Crossover points
Please allow me to share my past and present observations:
I currently use your "preferred' x-over point of 250. An 8 inch wide band TangBand 1772 driver front loaded into a horn, and it does some VERY majical things. Using it up to 3.5k and then crossing to a ribbon. The quality though, can never be as good as a compression driver [also] loaded into a horn. I miss the ultra fine resolution that I had before. I plan on switching back soon,
but will then be limited to a 500Hz x-over. This now requires my mid-bass to reach up as high as 500Hz. This has not been an easy task for me, to reach 500Hz as clean as it needs to be to match the horn used above and still have that bass impact required when used at 60hz and up. As far as I know, there exists no compression driver (that I could afford) to be used from 250 hz to say, the same 3.5K. So, since every system is indeed a compromise somewhere, mine might be to live with the same 500Hz crossover point used by the classics of the Golden Age.
Please allow me to share my past and present observations:
I currently use your "preferred' x-over point of 250. An 8 inch wide band TangBand 1772 driver front loaded into a horn, and it does some VERY majical things. Using it up to 3.5k and then crossing to a ribbon. The quality though, can never be as good as a compression driver [also] loaded into a horn. I miss the ultra fine resolution that I had before. I plan on switching back soon,
but will then be limited to a 500Hz x-over. This now requires my mid-bass to reach up as high as 500Hz. This has not been an easy task for me, to reach 500Hz as clean as it needs to be to match the horn used above and still have that bass impact required when used at 60hz and up. As far as I know, there exists no compression driver (that I could afford) to be used from 250 hz to say, the same 3.5K. So, since every system is indeed a compromise somewhere, mine might be to live with the same 500Hz crossover point used by the classics of the Golden Age.
The way I'd put it, is that all the engineering problems have been solved, already. Just apply solid engineering practices to the business of designing an audio system, all its parts, and a 'perfect' solution is now in sight. Where this starts to fall apart is the implementation, too many short cuts and "that's good enough" ways are used for assembling the final, physical entity - and the end product 'fails'. Of course, it produces impressive 'hifi'(!) - but for a lot of people it's just a showpiece, it's not capable of producing sound they enjoy listening to over an extended period - it fails the "does it make me enjoy listening to music?" test ...
I think the proposed idea was to ADD another driver to cover the ~250 to ~700Hz, not just SHIFT the crossover point down.
You'd end up with something like this: 4 way
Marco
In case of conical waveguide all is straight forward: coverage angle is selected along with lowest frequency for which directed behavior is desired. Leading to mouth width, leading to radius size, leading to baffle width, leading to direct radiator size. System is fabricated, and series of polar responses are measured for each driving element. Results lead to target crossover point. Response modeling from polar data makes prediction of results straight forward. Relative pass band level matching is super easy. Acoustic slope modification for proper summing through crossover region is easy. Phase matching through crossover region is straightforward; and easy with DSP based controls. Whole process is routine. Any competent live sound engineer setting up PA has performed this process.
Big compromises are made when using passive crossovers, with large limits on what may be achieved with low part count, and extremely limited in hitting target much better with increasing part count/ filter complexity. Active analog is better, but DSP approach is much less limited, much faster, much more repeatable, allowing rapid set up of computed filters, or in using iterative measure, analyze, and modify approach.
If my experiences over the years are anything to go by, these people fall into this category: Critically Endangered - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,
Originally Posted by Barleywater
Any "competent live sound engineer" setting up PA has performed this process.
"Black" and "Grey" box processors and DSP built in to inexpensive, good sounding boxes have made it so much of the current crop of "sound engineers" know little about what goes on "under the hood", they simply down load new presets as the manufactures release V.whatever.
Several years back, I asked the main tech for a company with perhaps a half million dollar investment in JBL what the changes in the new Vertec settings were that made the array "sound like completely new and better speakers" and he had no clue- he had just downloaded them in
.
Art
Any "competent live sound engineer" setting up PA has performed this process.
For once, I agree with you.If my experiences over the years are anything to go by, these people fall into this category: Critically Endangered - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,
"Black" and "Grey" box processors and DSP built in to inexpensive, good sounding boxes have made it so much of the current crop of "sound engineers" know little about what goes on "under the hood", they simply down load new presets as the manufactures release V.whatever.
Several years back, I asked the main tech for a company with perhaps a half million dollar investment in JBL what the changes in the new Vertec settings were that made the array "sound like completely new and better speakers" and he had no clue- he had just downloaded them in
.Art
Agreed.
Indeed.
However, I listen mostly to classical music, especially symphonies.
