@swak When you consider that Docali is pretty obsessed with the topic and is an accomplished designer and you add in that; if you know what you are looking at, you can to an extent see the polar performance and some acoustical characteristics from the visual and top that off with who knows how many simulations he's done which, over time, expose trends and deeper connections... and then top that off with a good understanding of measurement data and its relationship to perception and psychoacoustics...
You don't need to actually hear it lol
You don't need to actually hear it lol
Sorry, but what is your problem if I state that I don't like the shape???
And doing the sims right you are quite close to real results.
Sorry, but what is your problem if I state that I don't like the shape???
And doing the sims right you are quite close to real results.
And it can prevent you from sinking a lot of money in the wrong project ;-)
A system with rising DI can be equalized for a particular response on or off it's central axis, but that response will only "address" that particular axis.
A system with constant directivity can be equalized for a particular response at any axis, and the response will "address" anything within the range of it's constant directivity...
Large sizes are not required for high efficiency and high directivity.
Large sizes are required to control directivity at low frequencies.
The JBL 2402 has high efficiency, 110dB 1/w/1m at 20kHz and high directivity at high frequencies with a horn mouth diameter of 79mm (3.125 inches).
Like any rising DI horn, it's response varies across it's beamwidth, so if equalized for flat response on axis, it's high frequency is progressively reduced off axis, sound going from "bright" to "dark".
Don't make the common mistake of thinking this needs a wide and deep directivity. The soundstage is embedded in the recording.
I suppose it could be said that the popularity of this horn overrides the strange absence of essential data, though I'm also surprised that AH425 and AH300 users haven't generated and posted their own vertical plots by now.Probably because nobody has actually accurately measured the polar response of the AH425.
Never received a response when I asked about them over 10 years ago:
Certainly not holding my breath since then.
ARRGGHHH!!!!!!! HOW many times have I exclaimed here that I am ever so sadly NOT anywhere near an adequately knowledgeable DIYer-nor one with sufficient free time-to do any building and testing. For that I have no choice but to hire those like Troy Crowe, Bryan and such reputable builders. Learning what I need to know from here and elsewhere and then returning with what I hope are sensible enough questions geared to receive advice for selecting horns to attain my sonic objectives, is about all I have time for.
Needless to say, the quickest and possibly the most error free way to decide is to hear a system using one of the horns of interest. I'm hoping to at least have a chance to hear the Crowe ES450 horns in a nice system before year's end.
Greg,
ARRGGHHH!!!!!!!You do not have to test or build anything to listen to the horns you own.
You could have connected a series capacitor to your high frequency driver, twisted the other end of the cap around one end of your speaker wire and been listening to it in the time it took to type your last post.
Then you could hear what the squiggly lines represent.
Art
However accurate the definition, my understanding of imaging comes directly from hardware reviewers (e.g. Stereophile, Enjoythemusic, AbsoluteSound, PositiveFeedback, et al) and end users: The ability to place vocals, musical instruments and all other sounds in the recording within the venue of the recorded event in the spatial orientation most likely intended by the recording and/or mixing engineer, however competent. Sound stage would be the ability to accurately reproduce the apparent size of the recorded event in all three dimensions.
From what I see from the hrz plot here [
URL]https://exclusive-audio.jp/en/products/yo-ss300 pr_prod_strat=e5_desc&pr_rec_id=68e5e999d&pr_rec_pid=7501641318657&pr_ref_pid=7501641351425&pr_seq=uniform[/URL] , the SS-300 seems as much a CD horn as the JBL 2360A.
Obviously, you'd rate it highest for imaging and sound stage, as defined above, and frequency response and distortion than horns in post 15,501. But at > $9K a pair, which might be the best alternative?
Last edited:
The more hair, the more comb filtering. I am not going off of subjective or psychoacoustics, I am just being objective to the measured data. A fair comparison would be in the same room, same positions, etc. You said you did this comparison and I hope you have and can share the data.
Group Delay shows arrival performance as well. The more consolidated the GD, the better.
no its not. Its the result of comb filtering and reflections create it. The more reflections, the more comb filtering.
