I found I like using an 8" with the longer horn in my room and 100 hertz is fine. The 15's just don't sound as good and don't mate up as seamlessly to the large format upper midrange compression drivers. The shorter horns for 12-15's don't have the speed and presence (high end dweeb terms) of the small driver long horn systems. What the world needs is a reasonably compact straight 100 hz midrange horn that will work well up to 800 hertz.
... or multiple little platted amp Sub in the room à la Gedlee to fight the room modes....
I'm really not sure class D individual sub is hearable vs a tube amp... ears ar less sensible in the lows and room dictates more than any tubes in the lows !
It's a pitty to be blocked by a concept of a standalone enclosure !
I'm really not sure class D individual sub is hearable vs a tube amp... ears ar less sensible in the lows and room dictates more than any tubes in the lows !
It's a pitty to be blocked by a concept of a standalone enclosure !
I have a center mono horn sub , twin dual 18 stereo subs and a rear twin 18 sub. What I have just built for the horns I'm using 120-800 is a pair of floor coupled bass module stands that the throat/back chamber of the horn sits on. They are loaded with four 8" drivers, sealed, in a line array sitting on their side to couple with the floor. So far i like them - they go down to 60 Hz and are wired in parallel so between the floor coupling, mutual coupling between drivers and the high voltage sensitivity they keep up with the upper bass mid horns pretty well.
POOH,
So your four 8" cones are starting with an area about the size of a 12" cone and your using the floor as an extension of the mouth size, are you also using the three walled corner of thr room for coupling? I follow your idea of the lighter moving mass of the smaller cones over one larger device, I've done similar to that in PA horns with multiple 18" drivers two to a horn with 100 hz mouth size stacked fout units high making a 50hz 1/4 wave mouth and small sealed back chamber, ala Klipsch equation for rear chamber size, and the throat size reduced 25% for loading with a small front chamber. Definitely not for home use and not as flat as you would get with a non loaded diaphragm area but very effective for large outdoor festival PA sound system. So there were 16 total 18" JBL drivers for the low end reinforcement. Not something you would stand in front of at close range. Dangerous low frequency output I will say if you were real close to those stacks. Horn was hyperbolic with a T=0.6 The throat section was a molded fiberglass section connected to a plywood mouth section reinforced and very stiff. I curved the plywood, 3/4" which was not fun but very stiff. Very similar to what you are showing on some of your straight horns. So anyone who thinks I am anti horn doesn't know me! I just don't have the room for horns inside my home, and my wife would never have gone for that.
Here is a very old picture of some radial bass horns from 1976 that I developed so far in the past. These were all prototype designs. Dual 15" and dual 10" radial cone loaded with the same early conception. The horns were molded and reinforced with urethane foam. This was when I held a patent for the process of making foam molded horns and the mathematical definition of the sound chamber to load a cone driver, very early ideas that I developed.
So your four 8" cones are starting with an area about the size of a 12" cone and your using the floor as an extension of the mouth size, are you also using the three walled corner of thr room for coupling? I follow your idea of the lighter moving mass of the smaller cones over one larger device, I've done similar to that in PA horns with multiple 18" drivers two to a horn with 100 hz mouth size stacked fout units high making a 50hz 1/4 wave mouth and small sealed back chamber, ala Klipsch equation for rear chamber size, and the throat size reduced 25% for loading with a small front chamber. Definitely not for home use and not as flat as you would get with a non loaded diaphragm area but very effective for large outdoor festival PA sound system. So there were 16 total 18" JBL drivers for the low end reinforcement. Not something you would stand in front of at close range. Dangerous low frequency output I will say if you were real close to those stacks. Horn was hyperbolic with a T=0.6 The throat section was a molded fiberglass section connected to a plywood mouth section reinforced and very stiff. I curved the plywood, 3/4" which was not fun but very stiff. Very similar to what you are showing on some of your straight horns. So anyone who thinks I am anti horn doesn't know me! I just don't have the room for horns inside my home, and my wife would never have gone for that.
Here is a very old picture of some radial bass horns from 1976 that I developed so far in the past. These were all prototype designs. Dual 15" and dual 10" radial cone loaded with the same early conception. The horns were molded and reinforced with urethane foam. This was when I held a patent for the process of making foam molded horns and the mathematical definition of the sound chamber to load a cone driver, very early ideas that I developed.
