The primary reason why the horn speakers tend to sound harsh and unforgiving is, its directivity is flat. Mastering studio's using speakers with dome tweeters (recording studio monitors are rarely used in mastering studios), and they have a dip around 2K in the room due to non flat directivity, because they master recordings for "average" consumer speakers which also has this dip. Just make a dip around 2K for a few dB with EQ, and the horn sounds much more versatile across many recordings. BBC monitor (nearfirld) has this dip, B&W and many other high end consumer speakers, too. They know what they are doing. It's a history, not a science. Some may want to advocate flat directivity speakers for commercial or scientific reasons, but since the source is not flat, so listening it without compensation is not too far from listening vinyl without RIAA.
Last edited:
From Linkwitz website:
"H - Psycho-acoustic 3 kHz dip
Our perception of loudness is slightly different for sounds arriving frontally versus sounds arriving from random directions at our ears. The difference between equal-loudness-level contours in frontal free-fields and diffuse sound fields is documented, for example, in ISO Recommendation 454 and in E. Zwicker, H. Fastl, Psycho-acoustics, p. 205.
Diffuse field equalization of dummy-head recordings is discussed in J. Blauert, Spatial Hearing, pp. 363, and headphone diffuse field equalization by G. Theile in JAES, Vol. 34, No. 12.
Reference to a slight dip in the 1 to 3 kHz region for loudspeaker equalization is made in H. D. Harwood (BBC Research Department), Some factors in loudspeaker quality, Wireless World, May 1976, p.48.
Around 3 kHz our hearing is less sensitive to diffuse fields. Recording microphones, though, are usually flat in frequency response even under diffuse field conditions. When such recordings are played back over loudspeakers, there is more energy in the 3 kHz region than we would have perceived if present at the recording venue and a degree of unnaturalness is introduced.
This applies primarily to recordings of large orchestral pieces in concert halls where the microphones are much closer to the instruments than any listener. At most listening positions in the hall the sound field has strong diffuse components."
Depending on the crossover, I'd prefer to eq/shelf 1-4K.
"H - Psycho-acoustic 3 kHz dip
Our perception of loudness is slightly different for sounds arriving frontally versus sounds arriving from random directions at our ears. The difference between equal-loudness-level contours in frontal free-fields and diffuse sound fields is documented, for example, in ISO Recommendation 454 and in E. Zwicker, H. Fastl, Psycho-acoustics, p. 205.
Diffuse field equalization of dummy-head recordings is discussed in J. Blauert, Spatial Hearing, pp. 363, and headphone diffuse field equalization by G. Theile in JAES, Vol. 34, No. 12.
Reference to a slight dip in the 1 to 3 kHz region for loudspeaker equalization is made in H. D. Harwood (BBC Research Department), Some factors in loudspeaker quality, Wireless World, May 1976, p.48.
Around 3 kHz our hearing is less sensitive to diffuse fields. Recording microphones, though, are usually flat in frequency response even under diffuse field conditions. When such recordings are played back over loudspeakers, there is more energy in the 3 kHz region than we would have perceived if present at the recording venue and a degree of unnaturalness is introduced.
This applies primarily to recordings of large orchestral pieces in concert halls where the microphones are much closer to the instruments than any listener. At most listening positions in the hall the sound field has strong diffuse components."
Depending on the crossover, I'd prefer to eq/shelf 1-4K.
First lets make it clear that...
So the WESTMINSTER ROYAL's...Is it not a backloaded horn design, which would impactfully reduce excursion? I'm sure that with the introduction of heavy bass material things would change unless there is a highpass filter to prevent large excursions. Just saying. Someone made the comment about the high passing of a coaxial to minimize the doppler effect (IMD) and I completely agree
....IMD on the frequency plane is Doppler effect.
So the WESTMINSTER ROYAL's...Is it not a backloaded horn design, which would impactfully reduce excursion? I'm sure that with the introduction of heavy bass material things would change unless there is a highpass filter to prevent large excursions. Just saying. Someone made the comment about the high passing of a coaxial to minimize the doppler effect (IMD) and I completely agree
Last edited:
This one of several recent post that are extremely valuable, thanks you for this. When I read it, I can help but imagine that instead of directivity you meant to say frequency response because you can't just use eq to so easil;y change the directivity of a speaker.
f you could provide some data to solidify this statement that would be great. Just because a B&W has a diip around 2k as you say does not stop the engineer from eqing the system back to flat using room correction. I do agree that mastering is meant to be perceived well on the average consumer product....for that same reason I have a pair of 4" two ways + 1" dome.....5-4" being the most popular bookshelf speaker design on Amazon.
f you could provide some data to solidify this statement that would be great. Just because a B&W has a diip around 2k as you say does not stop the engineer from eqing the system back to flat using room correction. I do agree that mastering is meant to be perceived well on the average consumer product....for that same reason I have a pair of 4" two ways + 1" dome.....5-4" being the most popular bookshelf speaker design on Amazon.