Very crude, to compare things like this, but maybe you can help us with the data you potentially have.
Imaging can be affected, as can the general acceptance of a product if the voicing isn't right or has been doctored. Combine that with the room dependence/uncertainty whether it was set up properly and voiced for the review, since it is a lengthy procedure, and then the subjective variation and you're likely to get conflicting and confusing data on which to base a technical decision.
Yeah you might wonna avoid all of that, and stick to the professionals on this board. I don't think its sinking in, Mabat and Docali, JMLC and Gedlee, for example represent the leading edge loudspeaker design and they all have or continue to grace this board with their presence. I hardly expect to get this level of expertise from an audio magazine, and its laughable that you think the opposite. If anything there are some people from the big named companies, lurking in the shadows of this forum, looking for inspiration.
Majority of End users are just as lost as you are now.
On this board you have access to people on the cutting edge as far is its going to get without big money behind them. Luckily it takes intelligence, not big money, to progress in this field. Matter fact some of the guys here are in fact employed professionals in the field with access to the simulation tools and such to help shed light. You wonder why you are still confused after so long, and you leave and keep coming back with these weird questions, its starting to get bothersome. Some of these other guys I did not mention, some who are apart of the conversation, are also professionals, obviously. This place is crawling with talent.
One of my favorite sayings; The engineers who designs the products always know more about the products, than the customers. So here you have a place influenced by these types of people. Be lucky and appreciative you found this place lol, the other boards are not so fortunate.
Oh you mean accuracy, again? You like going in circles doncha 😝 There is only, the signal. The signal has been designed by the recording, mix, and mastering engineers. The loudspeakers job is to be transparent lens into that signal. How well this is done, is a factor of accuracy. That is all. Anything else is subjective.
All 3 dimensions, are you putting together an Atmos system now? How do you think a 2 channel stereo will communicate height? spoiler - It doesn't
I am trying to pull you out of the matrix, but you think the food taste good lol
Be sure to understand that I know exactly what you have been saying, it is you who seem to be confused.
Last edited:
Of course that is true of the recording. But how could you not need such a horn to properly reproduce the apparent dimensional size of that sound stage?
That might be true if were absolutely sure that I'd want to use my Radian drivers in those 425 horns and paid Pierre for a pair of adapters. For example, I may want to use them in a horn like Marco recommends.
Instead, once I drilled out holes in the horns I likely couldn't use them with any other driver, such as Bryan's SB Audience CDNT or the still coveted Yamaha JA6681B. Besides, Troy Crowe still has my sealed Altec 416s. How could I possibly make any kind of decisive sound quality judgments without them?
The simple answer is... Stereo. Its an illusion, caused by stereo speakers lol.... The coverage width of a loudspeaker sends the stereo signal to a wider audience ,if the sweetspot is wide, but ideally they are all hearing the same thing. A wider coverage comes with its own set of faults is all. Wider coverage creates more indirect sound which in my opinion, blurs the resolution of the direct sound. A happy median is likely, and probably been, the answer for the average person. I personally prefer something more towards the side of direct sound dominate listening, and a high DI gets me there.
Because you do not actually hear the sound coming from where you think the performers are. It is all a stereo illusion.
This is the reason you may hear some of the soundstage reaching beyond your room walls.
Believe it or not, I was merely being candid as to where I had first, and, IIRC, last heard of those two terms so defined.
It's that simple.
Granted, that I would have initially relied on such sources is truly laughable, so I suppose I do deserve to get thoroughly reamed out here. FWIW, at least I had the wisdom to abandon those utterly non-professional, for-profit sites years ago. And I think it would be obvious that given the frequency of my postings here and at other threads, I have sought guidance and for some hoped for patience, almost exclusively from this forum, while grappling with, for me, have been new, if very basic, fundamentals of horn and general speaker design.
As to Pierre during our chats, I'm glad now for the opportunity to express my boundless thanks to all here who I've had the enormous privilege to do my very best to learn from. Without your shared knowledge, experience and patience I would truly lost be in my pursuit of only what I've understood to be desired criteria for speaker performance. I also apologize for my inability to apply what I've learned and/or have I've been duly advised to experiment with, due to the paucity of my DIY skills. And that half of my built speaker system is currently over 450 miles away makes it all the more undoable.
