It's not my phrase, it's a quote.
Don ends the paragraph I quote from with this comment:
"Recently Geddes has proposed new horn shapes based on oblate spherical coordinates."
Since the authority of Don's book is of no value or "doesn't mean a thing" in your view, we may as well not delve into the work of Dr. Geddes
😎🤡💩 I'm not a kindergarten teacher, so I'm stepping out of your child's play.
Ah, I see you start to be a little astigmatic, i.e. can't read very well. Should have I expected anything else?
There is not such a thing of an high constant directivity.
The directivity should be constant in any case.
So you are aiming for an high degree of directivity as well as a directivity that is as constant as possible (or within reason)
In the end it's a never ending tradeoff between spaciousness versus detail, by definition you can't have both.
Which heavily depends how good or bad the acoustics are inside the room as well and to some extend how big the room is.
Btw, I still see people misusing the word directivity as well as directivity index.
Which is very confusing to read tbh. Get your definitions straight and consistent please, thank you.
Sure you can. A sense of spaciousness doesn't have to come from room reflections. It's kind of impressive how spacious a good stereo recording can sound outdoors.
No room = big room. Ever get out of the box, literally? pun intended 😉
Oh please man, gimme a break. definitions are all over the place and always will be.
Sure, I misused "high constant directivity" ...I hope I offered enough further explanation that folks realized i was meaning constant directivity to as low a frequency as possible.
Heck, even Toole changed the definition of DI from traditional on-axis/(listening window) vs power response, to on-axis/(listening window) vs early reflections. Go tell him he should have coined a new term lol
Thank You 🙂
That's because I misunderstood your comment - thanks for the clarification.
I thought that you were talking about 1/4L using direct radiators. In that case the DI is limited to being low.
In a Danley style device you are correct that any DI can be achieved, theoretically, within limits.
Fine from now on we keep calling current instead of voltage and call tweeters woofers.
Yes I know that some people moved things around, doesn't mean it is consistent?
It's quite easy to introduce any variable with a sub number?
But I guess these days some healthy amount critique isn't allowed anymore towards some people.
Starts to sound more like a religion instead of science at some point. 🙁
Yes I know that some people moved things around, doesn't mean it is consistent?
It's quite easy to introduce any variable with a sub number?
But I guess these days some healthy amount critique isn't allowed anymore towards some people.
Starts to sound more like a religion instead of science at some point. 🙁
I would tend to disagree with you here. Blauert claims that spaciousness dominantly comes from room reflections which is why recordings in and of themselves are not really very "spacious". IMHO the solution is high DI - to get that precise imaging that comes from a direct sound free from very early reflections - and a very lively room (at HFs) to give spaciousness from later lateral reflections. That the solution that I have found works best, but I will admit that it works better for studio work than in-venue recording.
Yes, they are, and this is a problem that I keep raising all the time. Changing the definitions of the words is a common technique in argument, but it leads to confusion (intent). Staying with accepted definitions is the only way out.
Whatever gave you that idea? Spaciousness trough early reflections is a very bad idea i.m.h.o.
It might work for classical music, ask Toole for that.
One can have both though. Read more of Griesinger's work to find out what direction to take.
No little boy, don't be afraid. You only have to expect things to be reflected inside your underdeveloped ego.
Last edited:
If that sentence has any meaning at all, I only hope it's better than your technical stuff.
Honestly I expected that you would answer my technical question - Can there be a resonance within a horn without an astigmatism?
Honestly I expected that you would answer my technical question - Can there be a resonance within a horn without an astigmatism?
Changing definitions of words should have been part of the OP title for this thread...
Not for you of course, but you are forgiven.
So much for showing due compassion, back to audio.
Of course that's possible, but that was not the point in this specific (sub)case > wavefront deformation as a result of severe discontinuities/diffraction slots.
My last attempt. Resonances and waveform deformations are different things - you can't correct a deformed waveform with DSP/EQ as that's a spatial effect - different at different places. But you can correct a resonance, as long as the waveform is not severely deformed, i.e. the HOM content is negligible. Which is exactly the case for the LF resonances from a suboptimal mouth termination in camplo's horn - THAT is what I'm talking about all along and what was MY excerpt from the Gunness paper about (from a chapter called 'Horn Resonances' where he shows how it's possible to correct those).
Thanks for the follow up. Glad we were able to get on the same page.
My bad b_force, sorry for the push-back against your original correction of my misuse of terminology.
Seemed petty to me, but that's my problem, not yours or the community's.
Totally agree we should all do our best to use the correct terminology, correctly . 🙂
Yep, i think what you are saying is widely accepted for many good reasons.
The 'spaciousness' i hear from outdoor stereo is more of a 'LRC across the stage' type of image, than any sort of 3D envelopment.
Also, most of what i listen to is studio work, not classical or other genres where the sound of the venue is a major part of the recording.
It makes good sense to me that a 3D sense of envelopment requires late arriving HF reflections.
As does your solution.
Outside or a very large space is naturally spacious physically and acoustically...
From there you can set your base parameters in an attempt to create these conditions in a small room.
A spacious, space, can be lively or dead...
A large room vs outside in a field...
It would seem the major contributor is the arrival time or the re
Tail length, diffuse, reflective tone, and other parameters that are commonly found on reverb modules reflect (no pun intended). This seems to reflect the rooms material aspects.
Bass resonance could possibly be hidden as direct energy, thus the focus on late arriving HF....
any sense in that?
From there you can set your base parameters in an attempt to create these conditions in a small room.
A spacious, space, can be lively or dead...
A large room vs outside in a field...
It would seem the major contributor is the arrival time or the re
Tail length, diffuse, reflective tone, and other parameters that are commonly found on reverb modules reflect (no pun intended). This seems to reflect the rooms material aspects.
Bass resonance could possibly be hidden as direct energy, thus the focus on late arriving HF....
any sense in that?
Last edited:
Regarding the "resonances" another term that is correct and misleading at the same time... I believe we talking about the peaks and troughs near cutoff...
Is the excursion following the inverse trend of the sensitivity?
I imagine pressure volatility in the FR in question. If that is true, "loading" is phasing in and out so thus the peaks will result as higher displacement efficiency than the troughs....this thinking is the reason why I chose to point to thd in the trough near cutoff in an earlier post...excursion being the limiting factor would make the spl vs thd characteristics of the trough, the point to look to regarding limitation of headroom, in so many words.
When I use eq to smooth out the response it will still be the previous trough areas that will peak in excursion over the areas where loading takes place...
unless I got that completely wrong lol