Attachments
Thanks for more good stuff Kindhornman.
Wish I could have been your helper for many years, many years back.
I think this thread knows you know your stuff.
Being able to divert from the horn world to other methods you believe to be close but more livable says even more about your confidence.
Can't wait to hear your new speaker.
So it looks like the choice between horn and direct-radiator bass (in the critical 100~800 Hz range) comes down to the living-room space that's available for cabinet depth, with HF/LF time alignment as a secondary consideration.
The effect of multiple folds or even a single 90-degree reflection are well known, and potentially beyond the scope of DSP equalization. On the other hand, considering how bad room modes are in this frequency range, internal horn reflections may not be as audible as they are in higher frequencies.
In addition, a horn (or OB dipole) that maintains pattern control might usefully reduce room modes compared to the near-omni directivity of a direct-radiator in a closed or vented box. A more serious downside of an OB bass array is the strong near-wall reflection from the back side of the OB in the 100~800 Hz range, which would definitely degrade impulse response and create comb-filtering artifacts.
What happens to the horn response if it is a smooth curve (say, a spiral shape) in the 100~800 Hz range? I would guess the upper part of the range would be attenuated compared to a straight horn with the same expansion rate. Not too sure what happens to the impulse response ... would a smooth curve spread out the impulse in a way that is non-minimum phase and beyond the scope of FR equalization?
Each of the 100~800 Hz bass-range approaches ... straight horn, curved horn, folded horn, direct-radiator/closed-box array, and OB array ... seems to have a set of advantages and disadvantages. Maybe not surprising they all sound quite different from each other.
The effect of multiple folds or even a single 90-degree reflection are well known, and potentially beyond the scope of DSP equalization. On the other hand, considering how bad room modes are in this frequency range, internal horn reflections may not be as audible as they are in higher frequencies.
In addition, a horn (or OB dipole) that maintains pattern control might usefully reduce room modes compared to the near-omni directivity of a direct-radiator in a closed or vented box. A more serious downside of an OB bass array is the strong near-wall reflection from the back side of the OB in the 100~800 Hz range, which would definitely degrade impulse response and create comb-filtering artifacts.
What happens to the horn response if it is a smooth curve (say, a spiral shape) in the 100~800 Hz range? I would guess the upper part of the range would be attenuated compared to a straight horn with the same expansion rate. Not too sure what happens to the impulse response ... would a smooth curve spread out the impulse in a way that is non-minimum phase and beyond the scope of FR equalization?
Each of the 100~800 Hz bass-range approaches ... straight horn, curved horn, folded horn, direct-radiator/closed-box array, and OB array ... seems to have a set of advantages and disadvantages. Maybe not surprising they all sound quite different from each other.
Last edited:
Lynn,
The very first horn I ever made was a curved horn ala the snail shape of the B&W but only a simple single curvature. The horn had a single 15" driver with about a 7' horn length and a 75hz mouth size and flare rate. That horn sounded awesome and moved so much air and anyone who says you can hear a nice simple curved shape is saying that based on theory and not reality. We just can't hear any phase shift that low, it isn't the same thing as say a W horn where you have very sharp corners and reversion where the wavelength hit those abrupt changes in direction. You'll never hear that if you use a reasonable upper cutoff for the horn. We used a single pair of those horns in the World Famous Troubadour here in L.A. and I can tell you it was a real problem, so much low frequency bass that the dust sitting on top of the open ducts running across the top of the room over the audience and all of it falling on peoples heads! Had to turn them off. They sounded great, just couldn't use them in that venue. I personally hate to see multiple horns where they are all over the place with location, not something I approve of for the simple reason that the horns that are placed behind another for time alignment end up reflecting of the backs of the horns that are in front of them, you lose the pattern control you have fought so hard to create with a matched set of horns with equal dispersion pattern. I would rather lose the physical time alignment method and correct that electronically while aligning the mouths so there isn't that diffraction happening from those stacked horns. I know POOH loves his horns and has them placed like I just mentioned but I do notice that he has had to place foam on top of the backs of those horns for the reason that I have just stated. I'm sure he is happy with them or he wouldn't do it, but I just disagree with that placement. That was what I alluded to when I made a comment about his horns, I didn't mean anything personal, I shouldn't knock his efforts, I just have an aversion to doing that. In a small room it probably makes little difference, I just can't make myself do that.