Given these personal limitations, I've tried to the best of my abilities and time constraints, to learn what I can about horn dispersion, performance terminology and measuring, combined with invaluable shared user experiences.
From these opportunities, I'd expect to make a very satisfactory horn decision by year's end, give or take some days. I would only ask for that span of time and for patience with questions perhaps too often born of less than fully understood concepts.
Again, it's been a great privilege and an invaluable experience.
Thanks to all for your shared expertise, professionalism and kindness.
Last edited:
Of course, the signal is all important as is reproducing it accurately, and do to so it certainly stands to reasons that this requires the that speakers, like the rest of the system components (?), be transparent.
But then you said That is all that a speaker should to do. Anything else is subjective. Agreed, and let's concede that though the engineering team likely used monitors worlds different to produce that recording than any of us have or will have here-but that their foresight and skills enabled them to craft a product which will sound very good to excellent on a well designed and built system.
But now it seems that in addition to sonic accuracy, sonic subjectivity must ultimately play a role, else all here would eventually end up using the same horn. Instead, many here used different horns, and certainly few of them sound the same. You even say as much about your choicee of horn in the post below.
Well, aside from the fact that I do also have some treasured mono only recordings, they are therefore devoid of any perceived 3D soundstage, yes? If so, then sound stage only lives in the recording, yes?
If so, then is what I and others must be referring to can only be the speakers' sweetspot width? But if yes, are you saying that a wide sweetspot width is only avantageous for several listeners in the room (but "ideally they are hearing the same thing"), whereas for just a single listener it's worthless-if not worse, as the indirect sound from reflections beyond the sweetspot "might" degrade the resolution of the direct sound?
Also, while it might be a silly question without comparing polars and other measurements, your horn's shape at least suggests that it may project a wider sweetspot than, say, the AH425?
Or the ES290?
If yes, why might that be desirable rather than not, at least when for solo listening?
But with your speakers do you get any sense of increased depth beyond what's evident in a particular recording?
And compared to other speakers you may have heard or own, does your horn often present a You are There sound, regardless of the recording?
Last edited:
Nope lol. Just the opposite. The crowd of people here that tend to be involved are mostly scientifically objective, Interested in accuracy, and know how to get it. A mastering monitor is the result of accuracy. A transparent lens into the signal. So once you start getting higher n higher In accuracy, systems start to sound more n more alike.... because if you are playing the same signal, how many different correct results exist? Only one.... obviously systems are different and acoustical environments are going to bring their own unique distortions in form of timbre, decay, comb filtering, dispersion, voicing, thd, etc... we call that signature. Mainstream studio gear is sort of mediocre and these horn systems are amongst the accuracy of mastering monitors. These quality horns n waveguides used effectively mated to large quality woofers are the creme of the crop. While these designers are debating details of polars n such, the average joe could only be so lucky to have such a nice system built with almost every horn/waveguide you've been discussing. Its unobtanium, the issue is the knowledge is not there. The average joe sees horns like we discussed and think "vintage" or something for a gymnasium pa system but not for high fidelity. Look at several flagship monitors and you'll see, waveguides n horns costing as much as 32,000 a pair.
I mean the goals are very similar, to accuracy and modern design. Each person is focusing on whats important to themselves because we are all listening for and expecting certain things. Accuracy and different levels of direct to indirect sound ratios is the main and constant topic though. Some guys rather use dome tweeters and mids, in highly damped rooms.
I personally was converted after hearing an Altec 2 way. After I figured out why it sounded like it did (Directivity and headroom, smooth FR, etc) and after looking at a lot of other peoples choices, and after a good amount of research I concluded that a really big horn was the answer. I think that after all normal design aspects are achieved... Directivity is the most potent aspect of accuracy in a room. The room is the nemesis of accuracy after you've built a proper loudspeaker and you can attenuate the room with acoustic damping and you can attenuate the room by focus the loudspeakers output, at the listener. Either way... remove the room enough, so you can hear the direct sound which is more accurate than the indirect is. A big horn used to increase DI and extended directivity lower into the spectrum. Simple.
