Finally a decent commercial system (it's alive!) that I'd like to hear setup properly.
Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: Viva Audio Master Horn System review
Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: Viva Audio Master Horn System review
I really wonder about this system too.
90hz for that horn seems low to me. I would have thought it would be more direct radiation and less horn loading around 90hz with that horn...
Still, I would love to hear the system. I had a similar system with a different bass solution and it sounded good.
Definitely a hard-core system with a price-tag to match. Unfortunate timing, though. Discretionary luxury purchases tend to evaporate when the financial markets get unsettled, so I hope the manufacturer (and the webzine) are able to ride this out.
The reviewer obviously liked the speaker (and the associated set of amplifiers), but the translation into English made it kind of hard to tell what it actually sounded like, or any of the technical parameters of the system, except the 250,000 Euro price ... well into Top Gear supercar territory. If I had that kind of money, I think I'd get the car, or maybe a Light Sport Airplane, which would be even more fun.
Last edited:
Very nice execution
Perhaps a bit complex, but, over all a very nice execution. Of special note, is, this system [finally] addresses the very low bass, which is the foundation for which almost all music is built upon.
I "like" it
Perhaps a bit complex, but, over all a very nice execution. Of special note, is, this system [finally] addresses the very low bass, which is the foundation for which almost all music is built upon.
I "like" it
The big throat and shorter horns work and offer better aesthetics and easier time alignment than a four foot deep horn with smaller throat. I have lived with that compromise a few times myself. In a system of this price I think it might be more "sellable" because of the look of the short horn. My current system I'm building has a depth of around 4' and it looks GREAT from the front LOL
The one percentors should be all over this - it probably does the live sound as well as any other commercial system - What is that in dollars? $400 thousand?
I think I'll take a vacation home in the Caribbean Perhaps a bit complex, but, over all a very nice execution. Of special note, is, this system [finally] addresses the very low bass, which is the foundation for which almost all music is built upon.
I "like" it
The previous version did not have the upper treble horn. I think that was smart over just the super tweeter. Over the years I find a one inch driver upper treble mates best with a large format below. The four 18's are smart loaded in the corner - they borrowed that from me.. lol
They still need a central mono folded sub and rear channel ambience sub thoughI also question the arrangement of the array with the HF's cascading vertically to the top. In my experience it sounds better to have the large format midrange horn above with the treble horn centered between the midbass and midrange. This may be aesthetics too. There is a better way if you are building for yorself and don't have to satisfy the eye of the rich buyer.
Last edited:
A very minor update...
Hello,
just by way of an update...
I tweaked the crossover ever so slightly on my main system (described below), bringing the first crossover point down to 800Hz and 'massaging' the curves a bit. This produces an even better integration of the woofer and the compression driver, with almost perfect phase tracking in the overlap region.
Incidentally, I found that the small (-3dB) and low-Q 'dip' centred at around 1.7kHz which is visible in the 1m on-axis measurement of the Mid response (see attachment) *magically* disappears when the system is measured from the listening position (3m distance), and also when the Mid is measured slightly off-axis. The most probable explanation is that it is produced by some destructive interference with the secondary sound emission by the horn 'lips' - a minor anomaly that is essentially inconsequential when actually listening to the system from a typical distance.
Finally, I'd like to share my thoughts on the topic of horn profiles and the improvements & tweaks for the classic Altec radial/sectoral horns (i.e., 311, 511, 811) which were discussed a few posts back.
Two related observations got me thinking:
1) the fact that those tweaks (damping the horn bell, cutting the reinforcement 'fins', etc.) seem to produce positive results;
and
2) the fact that my own horns (which are of a VERY similar design, they too being 'classic' radial horns like the Altecs, but carved out of thick blocks of high-density wood, instead of assembled from thin metal sheets) do not seem to exhibit any of the notorious 'honk' that is typical of the 'stock' untreated Altec horns.
Might it be, then, that in the end, all of the theoretical shortcomings of the classic radial horns designed according to Webster's equation and arbitrarily assuming cylindrical wave fronts... do not PER SE matter that much, and instead the reason for those horns' bad rep lies elsewhere (i.e., in their undamped 'ringing', which is obviated by either several heavy-handed tweaks, or by a radical approach such as carving the horn out of wood)?
Having said this, I do understand the theoretical advantages provided by e.g., the JMLC family of horn profiles. But the fact remains that, whenever I had the chance to listen to any systems using those horns (at the Munich High End show, as well as at other audio shows in Europe), I did not notice any further improvement in terms of 'lack of horn colouration' compared to my own system. (Of course, different systems, with different drivers, different woofers, different crossovers, etc. etc... and of course I may just be biased.... but still...)
