Jim, lets not forget:
Taverns - Generally located along travel routes or in most cases old travel routes such as hwy66 or various stage couch routes that have been superseded by modern freeways but are geared toward a traveling clientele. Always serve food and are open day and night and sometimes have live entertainment on weekends.
Strip clubs - We know what those are.
Saloon - Mostly a west coast thing. Generally a larger establishment open day and night. May or may not serve food but usually does. Has live entertainment on weekends and select week days if there is a large enough customer base. The place will be light and open air. Always a jukebox and usually a pool table or two. Will likely have an outdoor patio with tables.
The neighborhood bar - This is a place that is relatively small that serves a host of "regulars" AKA drunks. It is dark and dingy place, never well lit. It will have a jukebox, an electronic dart board, a TV behind the bar, sometimes a pool table, a small dance floor and a stage where the "house band" plays cover songs on the weekends and often has one of those touch screen multi video games attached at one end of the bar that always has some blue haired old lady playing solitaire on it.
The corner dive - just like the neighborhood bar just much more shady and dangerous. Good place to go hustle pool or get in a knife fight.
Margareta bar - A full serves bar located in a Mexican restaurant that serves mixed drinks.
Piano bar - Posh upper class bar located usually in high end hotels. Has a piano player. Expensive and low key.
Taverns - Generally located along travel routes or in most cases old travel routes such as hwy66 or various stage couch routes that have been superseded by modern freeways but are geared toward a traveling clientele. Always serve food and are open day and night and sometimes have live entertainment on weekends.
Strip clubs - We know what those are.
Saloon - Mostly a west coast thing. Generally a larger establishment open day and night. May or may not serve food but usually does. Has live entertainment on weekends and select week days if there is a large enough customer base. The place will be light and open air. Always a jukebox and usually a pool table or two. Will likely have an outdoor patio with tables.
The neighborhood bar - This is a place that is relatively small that serves a host of "regulars" AKA drunks. It is dark and dingy place, never well lit. It will have a jukebox, an electronic dart board, a TV behind the bar, sometimes a pool table, a small dance floor and a stage where the "house band" plays cover songs on the weekends and often has one of those touch screen multi video games attached at one end of the bar that always has some blue haired old lady playing solitaire on it.
The corner dive - just like the neighborhood bar just much more shady and dangerous. Good place to go hustle pool or get in a knife fight.
Margareta bar - A full serves bar located in a Mexican restaurant that serves mixed drinks.
Piano bar - Posh upper class bar located usually in high end hotels. Has a piano player. Expensive and low key.
We’re on a speaker forum and you guys forgot the
speakeasy - a retro style bar that is usually set underground or basement level, with a non-descript frontage looking like a boring house or shop. You’re not sure if you’re lost when you knock, but call out the pass phrase when greeted by a gruff voice. You only know of this place because your friend is a defence lawyer for psychopaths or white collar criminals. When you enter you will see lavish furnishings, plush seating and men and women who look like they just came off a movie set or a photo shoot.
There’s no menu, so you don’t ask, but you order some nibbles, spirits and cocktails. You were forewarned that it’s frequented by mobsters or millionaires. Historically a remnant of 1930s era prohibition but continues to this day to serve “high end clientele”. If you’re lucky to have found the place, you can bring along your girlfriend-from-next-door; you’ll be able to afford a total of 2 drinks. You’re not there for beverages anyway; you’re trying to impress her with your intimate knowledge of New York, even if you grew up in Jersey. For some reason there’s a always a schmuck with greasy slicked back hair with a girl who looks like Je$$ica Rabbit, hanging onto his every word. It’s dimly lit, but her silhouette is…well, you’re not sure how much is fake and how much is real, much like the surreal surroundings you find yourself in.
speakeasy - a retro style bar that is usually set underground or basement level, with a non-descript frontage looking like a boring house or shop. You’re not sure if you’re lost when you knock, but call out the pass phrase when greeted by a gruff voice. You only know of this place because your friend is a defence lawyer for psychopaths or white collar criminals. When you enter you will see lavish furnishings, plush seating and men and women who look like they just came off a movie set or a photo shoot.