Last edited:
Much more info about this 1-4 Khz phenomenon in this thread: Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center
This particular "flaw" of listening to stereo speakers in the usual triangle becomes increasingly more obvious when the early reflection levels are low or non existent. A speaker with a wider dispersion pattern would hide it way more than a horn setup with low diffraction and low early reflections. Measure a stereo sweep at one ear with a dummy head (I did) and it becomes quite obvious what is going on. A true life source coming from the front or it's Stereo reproduction (the phantom part) will be quite different in frequency response as summed at our ears.
This particular "flaw" of listening to stereo speakers in the usual triangle becomes increasingly more obvious when the early reflection levels are low or non existent. A speaker with a wider dispersion pattern would hide it way more than a horn setup with low diffraction and low early reflections. Measure a stereo sweep at one ear with a dummy head (I did) and it becomes quite obvious what is going on. A true life source coming from the front or it's Stereo reproduction (the phantom part) will be quite different in frequency response as summed at our ears.
I don't think this deliberatly, mono listening is the only way to assess quality of reproduction of a loudspeaker design ( drivers, box,... keeping away the issues related to stereo).
Then you apply the dip and listen to stereo with matched speakers.
Mono listening definitely has an advantage, but I think they should also do stereo listening test before publishing their conclusion. Their research paper is somewhat misleading because they lack this perspective. 2-4K harshness issue (mastering and comb filtering) has been one of the most confusing matter among audiophiles.
I would like to take a little time to show thanks. The wealth of information you guys are providing is so much appreciated. This goes to show that humans working together, is a marvelous force. Especially when one can set aside prejudice of race, color, and creed. If humanity could only figure this out on a large scale. In this thread we have people from literally just about any where in the world contributing. Thanks to the anonymity of an internet forum interaction, naturally, yet superficially, stimulated prejudice potential is minimized, leading to great efficacy. I obsess over this thread, hence my emotional connection, as well, this design represents a level achievement of financial freedom, in my life, that only has been actualized in the last several years (I'm 37), too which my father was able to witness before he passed away this spring. So I always planned to name them the "Overtones" which is play upon my last name. So really, to a lot of you, this is just another Diy project in the list of many others, for me there is a sentimental attachment, and I most genuinely thank you all for being apart of this journey!!!
I would like to include you all in the decisions involving finish, a department of which I need no advice but rather, out of honor of your participation would like to have your influence be apart of this aspect, as well, in particular, the ones of you, that have been the most pivotal and energetic a long the way. I've been watching youtube videos on how to paint wood grain, how to create finishes in epoxy resin and lately, videos where they have used epoxy resin to create wood grain...So not to shift topics all of a sudden because I am pretty engrossed in what we are currently discussing but, if you actually want a say in the finish, speak up at any point.
Camplo
I would like to include you all in the decisions involving finish, a department of which I need no advice but rather, out of honor of your participation would like to have your influence be apart of this aspect, as well, in particular, the ones of you, that have been the most pivotal and energetic a long the way. I've been watching youtube videos on how to paint wood grain, how to create finishes in epoxy resin and lately, videos where they have used epoxy resin to create wood grain...So not to shift topics all of a sudden because I am pretty engrossed in what we are currently discussing but, if you actually want a say in the finish, speak up at any point.
Camplo
It´s possible with a ONE way system.... Esl63
Are you sure about that?
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...ctrum-spl-low-distortion-2-a.html#post5717461
Don't take me wrong those are ( really) nice loudspeakers but, 110/114db spl @ 30hz, you'll need to stack a lot of panels!
Last edited:
Hi Camplo,
Mono loudspeaker, not mono monitored thru stereo.
The point being stereo is an illusion so if you begin to determine the quality of a design thru an already 'flawed' process you most certainly end up with unsatisfactory results or at least uncertain results.