Marco
Hello,
just by way of an update...
I tweaked the crossover ever so slightly on my main system (described below), bringing the first crossover point down to 800Hz and 'massaging' the curves a bit. This produces an even better integration of the woofer and the compression driver, with almost perfect phase tracking in the overlap region.
Incidentally, I found that the small (-3dB) and low-Q 'dip' centred at around 1.7kHz which is visible in the 1m on-axis measurement of the Mid response (see attachment) *magically* disappears when the system is measured from the listening position (3m distance), and also when the Mid is measured slightly off-axis. The most probable explanation is that it is produced by some destructive interference with the secondary sound emission by the horn 'lips' - a minor anomaly that is essentially inconsequential when actually listening to the system from a typical distance.
Finally, I'd like to share my thoughts on the topic of horn profiles and the improvements & tweaks for the classic Altec radial/sectoral horns (i.e., 311, 511, 811) which were discussed a few posts back.
Two related observations got me thinking:
1) the fact that those tweaks (damping the horn bell, cutting the reinforcement 'fins', etc.) seem to produce positive results;
and
2) the fact that my own horns (which are of a VERY similar design, they too being 'classic' radial horns like the Altecs, but carved out of thick blocks of high-density wood, instead of assembled from thin metal sheets) do not seem to exhibit any of the notorious 'honk' that is typical of the 'stock' untreated Altec horns.
Might it be, then, that in the end, all of the theoretical shortcomings of the classic radial horns designed according to Webster's equation and arbitrarily assuming cylindrical wave fronts... do not PER SE matter that much, and instead the reason for those horns' bad rep lies elsewhere (i.e., in their undamped 'ringing', which is obviated by either several heavy-handed tweaks, or by a radical approach such as carving the horn out of wood)?
Having said this, I do understand the theoretical advantages provided by e.g., the JMLC family of horn profiles. But the fact remains that, whenever I had the chance to listen to any systems using those horns (at the Munich High End show, as well as at other audio shows in Europe), I did not notice any further improvement in terms of 'lack of horn colouration' compared to my own system. (Of course, different systems, with different drivers, different woofers, different crossovers, etc. etc... and of course I may just be biased.... but still...)
Marco
Attachments
Last edited:
I've heard the same thing, and I say that from experience with long MF/HF lines (not arrays; true lines).
Long-gone Kinergetics Research once made a black box to address what they found was the inherent wake problem of lines or arrays operating as lines. IIRC according to them, the line, being a 2D radiator, cannot reproduce a proper step function.
Apparently the roughly cylindrical waveform doesn't form the required geometry of a natural source correctly and the result may be that characteristic audible blurring of softness you get from lines and especially planes. While the gigantic sensaround effect is not unpleasant, ultimately it's not guaranteed to sound natural even with the purported qualities of big long exotic sources.
Whether this affects a stack of bass drivers I can't say. You'd think low frequencies theoretically shouldn't have this problem when they're already radiating more or less spherically from an array many times shorter than line function calls for, but maybe the true spherical form can't develop unless each driver from center is stepped back along a curve, even for say, 40Hz.
Searching hasn't turned up the Kinergetics white paper but I'm curious to know what it delves into...
Marco,
I once long ago pulled a mold off an Altec 311 horn sans the fins. I copied that horn shape exactly but changed the material the horn was made of to a glass balloon filled polyester and we compared the two horns in the exact same configuration. The difference in sound was instantly obvious, and don't forget that the 311 is not sheet metal or the thin die casting like an 811 or 511, the 311 was a very heavy cast aluminum horn with damping material on the outside. So yes the material that the horn is made from makes a major change in the final sound.
POOH,
I think you idea of the high horn being in the middle is the way to go, that is what I would do with a large multi=horn array, it just makes sense. As you say I think many horn systems are just made to look a certain way visually but the thought pattern of what you are really trying to do is lost in convention. I have had a design in my head for many years of a concentric three way horn system, a tri-axial horn design. Perhaps one day I will build it just to prove my point. I keep looking at some dual 18" throat horn sections I have sitting that I originally did for PA use. Four bass horns stacked per side gave a true 50hz 1/4 wavelength mouth size, something that I haven't heard in any other bass enclosures. They would go as low as the fs of the 18" drivers but of course you lose directivity control below the 50hz frequency but who cares really. They made the best PA bass I ever have heard. Just don't stand in front of a stack like that, definitely capable of destroying your hearing instantaneously.
