My pleasure X!
After all it was your simulations and guidance that helped give birth to the x-bush speakers!
I should say I made another 4 way as one of my first complex builds and this speaker is now relegated to multichannel use only in my surround sound set up as it doesn't hold a candle to either of these set ups!
After all it was your simulations and guidance that helped give birth to the x-bush speakers!
I should say I made another 4 way as one of my first complex builds and this speaker is now relegated to multichannel use only in my surround sound set up as it doesn't hold a candle to either of these set ups!
Attachments
Couldn't have said it better myself - but didn't think I would be saying it a year ago at all!!!
Sorry, wasn’t clear which speaker is related to multichannel and which doesn’t hold a candle? Your latest 4 way is now better than spheroid 4-way? Also, is it 4-way because of a sub somewhere because I only see 3 drivers?
Sorry that is a photo of my first complex speaker build (built 5 years ago!) a 3-way box speaker supplemented with multiple subs in the room - therefore making it a four way.
It is very good - 12MU mid, SB acoustic ring radiator and SS 8" woofer - but is not as good as either the synergy or the 4 way sphere build.
It does fine as the mains in my multiway cinema set up, but is not as good as my other creations!
Great idea to take the time and do this comparison, bushmeister!
Wouldn't it be fun to find some clues in the measurements though? I'd be all over the graphs to see if there's something to be learned from it
.
I love the ring radiators though. And found, from my own fiddling with my arrays that the part above 6-7 KHz has much more influence on imaging precision and perception than I used to think.
If you ask me, the BBC dip, has much more to do with our 2 ears than anything else. The cross talk these ears bring is a big factor (i.m.h.o.) in how we perceive the stage. Reflections can help soften the perceived cross talk out in a room and give a better 3D presentation as a result.
I'm not done experimenting with that cross talk problem, as it brings great rewards in my humble opinion. I have kind of a BBC dip, but only on phantom centre material. Not on the side panned sounds. One of the best moves I've ever done. (mid/side EQ)
I've also come to realise the room "answer" is one of the bigger things that sway's us from the apparent frequency response as measured. After absorbing first reflection points I started to miss out on the envelopment feel and thrill factor. I brought it back in a virtual way.
Wouldn't it be fun to find some clues in the measurements though? I'd be all over the graphs to see if there's something to be learned from it
.I love the ring radiators though. And found, from my own fiddling with my arrays that the part above 6-7 KHz has much more influence on imaging precision and perception than I used to think.
If you ask me, the BBC dip, has much more to do with our 2 ears than anything else. The cross talk these ears bring is a big factor (i.m.h.o.) in how we perceive the stage. Reflections can help soften the perceived cross talk out in a room and give a better 3D presentation as a result.
I'm not done experimenting with that cross talk problem, as it brings great rewards in my humble opinion. I have kind of a BBC dip, but only on phantom centre material. Not on the side panned sounds. One of the best moves I've ever done. (mid/side EQ)
I've also come to realise the room "answer" is one of the bigger things that sway's us from the apparent frequency response as measured. After absorbing first reflection points I started to miss out on the envelopment feel and thrill factor. I brought it back in a virtual way.
Great insights wesayso! I knew you would have a view on it all.
Given your system has a fairly wide but well controlled dispersion - and of course the luxury of no floor/ceiling bounce - I knew you would be able to add to the discussion!
I didn't save any of my measurements as there were so many trying to get the listening field comparable between the two, and to be honest I wanted to really concentrate on which speaker sounded best without analyzing loads of REW measurements - in hindsight - I should have just hit save a few times!
Perhaps when I get some time off I will drag the synergies back into my listening room. But for now - I am going to pour myself a good single malt and spin some vinyl!
Given your system has a fairly wide but well controlled dispersion - and of course the luxury of no floor/ceiling bounce - I knew you would be able to add to the discussion!
I didn't save any of my measurements as there were so many trying to get the listening field comparable between the two, and to be honest I wanted to really concentrate on which speaker sounded best without analyzing loads of REW measurements - in hindsight - I should have just hit save a few times!
Perhaps when I get some time off I will drag the synergies back into my listening room. But for now - I am going to pour myself a good single malt and spin some vinyl!