First difficulty you'll encounter with stereo being which kind of couple to use: a/b, x/y, ortf, nos, dummy head...? All have their strength and flaws. Then which reference of mic? At which distance? Well you got the point it is endless.
From some discussion with pro loudspeakers designers they do this, all of the one i talked with.
And they choose a collection of acoustic source they know well: from 'mono' instruments ( human voice included) to recording (omni mics) of real life environment they know very well ( backyards, balcony,...).
It helps evaluating the choice made in the design and the compromise which had to be made.
Then you do listening in stereo.
The bbc dip got me bemused in professional context. I still don't know if it is nescessary. After all if you know your tools ( sorry to be redundant about something you already know
) and your target's results you can do without. This is what we do all time about mic's, the way to use them, the effects and the illusion we try to build.But Plasnu is right 'mastering' monitors are different than control room monitors ( the rooms too, mastering being more in line with domestic's one -for most of them not all).
My experience proved me it isn't a nescessary requirement if you know what and why you are doing things.But one things is for sure to me: i won't master in tthe same place as where i mixed or tracked something, and if possible with differents loudspeakers: there is too high a chance you can't correct the room/loudspeakers couple related issues.
Camplo, thank you starting this thread. I think many of us ( at least me) learned a lot from this discussion about your project and this is just ...great.
Last edited:
Thank you for your participation, you've definitely added to the value of the thread yourself!
I do have question regarding more technical things....Crossovers
In this battle of removing "multiple arrivals" or at least, shortening the distance in time between the whole lot of them, the crossover is a source, of them. Theory would suggest that a steep crossover is preferable, though a 48db crossover has its own flaws, how is it that technology has not created a type of filter where one can set a designated target frequency, lets say a high pass, set at 200hz...and nothing under 200hz is sent to that channel....literally. Like a brickwall filter, or maybe infinite-Db high/lowpass. The goal here obviously, creating the smallest crossover-band, possible.
I do have question regarding more technical things....Crossovers
In this battle of removing "multiple arrivals" or at least, shortening the distance in time between the whole lot of them, the crossover is a source, of them. Theory would suggest that a steep crossover is preferable, though a 48db crossover has its own flaws, how is it that technology has not created a type of filter where one can set a designated target frequency, lets say a high pass, set at 200hz...and nothing under 200hz is sent to that channel....literally. Like a brickwall filter, or maybe infinite-Db high/lowpass. The goal here obviously, creating the smallest crossover-band, possible.
Hi Camplo,
Mono loudspeaker, not mono monitored thru stereo.
The point being stereo is an illusion so if you begin to determine the quality of a design thru an already 'flawed' process you most certainly end up with unsatisfactory results or at least uncertain results.
First difficulty you'll encounter with stereo being which kind of couple to use: a/b, x/y, ortf, nos, dummy head...? All have their strength and flaws. Then which reference of mic? At which distance? Well you got the point it is endless.
From some discussion with pro loudspeakers designers they do this, all of the one i talked with.
And they choose a collection of acoustic source they know well: from 'mono' instruments ( human voice included) to recording (omni mics) of real life environment they know very well ( backyards, balcony,...).
It helps evaluating the choice made in the design and the compromise which had to be made.
Then you do listening in stereo.
The bbc dip got me bemused in professional context. I still don't know if it is nescessary. After all if you know your tools ( sorry to be redundant about something you already know
But Plasnu is right 'mastering' monitors are different than control room monitors ( the rooms too, mastering being more in line with domestic's one -for most of them not all).
My experience proved me it isn't a nescessary requirement if you know what and why you are doing things.But one things is for sure to me: i won't master in tthe same place as where i mixed or tracked something, and if possible with differents loudspeakers: there is too high a chance you can't correct the room/loudspeakers couple related issues.
Camplo, thank you starting this thread. I think many of us ( at least me) learned a lot from this discussion about your project and this is just ...great.
I would think that for mixing and/or mastering you would not want to include any dips around 1-4 KHz to the speakers used. You're just trying to create the perfect composition on known good tools.
I find that for my purpose, using speakers at home I get benefits from tweaks like that. But that is catered to have the most pleasurable sound I can get. I also use a virtual Haas Kicker, as I don't have the room to do it with diffusive panels etc. But you wouldn't want to use that in a studio either, as it does tend to make everything sound a little better (if used sparingly).
Purpose build speakers for content creation should be as honest as possible. Measurably good would be my choice. Catering for pleasurable home replay may deviate from that
.