I'll restate with Bjorn's words "less sensitive". We are "less sensitive" to reflections below 700-800 Hz so directivity control is "less important". In an "ideal world" we would have high DI CD all the way to DC!! I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
A real complication in all this is that while one is talking about the subjective, there is no fixed ruler for measuring anything.
What sounds great to one person, may not to another.
Add in the fact that many aspects of a loudspeaker in addition to directivity effect how it sounds, It becomes a rather fuzzy issue.
Also, since there are no loudspeakers that have total or constant directivity, it is hard to figure how some of the very strong conclusions that are bandied about can be made with more than the durability of tissue in the rain.
I would suggest that “if” one starts with the premise that the loudspeaker should deliver as much of the recording as possible to the listening positions, that at least an arm waving argument can be made (aurally) by recording the loudspeaker playing music from the listing position with a measurement microphone.
That removes adaptable binaural hearing process which seeks to extract information and leaves what is captured from one point in space. On playback (even through headphones) the difference in room involvement with various designs is more obvious.
I have to say I agree fully with Earl “In a small room I do not see any other practical solutions - certainly none as efficient as a high DI CD design.”
All other aspects aside, these are the kinds of systems that produce the best sounding in room recordings.
For commercial sound, the problems scale up with the room and system size and can become show stoppers and produce that famous concert quality sound.
In an area where one can measure, speech intelligibility can be both measured and predicted (via STIpa measurements etc) and here, one requires information below 700Hz, in fact covering the speech spectrum. Speech intelligibility is harmed, never helped by adding reflected sound which isn’t present in the electrical drive signal.
In that case, what is needed is the greatest difference possible between the sound in the desired pattern angle (where people are) and all of the sound radiated outside that angle which directly excites reflections..
Also, since a loudspeakers directivity can also make it sound different with changing distance, if one wants to have a range of distances where “it sounds right” CD behavior is the only way to reach that.
That changing directivity is why many voice a speaker for the listening distance, it sounds different (spectral balance) closer and farther away.
The common big name arrays used in commercial sound both radiate a complex interference pattern with lobes and nulls all over but also have changing directivity which limits their effective working distance.
Curiously, here is where a single or very few large CD horns can have a giant audible advantage over the more familiar and much larger arrays.
Those arrays are great for selling lots of boxes, DSP, amplifiers but not great for the audience that has to hear them or worse understand words.
To the degree one can have single source CD behavior, the spectral balance doesn’t change with distance and the speaker is listenable at any distance and with only one direct arrival, the time variable aspects of music are better delivered to the listener.
A couple non-hifi examples of these aspects at a large scale, wear headphones;
A medium /large single source CD horn (with a sub on the ground) up close (most listeners were at 400 feet)
Danley Sound Labs - YouTube
One of the jobs that demo lead to, recorded at 700 feet from several of them.
Danley Sound Labs at Michigan State - YouTube
The same speaker / day as the first one, a single box at 1500 feet.
Jericho Horn J3 Debut - YouTube
Mix engineer comments comparing one single CD box per side vs 22 line array boxes used for live sound
Danley Sound Labs Jericho on Ledreborg 2012 - YouTube
Best
Tom Danley
More hifi related but wear headphones;
The latest revision of the stereo microphone I am working on.
https://soundcloud.com/tomdanley/parade-section2
What sounds great to one person, may not to another.
Add in the fact that many aspects of a loudspeaker in addition to directivity effect how it sounds, It becomes a rather fuzzy issue.
Also, since there are no loudspeakers that have total or constant directivity, it is hard to figure how some of the very strong conclusions that are bandied about can be made with more than the durability of tissue in the rain.
I would suggest that “if” one starts with the premise that the loudspeaker should deliver as much of the recording as possible to the listening positions, that at least an arm waving argument can be made (aurally) by recording the loudspeaker playing music from the listing position with a measurement microphone.
That removes adaptable binaural hearing process which seeks to extract information and leaves what is captured from one point in space. On playback (even through headphones) the difference in room involvement with various designs is more obvious.
I have to say I agree fully with Earl “In a small room I do not see any other practical solutions - certainly none as efficient as a high DI CD design.”
All other aspects aside, these are the kinds of systems that produce the best sounding in room recordings.
For commercial sound, the problems scale up with the room and system size and can become show stoppers and produce that famous concert quality sound.
In an area where one can measure, speech intelligibility can be both measured and predicted (via STIpa measurements etc) and here, one requires information below 700Hz, in fact covering the speech spectrum. Speech intelligibility is harmed, never helped by adding reflected sound which isn’t present in the electrical drive signal.
In that case, what is needed is the greatest difference possible between the sound in the desired pattern angle (where people are) and all of the sound radiated outside that angle which directly excites reflections..
Also, since a loudspeakers directivity can also make it sound different with changing distance, if one wants to have a range of distances where “it sounds right” CD behavior is the only way to reach that.
That changing directivity is why many voice a speaker for the listening distance, it sounds different (spectral balance) closer and farther away.
The common big name arrays used in commercial sound both radiate a complex interference pattern with lobes and nulls all over but also have changing directivity which limits their effective working distance.
Curiously, here is where a single or very few large CD horns can have a giant audible advantage over the more familiar and much larger arrays.
Those arrays are great for selling lots of boxes, DSP, amplifiers but not great for the audience that has to hear them or worse understand words.
To the degree one can have single source CD behavior, the spectral balance doesn’t change with distance and the speaker is listenable at any distance and with only one direct arrival, the time variable aspects of music are better delivered to the listener.
A couple non-hifi examples of these aspects at a large scale, wear headphones;
A medium /large single source CD horn (with a sub on the ground) up close (most listeners were at 400 feet)
Danley Sound Labs - YouTube
One of the jobs that demo lead to, recorded at 700 feet from several of them.
Danley Sound Labs at Michigan State - YouTube
The same speaker / day as the first one, a single box at 1500 feet.
Jericho Horn J3 Debut - YouTube
Mix engineer comments comparing one single CD box per side vs 22 line array boxes used for live sound
Danley Sound Labs Jericho on Ledreborg 2012 - YouTube
Best
Tom Danley
More hifi related but wear headphones;
The latest revision of the stereo microphone I am working on.
https://soundcloud.com/tomdanley/parade-section2
Hey Tom
I really wish you could stop by Ann Arbor sometime and hear my system. I know that you would be impressed because you are looking for the same things that I am. Please do that sometime. Others are welcome to come by as well.
I seldom talk about my own system, but I have to say that nothing else that I have heard is comparable. I know that everyone says that about there own system, so take it as it comes, but I have been doing this for nearly 50 years so I am not an amateur. I also have not changed my system in more than 7 years, I guess because I can't find anything that I don't like about it. Not many people say that.
I really wish you could stop by Ann Arbor sometime and hear my system. I know that you would be impressed because you are looking for the same things that I am. Please do that sometime. Others are welcome to come by as well.
I seldom talk about my own system, but I have to say that nothing else that I have heard is comparable. I know that everyone says that about there own system, so take it as it comes, but I have been doing this for nearly 50 years so I am not an amateur. I also have not changed my system in more than 7 years, I guess because I can't find anything that I don't like about it. Not many people say that.
My vote and practical experience supports the conception that high(ish) DI and CD is beneficial in small rooms. My new diy-dipoles have those both horizontally. I place the speakers on the long wall and on-axes cross in front of me. I get good imaging and wide listening window. The speakers don't have to be dipoles but I think that strong directivity is needed from Schroeder up. Also, high DI in vertical plane helps to reduce floor reflections' effects.
Discussions of room effects and spekers here get always messed up by some people thinking too theoretically (ideal radiation spread and ideal and symmetrical reflections etc.) and other just give opinions based on personal experience and preferencies. BUT THIS IS THE NATURE OF A DISCUSSION FORUM! We are not at a scientific conference/debate here! Let all flowers blossom!
We are indeed messed with compomises in the real world - signal source, path, processing, transducer(s), diffractions, lobing, asymmetry, room reflections, different rooms etc. etc. What I want to learn and do, is to find the best reasonable combination of compromises for my different listening spaces. For that I must gain understanding of basic phenomena and features of different speaker types and room conditions. The funny part is that this will never end...
Discussions of room effects and spekers here get always messed up by some people thinking too theoretically (ideal radiation spread and ideal and symmetrical reflections etc.) and other just give opinions based on personal experience and preferencies. BUT THIS IS THE NATURE OF A DISCUSSION FORUM! We are not at a scientific conference/debate here! Let all flowers blossom!
We are indeed messed with compomises in the real world - signal source, path, processing, transducer(s), diffractions, lobing, asymmetry, room reflections, different rooms etc. etc. What I want to learn and do, is to find the best reasonable combination of compromises for my different listening spaces. For that I must gain understanding of basic phenomena and features of different speaker types and room conditions. The funny part is that this will never end...