There’s no menu, so you don’t ask, but you order some nibbles, spirits and cocktails. You were forewarned that it’s frequented by mobsters or millionaires. Historically a remnant of 1930s era prohibition but continues to this day to serve “high end clientele”. If you’re lucky to have found the place, you can bring along your girlfriend-from-next-door; you’ll be able to afford a total of 2 drinks. You’re not there for beverages anyway; you’re trying to impress her with your intimate knowledge of New York, even if you grew up in Jersey. For some reason there’s a always a schmuck with greasy slicked back hair with a girl who looks like Je$$ica Rabbit, hanging onto his every word. It’s dimly lit, but her silhouette is…well, you’re not sure how much is fake and how much is real, much like the surreal surroundings you find yourself in.
Last edited:
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I wanted to try 3rd order filters between the tweeter and mid. As it turns out, the 3rd order did not simulate any better than the 4th order. I did not care for the sound, it seemed more diffuse and less detailed. I did not spend much time trying to determine why.
I have spent several weeks with the filter described in post 260. This system is very good. Relaxed, smooth, great imaging. It actually reminds me of the first active system I built. That system also used SBA ceramic drivers, an SB26CDC and SB17CAC35.
I then listened to the Textreme system https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/new-active-satori-textreme.366347/page-5#post-6523706. I call this system TX for short. TX has better clarity and detail on complex passages. It sounds more natural, and it is most noticeable on percussion, electric bass, cello, male voice, female voice, piano, and trumpet. It plays louder with less strain. TX is more dynamic. The SB34NRX75-6 is a better woofer than the pair of SB23MFCL45-8’s. The big 12 has more punch, more power, and plays deeper. I thought both systems imaged real well, but the TX system seems to me to have the edge. All of these differences were subtle, and only detectable with the right kind of material. It is not the kind of thing I would notice while watching a movie. Still, I clearly prefer the TX system. When I look back at my notes comparing the TX system to my first active system (using SB ceramic drivers), I find a lot of similarities. The TX has better clarity, a more natural sound compared to both the Tower Twin-8’s and the first system.
A few days ago, @HeadShake came over and listened to both systems. He immediately noticed that the TX system was more 3 dimensional and that the image extended beyond the speakers, whereas the Tower Twin-8 image was contained to the region between the speakers. The TX system portrayed image height and depth better. He thought the bass, upper bass, lower midrange of the TX system was superior. He stressed that the Towers sounded extremely good, and it was only in comparison to the TX system that they showed their limits.
We both agreed that the Towers look really sharp. It is by far the coolest looking speaker I have ever built. It is also the most time consuming and difficult construction I have done so far.
One of the goals for the project was to build and evaluate a system which had a very smooth and well-behaved DI curve. So how does this compare to the TX system, which has a 4 dB dip in the power response between 1k and 2k ? I am not sure I can attribute anything I hear to the smoother power response in particular. I like the TX system better, even with the lower DI performance. These are the results in my room. It is possible that there are rooms where the Tower Twin-8 system might sound better.
I think a big takeaway from this project is that DI is one of many facets that goes into making a speaker a gem. Of course a really bad DI curve can ruin the system’s performance, as can a really bad harmonic distortion profile, a bad set of structural resonances, etc. But I discovered that for me, a 4 dB dip in the power response from 1k to 2k is not really much of an issue. The quality of the drivers matters more. The combination of the Satori MW16TX and the TW29TXN-B is a magical combination.
I have spent several weeks with the filter described in post 260. This system is very good. Relaxed, smooth, great imaging. It actually reminds me of the first active system I built. That system also used SBA ceramic drivers, an SB26CDC and SB17CAC35.
