The NS-10 aside (I always hated it) there absolutely is merit in using bandwidth limited speakers for mixing like the almost as famous Auratones. It is really useful to limit one's window of perception to focus on the midrange, often in mono too. Nobody would claim though that these are in any way "good speakers", just helpful tools in a process that is totally irrelevant for somebody who wants to hear well reproduced audio.
The MF-2 however does not fall under that category. What's intriguing about this speaker to me is that – if it's as good as people claim, and I don't have any reason to radically doubt / deny that so I assume in good faith it's a good speaker – the 'terrible' diffraction horn can be made to work to high fidelity standards.
Maybe it has something to do with what Earl wrote in post #6000? The discussion then went on about the semantics of group delay, but the actual matter wasn't really discussed. Maybe getting that part right is more important than eliminating the last bit of diffraction.
The MF-2 however does not fall under that category. What's intriguing about this speaker to me is that – if it's as good as people claim, and I don't have any reason to radically doubt / deny that so I assume in good faith it's a good speaker – the 'terrible' diffraction horn can be made to work to high fidelity standards.
Maybe it has something to do with what Earl wrote in post #6000? The discussion then went on about the semantics of group delay, but the actual matter wasn't really discussed. Maybe getting that part right is more important than eliminating the last bit of diffraction.
It was not about semantics, it was about what kind of information is meaninful and what is not. Earl wrote about high local group delay variations. These can be directly coupled to the amplutide response or not. If they are it's a no-brainer - correct the amplitude response then. We have yet to see a device for which this would be decoupled to a measurable level. The overall smooth all-pass behaviour of the system (phase variation with frequency for a flat amplitude response) is benign to a high degree as has been shown many times in the past (i.e. we don't really hear shapes of the waveforms). Again, look at the Revel Ultima Salon 2 - that's about the most extreme all-pass filter available. I expect the big Vivid Audio speakers be in the same league, i.e. they both don't preserve the signal shape at all - yet there's no problem.
Last edited:
Yea, I quit discussing it as no one wanted to hear what I had to say and only repeated back to me things that I already knew, never trying to understand my point.
What I heard back was "if the speaker is perfect then there is no excess group delay" Da!! What speaker is perfect?
That's not true.
You said you were interested in group delay corrected for any propagation delay and you called it "MEGD". Which didn't make any sense and couldn't bring any light into the problem.
You said you were interested in group delay corrected for any propagation delay and you called it "MEGD". Which didn't make any sense and couldn't bring any light into the problem.
Last edited:
Hi Earl, Please explain the point you were trying to make.....I am very interested.
My understanding is excess group delay represents what is uncorrectable.
That it comes from time domain issues that essentially represent multiple sources.
Minor examples being diffraction and HOMs.
Major examples being multiway drivers sharing frequency response thru xover region, IIR xover's, and system rolloffs at the two ends of the spectrum.
Any illumination here most welcome.
My understanding is excess group delay represents what is uncorrectable.
That it comes from time domain issues that essentially represent multiple sources.
Minor examples being diffraction and HOMs.
Major examples being multiway drivers sharing frequency response thru xover region, IIR xover's, and system rolloffs at the two ends of the spectrum.
Any illumination here most welcome.
I share your understanding completely. "Uncorrectable" because of the spatial variance, otherwise it would be correctable, even for a non-minimum phase system.
What I would like to know is what S/N ratio is required to capture HOMs in waveguides in this way. (But it's definitely not by looking at group delay curve alone, no matter how compensated for a pure delay.)
What I would like to know is what S/N ratio is required to capture HOMs in waveguides in this way. (But it's definitely not by looking at group delay curve alone, no matter how compensated for a pure delay.)
Last edited:
Not scientifically proven, of course.
The Calpamos wasn't designed for studio monitoring purposes, so I'm sure it's not quite up to the standards of the SF-M2.
Knowing the designer, as well as some builders of the kit, I have no reason to dismiss their claims (no horn coloration, honk, harshness at all > sounds like a dome tweeter on steroids).
