They are audible, but ironically many prefer more “hash” (linear distortion) at the top. (I’ve seen a few videos commenting on this but unfortunately can’t remember any links to provide - it’s one of those things that always surprised me.)
I think the biggest difference with large format drivers above 10 kHz is simply their exit diameter relative to dispersion and power-loss (absent a diffraction/“pinched” horn) with many horn designs trying to maintain wider directivity wide-band.
I agree with this, as it is my experience also. Before I switched to Le'Cleach circular horns I listen to, I used biradial tractrix horns with wider dispersion, but I could not overcome the pattern flip somehow, and it was more beamy in the very top end. The Le'Cleach horns also "beam" but much more gradual. To have a sense of "space" I found it very beneficial to have diffusers on the wall behind my back and a mix of absorption and diffusion to the left and right of my listening position, and no treatment on the front wall. The clarity is much improved in respect to the tractrix horns i.m.o. I am not a horn expert and my observations are therefore subjective, but I can relate to the above quote.
Sense of space has already been designed into the original signal. It really doesn't need help from us, "space" is already included in the original signal.... I'm not saying I disagree with you, its just that, that, needs to pointed out. In other words.... if you don't add reverb to the signal, via your room... the music doesn't suffer. Smooth transition of sonic aspects is most important. Like a smooth transition from on to off axis response, or smooth transition from the narrow part of a polar to the wide part.
The same is had with increasing directivity without the need to sit closer. Imagine you increase directivity and sit closer....Thats what my system is based around in a way.
Last edited:
Room reflections are part of the reality, sorry, and are part of the assumed playback conditions of any audio track unless you are listening to headphones. No wonder headphones sound so dry, not my favorite listening experience.
I take exception, very few few recordings do a good job of designing in space, then we have those pesky room reflections to mess it all up.
I do have several binaural recordings that I do enjoy.
At my bench it is not by choice that I sit near the speakers, it is just the nature of the beast.
You are correct that I did select the wideish directivity of the speakers.
Up stairs in the home theater is another story.
Thanks DT
Not your Fav/preference, yet in many ways, more true to the original material. Everyone has a preference, but accuracy can mean a less ambiguous destination...
Too wet or dry is always subjective where as being true to the original signal isn't so much...
If a recording is bad, its supposed to sound bad... if you are chasing accuracy.
Everyone has their own goals for their systems. Adding more decay is not a form of increasing clarity, its the opposite, is all I'm saying
There can be better detail and more accurate space. Increasing directivity is the bread winner for this aspect, probably because the room is so potent.
Last edited:
Funny how the example that I give with a high direct sound to room reflection ratio, yet you want to argue with me. The example that I gave was not unlike monitors at a mixing console.
You may like this:
Thanks DT
I know you get it. I am just pressing the issue to drive home the point is all. I want it to be clear that there are well minded people out there who desire less room energy, as in none of it lol. I may be speaking vicariously as I've never personally experienced an anechoic chamber, I just mean to say strongly that removing room energy from my play back is desirable, until the point I say its, too much. Which serves to say that the amount of room one desires in their system can be looked at like a personal preference as long as things aren't too misshapen. Like other aspects of design, we want the decay character to be neutral and smooth like response, as well as, smooth transitions. This includes uniform decay. What I do know, is that I have a large horn that even though its elliptical, it is large and the HF definitely is narrow in comparison to where it looses directivity. The off axis transition is smooth. The measurements I've seen for off axis looked like they were void of resonate notes and nulls. I have yet to take my own measurements. I don't hear anything in particular in my demoing. Sounds very smooth, the transition that is, of basically loosing HF. Its as if a LP filter is sliding down the spectrum at some point. I have the "whole spectrum" as long as I can see the walls of the throat, and its a little bit wider than I predicted. Plenty for one man at 1m and I'll leave it there.
The character of the tweeters Off axis, whether horn or waveguide, as long as the transitions are smooth, the response is smooth, having different polars, system to system, is no less a variable than the reverb each different room, the different systems, reside in, and do not have to be detrimental to whole. It is easier to be text book correct if you ask me. Anything that wasn't there before but is there now, if you remove it, isn't taking away from the whole, if accuracy is the goal.