I then listened to the Textreme system https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/new-active-satori-textreme.366347/page-5#post-6523706. I call this system TX for short. TX has better clarity and detail on complex passages. It sounds more natural, and it is most noticeable on percussion, electric bass, cello, male voice, female voice, piano, and trumpet. It plays louder with less strain. TX is more dynamic. The SB34NRX75-6 is a better woofer than the pair of SB23MFCL45-8’s. The big 12 has more punch, more power, and plays deeper. I thought both systems imaged real well, but the TX system seems to me to have the edge. All of these differences were subtle, and only detectable with the right kind of material. It is not the kind of thing I would notice while watching a movie. Still, I clearly prefer the TX system. When I look back at my notes comparing the TX system to my first active system (using SB ceramic drivers), I find a lot of similarities. The TX has better clarity, a more natural sound compared to both the Tower Twin-8’s and the first system.
A few days ago, @HeadShake came over and listened to both systems. He immediately noticed that the TX system was more 3 dimensional and that the image extended beyond the speakers, whereas the Tower Twin-8 image was contained to the region between the speakers. The TX system portrayed image height and depth better. He thought the bass, upper bass, lower midrange of the TX system was superior. He stressed that the Towers sounded extremely good, and it was only in comparison to the TX system that they showed their limits.
We both agreed that the Towers look really sharp. It is by far the coolest looking speaker I have ever built. It is also the most time consuming and difficult construction I have done so far.
One of the goals for the project was to build and evaluate a system which had a very smooth and well-behaved DI curve. So how does this compare to the TX system, which has a 4 dB dip in the power response between 1k and 2k ? I am not sure I can attribute anything I hear to the smoother power response in particular. I like the TX system better, even with the lower DI performance. These are the results in my room. It is possible that there are rooms where the Tower Twin-8 system might sound better.
I think a big takeaway from this project is that DI is one of many facets that goes into making a speaker a gem. Of course a really bad DI curve can ruin the system’s performance, as can a really bad harmonic distortion profile, a bad set of structural resonances, etc. But I discovered that for me, a 4 dB dip in the power response from 1k to 2k is not really much of an issue. The quality of the drivers matters more. The combination of the Satori MW16TX and the TW29TXN-B is a magical combination.
I find the differences in sensitivity makes a difference, and hard to ignore. What does that mean? Higher dynamic range and more life-like sound. By life-like I'm comparing to a live venue. where the dynamic peaks are hard to measure accurately (fractions of a second) , even though the average SPL (per second) may be the same.
I've also had the fortune of listening to the exact same speaker with dual woofers, vs single woofers, (NaO with single 10" woofer vs NaO dipole with twin 10" woofers) and difference was stark.
My "standard system" uses a pair of 12" woofers for system sensitivity of 92-93dB/2.83V. I finally "get" the high sensitivity thing, as long as if has full range response down to 40Hz...
I've also had the fortune of listening to the exact same speaker with dual woofers, vs single woofers, (NaO with single 10" woofer vs NaO dipole with twin 10" woofers) and difference was stark.
My "standard system" uses a pair of 12" woofers for system sensitivity of 92-93dB/2.83V. I finally "get" the high sensitivity thing, as long as if has full range response down to 40Hz...
If inunderstand correctly the TX system is a 2-way, the tower a 3-way. If so, then a significant audible difference, specifically regarding image width and depth is due to doppler effect distortion. The effect is like a reversed perspective. It gets wider as sounds are farther away. A 3-way with xo at say 500 and 3500 Hz will actually give a normal perspective ( vanishing into a point).
Another effect is that of extra articulation as i call it . Which can become more or less annoying. (The separation of tones is less).
What i learned, althouqh quite some time ago is that for avoiding audible doppler effect distortion, the frequency span for a driver should be not more than ~ 3 octaves. (The simple rule, it actually has to do with the "bands" of our hearing).
It may not be possible but I wonder if you could draw more reliable conclusions on these aspects if you were to use the same tweeter and mid drivers in both cabinet designs. Given the fact that you know you prefer the Textreme from your previous comparison, it would be hard to avoid that bias. A mono comparison of the two way to top section of the tower with TX drivers would seem a good test if it was feasible.
You might feel comfortable to know that directivity doesn't trump all aspects, but the interesting question to me would be with really good drivers that you know you like are the directivity and diffraction effects audible/preferred in a more apples to apples comparison.