Last edited:
I'm still not sure how this is relevant to 2-speaker stereo reproduction?
I don't know if this is even true. Such speakers aren't used in mixing/mastering rooms so why would they be desirable in reproduction?
Stereo is an encoding process (encoding spatial and timbral properties into two channels) with the room/speaker interface being part of the decoding. Why would a "high DI CD" speaker need to be considered as ideal in that context?
Because high DI CD avoids early reflections and yields a direct and reverberant field that has the same spectral balance.
What would be "ideal" IYO?
I have never heard this type of speaker - have never even seen it. I don't completely buy the "corner horn" philosophy and I could never do it in my room.
I have tested my design with TAD drivers, in a "real" test, blind, with 16 experienced listeners. Statistically the TADs were indistinguishable from the B&C, although the B&C were rated a touch better (but it was not statistically significant.)
So I would have to say that my vote would be "No", I would not expect what you suggest to be true.
Thanks for answering.
I'm surprised by the result you got from the blindtest between the drivers. Did you use the same lenses? Do you see a possible chance that the type of lens wasn't optimal for the TAD driver?
Klipsch Jubilee corner horn. CD to zero? Mid DI for a wide enough soundstage.
The waveguides and enclosure were identical, but the crossover EQ was different to "optimize" each system to its specific set of drivers. I see no reason to believe that one driver would want a different waveguide than another one. Different EQ, yes, but that was done.
CD to zero? You can't just look at a system and claim that it is CD. Without measurements you are just guessing.
I build both DI-matched two-way speakers and constant directivity cornerhorns. In my opinion, a properly built cornerhorn is better than a free-standing two-way speaker when used indoors.
The cornerhorn has the advantage because it is acoustically close to the nearest boundaries so there is no self-interference from them.
The problem is most rooms don't have the right layout to set them up properly. So a DI-matched two-way is a useful compromise. They can be made to sound good too.
My favorite configurations are these, in order of preference:
1. Constant directivity cornerhorns
2. DI-matched two-ways, soffit mounted, baffles flush with wall
3. Stand-mounted DI-matched two-way with flanking subs
4. DI-matched two-ways pulled far away from all walls
5. DI-matched two-ways setup where convenient
All of these configurations benefit from distributed multisubs.
The cornerhorn has the advantage because it is acoustically close to the nearest boundaries so there is no self-interference from them.
The problem is most rooms don't have the right layout to set them up properly. So a DI-matched two-way is a useful compromise. They can be made to sound good too.
My favorite configurations are these, in order of preference:
1. Constant directivity cornerhorns
2. DI-matched two-ways, soffit mounted, baffles flush with wall
3. Stand-mounted DI-matched two-way with flanking subs
4. DI-matched two-ways pulled far away from all walls
5. DI-matched two-ways setup where convenient
All of these configurations benefit from distributed multisubs.
Last edited:
Regarding the Klipsch Jubilee: The dispersion is controlled down to about 400-500 Hz where they crossover. The coverage is 90 deg by 60 deg and they are definitely CD.
Just looked up Tom's videos - now, the backing music for this, Danley Sound Labs Jericho on Ledreborg 2012 - YouTube, is my expectation of what decent sound, including PA, should subjectively present itself as, in a decent listening area, at high volume. Of course, normal PA is normally 5 million miles from this ... which is a right pain!! 
Thanx Wayne.....very informative. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on spaces better suited to corner horns? My space could easily 'physically ' accommodate one.....but acosutictically?......I will have to defer to your opinions or risk failure through expenive experimentation. Lol.
Chanced upon this, a good example of why I wouldn't go to any live concerts even if you paid me, the current audio pro "disease": Metallica - Sound Check - 2009-07-06 - Nimes, FRA - YouTube
Note at the beginning, the live sound, of the voices and particularly the drum kit, acoustic only, is spot on -- then the PA takes over, the sound covered with various layers of vomit and poo and beaten to a pulp by a team of professional kick boxers, is revealed in all its glory ...
Hooo, boy ...
Note at the beginning, the live sound, of the voices and particularly the drum kit, acoustic only, is spot on -- then the PA takes over, the sound covered with various layers of vomit and poo and beaten to a pulp by a team of professional kick boxers, is revealed in all its glory ...
Hooo, boy ...
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.