All that to say, I haven't figured out that it is bad. I'm not sure when it will be bad. If having a narrow HF that slowly transitions to wide as we mover down the spectrum, thus, creating room energy that slowly gains as we lower frequency, is worse than whatever constant directivity waveguides do from like 500-800hz to slightly above 13,550hz?? I don't know it from experience yet... but now I'm getting off track.... If I stick to text book and just aim to removing room.... The more area with lesser beamwidth wins, defacto, at the sweet spot in particular. The transition from narrow to wide isn't causing something distracting due to being smooth. Neither would a proper, wide polar.... its just that the wide polar creates more room, and the room is a mess. Everywhere there's more directivity, it just sounds clearer. That simple and its not subjective. Because decay adds duration, and duration affects perception, technically, constant directivity is also a move towards accuracy.... but if I had to judge one as being more potent than the other... directivity wins. Measurements have proven this I believe. Room measurements, not anechoic measurements.
Last edited:
...Depending on the (size of) the room I'd say.
Your 2-way with Purifi + Faital HF100/HF108 is a variation of the typical mini monitor, which works very well in smaller to medium size (European) rooms where speakers are usually placed close to walls.
While the Purifi woofers are excellent with respect to THD etc, there's a 10-15 dB difference in sensitivity between the woofer and the Faital combo.
You'll have to seriously attenuate the horn/driver combination, but the (potential) difference in sound pressure (generation), due to the characteristics of the small woofer versus the horn/driver, remains > the latter being vastly more efficient.
It's possible to blend those, but personally I'd prefer a dome tweeter if the listening distance is less than about 2 meters.
For a true sense of space (reproduction of the recording (space)) a free-standing controlled directivity system - such as the Blumenhofers with wave former, is hard to beat. At least not by the many wide-radiating systems that I've listened to.
The Rubarth track was nice 🙂 playing the album via Tidal now. 18sound NSD1095N dose a fine job 😉
//
edit: wow - what a treasure this record is!!
//
edit: wow - what a treasure this record is!!
Last edited:
Yes the FaitalPro CD/waveguide combo needs some attenuation/taming to match the woofer
I use a shunt resistor in parallel with the voice coil plus a resistor in series. This is a fixed value L-Pad.
https://www.bcae1.com/lpad.htm
Thanks DT
I seem to like drivers that dip when breaking up rather than peak. JBL 2431 dips.
In the case of drivers reducing damping increases transient response and decay. I prefer a driver that is under damped to over damped as more information is extracted from the input signal. This parallels my preference of sonic characteristic in general. I prefer an under damped room, to a degree, to an over damped room assuming the speakers are well designed. If I am going for total accuracy I would just use headphones. Speakers of a certain size depending on the listening distance, by providing an engulfing listening experience and enhanced sense of scale, are a superior listening experience to headphones or overly damped, highly directive drivers in an anechoic chamber.
Last edited:
In addition, an input signal is not of a uniform amplitude and thus the same principle damping as it effects detail retrieval of an impulse also applies to the decay of a signal. If a driver is overly damp it will not properly render decay over time of a given audio signal. Excessive decay in the form of resonance of the cone or sometimes referred to as ringing that is not present in the original signal is a different thing as obviously not desirable. The more sensitive a driver is the better so long as there is not an excessive penalty in the form of distortion.
The Al diaphragm of the 2431 also features a 'soft' surround.
Which horn do you use?
True, for this reason about 80-90% of the (lossy) MOR commercial high-end speakers sound more or less the same > numerous shades of gray.
With regard to woofers, a whole arsenal of interdependent factors (sub, or sub-sub-sub systems) play a role.
Factors that most members of the so-called 'science forum' are unaware of. They blindly trust AP and Klippel, assuming that therein lies the absolute, irrefutable truth.
Bruno can develop a very high quality (albeit very expensive) 6.5" woofer, but he can never break Hofmann's Iron Law.
At least not in this dimension.
Last edited:
Definitely not ! But he can build amps that can cope with low efficiency drivers very nicely. 😉
Regards
Charles