Thanks for doing the comparison, and interesting result. I gave up on minimum phaseing my crossovers/systems after convincing myself that I can't really hear a difference that would be remotely significant (nor found anyone in my linear-phase vs typical-phase response tests who found either to be significant enough to get excited about). So better control of drivers and keeping them in the bands where they work best is the approach I go for anymore. Maybe you could try an old-world (or an active) crossover on the synergy with better slopes?
I've also come to agree that the entirely controlled-directivity path isn't a fix-all and can have some ramifications -- the most significant being ambience or envelopment. In my basement system (where I don't have to care what it looks like!) I have the waveguides arranges so that the energy that goes past me hits large diffusrs to the sides and behind and greatly helps the ambience. Without those, sound is clear and almost disconcertingly sharp, but can sound as if it's happening in a room where I'm not present.
Upstairs (where its too small and not acceptable to fill with diffusors), I've gone to using ambience drivers (similar to Duke LeJeunes' "Late Ceiling Splash" idea), delayed by about 15msec using DSP and illuminating the walls and ceiling from behind the main speakers -- this gives me much of the best of both worlds I think. The delay keeps the ambience drivers from degrading the sharp imaging and "realness" of the waveguides' sound, while greatly improving the overall envelopment. I'm sure there is more improvement to be had, but I've been quite happy with our 'upstairs sound' for several months now because of the added drivers (as non-purist as they may seem to be).
I've also come to agree that the entirely controlled-directivity path isn't a fix-all and can have some ramifications -- the most significant being ambience or envelopment. In my basement system (where I don't have to care what it looks like!) I have the waveguides arranges so that the energy that goes past me hits large diffusrs to the sides and behind and greatly helps the ambience. Without those, sound is clear and almost disconcertingly sharp, but can sound as if it's happening in a room where I'm not present.
Upstairs (where its too small and not acceptable to fill with diffusors), I've gone to using ambience drivers (similar to Duke LeJeunes' "Late Ceiling Splash" idea), delayed by about 15msec using DSP and illuminating the walls and ceiling from behind the main speakers -- this gives me much of the best of both worlds I think. The delay keeps the ambience drivers from degrading the sharp imaging and "realness" of the waveguides' sound, while greatly improving the overall envelopment. I'm sure there is more improvement to be had, but I've been quite happy with our 'upstairs sound' for several months now because of the added drivers (as non-purist as they may seem to be).
Thanks for your insights and experiences - again very similar to mine.
The synergy crossover is using a minidsp Dac-8 and uses minimum phase steep crossovers - I have experimented with many different slopes both FIR and IIR, so I don't think this is the answer (like you!)
It is very interesting to me that we design these speakers to take the room out of the equation somewhat and then have to put it back in with diffusors and ambience tweeters!
Your description of a high directivity synergy sounding like it is "happening in a room where I am not present'' is exactly right and is what I was trying to express with my 'lack of realism' and 'like headphones but in front of me' comments at the start of this thread - this rings utterly true with what I was trying to express!
This is very interesting. I'm building up parts to build a set of Synergies that I'm going to use as my new fronts in a home theater setup. I was hoping that they'd bring more presence to movies, but this is making me question that.
Roughly where do you think the threshold lies, if there is one, where a horn's dispersion starts to be too tight and gives this effect? I had in mind 90x50 as a starting point. I have a hard time imagining 90 is way too tight, but 50 seems like it might be.
Roughly where do you think the threshold lies, if there is one, where a horn's dispersion starts to be too tight and gives this effect? I had in mind 90x50 as a starting point. I have a hard time imagining 90 is way too tight, but 50 seems like it might be.
I'm planning on putting some Mid/side EQ in my system but hadn't considered put the dip in there. Interesting.
Electro-acoustic models is SL's approach to this.
@billshurv I have a little more than just that BBC dip going on, here's part of the story with a graph:
That paper from Linkwitz basically tells the reason why the dip should only be done on phantom material. There's a difference in perception of sound coming from straight forward and 2 speakers in a stereo setup playing that same sound. My mid/side EQ is aiming to reduce that difference.
Explanation here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/242171-towers-25-driver-range-line-array-429.html#post5460331
I should note that I use linear phase EQ for this mid/side "trick". It does make a difference. Exact positions of the dips could vary between setups and listening position. Experiment with it.
Depending on what curve you have dialled in, it can be quite a shock. Most notably better intelligibility in phantom vocals and more realism in side panned vocal parts.