The Tel Aviv main concert hall (Man Auditorium) was renovated lately, and now the acoustics there (where I sit regularly) is just superb.
After hearing live concerts on the past few months, my stereo setup, which was very enjoyable previously, now sounds like a pale mockery of the real thing.
All I can expect from any sound setup is some 'sense of music', but not any real resemblance to the real thing (live concert).
I doubt if there is any sound setup in the world, at any cost, that may sound like the real thing (a symphony orchestra, or an opera, or even a string quartet, in one's living room).
Originally Posted by Barleywater
Any "competent live sound engineer" setting up PA has performed this process.
For once, I agree with you.
"Black" and "Grey" box processors and DSP built in to inexpensive, good sounding boxes have made it so much of the current crop of "sound engineers" know little about what goes on "under the hood", they simply down load new presets as the manufactures release V.whatever.
Several years back, I asked the main tech for a company with perhaps a half million dollar investment in JBL what the changes in the new Vertec settings were that made the array "sound like completely new and better speakers" and he had no clue- he had just downloaded them in
Art
The phrase stands on its own; Many (far too many)don't know what's going on, thus are not competent. Over glorified technicians abound who aren't payed to do more than plug and play.
Well, there you're wrong, fortunately! IME, quite often it can sound better than the 'real thing', because the microphones are usually placed in premium, optimum positions.
Good orchestral sound is subjectively very intense, it overwhelms the senses, seemingly - and this is where most systems can't lift their game sufficiently - intensity can only occur if the system can go loud, cleanly ... and most just just to degrade, degenerate in quality beyond a certain point in volume. It's not easy to stop the latter happening, but once achieved then a whole new world of sound starts to open up ...
Hi there J: Sound in my listening room tonight is outstanding, my wife's string quartet is rehearsing there. J....I agree with you completely. And we do not have to be concerned with the opinions/interference the with the "GIB" (to borrow an AF term, revised to be Guy In the Booth). ...regards, Michael
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your kind words.
Aha, a string quartet in my living room… that's a dream of mine that most probably will not come true (at least not in this lifetime)…
Ye cannae change the laws of physics!
At this point you lose me.
I've had bad seats; noisy aircon and bad audiences wreck a recital.
But I've never, ever heard a microphone improve a performance.
Never mind speakers - The reason this thread lives is because stereo speakers cannot reproduce a live event.
Understand that physically the difference between the perfect speaker (which we mostly agree does not exist) and live is like the difference between a photo and a hologram.
Mono is like a single photo, stereo is like stereoscopy.
Microphones are like film (or CCD these days) - they measure only the amplitude of sound, not its direction.
At this point you lose me.
I've had bad seats; noisy aircon and bad audiences wreck a recital.
But I've never, ever heard a microphone improve a performance.
Never mind speakers - The reason this thread lives is because stereo speakers cannot reproduce a live event.
Understand that physically the difference between the perfect speaker (which we mostly agree does not exist) and live is like the difference between a photo and a hologram.
Mono is like a single photo, stereo is like stereoscopy.
Microphones are like film (or CCD these days) - they measure only the amplitude of sound, not its direction.
My experience is the same.
Indeed.
Moreover, nothing that comes to my mind can possibly recreate the energy and the human atmosphere in a live concert. It is my firm impression and belief that both are part and parcel of the experience of listening to live music.
On tonight's concert, at the break I went out for a fresh air (mixed with tobacco fumes). There was one of the orchestra's (Israeli Philharmonics) viola players. I chatted with him, I commented about the superb acoustics of the renovated concert hall and also about the difference in balance between various orchestra sections, especially the brass – from the conductor's stand vs. in the middle of the hall. He referred to it and then he said that in rehearsals, the energy is never the same as in the concert. So, the energy thing isn't only in my own mind.
That said, even referring to the acoustical sound alone, I doubt if it will be possible, at least in my lifetime, for any stereo setup to sound even close to the real thing (live music).
I think that is mostly true but not for all recordings, live events and playback systems.
Using above ceiling and rear circle surround theater units with horn lloaded wide angle ambiance channels and a large low compromise rear delayed ambiance subwoofer creates the live missing in most recordings in my big system
288K, I think. Ceramic, not Alnico. The old Alnico models have just gotten so crazy expensive I can't afford them. My Radians have bug screens, too. Never took them out.
Thanks.
Indeed, each one of us has different expectations.
I'm retired. I spent ALL of my life's savings on my stereo setup. Yet, my stereo setup is but a pale mockery of the real thing.
After that being said, please don't get me wrong.
I'm completely satisfied with my life and with what life is offering me. However, being completely contented with my life and with what I have doesn't stop me from being observational.