There are a few companies that do that. Not to turn this into a cable thread, my point is the cause of problem isn't always where you think it is. Only when we improve certain aspects technically will we gradually know what we really solved audibly. There are two ways harsh sounds will go away, one is when they are masked by other sounds, another is when they really go away due to a problem solved.
Last edited:
I posted some pics one page back (#4849) with 15" circular waveguides.
I agree that some recordings (and some vocal mics) are bright or harsh. Thinking back (IIRC) if I wanted a little relief from this harshness I could disconnect the tweeter and run the mids or woofers to the top (if breakup wasn't a problem. If it was flat on axis ('till it rolled off), the larger driver usually wouldn't have the problem. In the end I'd miss too much top end this way.
EDIT: BTW, I used to run good CD and LP, quality SET etc. Currently I'm running Mp3s into an old mosfet workhorse amp and I have much better sound.
I agree that some recordings (and some vocal mics) are bright or harsh. Thinking back (IIRC) if I wanted a little relief from this harshness I could disconnect the tweeter and run the mids or woofers to the top (if breakup wasn't a problem. If it was flat on axis ('till it rolled off), the larger driver usually wouldn't have the problem. In the end I'd miss too much top end this way.
EDIT: BTW, I used to run good CD and LP, quality SET etc. Currently I'm running Mp3s into an old mosfet workhorse amp and I have much better sound.
Last edited:
I bet that harshness was due to tweeter over excursion (and maybe also overpowering), because with a slope that was too shallow, and also quite low in frequency. With a 6dB/oct filter the excursion still doubles when you halve the frequency. You need a 12dB/oct filter to keep it constant.
But, there are obvious and audible differences to the different formats. I listen to a lot of Pandora lately and it's not bothersome, though compared to CD it's noticeably flatter and fatiguing. LP is still another step up.
But agreed with your point- speakers rule all.
IMO decent inexpensive speakers, neautral amp and a tamed room win the battle. The rest is just tweaking for the bored.
"Tuning" cables sounds like a good way to lighten your wallet.
If you're talking about tweaking the damping factor of the cartridge load by adjusting the cable capacitance, yes, a worthwhile endeavour. Since I learned about that one, I wouldn't run without.
Worse? You mean even more prone to harshness that you think come from mixing errors?
I do not think that any harshness was introduced during mixing. I believe that harshness was introduced by my speakers and I suspect that some mixing speakers may be doing the same. The mixing speakers are not in the recording chain other than through the engineers ears and then via his hands.
The reason I suspect the higher crossover sounded worse was due to the power response. When flat on axis, the tweeters would sound heavy at their lowest frequencies in use, in contrast with the woofer sounding lighter.
The reason I suspect the higher crossover sounded worse was due to the power response. When flat on axis, the tweeters would sound heavy at their lowest frequencies in use, in contrast with the woofer sounding lighter.
So is the cable mod a masking or is it solving the problem?
Im not as much interested in a cable debate here Im chasing down the "harsh sound" issue. Im thinking its all about the impedance issues of the horn and CD around the XO so wouldnt a Zobel solve this issue more then the cables or we just adding a "network" to our cables effectively doing the same thing?
Last edited:
Impedance issues also exist in interface between equipment. Zobels solve issues with the speaker. Acoustic impedance issues relate with horn/guide design. Each step of the interface needs to be considered. Cable mod can create masking, this is true if not done to the right characteristics. I find quite a narrow range of optimum performance, and am still trying to figure out why the characteristic changes with time.
It's not easy, harshness can be problems in different places, and the description is relative. For example, I sent a pair of interconnects to someone in Australia to get some opinion. At that time, I did not think it was harsh or coarse. But one comment that came back was "it is more harsh and coars compared with what I'm used to", only when I came up with different combination that sounded better did I realise what he was referring to. The cable that sounded better was a tuned RG316 cable. This is about all I can talk about for now. However, another old colleague of mine using one of the early sample speaker that is being developed thinks the "harsh and coarse" cable is better. What can I say.
Note that I did not just jump into this thing originally. But going from speaker, to amp, to interconnect during development of a small active speaker. A few years of work behind all this. So the first place I would look into is still the speakers. Then smooth the speaker impedance (I even do it for the low frequency humps in ported enclosures, but it may not be necessary for most). The cable side I really cannot reveal information on this until, the technology is openly available and applied by others.
Note that I did not just jump into this thing originally. But going from speaker, to amp, to interconnect during development of a small active speaker. A few years of work behind all this. So the first place I would look into is still the speakers. Then smooth the speaker impedance (I even do it for the low frequency humps in ported enclosures, but it may not be necessary for most). The cable side I really cannot reveal information on this until, the technology is openly available and applied by others.
Last edited:
Check this out Badman: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abxtester/id371434492?mt=8 A neat little ABX tester for your iPhone/Pad/Touch. What I found so interesting doing this is how much more I hear compression effects through speakers than through headphones. With headphones, 128kbps AAC was not reliably discernible from an uncompressed WAV. With speakers, 128kbps AAC is easily discernible.
Doug, a polar graph of your speakers would probably be more telling of any harshness. I agree with others that the speaker/room are probably 95% of what you hear. If you use an analog source, those numbers will change.
Dan
New B&C Speakers DE5 compression driver
While looking around at the available compression drivers, I noticed that B&C has released two new smaller format compression drivers. The DE5 and DE7 are 0.5" and 0.75" exit compression drivers. Wouldn't having a smaller throat OS waveguide provide an advantage over the normal 1" that has been used up until now? The DE5 looks like a pretty decent driver.
http://www.bcspeakers.com/BC_ADMIN/product_pdf.php?id=0000000190
While looking around at the available compression drivers, I noticed that B&C has released two new smaller format compression drivers. The DE5 and DE7 are 0.5" and 0.75" exit compression drivers. Wouldn't having a smaller throat OS waveguide provide an advantage over the normal 1" that has been used up until now? The DE5 looks like a pretty decent driver.
http://www.bcspeakers.com/BC_ADMIN/product_pdf.php?id=0000000190
There are pros and cons. A smaller throat pushes the HOMs up in frequency, and also tends to have better HF response, but it also raises the LF point for which the waveguide is useful. The ideal is to match the LF requirements with the need to match the woofer directivity at the crossover point, while pushing the HOMs to dominately above say 10 kHz. whilke having "sufficient" HF capability to allow for only one HF device. The 1" seems to be somewhat ideal in this regard - 1.5 & 2" throats do not have a satisafcatory response above 8-10 kHz, and I suspect that a smaller throat would not have a satisfactory LF capability for my bigger systems the Summa and the Abbey. The thing is that it's so much easier to just stick with one thorat size for all models and 1" becomes the only option under these circumstances.
Earl, I have several times quoted you as suggesting that HOMs are an issue above 10 kHz, primarily, but never found the specific citation.
Do you confirm?
Others here are attributing "Honk" to HOMs, but to me, that's a decade lower in frequency, and while the reflections responsible for it may also generate HOMs, they are an artifact, i.e., not the fundamental source of the distortion we typically recognize as "Honk?"
Do you confirm?
Others here are attributing "Honk" to HOMs, but to me, that's a decade lower in frequency, and while the reflections responsible for it may also generate HOMs, they are an artifact, i.e., not the fundamental source of the distortion we typically recognize as "Honk?"
Last edited:
No, that is not entirely correct. The first axi-symmetric HOM for a 1" throat OS waveguide occurs at about 7 kHz. But the non-axisymetric ones cut-in at much lower frequencies. Clearly the most significant ones in an OS waveguide will be axisymmetric and the majority are above 10 kHz.
In non OS waveguides or horns none of the above is necessarily true and the HOMs would occur at much lower frequencies.
To elliminates the HOMs one has to elliminate the internal reflections as well so the two go hand-in-hand. The point is that to elliminate the "honk" you have to minimize the HOMs as well and it would be a chicken and egg game to figure out which was the primary and which was the secondary cause and effect if such a distinction is even possible.
In non OS waveguides or horns none of the above is necessarily true and the HOMs would occur at much lower frequencies.
To elliminates the HOMs one has to elliminate the internal reflections as well so the two go hand-in-hand. The point is that to elliminate the "honk" you have to minimize the HOMs as well and it would be a chicken and egg game to figure out which was the primary and which was the secondary cause and effect if such a distinction is even possible.