I once long ago pulled a mold off an Altec 311 horn sans the fins. I copied that horn shape exactly but changed the material the horn was made of to a glass balloon filled polyester and we compared the two horns in the exact same configuration. The difference in sound was instantly obvious, and don't forget that the 311 is not sheet metal or the thin die casting like an 811 or 511, the 311 was a very heavy cast aluminum horn with damping material on the outside. So yes the material that the horn is made from makes a major change in the final sound.
POOH,
I think you idea of the high horn being in the middle is the way to go, that is what I would do with a large multi=horn array, it just makes sense. As you say I think many horn systems are just made to look a certain way visually but the thought pattern of what you are really trying to do is lost in convention. I have had a design in my head for many years of a concentric three way horn system, a tri-axial horn design. Perhaps one day I will build it just to prove my point. I keep looking at some dual 18" throat horn sections I have sitting that I originally did for PA use. Four bass horns stacked per side gave a true 50hz 1/4 wavelength mouth size, something that I haven't heard in any other bass enclosures. They would go as low as the fs of the 18" drivers but of course you lose directivity control below the 50hz frequency but who cares really. They made the best PA bass I ever have heard. Just don't stand in front of a stack like that, definitely capable of destroying your hearing instantaneously.
I'm hooked on "good" radial horns myself. They just sound so right and alive to me. I never liked the 811 511 altecs much (still have some Flamenco's buried around here) but grew up with a damped pair of 311's and are my long term "reference" from the 70's lol - I have heard many horns since but they are the one's that got me hooked. The big round horns need to be be spaced too far away from lower and upper ranges and show up as incoherent lobes in my room. Not as natural and cohesive as the radials.
Last edited:
I'd like to take this at face value.. I want to build a radial but for the wrong reasons and I'm looking for an excuse. I believe they sound good but can a radial style tweeter throat be as good as a round horn? I'm with you on the spacing but what about the lobes, would a ceiling absorber take care of it?
You make the initial throat round and morph it to conic, then radial. If you use Altec, GPA, the round conic is built in to cover much of the HF BW, then the transition to conic isn't too critical due the size of the WLs involved as it transitions to radial.
One interesting thing is that if this transition is done right, the rectangular pattern will 'hold' for very long distances, so while 'sound is round', as long as there's good pattern overlap, a radial system is just as good as a round one plus you don't have to be nearly as far away for it to sound as one large point source.
Some folks obsess over this pattern 'distortion', though IME, it's not the rectangular pattern, but the transition section. That said, the pioneers concluded in anechoic listening that ideally one should limit it to a 1.00:1.273 ratio, though rarely practiced. Back in my youth I couldn't tell any difference in comparison when BW limited until run 'full-range', so concluded it had to be due to an imperfect transition and judging by Dr. Geddes's much more recent 'round to round' WG transition observations about how critical they are, I consider it 'carved in stone' now.
GM
One interesting thing is that if this transition is done right, the rectangular pattern will 'hold' for very long distances, so while 'sound is round', as long as there's good pattern overlap, a radial system is just as good as a round one plus you don't have to be nearly as far away for it to sound as one large point source.
Some folks obsess over this pattern 'distortion', though IME, it's not the rectangular pattern, but the transition section. That said, the pioneers concluded in anechoic listening that ideally one should limit it to a 1.00:1.273 ratio, though rarely practiced. Back in my youth I couldn't tell any difference in comparison when BW limited until run 'full-range', so concluded it had to be due to an imperfect transition and judging by Dr. Geddes's much more recent 'round to round' WG transition observations about how critical they are, I consider it 'carved in stone' now.
GM
It's the interference between the drivers, the round horns are spaced further apart - if you use a steeper crossover it helps because there is less overlap between the drivers but steep crossovers have their own set of problems. I never built a radial horn because there are good ones out there already done right (and a lot done wrong like JBL with the 2328 throat or them big nasty 2360/65 biradials. If you have a 2" driver and want to try one on the cheap a good example is the JBL2386 - disregard the narrow radiation and price and just measure it and listen. Used as a mid horn 600 - 6k they are real sleepers. Another is the Community BRH90 "big radial horn" - If you like what you hear build a nice pair and enjoy.
http://clairusedgear.com/products/jbl-2386-horn
Last edited:
Round horns can sound pretty good but in my experience in multi way systems they have some problems - a 2 way probably will work best. I have some big wooden 180 flare round tractrix horn and if you load them with TAD 400* drivers and sit in one exact spot with a 2 way they are really good - I don't like the beaming though.