Thats exactly what I was saying. Some people want to actually hear the room, or no room (me) or somewhere in between. That part is completely subjective. These 60 degree horns and waveguides are likely the happy median, particularly since its trending.
A horn/waveguide that is towards its low end, 60 degrees wide but rising DI as moving towards HF might be another happy median.
I think my top end is somewhat similar but what happens is the smaller horns open up faster. My horn is ~36" deep and wide. I went with an elliptical because I wanted to keep center to center spacing down. So my sweet spot size is likely similar as the jmlc horns actually seem to have a slightly more narrow pattern than tractrix, up top. Then again that can be designer specific. I have a 300hz elliptical tractrix also, its about 15" wide. Probably will sell it as it was a sort of test run before buying the big horn.
Think of a horn/waveguide like a sort of magnifying glass... that's why it's called an acoustical lens. Dept... is accuracy still, you are able to "see" into the mix, because the loud speaker is presenting the signal accurately. The two channel stereo is effectively doing its job to create the illusion that is stereo. When I heard Bjork The Gate and Utopia on the Altecs in a large room (high ceiling) that was acoustically tame.. the sound image was so clear that my eyes looked towards the sound, where the stereo was saying it should come from at least, almost expecting to see something lol. Never heard nothing like it at that time. I also had never heard a proper horn based two way. I later learned that directivity was the culprit. The rooms size and high ceilings did compliment the attenuation of early reflections. It can be simplified to direct sound to indirect sound ratio. Get the room out of the way, and things start to clear up...
You can get this great imaging from any quality system... just bring it outside. Large compression drivers on horns/waveguides have increased head room so that the driver is never straining. Effortless dynamics... also just accuracy lol. Accuracy in amplitude.
My speakers help me to hear a large amount of direct sound... direct sound is a loudspeakers most accurate signal.
Well, this stuff is just how we communicate what we perceive so I want to expand this stuff a bit. Some perspective on what various people might write as "sweet spot size": With two speakers, like in normal stereo, there is exactly one width of sweet spot and that is exactly equidistant to both speakers which gives the full stereo image. This is not just one spot but a line from far side of the room to exactly between your speakers and beyond if you wish. If you move to either side from this center line, even a slightest, distance to speakers changes and the phantom image is not as good anymore. This is regardless of speaker type and brand and model and size and readily apparent when early reflections are at bay like with short listening distance in relation to speaker directivity it usually is. But, if you listen farther away so that early reflections dominate perception, and it's just a mush of sound in comparison and the exact center is not that apparent anymore. One could also not be bothered by this, perhaps the image is still good enough to you even though not exactly equidistant.
There is more to sweetspot width, which I think people refer to as how much sound timbre changes regarding speaker listening axis. For an ideal constant directivity speaker sound would not change at all, only attenuate, and it is infinite sweetspot. Except for two speaker stereo there is still only one, exactly equidistant to both speakers. For not constant directivity speaker, like most speakers are, there might be only one good listening axis, and at best perhaps the whole listening window (+-30deg for example) is within 1db. The wider the good response is, the more one can utilize speaker toe-in just to tune the spatial aspects of room, optimize sound for short listening distance and long listening distance (for multiple people). If there is only one good listening axis, both speaker toe-in and listening spot need to be locked, if either moves the other one has to move to keep on pointing the one good sounding listenign axis toward listener. This now effectively disables possibility to optimize toe-in for spatial aspects of sound, sound of your room, at least makes it infinitely more cumbersome. More importantly the sound cannot be optimized for both short and long listening distance, it's just for one person at one distance. Good smooth non-beaming (relatively constant) directivity speaker is just easier to make sound good anywhere in the room at once, for short and far listening distance. I keep on repeating short and far listening distance, these have auditory system at different state and are very different perceptually, it's the "you are there" and "they are here", which are states of auditory system to my knowledge, and very much define what the illusion is. Auditory system is the main part in a playback system, it's just before your perception and needs to be indirectly aligned to your preference by manipulating the playback gear and room, positioning being biggest thing basically.
