Big thanks for that, I'll post results later today but from a first glance it looks like there no issues.
The step response looks really like that of a textbook fullranger, you wouldn't easily guess this was a multiway system.
Sure looks that way. Of course it means that 99 % of us are in a bad speaker marriages and the eventual divorce in some way or fashion is all but inevitable. This makes for some very very unhappy money issues huh? Sort of reminds me of the rec.audio.pro days when some smart butt kid was telling all the big boys they may as well junk or store those tape machines they were using and futhermore most analog gear in general because they were all going to go to computers and plug ins. Oh that did not make them happy at all, no sir. IMO this is in many ways, comparable.
One could go to another extreme. Synergies are not inexpensive. I think we have at least established that a single point source over as broad of a range as possible is better than multiple points. (-: as a matter of fact I know this is true, and I know it sounds pretty damn good,to witt: Sentry III's, offside tweeter and all. all point source-y and crap, save for that pesky crossover right in the middle (600 could be worse)
I think we can be honest enough here to admit to ourselves that ALL of the critical mid range is going to be the key area from which this point source needs to include/originate
I think we can stipulate that less driver excursion means less distortion (yeah yeah, proven conclusively that plenty of driver excursion isn't audible yeah yeah, but for now let's just kind of leave that alone and just say some people like as much efficiency over as broad of a band as possible shall we?)
I think we can stipulate that the important mid range starts around 200 hz or so? and needs to extend as high as possible before a crossover.
Therefore the approach of a horn loaded, perhaps paper-cone midrange driver with as high efficiency as possible is what may be most needed to reap some of the more critical benefits of the Synergy horn, that is a point source where you can most hear/need it. It's also fairly evident at least to myself, that a simple conical horn shape is going to do the trick if the throat/lip are properly blended to the driver/room
Tom Danleys horn's give us the whole schmere and we all know he does a miracle combining multiple drivers to get that efficiency over the full range. But...... what if we are "poor"..... what if we horn load the crap out a great closed back mid range driver instead of a compression driver, or do sort of as tom has done, use is a a compression driver, give it the widest range we can without over taxing it at the low end and before it beams too much at the high end. A three way but emphasizing the middle, let the high and low chips, which are less critical, fall where they may? It actually worked in the Sentry III (albeit using a police siren compression driver) except for that sucky crossover in the most critical area. Lord knows this horn loaded mid is going to have less driver excursion than these "wonderful" 801's and for that matter aren't some of these bullet type tweeters, small enough to be shaped into a phase plug for this "proposed' mid range at the throat of this say 5" closed back paper driver firing into a "properly originated and terminated (stipulated) conical horn? BTW I am also stipulating a "dial it in" active crossover inexpensive these days. Not to hijack my own thread because this may serve to make some issues even clearer to us.
I think we can be honest enough here to admit to ourselves that ALL of the critical mid range is going to be the key area from which this point source needs to include/originate
I think we can stipulate that less driver excursion means less distortion (yeah yeah, proven conclusively that plenty of driver excursion isn't audible yeah yeah, but for now let's just kind of leave that alone and just say some people like as much efficiency over as broad of a band as possible shall we?)
I think we can stipulate that the important mid range starts around 200 hz or so? and needs to extend as high as possible before a crossover.
Therefore the approach of a horn loaded, perhaps paper-cone midrange driver with as high efficiency as possible is what may be most needed to reap some of the more critical benefits of the Synergy horn, that is a point source where you can most hear/need it. It's also fairly evident at least to myself, that a simple conical horn shape is going to do the trick if the throat/lip are properly blended to the driver/room
Tom Danleys horn's give us the whole schmere and we all know he does a miracle combining multiple drivers to get that efficiency over the full range. But...... what if we are "poor"..... what if we horn load the crap out a great closed back mid range driver instead of a compression driver, or do sort of as tom has done, use is a a compression driver, give it the widest range we can without over taxing it at the low end and before it beams too much at the high end. A three way but emphasizing the middle, let the high and low chips, which are less critical, fall where they may? It actually worked in the Sentry III (albeit using a police siren compression driver) except for that sucky crossover in the most critical area. Lord knows this horn loaded mid is going to have less driver excursion than these "wonderful" 801's and for that matter aren't some of these bullet type tweeters, small enough to be shaped into a phase plug for this "proposed' mid range at the throat of this say 5" closed back paper driver firing into a "properly originated and terminated (stipulated) conical horn? BTW I am also stipulating a "dial it in" active crossover inexpensive these days. Not to hijack my own thread because this may serve to make some issues even clearer to us.
Last edited:
What a great thread. I dont understand half the information that was stated here but it is always a pleasure reading more information from everyone such as Tom and others regarding the Synergy Horn speakers. I have always wanted to have a sit down with them that is just not going to happen.
Being a DIY guy I have always wanted to build one but fully understanding the concept has been a struggle. I have also wondered why dont the SH line have a 90x40 in the SH50 like components?
I always like overkill and am really liking the directivity patter control of the SH64 but these will be a very slow buy or build. I prefer narrow vertical and wide horizontal patter control. My application would only have a SH at 2-3m maximum height. Hence why I like the 64 but do like the 96. Just dont need the 60degree vertical. Maybe a SH94.
That being said finding a midrange has been the hardest part for me in trying to learn more about these speakers.