What it is is the "high end" audio crowd went back into horns with the Avantgarde round horns and the hyped spherical wave front and a lot of people bought it hook line and sinker - me included LOL
Horn Loudspeaker - Avantgarde Acoustic? Hornloudspeaker GMBH
POOH,
i remember when those round horns hit the market, I knew right away they were selling image not sound quality. Yes with a two way you can get away with one large horn but as you say it has to beam as the frequency rises. That is the reason that Early has stuck with his constant directivity and all the room treatment it takes to make that work. I designed radial horns that solve the throat section design a long time ago but never produced them, I just moved away from horns at one point. I still enjoy them and know how to make them work but I didn't see a real large market for that. I gave up on chasing the audiophile market, it just cost to much in marketing cost to play in that market.
i remember when those round horns hit the market, I knew right away they were selling image not sound quality. Yes with a two way you can get away with one large horn but as you say it has to beam as the frequency rises. That is the reason that Early has stuck with his constant directivity and all the room treatment it takes to make that work. I designed radial horns that solve the throat section design a long time ago but never produced them, I just moved away from horns at one point. I still enjoy them and know how to make them work but I didn't see a real large market for that. I gave up on chasing the audiophile market, it just cost to much in marketing cost to play in that market.
I'd be coming from a round 80 degree OS with hypex transition to 180 degrees at a mouth diameter of 80cm for crossing at 700Hz so I fear I have far to fall..
One of the 'wrong' reasons I want to consider radial is so I can try going co-entrant using a pair of 8" mids I have, one per side so that one dimension is less than 1/4wl above the crossover and I can mount the mid on one wall (maybe entering at two places.. eg either side).
I'm prior convinced that round is an appropriate way to commence a 1/4pi corner loaded tweeter horn despite radial seeming ideal.. only to avoid the transition too close to the throat (I won't mind the loading or the flat(ter) mounting surface for the mid though).
The 1" tweeter is also probably more than an inch deep before the mounting surface FWIW. I can hold any dimension as small as 13 degrees out from there if necessary.
I feel it's safe to hold the round cross section to at least 15cm across but I'd like to cut this as far as I can.
@POOH, 6k? what about higher?
One of the 'wrong' reasons I want to consider radial is so I can try going co-entrant using a pair of 8" mids I have, one per side so that one dimension is less than 1/4wl above the crossover and I can mount the mid on one wall (maybe entering at two places.. eg either side).
I'm prior convinced that round is an appropriate way to commence a 1/4pi corner loaded tweeter horn despite radial seeming ideal.. only to avoid the transition too close to the throat (I won't mind the loading or the flat(ter) mounting surface for the mid though).
This is where I'm getting stuck. I want the horn to have the flattened profile before the smaller dimension exceeds 6cm, but I want the horn to be round until the mouth exceeds 6cm.
The 1" tweeter is also probably more than an inch deep before the mounting surface FWIW. I can hold any dimension as small as 13 degrees out from there if necessary.
I feel it's safe to hold the round cross section to at least 15cm across but I'd like to cut this as far as I can.
I'm good with rectangular, so are my walls, naturally the dome isn't. Some choose to make the transition right near the throat, where would be best?
If by that you mean the independence of H and V (and hence a continually changing aspect ratio) isn't bad if the source is transitioned well that way, then that's good.
I've always felt it best to do aspect transitions either very early or very late, now I'd like to do one in the middle.
@POOH, 6k? what about higher?
In that particular 2386 horn I never used the TAD and the rest of the 2" drivers I have used are more intended for midrange low treble. I would not use a large format driver past 6K anymore because I have found one inch drivers that handle the treble with a lot less "splash" and sizzle. Some drivers I have found that work great in radial horns is the Community M200 (to 3k), Gauss 4000 (4k) and the EV DH1A (5k) with the aluminum DH1012 diaphragms. I have been told by a very reliable source the TAD 4001 can be used higher in radial horns (the TAD radials) without the up front sound you get in the round horns but never tried it. I'm sold on a separate treble horn with 1" drivers. If you have the TAD drivers I suppose you may be happy going higher.
I'm all B&C but happy at this point. I'm also fairly firm on separate treble but the thought of a single horn two way to 200Hz is shaking my foundation. I thoroughly considered separate horns and each way came out near identical except the mid starts later down the throat.
If radial then H would be the same.
I want to rephrase this. I have the old plan written down somewhere.. mid entry 7cm from the mount where the mouth is at 12-15cm across, 60-70 degree round OS before that point then hypex T=2 or 3, 80 degrees at 1k, 90 at 700, H out by 500, V out by 350 or thereabouts.
If radial then H would be the same.
That's where I was at. The mid horn ended up being the hypex section on its own with a lowish compression ratio. I was going to make a mould so I could do four mouth sections.
I read Poohs comments and I must have regressed about a month. Don't worry Pooh, this is just a hobby (though I've been known to help schools and churches). Indecisive is just a state of mind.. I think.