Yes and I have not seen any published data that confirms or refutes that.
The problem with listening to a minimal diffraction baffle, for lack of a better word, e.g. faceted or enormous 2” round overs tear dropped shape baffle ala B&W That it needs to be double blinded.
Because any sighted listening test- Well I might not like that spheroid shaped speaker enclosure.
It is certainly rare for anyone to test multiple versions of the same design where all that changes are the diffraction reduction mechanisms and attempts to improve the power and directivity responses. Maybe there is an opportunity for Jim to do that here.
I can't believe that reducing unwanted diffraction would result in a reduction in quality or sounding worse, but there are plenty of situations where I can imagine it being hard to hear the difference. I don't see why reasonable conclusions can't be drawn from sighted tests where the biggest causes of bias have been removed, at least in your own constructions looks should be less of a confounding factor as you know you can change them.
Waiting for many new properly conducted double blind audio tests based around stereo Hifi, seems to be a forlorn hope.
I was skeptical that high sensitivity / efficiency drivers would sound more dynamic... but that is the only conclusion I can draw here. The Satori TW29 tweeter is a full 7 dB more sensitive than the SB26CDC, and the MW16TX driver is almost 3 dB more sensitive than the SB15CAC30. The two 8's, even running in parallel, are not as efficient as the SB 12" woofer. So yes, the more sensitive drivers sound more dynamic.
This has been on my mind as well. The best I could do is to compare the Tower Twin-8's to the first active system I built, which has a directivity profile very similar to the textreme system. Then I would be comparing two systems with very similar driver technology, at least from 300 Hz up.
The TX system is a 3-way, but the woofer cabinets are physically separated from the mid-tweeter head unit. Crossovers are at 200 Hz and 1.6 kHz. The head unit is positioned in front of the woofer cabinet, and digitally delayed by the appropriate amount. Interestingly, this combination of z-axis spacing and time delay gives me a slight increase in directivity between 150-250 Hz (according to simulation).
On the TX system (and the earlier system), I did experiment with various crossovers. I tried crossover frequencies from 100 Hz up to 250 Hz, I tried 2nd order, 3rd order, and 4th order. Based on subjective evaluations, I settled on 200 Hz LR4, though lately I have been using 200 Hz LR2. The difference between 4th order and 2nd order is pretty subtle, and my preference is affected by the program material. For this comparison to the Tower Twin-8s, I was using 200 Hz LR2 on the TX system.
Placement: The left side woofer box is in a corner. The right side woofer box is free standing. LF measurements of the room have told me this is a pretty good combination that evens-out the room nodes. To me this is a key advantage of a 4-box system; The woofers can be placed for best bass performance, and the mid-tweeter can be placed for best imaging performance... within reason, I don't think it would work if the distance from woofer to mid-tweeter was 60 inches.
When we evaluated the Tower Twin-8's, I placed them in the same location as the head unit of the TX system, using masking tape on the carpet to mark position.
Jim,
Have you considered an S, Harsche crossover? I don't think it will change the imaging, but it improved the percussion in my 3 ways. Since your speakers are active it is just a matter of programming. Here is the post I used to create mine.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/s-harsch-xo.277691/
Hello hifijim and others,
sorry for falling into this thread from nowhere....I’m following DiyAudio since ever, but never really used to jump in.
Very nice efforts in this and your previous active systems, I studied all these threads and learned a lot...It is nice to read about direct experiences with similar speakers and drivers...also discussions about diffraction, ctc spacing and vituixcad are an eye-opener for a lot of problems and questions...
Yes, it very heavy to isolate one parameter (ctc distance and DI) and then compare it to another completely different speaker contruction and to say that it sounds different only because of this or that. For evaluation of ctc influence on sound you would probably have to keep everything else as close as possible to your previous active CAC system...