In another thread an (ex-) Gedlee Summa-owner commented that he preferred the Calpamos to the Summa (even with foam plug). Moreover, he found the Summa sounded like a typical horn speaker, whereas the Calpamos did not.
Admittedly, even I find that hard to believe.
However, Keele companion and Abbey-owner B. Omholt has posted similar comments.
Here's the catch: the assembled crossover boards for a pair of Calpamos alone cost € 1,600, which is 17 x the price I paid for my cheapest (digital) 2 in, 3 out DSP.
Somehow, I don't even like the concept of DSP > fuelled by the opinions of some experienced pros in the field of loudspeaker/amplifier/DAC design and I would never use one with analog inputs.
At the same time I'm a proponent of fundamental progression, lack sufficient experience with passive crossover design and don't like to buy and store large amounts of caps, coils and resistors in order to experiment with passive crossovers.
Roland, are you honestly making the argument that certain capacitors, inductors, and resistors elevate regular speakers above the extraordinary..?
Is that the crux of this conversation around a speaker using an average-at-best horn and charging a fortune for it?
Is that the crux of this conversation around a speaker using an average-at-best horn and charging a fortune for it?
Last edited:
This thread holds the hope of building waveguides with smoother responses, low diffraction and great polar control.
I find it hard to believe that these things will not result in an audible improvement over a device without them.
Many things can sound good but I have to wonder how repeating the opinions of others personal evaluations taken without measurements or some form of objective verification really helps to move the state of the art forward.
I find it hard to believe that these things will not result in an audible improvement over a device without them.
Many things can sound good but I have to wonder how repeating the opinions of others personal evaluations taken without measurements or some form of objective verification really helps to move the state of the art forward.
Yes, I'd like to know that S/N ratio too...what are we talking about, how significant?
Oh, what kind of non-minimum phase system issues do you think are also correctable?
I'm having a hard time picturing any...(other than maybe simple time delays for geometric offsets, which even then are only good corrections to single observation points)
It is not only about the quality of the components, although I am convinced - unlike some people - that a quality capacitor can make a difference compared to a cheap electrolyte.
I have experienced it too, for what it's worth.
Today, many products, also at the component level, are often incorrectly qualified as "commodities".
In other words, it is good (enough) if it does what it is supposed to do.
This is a far too shortsighted vision, I know from my experience in IT hardware.
In this context, it makes sense to dive back into history. For all audio products developed by Western Electric since the 1920s, only the best possible components were used.
If these did not (yet) exist, they were developed in-house if necessary.
To dispute the usefulness of this practice is naive silliness in my eyes.
Then being amazed that a similar product - which has been developed more thoroughly and (therefore) includes higher quality components - performs better and/or is more reliable, borders on culpable stupidity.
There is more than one reason why these DIMMs are 20-40% more expensive than comparable DIMMs from a B-brand or white label.
Attachments
Last edited:
Isn't this the box with a Faital pro PA woofer/2380? That can't be true. There are videos of this speaker on youtube. Looks like this particular speaker is being heavily endorsed.
That doesn't mean I would consider buying exotic boutique components like Duelund and Jupiter caps, because that's beyond healthy sobriety 🙂
I can't help but think that tolerances varied much more in the 20's, so it was important to pick the best. Manufacturing processes have come a long way.
I think memory is different from crossover components in that persistence of state can be critical. So higher prices are sometimes warranted.
EDIT: we are in the 20's..... weird
I think memory is different from crossover components in that persistence of state can be critical. So higher prices are sometimes warranted.
EDIT: we are in the 20's..... weird
Last edited:
That's not what I said.
The group delay in the following picture, which you described as a significant MEGD, is all caused by the particular (minimum-phase) driver used, not the waveguide. That's what I said and also showed how I know it. What is the relevance regarding the topic, which is the non-minimum phase bahaviour of the horns? It tells you nothing about the waveguide and its possible "honk".
Last edited: