room ! A wood wall can become a huge driver itself like the thiner ready made plaster walls we can have in the modern flat/house which vib and radiate as a huge bass driver as well ?
Can we do the economy of room measurement with fixs in the low frequencies (in relation to each of our particular listening rooms - at least knowing already the average room size the main designers have in this thread)
or do the trade offs made in a sota developement in this thread just around the combo amp/speaker can give an average good enough result for most of us in the size room designers have given ?
One over looked point.
The diaphram is only moving about .03mm under normal conditions.
It will only move 1mm under extreme conditions.
And so, you will not hear the compression distortions except under extreme conditions which should not occur under normal listening conditions. You are in danger of damaging the diaphram
I disagree with just about everything said here, though the arguments for and against these positions have already been covered (..and likely in this thread no less).
Earl, you don't need a "perfect speaker" to have an effect where the small listening room is displaced by the sound of a large auditorium.
If you've not heard this effect before then you need to listen to more systems that are well setup and are using recordings that are particularly well recorded.
Without this perspective you are the voice of "one hand clapping".
Earl, you don't need a "perfect speaker" to have an effect where the small listening room is displaced by the sound of a large auditorium.
If you've not heard this effect before then you need to listen to more systems that are well setup and are using recordings that are particularly well recorded.
Without this perspective you are the voice of "one hand clapping".
Member
Joined 2003
OK, lets have a vote - how many here have heard an audio system where if they closed their eyes they could NOT tell that they were listening to a stereo in a small room? No, I have not witnessed that (except for binaural recordings, but that is not what we are talking about here.)
For the record, I objected at the time that Mr. LeCleac'h was actually measuring HOMs. He was more likely measuring the internal standing waves and not the HOMs. They are different things albeit somewhat hard to differentiate. I don't remember the details at the moment, just that I was not convinced that what he was saying was actually the case.
Last edited:
Yes, thanks - I learned never to trust the sound at shows
And I learned never to show at shows for that exact reason.
The floor is perhaps not so much a diffuser as an absorber - unlike the ceiling - because the floor is harder to do. There is a small coffee table ahead of a small but thick (about 3 inches) patch of carpeting - the combination seems to disrupt any reflections from the floor.
Yes, of course, I agree. but with very small displacments the stiffness of the diaphragm takes something to get it moving. It is not too much of a problem with the gearing with say a 3" diaphragm into a 1" throat amplifying the sound with further gain from the horn. That would likely more than compensated for the losses, and the effect of the losses be inaudible.
The horn CD combination I would expect to work best at the displacement you suggested, where the diaphragm suspension losses are negligible, and as Earl says the air frictional losses are minimal.
My opinion of having the effect of a large hall sound in a small room is only in an extremely damped studio environment could you really make it appear to sound like a larger venue. Yes in a normal room you can pick up on clues that it was recorded in a large room but without the proper room treatment and much dsp manipulation I don't think that is a common occurrence. It really comes down to that head in a vice kind of thing, where even with room treatment it will only work generally in a very small area if at all. And of course without the best recordings it isn't going to happen anyway. I don't think having the audible clues that a recording was done in a large space is the same as reproducing that large space sound.
Last edited: