Thank you for explaining to me why all sources sound the same when replayed through low wattage triode amps with sensitive speakers or high wattage solid state amps with insensitive speakers.
All recorded music is subject to compromise, all recording media lose part of the signal, all replay media fail to replay the signal perfectly, speakers least of all. Many of the inevitable compromises in the chain are social and psychological in origin, rather than based on audio science. For example, why is the drummer in the middle of the soundstage? In the studio he's over there in a little room, but from our lived experience we expect the drummer to be centre rear.
I'm not saying let's abandon science, but let's understand it's not all engineering.
steve, I know it may be difficult for you to wrap your head around, but it is 100% true - a logical truism in fact - that as you converge around "perfection" things tend to sound rather similar.
Nothing like applying a little hyperoble??
The issue has not one thing to do with the type of amp nor the type of speakers. Rather it is a pragmatic reality.
I made ZERO judgement as to what the differences might sound like, or what will sound better. You have inferred something that is different than I said.
The reason, steve, that the "drummer" sounds in the middle even though he is recorded in a "little room" is that most modern recordings are done as multi-tracked pan-potted mono, not true stereo. Try purchasing some actually recorded in true stereo recordings and you may find a different outcome??
I never said that it was all anything, engineering or otherwise.
There is a huge art in the design of the systems we use... part of that art is knowing the things that i mentioned and using all the tools available to obtain the best compromise(s) with the tools and materials at hand.
The point remains that as you get closer to that point of perfection there are fewer and fewer differences in the sound - it doesn't matter what direction you come from just that you get there!! 😀
_-_-bear
Nothing like applying a little hyperoble??
The issue has not one thing to do with the type of amp nor the type of speakers. Rather it is a pragmatic reality.
I made ZERO judgement as to what the differences might sound like, or what will sound better. You have inferred something that is different than I said.
The reason, steve, that the "drummer" sounds in the middle even though he is recorded in a "little room" is that most modern recordings are done as multi-tracked pan-potted mono, not true stereo. Try purchasing some actually recorded in true stereo recordings and you may find a different outcome??
I never said that it was all anything, engineering or otherwise.
There is a huge art in the design of the systems we use... part of that art is knowing the things that i mentioned and using all the tools available to obtain the best compromise(s) with the tools and materials at hand.
The point remains that as you get closer to that point of perfection there are fewer and fewer differences in the sound - it doesn't matter what direction you come from just that you get there!! 😀
_-_-bear
Bear, I agree with you 100%. But for the reasons stated it is clear to me that we are an awfully long way from the perfect reproduction of music. I have also made no judgement as to the superiority of one means of replay over another.
My example of the drummer is just to show that much recorded music is a fiction. I would happily listen to more true stereo recordings. How many mics? how much processing on the board? How much postproduction?
My point is that because we all have ears and brains and desires and expectations, because we are human, our ideals of perfection are very different.
My example of the drummer is just to show that much recorded music is a fiction. I would happily listen to more true stereo recordings. How many mics? how much processing on the board? How much postproduction?
My point is that because we all have ears and brains and desires and expectations, because we are human, our ideals of perfection are very different.
Didn't expect 'Perfection' and 'Karlson' talked about in the same thread!
My "logical truism" in audio that when I get converge on "perfection" I am reading an advertisement.
Love to hear more about Karlsons. Perfect or not they seem like an under explored concept.
MrKramer
My "logical truism" in audio that when I get converge on "perfection" I am reading an advertisement.
Love to hear more about Karlsons. Perfect or not they seem like an under explored concept.
MrKramer
interesting question, how close are we to perfection and, at least theoretically, convergence?
BTW, ALL recorded music is a fiction and all reproduced sound likewise. There is no coherent definition of "Chicago Sym Orch" in my living room, eh. Or any recording, really. Granted, we can have tastes, but only a very old fashioned (or amateur) engineer would have fantasies about "reality."
Of course, not purely a matter of tastes. Recently I greatly goosed my tweeters an extra hundred watts and now brass at realistic (hence, ear-aching) levels in a major symphony (say, Hovhaness... the one where he imitates Mt. St. Helens exploding) is quite a treat. Have my "tastes" changed suddenly?