To clarify a few things: you can never get back true left and true right channel info from a stereo source. All tweaks done there are soft EQ tweaks.
Even the center info always contains left and right info, basically being a mono (L+R) signal.
Only Home Theatre or 5.1 and above has the freedom to truly have separate left, right and center info.
Be gentle with the tweaks if you do mid/side EQ.
That paper from Linkwitz basically tells the reason why the dip should only be done on phantom material. There's a difference in perception of sound coming from straight forward and 2 speakers in a stereo setup playing that same sound. My mid/side EQ is aiming to reduce that difference.
Explanation here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/242171-towers-25-driver-range-line-array-429.html#post5460331
I should note that I use linear phase EQ for this mid/side "trick". It does make a difference. Exact positions of the dips could vary between setups and listening position. Experiment with it.
Depending on what curve you have dialled in, it can be quite a shock. Most notably better intelligibility in phantom vocals and more realism in side panned vocal parts.
To clarify a few things: you can never get back true left and true right channel info from a stereo source. All tweaks done there are soft EQ tweaks.
Even the center info always contains left and right info, basically being a mono (L+R) signal.
Only Home Theatre or 5.1 and above has the freedom to truly have separate left, right and center info.
Be gentle with the tweaks if you do mid/side EQ.
Last edited:
Oh I intend to be gentle. The mid-side chain will be analog in my current chain (long story related to obsolete media ). If I could find an appliance type DSP that can do the M-S conversion I would be very happy, but none seem to offer it at the moment.
Sorry if this seems off topic but I believe that the comparison here has noted some very interesting points in the oft ignored area of speaker voicing that are fascinating.
). If I could find an appliance type DSP that can do the M-S conversion I would be very happy, but none seem to offer it at the moment. Sorry if this seems off topic but I believe that the comparison here has noted some very interesting points in the oft ignored area of speaker voicing that are fascinating.
I experienced the same effect between two MEH designs:
- K-402-MEH (90x60 degrees with BMS 4592ND 2" compression driver and 15" Crites cast frame woofers), and
- SH-50 (50x50 degrees with its BMS 1" driver, Celestion mids, and FaitalPRO woofers...expensive ones at that).
I've posted other plots in various threads showing better phase performance of the K-402 using conventional DSP crossover (IIR filters), etc., but I don't believe that it is phase performance differences that made the listening differences so great.
Too narrow coverage horizontally, like your 18Sound horn (60x50 degrees), could be virtually all of the real differences between your loudspeaker types. I believe that Toole also talks about this in his book. I also believe that the JBL M2 has wider coverage, not because it matches polars with a 15" woofer crossover at ~800 Hz, but because it simply sounds better.
YMMV.
Chris
Last edited:
I think that you need to be talking about horn coverage angles in the same breath. Too narrow, and you're probably going to be disappointed (unless your listening room is extremely narrow--less than ~3.6-3.8 m wide--and has many untreated early reflections). Too wide (i.e., over 90-100 degrees) and you'll have the same issues as a direct radiator.
I've found that the comment about "the exactly similar loudspeaker as L/C/R" is pretty important, as well as getting all three at the same height. The comment about "phase warp" is much less significant IME, but the flatter the phase through the crossover (a function of the low pass filters used, if IIR), the better it sounds--subtly. IIRC, the person that you're talking to has said that he has plans on using FIR filtering, so phase is probably not an issue for that application--unless it also brings pre-ringing.
Chris
I think you are absolutely right!
Regarding the bass of both systems- they are both really excellent - the synergys dig really deep with their 4x 8" woofers, whilst the 4 way system has a frankly ridiculous set of sub-woofers with massive displacement that is overkill for nearly everything.
We are focusing on dispersion here, but I would say again the detail retrieval was better with the 4-way too - so I feel there is definitely some driver influence at work too. If it is just dispersion, and the 18 sound system is 'too narrow' you would expect it to 'beam' the details straight to ones ears leading to incredible unfettered details. But this was not the case. Whether that is down to reduced IMD, cleaner measurements, or something that isn't obviously measurable I am not certain - but the combination of the Sartori SB acoustics midbass, Volt dome mid, and scanspeak ring radiator, sure sound amazing.
Also don't forget the 4-way system is a very low diffraction design using spheres - it is not a 'normal box' type speaker, so some of this assessment may also be due to that....