It' a wide subject, listening distance could be ideal per recording, due to how the engineers auditory system was processing sound when he tuned it, compared to yours. This stuff is mandatory to figure out for everyone themselves, my writings do not help much. There is no other way to get this but to experiment and experience the stuff. One could seek for advice from others, best would be to let someone come in and do the tuning for you and pay for it, this is something one just cannot skip to the end for best results. Or just take time and figure it out by yourself. Trying to skip it will give you some sound, as good as you could listen and tune it for, so only as good as your listening skills regarding this stuff. I'll use this meme I recently saw for illustration, altough the steps aren't exactly correct for this topic 😀
Why I'm writing this is not that me being right, or even have scientific basis correct, or to advice anyone to do anything particular. It's just that there is no way we could share our perceptions and experiences through writing, which leads to all kinds of confusion about things as we understand text against our own context, which is very different than other people context they write with, which I think I see here within the last few pages. So everyone must do the experiments themselves to understand their systems and how auditory system is involved, and to communicate effectively try to understand your own context each others contexts so communication becomes meaninful. Perceptual effects are not due to your gear, but due to how auditory system is processing sound that enters ear canal making the perception for you, and the gear must be such and positioned like so to have auditory system provide the desired perception.
There is more to sweetspot width, which I think people refer to as how much sound timbre changes regarding speaker listening axis. For an ideal constant directivity speaker sound would not change at all, only attenuate, and it is infinite sweetspot. Except for two speaker stereo there is still only one, exactly equidistant to both speakers. For not constant directivity speaker, like most speakers are, there might be only one good listening axis, and at best perhaps the whole listening window (+-30deg for example) is within 1db. The wider the good response is, the more one can utilize speaker toe-in just to tune the spatial aspects of room, optimize sound for short listening distance and long listening distance (for multiple people). If there is only one good listening axis, both speaker toe-in and listening spot need to be locked, if either moves the other one has to move to keep on pointing the one good sounding listenign axis toward listener. This now effectively disables possibility to optimize toe-in for spatial aspects of sound, sound of your room, at least makes it infinitely more cumbersome. More importantly the sound cannot be optimized for both short and long listening distance, it's just for one person at one distance. Good smooth non-beaming (relatively constant) directivity speaker is just easier to make sound good anywhere in the room at once, for short and far listening distance. I keep on repeating short and far listening distance, these have auditory system at different state and are very different perceptually, it's the "you are there" and "they are here", which are states of auditory system to my knowledge, and very much define what the illusion is. Auditory system is the main part in a playback system, it's just before your perception and needs to be indirectly aligned to your preference by manipulating the playback gear and room, positioning being biggest thing basically.
It' a wide subject, listening distance could be ideal per recording, due to how the engineers auditory system was processing sound when he tuned it, compared to yours. This stuff is mandatory to figure out for everyone themselves, my writings do not help much. There is no other way to get this but to experiment and experience the stuff. One could seek for advice from others, best would be to let someone come in and do the tuning for you and pay for it, this is something one just cannot skip to the end for best results. Or just take time and figure it out by yourself. Trying to skip it will give you some sound, as good as you could listen and tune it for, so only as good as your listening skills regarding this stuff. I'll use this meme I recently saw for illustration, altough the steps aren't exactly correct for this topic 😀
Why I'm writing this is not that me being right, or even have scientific basis correct, or to advice anyone to do anything particular. It's just that there is no way we could share our perceptions and experiences through writing, which leads to all kinds of confusion about things as we understand text against our own context, which is very different than other people context they write with, which I think I see here within the last few pages. So everyone must do the experiments themselves to understand their systems and how auditory system is involved, and to communicate effectively try to understand your own context each others contexts so communication becomes meaninful. Perceptual effects are not due to your gear, but due to how auditory system is processing sound that enters ear canal making the perception for you, and the gear must be such and positioned like so to have auditory system provide the desired perception.
Last edited: