I like this polar representation, it's very enlightening. An accurate visual analog of the sound field. I may have to look into doing my plots that way.
Earl, it doesn't have to be a contest between your design preferences and Danley designs.
They simply cater to different design goals and preferences....a goal of HF optimization vs a goal of full-range optimization ..(as i see it).
And it is a giant mistake to think Synergy type designs are not capable of competing as top quality playback monitors, that they are the province of high SPL only.
I haven't hear anything as startling clear as my current synergy version...which has 4 xovers in it btw....that you can't find evidence of
Fantasy? not a chance. Sorry if you're not interested in other's progress and innovations
I have been sold on the synergy sound ever since I heard Scott Hinson's DIY synergy horns -Earl, it doesn't have to be a contest between your design preferences and Danley designs.
They simply cater to different design goals and preferences....a goal of HF optimization vs a goal of full-range optimization ..(as i see it).
And it is a giant mistake to think Synergy type designs are not capable of competing as top quality playback monitors, that they are the province of high SPL only.
I haven't hear anything as startling clear as my current synergy version...which has 4 xovers in it btw....that you can't find evidence of
Fantasy? not a chance. Sorry if you're not interested in other's progress and innovations
But, I didn't think I had enough time and energy left to learn how to make them. So, I have settled on the classic 2-way monitor. It comes in second; a nice second.
I was just thinking, "whats the short falls"... a lot of summing going on vs a more traditional speaker. Somehow, FR isn't the smoothest with the this type of approach 🤷♂️ Maybe fixable with eq? The Danely SH50 is +/- 5.78db.
It was said once that FIR does wonders with Coaxial, I bet it works great with synergy
I would think that there are consequences to the synergy but maybe not much. Is it possible a 2 or 3 way speaker with enough listening distance to sum well, has slightly higher fidelity than a synergy?
It was said once that FIR does wonders with Coaxial, I bet it works great with synergy
I would think that there are consequences to the synergy but maybe not much. Is it possible a 2 or 3 way speaker with enough listening distance to sum well, has slightly higher fidelity than a synergy?
Not based on my audition of them in DSL's two story? concrete floor, block walls, tin? roofed warehouse back when they were building the Matterhorn. Using the Spiderman 3? BD (big storm scene with lightning) which interested me most since I've been near several of them and hit once on a ricochet.
In short, it's the only system to date that's raised the hair on my arms and believe me when I say I 'turned over' every 'stone' I knew about to make my late huge horn system do it to no avail, so for me it can't get anymore realistic. A Dianna Krall live performance BD was stellar also, but then didn't/don't have youthful hearing compared to the various women, few young men that I used to guide my fine tuning of systems, so FWIW/YMMV.
In short, it's the only system to date that's raised the hair on my arms and believe me when I say I 'turned over' every 'stone' I knew about to make my late huge horn system do it to no avail, so for me it can't get anymore realistic. A Dianna Krall live performance BD was stellar also, but then didn't/don't have youthful hearing compared to the various women, few young men that I used to guide my fine tuning of systems, so FWIW/YMMV.
Allow me to play devils advocate;
Did the systems you compare, have equivalent Sd
What about the improvement of FR via multi source bass
Its not hard to match the dynamics of the Danely designs. Its as simple as accumulating headroom. The allure must be in the centralization of the source. No less than the appeal of Coaxial and Full range, but taking it to next level by extending LF and headroom.
Are they achieving +/-2.5 db on these types of builds? Should we expect even better than that from a Mastering Monitor?
I know we've talked about this long ago and likely throughout, but I ask, where do we set the bar for expectations of Anechoic FR for a mastering monitor? I'd say about 2.5db to 2db margin of error but I am just guessing with some education.
You can use FIR filter and make system response to +/-0.5db easily, exactly target response, to any particular axis. But, all depends on the physical construct how good it is acoustically. Edge diffraction for example can easily make 2.5db swings to frequency response, resonances, room, all sorts of acoustic things that can make the response vary to other axi which might reflect to listening position if room is involved. If you manage to build constant directivity system, and have it problem free, use FIR straighten it out, you've got target frequency response at main listening position!
Last edited:
The way the Listening Window tracks the On Axis curve in the Danley Horn, as well as the smooth Sound Power DI is (i.m.h.o.) a clear indication of the true potential of the SH50 after EQ.
The fun part is that it has this kind of performance at all angles within the listening window, up, down, left, right, close, far...
The fun part is that it has this kind of performance at all angles within the listening window, up, down, left, right, close, far...
There is value for listening window response in simulator. Between power response, listening window and design axis response one can see if the design axis contains issues and not overcompensate. At least the 0-axis response could be traded off for smooth listening window and power response if the speaker is planned to be toed in some. Comparing the responses also helps to evaluate how good the system acoustic performance is. If all responses are smooth its pretty good and no need to build another better measuring construct
For home situations at < rock concert levels, the answer is unequivocally Yes. Will this always be the case? No It all depends on the specifics of the designs.