We all agree that compromise is the operative word. I use a Klipschorn. The only special advantage it has as a woofer (besides bragging rights and low distortion) is that it far and away wafts more air in the room in its passband than anything else. Sensible compromise?
BTW, ALL recorded music is a fiction and all reproduced sound likewise. There is no coherent definition of "Chicago Sym Orch" in my living room, eh. Or any recording, really. Granted, we can have tastes, but only a very old fashioned (or amateur) engineer would have fantasies about "reality."
Of course, not purely a matter of tastes. Recently I greatly goosed my tweeters an extra hundred watts and now brass at realistic (hence, ear-aching) levels in a major symphony (say, Hovhaness... the one where he imitates Mt. St. Helens exploding) is quite a treat. Have my "tastes" changed suddenly?
We all agree that compromise is the operative word. I use a Klipschorn. The only special advantage it has as a woofer (besides bragging rights and low distortion) is that it far and away wafts more air in the room in its passband than anything else. Sensible compromise?
Um...I think they are "under explored" because it doesnt take an expert to notice the response problems they create 😉
Don't want to seem a big defender of ancient Karlson (hare-brained) theory but....
1. some things that strike the eyeball as really awful on data graphs have no aural consequences,
2. there are two separate aspects to the Karlson - front and back. Each has some analogy to the TH (with the same two realms) which is vastly revered in this forum. Each is like a whole different realm of analysis,
3. this thread shows some agreement, oddly enough, that compromising and mixing-and-matching priorities are necessary. Some of us have a fondness for the lively sound of a Karlson, peaks and all and that may matter more and even sound better to lots of people, than more "analytic" (read: dry) speakers, such as the New England sound I mentioned previously.
Last edited:
By the responses from people who actually listen to them, it seems they do something very 'right' in-spite of the obvious problems they create. That fits my description of under explored.
MrKramer
MrKramer
Yeah, they are, mostly because folks have a hard time 'rapping their mind around' an 8th order BP. Still, I found that they need to be limited to ~250 -400 Hz same as the short BLH its meant to mimic in less bulk to keep it from sounding too 'colorful' through the mids, lower HF.
This judgment call was made back in the days of 'lush' vinyl though and with the typical CD's overly 'dry' presentation, it may not be so bad, but it will still be awhile before I can build/experiment to find out; plus I've never heard them with any of the drivers they were optimized for, so I'll need a '50s-'60s era Altec 604.
GM
This judgment call was made back in the days of 'lush' vinyl though and with the typical CD's overly 'dry' presentation, it may not be so bad, but it will still be awhile before I can build/experiment to find out; plus I've never heard them with any of the drivers they were optimized for, so I'll need a '50s-'60s era Altec 604.
GM
Oh, I don't buy 6th order or 8th order or tapped horn theories tell the whole story.
This system is a synergy of too darn many things that defy such simple equations.
Maybe if someone wants to run CFD over the entire enclosure into a half space,
that sort of math might mean something.
I more than half suspect this thing is shaped to throw a vortex that propagates
and disperses somewhat different than the usual rule. Hardly the only weird trick
being simultaneously exploited to advantage...
This system is a synergy of too darn many things that defy such simple equations.
Maybe if someone wants to run CFD over the entire enclosure into a half space,
that sort of math might mean something.
I more than half suspect this thing is shaped to throw a vortex that propagates
and disperses somewhat different than the usual rule. Hardly the only weird trick
being simultaneously exploited to advantage...
Well, WRT its box loading gain BW it does as is proven by its impedance, response plots. Bill Woods posted measurements using just a flat panel to create a couple of different area rectangular vents in lieu of wings that proves this, though I don't recall if this was the point of his experiment. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this part of its design.
The reflex vent's shape does affect its polar and HF response and if it extends up into the previous chamber will misalign it as Freddy has shown in measurements.
GM
The reflex vent's shape does affect its polar and HF response and if it extends up into the previous chamber will misalign it as Freddy has shown in measurements.
GM
GM, a High Pass or a Low Pass?? Unclear your meaning...
Ben, it's pointless to spend time explaining the many issues and problems in the K-horn... and how do you add an "extra hundred watts" to any tweeter??