The very first horn I ever made was a curved horn ala the snail shape of the B&W but only a simple single curvature. The horn had a single 15" driver with about a 7' horn length and a 75hz mouth size and flare rate. That horn sounded awesome and moved so much air and anyone who says you can hear a nice simple curved shape is saying that based on theory and not reality. We just can't hear any phase shift that low, it isn't the same thing as say a W horn where you have very sharp corners and reversion where the wavelength hit those abrupt changes in direction. You'll never hear that if you use a reasonable upper cutoff for the horn. We used a single pair of those horns in the World Famous Troubadour here in L.A. and I can tell you it was a real problem, so much low frequency bass that the dust sitting on top of the open ducts running across the top of the room over the audience and all of it falling on peoples heads! Had to turn them off. They sounded great, just couldn't use them in that venue. I personally hate to see multiple horns where they are all over the place with location, not something I approve of for the simple reason that the horns that are placed behind another for time alignment end up reflecting of the backs of the horns that are in front of them, you lose the pattern control you have fought so hard to create with a matched set of horns with equal dispersion pattern. I would rather lose the physical time alignment method and correct that electronically while aligning the mouths so there isn't that diffraction happening from those stacked horns. I know POOH loves his horns and has them placed like I just mentioned but I do notice that he has had to place foam on top of the backs of those horns for the reason that I have just stated. I'm sure he is happy with them or he wouldn't do it, but I just disagree with that placement. That was what I alluded to when I made a comment about his horns, I didn't mean anything personal, I shouldn't knock his efforts, I just have an aversion to doing that. In a small room it probably makes little difference, I just can't make myself do that.
Interesting. From the viewpoint of multiple-mouth diffraction and reflections, that points to the boring approach of a pair of 15" drivers in closed-boxes to handle the 60~800 Hz range, like so many studio monitors from the Seventies onward. Not necessarily "the best" in any one way, but it deals with the basic problems of multiple-mouth reflections, time alignment, dynamic range, and flat response without equalization.
It seems the multiple-horn approach has serious challenges in the time domain, unless a Unity horn is used with appropriate DSP equalization. I have noticed the audiophile multiple-horns I've heard, like the Avante-Garde Trios and the assorted Acapella models, have hard-to-ignore problems with crossover integration, coherence, and overall system flatness. They sound disjointed, incoherent, and hard-edged in the modern audiophile style, without the charms of vintage "West Coast Sound" loudspeakers.
Readers of this forum know commercial products like these are a long, long way from optimum, so I don't take what I've heard at the shows and hifi stores as conclusive. The more sophisticated DIY multiple-horn setups I've heard seem to be all over the place in terms of flatness and time alignment. My only conclusion, so far, is that multiple-horn systems are really hard to do ... and if done correctly, maybe too large for many domestic listening rooms. (I consider "too large" as a single speaker weighing more than 200 lbs or too big to go through a door without disassembly.)
It seems the multiple-horn approach has serious challenges in the time domain, unless a Unity horn is used with appropriate DSP equalization. I have noticed the audiophile multiple-horns I've heard, like the Avante-Garde Trios and the assorted Acapella models, have hard-to-ignore problems with crossover integration, coherence, and overall system flatness. They sound disjointed, incoherent, and hard-edged in the modern audiophile style, without the charms of vintage "West Coast Sound" loudspeakers.
Readers of this forum know commercial products like these are a long, long way from optimum, so I don't take what I've heard at the shows and hifi stores as conclusive. The more sophisticated DIY multiple-horn setups I've heard seem to be all over the place in terms of flatness and time alignment. My only conclusion, so far, is that multiple-horn systems are really hard to do ... and if done correctly, maybe too large for many domestic listening rooms. (I consider "too large" as a single speaker weighing more than 200 lbs or too big to go through a door without disassembly.)
Last edited:
Then boring it will be?
Time domain with a horn is less than a pair of 15's a channel if you use the horn with the right driver within it's bandwith. I agree if you don't have successful working experience with horns they can be a challenge. They can also take up lots of room space. A pair of stereo subs and 100 hz horns (If you raise a 200 Hz horn it probably won't load below 300 without being huge) aligned with the horns you have should not be so difficult if you have the room to install them in properly. If the room isn't right go boring.
