Line arrays, for example. I think they often sound great, except that over sided image bugs the heck out of me. Some omnis I've heard are similar. Great sounding cello - but the size of a Mac truck.
.
I was sitting in front of them today. First row, center seat. Stage imaging was disappointing, I'm afraid. On my request they played "The last time" (Eurythmics) through them. That track has some fancy widening and narrowing of the acoustic space on it. This was hardly reproduced. Imaging did not get better when I stood at the back of the room. Sound was mainly glued to the speakers.
Both speaker sets (the BLHs in the background too) had sizzling highs. So I expect that to be due to excessive high pitch of the source/amplifier.
Apart from that those big horns reproduced midrange and lower treble in a very life-like way.
Rudolf
As most of you already know, it's been an out-spin from what's been posted earlier:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103872-geddes-waveguides-67.html#post1930197
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103872-geddes-waveguides-67.html#post1930266
I was asked to calculate a contour to meet the limits of CNC production available, but haven't been involved in that specific design.
Jzagaia, thanks for taking all the effort needed to make min phase contour available for the diy'er and for keeping us updated!
Thanks Rudolf for sharing your impressions – very much appreciated, especially as I didn't have chance to join at Gelsenskirchen and give it a listen myself.
Michael
Looks like I should be a bit more specific about that WG:
I was drawn into the room when an acoustic guitar was playing. Even from a distance of 8 m the reproduction was very natural (tonality and homogenity) - from the picking (?) of the strings to the reverberation of the body and the fade characteristics. But the instrument was filling the complete space between the WGs (WGs included) without a specific location.
Similar in the front row: The voice of Annie Lennox was impeccable, but I couldn't properly locate the singer.
I don't have any experience with horns/WGs of that size. In the front row I was already sitting inside the 60deg stereo triangle. Maybe that was not helping with the imaging?
I was drawn into the room when an acoustic guitar was playing. Even from a distance of 8 m the reproduction was very natural (tonality and homogenity) - from the picking (?) of the strings to the reverberation of the body and the fade characteristics. But the instrument was filling the complete space between the WGs (WGs included) without a specific location.
Similar in the front row: The voice of Annie Lennox was impeccable, but I couldn't properly locate the singer.
I don't have any experience with horns/WGs of that size. In the front row I was already sitting inside the 60deg stereo triangle. Maybe that was not helping with the imaging?
What occurs to me is that stereo is an illusion that works by pan potting single inputs between two channels.
A usual thing is to have the singer coming from both channels equally, giving the illusion that they are in the middle, but they only appear to be in the middle relative to other singers or instruments.
For instance if a singer is also playing a guitar then the two sounds would appear to be coming from virtually the same place in space, but if the sound is then mixed equally into both channels then it would appear to come from all places between the speakers.
It seems to me then that with two channels a singer with instrument in this situation cannot be in the middle but must be sonically close to either speaker, and the guitar if being played by an accompanist placed closer to the other speaker.
If this was done in the original mix then I would imagine that very close to the original directivity ambiance and listener speaker geometry, will be necessary if the reproduced sound is to have the same spatial properties as that recorded.
You can improve these effects with a stereo width control.
rcw.
A usual thing is to have the singer coming from both channels equally, giving the illusion that they are in the middle, but they only appear to be in the middle relative to other singers or instruments.
For instance if a singer is also playing a guitar then the two sounds would appear to be coming from virtually the same place in space, but if the sound is then mixed equally into both channels then it would appear to come from all places between the speakers.
It seems to me then that with two channels a singer with instrument in this situation cannot be in the middle but must be sonically close to either speaker, and the guitar if being played by an accompanist placed closer to the other speaker.
If this was done in the original mix then I would imagine that very close to the original directivity ambiance and listener speaker geometry, will be necessary if the reproduced sound is to have the same spatial properties as that recorded.
You can improve these effects with a stereo width control.
rcw.
Looks like I should be a bit more specific about that WG:
I was drawn into the room when an acoustic guitar was playing. Even from a distance of 8 m the reproduction was very natural (tonality and homogenity) - from the picking (?) of the strings to the reverberation of the body and the fade characteristics. But the instrument was filling the complete space between the WGs (WGs included) without a specific location.
Similar in the front row: The voice of Annie Lennox was impeccable, but I couldn't properly locate the singer.
I don't have any experience with horns/WGs of that size. In the front row I was already sitting inside the 60deg stereo triangle. Maybe that was not helping with the imaging?
Your subjective description of listening to a large waveguide has been my experience as well. At home I tried to listen to the Summas at close range, and the sound was much better from a distance. I believe this is due to the center-to-center spacing. In order for the two to "sum" properly, you need to be quite a ways back. Ten times the center-to-center spacing is a good start. So with my Summas that would be 4.57 meters.
At home I listen to them at a distance of three meters, which works nicely. I used to have them in a much larger room, and they did indeed sound better at 5 meters than 3.
In the car I do not have the luxury of listening to the speakers from three meters. Which is why I run Unity horns in the car.
Last edited:
My guess would be loading problem. Need to look at CSD.Looks like I should be a bit more specific about that WG:
I was drawn into the room when an acoustic guitar was playing. Even from a distance of 8 m the reproduction was very natural (tonality and homogenity) - from the picking (?) of the strings to the reverberation of the body and the fade characteristics. But the instrument was filling the complete space between the WGs (WGs included) without a specific location.
Similar in the front row: The voice of Annie Lennox was impeccable, but I couldn't properly locate the singer.
I don't have any experience with horns/WGs of that size. In the front row I was already sitting inside the 60deg stereo triangle. Maybe that was not helping with the imaging?
What is it about audio that encourages people to speculate on things with virtually no data what-so-ever?
A scientist, or anybody for that matter, should have "something" on which to base a hypothesis, otherwise its just a "wild a__ guess" - worse than "shooting from the hip", more like shooting at a moving object blindfolded.
I did say "Need to look at the CSD." Don't know why you snipped it off. If the proper CSD data was available, I wouldn't be guessing.
I did say "Need to look at the CSD." Don't know why you snipped it off. If the proper CSD data was available, I wouldn't be guessing.
Ok, I won't "snip" anything off this one.
So then you do admit that without the CSD data it was a complete guess with nothing to substantiate it? I think that this is the kind of thing that I and others find annoying in many of the posts here - completely unfounded claims and suggestions that would be better left unsaid.
My appology if people found the "tone" was "condescending", but somewhere along the line someone needs to say something about the unsubstantiated claims, generalizations and total guesses that people pass off as "data". This thread carries my name, so maybe that makes the "rational police".