Mine fwiw, max out at 40 watts, and then they are doing in the high 120dB range, and no I never run them so that the average level is even above 100dB... well not normally.
There are a number of labels that specialize in true and direct 2 channel recordings and releases. One is Chesky. Many recordings are a single double diaphragm mic and nothing else. Mapleshade, I think does 2 mic recordings... others as well... better still grab ur mics and a recorder, go out and make ur own recordings at the local jazz club?? Then you can hear real stereo, no "mastering" and see what you see... 😀
_-_-bear
Ben, it's pointless to spend time explaining the many issues and problems in the K-horn... and how do you add an "extra hundred watts" to any tweeter??
Mine fwiw, max out at 40 watts, and then they are doing in the high 120dB range, and no I never run them so that the average level is even above 100dB... well not normally.
There are a number of labels that specialize in true and direct 2 channel recordings and releases. One is Chesky. Many recordings are a single double diaphragm mic and nothing else. Mapleshade, I think does 2 mic recordings... others as well... better still grab ur mics and a recorder, go out and make ur own recordings at the local jazz club?? Then you can hear real stereo, no "mastering" and see what you see... 😀
_-_-bear
I was only pointing out that it has been explored and proven to be an inaccurate design. Yes, speaker design should be about accuracy too and not subjective opinion posted anywhere online. I ignore subjective opinion since everyone has a HUGE set of different parameters. Remember there are thousands and thousands of happy BOSE owners in the world too 😉 Hence, I never accept the "It sounds great to me" opinion blindly.
Maybe its under explored by those who do not concern themselves with measurements and accuracy (the rest of us do not care about it). You should just go build one and enjoy its inaccurate response 😉
Last edited:
"extra hundred watts" increase to amp driving the tweeters which lets me crank them up to Martin Logan tweeter loudness. Claim what you want, there's no way to make a recorded group of trombones and trumpets blast realistically in your music room. Which leads me to bear's second quote.
The recording approach of "two mics separated by a coconut" is no more coherent or necessary as a recording logic than the goal of "Chicago Symphony Orchestra playing in my living room" is. Just a case of engineers using their brains abstractly too much and reading psychology too little (not a weakness at Gedlee company).
To provide just a single point of refutation: having a mic near the woodwinds and cranking it up during their part is CLOSER to concert hall hearing than the coconut concept.... if the listener is a human.
Footnote apropos question of anonymity of speakers: yes, the Karlson sounds like a cello. But then horns kind of play brass really well (hope that isn't just my imagination). Could be a few reasons for that in each case and it could be based on illusion, artifact, some kind of aural analogy (for example, Karlsons have a lively resonant woody sound), or accuracy of reproduction. The question then becomes, how well do Karlsons or horns play other things?
Last edited:
Yeah, the K-15 is a musical instrument speaker all by itself, so factor in the limited BW/dynamics/high output impedance systems it was designed for and it makes much more sense than it does today where only 'girl with a guitar' type recordings are apropos. Ditto traditional compression loaded horns.
GM
"explored and proven to be an inaccurate design"
Alright, Ill buy that.
As for subjective opinion? I had an engineering friend tell me once that artists run algorithms in their heads that they don't understand. Especially in a thread called "lets discuss Karlson", lets not dismiss those subjective comments so quickly. Perhaps there are some interesting algorithms we can extract!
Quick thoughts/questions
Keep hearing certain instruments sound 'live'. Is that just added reverb or something more?
The point about limiting them to 250-400hz sounds sensible yet many seem to run them with fullrange or coaxials. Is there any reason to look at the midrange or higher? What about real bass? How low makes sense?
Lower cone movement. This is great. Has anyone measured this? Loading front and back seems like a great achievement to me.
Is the Karlson more than the sum of its parts or can we break it out into strategies we can apply elsewhere? Slot, front cavity, etc. I admit I havent read all bazillion posts regarding BIBs but I think the BIBk with a slot turned out alright. How about the suggestion from Magnetar way back when of adding K-wings to an H baffle? Sounds like there is a lot of potential here.
Can we design/make a modern Karlson?
If we sprinkle it with some magic accuracy dust, would it still be a Karlson?
MrKramer
Alright, Ill buy that.