SO again I thank everyone for starting this thread. Has been a real eye opener on some of the questions I have wondered about. For me the SH's "full range," directivity should have zero drawbacks in my application. And when they are at home should be able to cure my headroom madness.
Also what subs were used in your link's Tom, for the stadium videos?
Being a DIY guy I have always wanted to build one but fully understanding the concept has been a struggle. I have also wondered why dont the SH line have a 90x40 in the SH50 like components?
I always like overkill and am really liking the directivity patter control of the SH64 but these will be a very slow buy or build. I prefer narrow vertical and wide horizontal patter control. My application would only have a SH at 2-3m maximum height. Hence why I like the 64 but do like the 96. Just dont need the 60degree vertical. Maybe a SH94.
That being said finding a midrange has been the hardest part for me in trying to learn more about these speakers.
SO again I thank everyone for starting this thread. Has been a real eye opener on some of the questions I have wondered about. For me the SH's "full range," directivity should have zero drawbacks in my application. And when they are at home should be able to cure my headroom madness.
Also what subs were used in your link's Tom, for the stadium videos?
Last edited:
I don't see where this has been "established". I don't agree at least. The impulse response of the system must appear to have come from a single point but that does not mean that the acoustic centers of the different ranges must actually be at a single point.
You continuously seem to be establishing facts that aren't facts because they support a conclusion about the synergy concept that you have reached (without much data I might add.) I see the concept as a good solution to the use of many drivers for high output, but not a panacea that solves all the problems. There have been many issues raised here and they have not been resolved IMO.
Would I use a horn/direct radiator design in a stadium - no, of course not. Would I use a synergy concept in a home theater - no, of course not. Different venues require different solutions.
And I don't agree that an "all horn" system is ideal either. Waveguides to me are for directivity and horns for LFs do not provide any. They are large cumbersome and hard to make and if they do not provide essential characteristics why use them. Above about 700-1000 Hz directivity control is essential and ONLY a waveguide can do that. Below 700 Hz directivity becomes a lesser issue (in a HT) and a direct radiator (a large direct radiator for directivity) is an ideal solution. In a stadium, of course, one again wants directivity down as low as feasible.
Match the solution to the problem.
All I know is that the SM60Fs I have been listening to for the past year in my home theater (albeit in 2 channel) are the best sounding system I have heard. I would not limit my thinking about using them in this type of environment and would not at all hesitate recommending them to anyone. Best thing to do is listen to them in situ if you can. I am considering horn/direct radiators for surrounds.
Not addressing any one in particular here, even though some will take it that way. Memo 1 to working minds. It's not about horn loading, its because that horn loading is the way to reduce driver excursion. Memo 2 to working minds horn loading works in houses as well as stadiums. Memo 3 to myself. I kinda know DB Keele and PWK had a lot of things right, cause I've owned so many of their horn speakers. But it never hurts to study the titans, it only proves the issues, and highlights the differences between titans and tin. I study them enough to know to least to ignore the obfiscated goobly gook used in marketing , and even enough to repair my own previously injected by marketers BS. Sorry, but that we need horns-waveguides-funnelly things whatever we need to call them is most certainly to many of us, a given.
Last edited:
I would add to Memo 1...reduced early reflections.
Memo 2...it took me a long time to get over my fear of horn honkyness...but my DIY Synergy's have shown very little if any issues with that. I did however spend hours painstakingly shaping and rounding the CD throat/entrance on mine. So yes...I agree horns can work spectacularly well in the home.
Scott
All I know is that the _____ I have been listening to for the past ___year(s) in my home theater (albeit in 2 channel) are the best sounding system I have heard.
Mr. Geddes,
Don't you think the idea of having a virtual broad band single point source without side lobes has any merit at all? Or are you waiting for measurements that show that the Synergy horn really has this feature?
I am waiting to see measurements that show that this approach is better than the others on the table. A two way system done with a waveguide and direct radiator can have no lobes in the horizontal, which is by far the most important and only a single lobe over a very narrow band of frequencies at the crossover. Beyond this singular flaw it can have a much smoother response both in frequency and in space than what I have seen from the synergy approach. In a small room I will take the smoother response. In a large room that cannot be covered by a single set of speakers then I would take the tradeoff of the synergy approach because dual sets of speakers will have serious lobe problems.
In case it wasn't abundantly clear...this is what I was responding to.
I'm not so dense that I didn't understand what you were referring to. But what you responded with is what everyone says about their speakers - just fill in the blanks.
Fundamentally, the synergy concept is not flawed in any way. The only problem might be smoothness of response. Tom has already said that with more components in the crossover or digital EQ, one can obtain the required smoothness.
If we can have the smoothness, along with the other obvious benefits, there is nothing stopping the synergy from sounding as good as, if not better than, any waveguide+15" design.
If we can have the smoothness, along with the other obvious benefits, there is nothing stopping the synergy from sounding as good as, if not better than, any waveguide+15" design.
With the wildly asymmetric horn sizes, you run into problems with pattern flip. There's two ways to cure pattern flip. The first solution is to make the horn symmetric. And this is likely the reason that most of the Synergy horns are symmetrical, or close to symmetrical.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The other solution to pattern flip is just plain ol' SIZE. Make the horn so big that when the pattern flips the flip occurs at a low frequency.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.