With a CD horn I like a falling response, I've used 1.25dB/octave over the top decade or so. I've been thinking about this while GM has been saying a horn with straight top/bottom and curved sides works.
Is the desired response is related to dispersion (which would explain why I don't feel the need to apply the falling response below a cross to direct radiators), could this be what you're trying to say about these speakers?
This weekend I sat down and worked out what narrowing of the horizontal dispersion is needed to buy back this 1.25dB with a constant 60 degree vertical..eg 20 at 12k, 33 at 6k down to 110 at 750. Am I making sense with this?
I really like this, with horizontal bass drivers - slot loading or even tapped horn comes to mind, perhaps with apertures to the bottom of the 100-800 horn. You can maximise the mouth area of the (100-800) horn - I see it as a Golden mean rectangle - with the upper mid horns broken into the top line. Hopefully avoiding the issues Kindhornman brought up. I once made horns for a GoTo system and set them up at home with the GoTo cross over, and I liked it a lot but this was the problem. Too many horns, too far apart.
I recently built a 3.2m tapped pipe/horn folded sub with a single 10" CA25FEY SEAS driver and I find it very satisfying, feels natural with bass horns.
another thought
I have been struggling to find a good solution for 60-250hz midbass channel in my horn setup. My issue is that I don't want to have a true midbass horn for that range because it will be long and necessitate the use of DSP for time aligning the other horns.
Folding it won't change the time alignment issue, it's just that a 60hz, even 70hz horn will have to be long.
So.... change of perspective:
I'm now thinking about a large direct radiator in a large sealed box. At least 18", maybe 21" or 24" made for highest efficiency.
I'm afraid this would have to be a specialty (read custom made) large midrange driver with the following specs:
low xmax, 1-2mm
low Mmass
low Vas
high Qes
40-45hz Fs
These requirements may be impossible? Bottom line, the box needs to be 103db/watt, 65hz@-3db, 4-6 cubic feet. Going lower in frequency will compromise efficiency and a bunch of small subwoofers are cheap and effective to cover everything below 65hz.
and also I saw this: 24" Hartley crossed over at 500hz to a horn:
JE Labs: November 2014
Your thoughts on such an approach?
Any drivers fit this spec?
I have been struggling to find a good solution for 60-250hz midbass channel in my horn setup. My issue is that I don't want to have a true midbass horn for that range because it will be long and necessitate the use of DSP for time aligning the other horns.
Folding it won't change the time alignment issue, it's just that a 60hz, even 70hz horn will have to be long.
So.... change of perspective:
I'm now thinking about a large direct radiator in a large sealed box. At least 18", maybe 21" or 24" made for highest efficiency.
I'm afraid this would have to be a specialty (read custom made) large midrange driver with the following specs:
low xmax, 1-2mm
low Mmass
low Vas
high Qes
40-45hz Fs
These requirements may be impossible? Bottom line, the box needs to be 103db/watt, 65hz@-3db, 4-6 cubic feet. Going lower in frequency will compromise efficiency and a bunch of small subwoofers are cheap and effective to cover everything below 65hz.
and also I saw this: 24" Hartley crossed over at 500hz to a horn:
JE Labs: November 2014
Your thoughts on such an approach?
Any drivers fit this spec?
noviygera and others,
I believe you are over thinking your mid bass problem. You can make a + or - 80hz front loaded horn and with some room gain, get down to around 70hz. (very room dependent). Just take a look at John Inlow's site for ideas and do some slight modifications (size wise) to his design to fit your needs (consult hornsresp). For example, I have used multiple layers of 3/8" bendable plywood and epoxy bent on the top of ribs forming the horn curve you are after for the sides (4 required) for a pair. Make the top and bottom plates of double 3/4" birch plywood glued together and have a total vertical angle of around 30 degrees. You can use a pair of Beyma 12pe32 (?) drivers in parallel for more spl and wind up with 105+ db for 1 watt. The benefits are many sound wise and will better match up to high efficiency mid horn. Depending on desire and diy skills, a front loaded mid bass covering + or - 80hz. to 400 + hz. is not very difficult to do. The word small and horns should not be used in the same sentence, but don't have to be obscene in size. If you are looking for perfection--forget it !!!