As for subjective opinion? I had an engineering friend tell me once that artists run algorithms in their heads that they don't understand. Especially in a thread called "lets discuss Karlson", lets not dismiss those subjective comments so quickly. Perhaps there are some interesting algorithms we can extract!
Quick thoughts/questions
Keep hearing certain instruments sound 'live'. Is that just added reverb or something more?
The point about limiting them to 250-400hz sounds sensible yet many seem to run them with fullrange or coaxials. Is there any reason to look at the midrange or higher? What about real bass? How low makes sense?
Lower cone movement. This is great. Has anyone measured this? Loading front and back seems like a great achievement to me.
Is the Karlson more than the sum of its parts or can we break it out into strategies we can apply elsewhere? Slot, front cavity, etc. I admit I havent read all bazillion posts regarding BIBs but I think the BIBk with a slot turned out alright. How about the suggestion from Magnetar way back when of adding K-wings to an H baffle? Sounds like there is a lot of potential here.
Can we design/make a modern Karlson?
If we sprinkle it with some magic accuracy dust, would it still be a Karlson?
MrKramer
MrKramer, have you built/heard TL designs? I would go that route before trying this. You need to have a reference of some of the better ways to extend the bass frequencies.
My next build will be a TL design with twin 10" woofers (I hope).
My next build will be a TL design with twin 10" woofers (I hope).
Interesting thoughts there. I think you are esp. on-target on... - I always take a deep breath before expressing my opinions about THs in this forum: the front and the rear are handled differently.
Now for most low-range enclosures, the front is ignored and only the upside-down rear phase disposal and the main resonance are tackled. But for the Karlson and the TH, both front and rear have treatments.
I lose track because there are 3 Karlson threads going right now, but lively debate about what the rear boxes and ducts are doing to the Karlson driver. There's no debate about the front, I would guess, because I doubt there's any good theory!
My knees are trembling so I better be careful about attributing similarities or absence of similarities to THs, TLs, horns, or adding back waves to front waves kind'a sort'a. But I have heard it rumored that there just might be similarities between the rear treatment of a TH and a TL. And the front just might be like... well, a Karlson!
Despite having fond memories of Karlsons, I think I'd go with Doug's notion of looking for a modern box instead, like a sealed enclosure like the AR-3 from 1965. And like GM says, maybe Karlson was successful in addressing constraints at the time, but maybe not today (note I am an ESL enthusiast).
In 1955, Airex, a leading hifi emporium where the World Trade Center later stood, had ALL their drivers mounted in Karlson enclosures. Beautifully lined up on the second floor on a shelf near the ceiling. Maybe 50 of them, as my young eyes beheld and marvelled.
Footnote: how come none of the wise persons from this list have given me ideas about re-using my 12 Hz, 12 inch, AR-1W woofer in a new enclosure - in a recent thread in the subwoofer forum?
Can we break out of this pattern when discussing Karlsons?
I wasn't aware there were 3 threads! Pretty funny considering.
Whats the consensus?
I always thought the most obvious thing about Karlsons was that weird front end. Thought people would blab about that most.
Yeah, I know there is a religion here regarding TH's. There does seem to be a lot of similarities between K's and TH's though. One could imagine Karlson TH hybrid of some sort beyond just slapping a slot on the side of a TH.
Is it fair to say mid-bass is Karlsons "strong point" rather than low bass? Anybody compared it to TH in this region?
MrKramer
BTW: built both BIB and TL for the same driver. TL's probably more accurate but subjectively I preferred the BIB. Currently loving my OB bass.
I wasn't aware there were 3 threads! Pretty funny considering.
Whats the consensus?
I always thought the most obvious thing about Karlsons was that weird front end. Thought people would blab about that most.
Yeah, I know there is a religion here regarding TH's. There does seem to be a lot of similarities between K's and TH's though. One could imagine Karlson TH hybrid of some sort beyond just slapping a slot on the side of a TH.
Is it fair to say mid-bass is Karlsons "strong point" rather than low bass? Anybody compared it to TH in this region?
MrKramer
BTW: built both BIB and TL for the same driver. TL's probably more accurate but subjectively I preferred the BIB. Currently loving my OB bass.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.