Does one approach lend itself better to optimum performance than the other? Again, I rely on my engineering experience to say that simplicity is more efficient at optimization than complexity. Both can be optimized to probably the same extent, but one is going to be easier and more readily optimized than the other.
I think your margin or error is quite reasonable, and a worthwhile goal....at least on-axis or whatever near center axis in chosen to be the reference axis.
All the synegies I've built don't measure as well directly on-axis as they do 10 or so degrees off-axis.
By measure well, I mean when tuned to a particular reference axis, the measurements away from the refence axis stay within an acceptable margin of error.
Typically, and a bit unknown to me why, 0 deg H&V often ends with the most variation of any measurement within the "listening window". And it's worse the more symmetric the horns H&V patterns are.
I think directly on-axis issue might have something to do with Erin's measurements of the SH-50, which look much more ragged than I would have expected. I know he talks about the quandary he faced on how to measure it, and discussions with Tom. I certainly trust his work, but am left wondering how well the NFS system fits a narrow horn system...or for that matter a dipole or a line array etc . Simply dunno.
With regards to "listening window", it's all i bother with trying to smooth polars anymore. And I do it mainly because I walk around a lot, listen from other rooms, indoors and out, yada yada. And it makes sense to try to widen the area of sonic purity (from a single axis).
Plus, optimizing to a window, instead of a spot, is a way of assuring FIR corrections aren't too heavy handed.
Oh Ron, I think you're spot on about the SH-50's consistency between the Listening widow and on ax. Should make for easy FIR correction (which Tom has said he did once for his home SH-50s)
Not that it matters to the discussion, but the reason I don't even bother with polars outside the "listening window" (which for me ends at +/- 30 degrees),
is that for every speaker i built, from conventional 2-3 ways, thru 8 versions of synergies, all the work went into trying to achieve smooth directivity as wide as possible consistent with the speakers design.
On-ax tuning was trivial with FIR (especially linear phase), so CEA-2034 looked like the holy grail to pursue for true excellence.
Well, the 2-3 ways were pretty easy to get smooth polars, but didn't sound as good as the synergies. The synergies polars got better and better as I worked to curve secondary flairs etc, different port arrangements, etc,
But the sound didn't really seem to improve indoors. Certainly not worth the time and effort.
Anyway...i'm getting less and less sold on CEA-2034. But so what,that's just me....
Hey folks, double 18" synergy in progress....
Repurposing syn9 v2's 75x60 horn. It's cool because it already has sealed chambers for both 12"s and 4"s. So all I have to do is fit the 18"s and build a big **** box around it all. I think I have just enough wood left....i hear baltic birch is simply unattainable in the states now....
Mark the answer is in your own question
The 0 degree on axis of anything is where the worst affects of diffraction and reflection will be seen, if you equalize to this it will likely be a mess as it is the only that axis that has an issue. Likewise if you normalize to this it will look bad. A conical horn has a very flat DI which makes this worse and if you make them symmetrical you come closer to a round shape which has the worst diffraction and reflection if not terminated properly.The listening window is meant to be more representative of what is actually heard as it does not contain all the lumps and bumps of the 0 degree response. Your ears aren't in the same place on your head and it's very hard not to move around at all whilst listening so a single anechoic axis is unlikely to be reflective of what is heard unless the speaker has very controlled directivity within that range and the single axis is not the 0 degree one.
The same thing happens to coaxial speakers very rarely do they measure well straight on but things get much better at 10 degrees or more off axis.
The same as any other, the more complicated the directivity is the more measurement points need to be made, line arrays are particularly difficult and need a different technique.
When you make something big enough the negative effects are pushed down in frequency and become harder to hear particularly if they are then into the transition zone. What makes sense to improve at one frequency does not apply the same across the board.
It is a data measurement display format what is there to be sold on?
It may be touted that way but I'm not really buying this, nor does it seem either a fair representation of reality or the best way to approach evaluating the issues you mention.
For that matter does anyone get the impression that the spinorama may be better placed for evaluating commercial speakers of a conventional configuration, than for designing them when they may not always be of a conventional configuration?
Opinions are free, I don't have anything to sell so a buyer isn't necessary.
What do you think is the best and fairest approach?
Yep, thx fluid.... i know all that, not sure why i said i don't...Mark the answer is in your own question
Well. imo CEA-2034 is a data measurement display designed to promote the importance of smooth directivity.
(I leave out promoting frequency magnitude response too, because that has long been universally accepted as important)
Personally, i'm questioning how high smooth directivity ranks in achieving best SQ.
I'm thinking once a certain (perhaps low) threshold is met, there not much to be gained. But of course, that's mainly my rank speculation on not hearing much difference in smooth vs more ragged polars.