I believe you are over thinking your mid bass problem. You can make a + or - 80hz front loaded horn and with some room gain, get down to around 70hz. (very room dependent). Just take a look at John Inlow's site for ideas and do some slight modifications (size wise) to his design to fit your needs (consult hornsresp). For example, I have used multiple layers of 3/8" bendable plywood and epoxy bent on the top of ribs forming the horn curve you are after for the sides (4 required) for a pair. Make the top and bottom plates of double 3/4" birch plywood glued together and have a total vertical angle of around 30 degrees. You can use a pair of Beyma 12pe32 (?) drivers in parallel for more spl and wind up with 105+ db for 1 watt. The benefits are many sound wise and will better match up to high efficiency mid horn. Depending on desire and diy skills, a front loaded mid bass covering + or - 80hz. to 400 + hz. is not very difficult to do. The word small and horns should not be used in the same sentence, but don't have to be obscene in size. If you are looking for perfection--forget it !!!
I've been pondering clearing space to start building Lynn's project with him (we're neighbors). I have a pair of Azzolina Audio Gran Sfera bass bins I'm planning on making available in the near future. These were very early in the product's lifecycle, when the designer was planning to sell them as kits. I had a local cabinet maker assemble these Baltic birch cabinets. The final production speakers were identical to this cabinet.
I don't know if you know their history, but this is essentially a "hacked" Klipsch LaScala (complete with K43P woofers). The idea originated from Bill Fitzmaurice - a back of the napkin design to extend the bass response of the LaScala.
The "LaScala" is turned upside down, and the mid/tweeter horn section is acoustically joined with the bass section, and ported. They measure down to the upper 30's in room. The port length is tunable.
The upper horn comes in at 240-250Hz, so the crossover points are perfect for your intended use.
Here's a photo of a pair I exhibited with at the Rocky Mountain Audiofest in 2006: Azzolinas at 2006 RMAF. Anecdotally, I exhibited with Lynn's personal Karna amplifiers that year.
My bass cabinets are all black. The easiest way to reach me is via the contact link on the Galibier website.
Cheers,
Thom
PMVO
Nice pics !
I've ended up making a rod for my own back with this side-project - I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, however the latest tests are very interesting and making me think the perspex OB's I'm attempting to finish, for bass/mid ( awaiting something like AER Mk.1's for the mids ) may not be the ultimate solution .
Something stirs in the Undergrowth - Page 117 - audio-talk
This is basically a poor man's 'Vox Olympian' build. I'm using the FE208Ez for this prototype, which is not ideal for OB being too low a Qt but could be really ideal for this application.
The PMVO is also doing a great job of using up scrap wood - about 70kg so far, & counting !
Nice pics !
I've ended up making a rod for my own back with this side-project - I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, however the latest tests are very interesting and making me think the perspex OB's I'm attempting to finish, for bass/mid ( awaiting something like AER Mk.1's for the mids ) may not be the ultimate solution .
Something stirs in the Undergrowth - Page 117 - audio-talk
This is basically a poor man's 'Vox Olympian' build. I'm using the FE208Ez for this prototype, which is not ideal for OB being too low a Qt but could be really ideal for this application.
The PMVO is also doing a great job of using up scrap wood - about 70kg so far, & counting !
Sorry for the "minute of folie" !
Hi Pooh,
DId you still think after more istening sessions than finally the 10" Fane in straight horn beats the older 8" B&C approach ?
Had you experiment straight horn with some FR Tang Band w8- 1772 with a 100 Hz to... >= 8 K Hz ?? (à la Scott... with a further 12 K Hz XO iirc!)
impossible because the C2C distance with the above tweeter ?
Or Xo between 100 and 800 Hz could be a better trade off where we need to move more air (low mid) then going FR above like Earl Geddes does or VOTT A7 in a different way !
Does any one hear a difference between a high efficienty design where the XO is 100 then 250/300 for instance ?,Or is it always the above 700/1000 Hz XO that causes always a problem ? (not talking about DSP & active as Mr Olson wisches.)
I'm still surprise there are even today so much designs when high efficienty is needed ! One should stay with one horn only in a design to avoid bad horns mariage ? Then only try to fix XO issues (lobbying, time delay, electric phase) ?
Sometimes I dream to flip an Onken 360 to allow it to firing up towards the ceilling (& to make it cardioid? à la Linkwitz LX "maxi" ) then put the horn around 700 Hz at 90° above the woofer ! a compression driver horned without back cover ! oh No !
Hi Pooh,
DId you still think after more istening sessions than finally the 10" Fane in straight horn beats the older 8" B&C approach ?
Had you experiment straight horn with some FR Tang Band w8- 1772 with a 100 Hz to... >= 8 K Hz ?? (à la Scott... with a further 12 K Hz XO iirc!)
impossible because the C2C distance with the above tweeter ?
Or Xo between 100 and 800 Hz could be a better trade off where we need to move more air (low mid) then going FR above like Earl Geddes does or VOTT A7 in a different way !
Does any one hear a difference between a high efficienty design where the XO is 100 then 250/300 for instance ?,Or is it always the above 700/1000 Hz XO that causes always a problem ? (not talking about DSP & active as Mr Olson wisches.)
I'm still surprise there are even today so much designs when high efficienty is needed ! One should stay with one horn only in a design to avoid bad horns mariage ? Then only try to fix XO issues (lobbying, time delay, electric phase) ?
Sometimes I dream to flip an Onken 360 to allow it to firing up towards the ceilling (& to make it cardioid? à la Linkwitz LX "maxi" ) then put the horn around 700 Hz at 90° above the woofer ! a compression driver horned without back cover ! oh No !
Last edited:
Hi Pooh,
DId you still think after more istening sessions than finally the 10" Fane in straight horn beats the older 8" B&C approach ?
Had you experiment straight horn with some FR Tang Band w8- 1772 with a 100 Hz to... >= 8 K Hz ?? (à la Scott... with a further 12 K Hz XO iirc!)
impossible because the C2C distance with the above tweeter ?
Or Xo between 100 and 800 Hz could be a better trade off where we need to move more air (low mid) then going FR above like Earl Geddes does or VOTT A7 in a different way !
The Fane Studio 10 goes lower with no mod to the horn but back chamber. It goes lower and retains the WOW of 8pe21 BC - maybe a little more blat to the tuba and a bit more chest with johnny cash. Key words high resolution midrange with absolute convincing presence.
I have never had Tang Band but plenty Poon Tang.
When you get above the treble range - like 8K above the distance tweeter center to center isn't so important. Problem is finding a horn driver that works well into the low midrange and has acceptable sound that high . I like to use 2 horns.
update
Eldam, and all others
The red Horns in the picture are 187 Hz expos that cover from 250-6k Hz.
yes, they use Tang Band w8-1772's. mid range is lovely. just how I like it. ppsl mid bass down to 60, then the infinite baffle below. Tweets are SA 8535. Just like POOH suggests, the [height]distance does not seek to matter, but all are in the same launch plane.
Most recently a visitor came for an audition. I played a Ray Brown off of a Concord sampler SACD. The immediate remark was.. "this sounds live".
Best wishes and happy listening to all
Hi Pooh,
DId you still think after more istening sessions than finally the 10" Fane in straight horn beats the older 8" B&C approach ?
Had you experiment straight horn with some FR Tang Band w8- 1772 with a 100 Hz to... >= 8 K Hz ?? (à la Scott... with a further 12 K Hz XO iirc!)
impossible because the C2C distance with the above tweeter ?
Or Xo between 100 and 800 Hz could be a better trade off where we need to move more air (low mid) then going FR above like Earl Geddes does or VOTT A7 in a different way !
Does any one hear a difference between a high efficienty design where the XO is 100 then 250/300 for instance ?,Or is it always the above 700/1000 Hz XO that causes always a problem ? (not talking about DSP & active as Mr Olson wisches.)
I'm still surprise there are even today so much designs when high efficienty is needed ! One should stay with one horn only in a design to avoid bad horns mariage ? Then only try to fix XO issues (lobbying, time delay, electric phase) ?
Eldam, and all others
The red Horns in the picture are 187 Hz expos that cover from 250-6k Hz.
yes, they use Tang Band w8-1772's. mid range is lovely. just how I like it. ppsl mid bass down to 60, then the infinite baffle below. Tweets are SA 8535. Just like POOH suggests, the [height]distance does not seek to matter, but all are in the same launch plane.
Most recently a visitor came for an audition. I played a Ray Brown off of a Concord sampler SACD. The immediate remark was.. "this sounds live".
Best wishes and happy listening to all