Currently I’m listening side by side Satori and CAC drivers (Troels SBA 16 MTM and Eka Ceramic from Audiohobby). I can confirm that Satori MW16P drivers are obvious winners in almost all aspects. Of course, comparison is not completely fair because of 3x box volume and 4 vs only 2 midbass drivers for Satori in my case. But realism, details, decays, physical energy of instruments and soundstage are on Satori side….it is nothing dramatic but very obvious on all music….
Regarding CAC drivers, I have built Eka Ceramic kit to get drivers and hear the sound of SB ceramic combo. I could never hear anything harsh or metallic or unpleasant from these drivers, even when they are driven to the physical limits…In this kit SB17CAC35-4 has 3rd order electrical filter on 2900 Hz, so something from it's break up modes should be audible, but no, it sounds very soft and detailed. It has almost perfect distortion profile from 200 Hz to 2 kHz and I hope that it will have even better sound used only as a midrange…If somebody would cover my eyes for the first listening I would probably say that Satori is ceramic cone and CAC is paper one...From Eka Ceramic plan is to develop sealed 3-way with twin SB23NRXS45-8 per side, tweeter probably in one of augerpro's waveguides...
sorry for falling into this thread from nowhere....I’m following DiyAudio since ever, but never really used to jump in.
Very nice efforts in this and your previous active systems, I studied all these threads and learned a lot...It is nice to read about direct experiences with similar speakers and drivers...also discussions about diffraction, ctc spacing and vituixcad are an eye-opener for a lot of problems and questions...
Yes, it very heavy to isolate one parameter (ctc distance and DI) and then compare it to another completely different speaker contruction and to say that it sounds different only because of this or that. For evaluation of ctc influence on sound you would probably have to keep everything else as close as possible to your previous active CAC system...
Currently I’m listening side by side Satori and CAC drivers (Troels SBA 16 MTM and Eka Ceramic from Audiohobby). I can confirm that Satori MW16P drivers are obvious winners in almost all aspects. Of course, comparison is not completely fair because of 3x box volume and 4 vs only 2 midbass drivers for Satori in my case. But realism, details, decays, physical energy of instruments and soundstage are on Satori side….it is nothing dramatic but very obvious on all music….
Regarding CAC drivers, I have built Eka Ceramic kit to get drivers and hear the sound of SB ceramic combo. I could never hear anything harsh or metallic or unpleasant from these drivers, even when they are driven to the physical limits…In this kit SB17CAC35-4 has 3rd order electrical filter on 2900 Hz, so something from it's break up modes should be audible, but no, it sounds very soft and detailed. It has almost perfect distortion profile from 200 Hz to 2 kHz and I hope that it will have even better sound used only as a midrange…If somebody would cover my eyes for the first listening I would probably say that Satori is ceramic cone and CAC is paper one...From Eka Ceramic plan is to develop sealed 3-way with twin SB23NRXS45-8 per side, tweeter probably in one of augerpro's waveguides...
According to my notes, I thought that upper bass had more power and authority, more "punchy" with the 200 Hz crossover rather than 100 Hz. It makes sense that a 12" driver would do a better job in the 100-200 Hz range than a 6" driver would do...
post 701 of this thread https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/s-harsch-xo.277691/page-36#post-6265330
I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I do not value a smooth flat directivity index. In future projects, I plan to include what I have learned here... But I now have some perspective on the relative impact of "good directivity" vs "a somewhat flawed directivity". I am certain that good directivity adds to the overall performance of the speaker, but it is not a silver bullet. The Tower Twin-8s have good directivity and use very good drivers. The TX system has somewhat flawed directivity and uses excellent drivers. The directivity difference was not enough to offset the differences in driver performance.
I also want to thank Fluid, and Kimmo (assuming he reads this thread). This project was inspired by their efforts to nudge me in the right direction.
I also want to thank Fluid, and Kimmo (assuming he reads this thread). This project was inspired by their efforts to nudge me in the right direction.
I think this would be quite valid as the drivers would be the same, could you not use the measurements you already have to use the 12" woofer and disconnect or short the woofers in the tower? This would help to alleviate the woofer being such a confounding factor.
You are welcome and the data you have gathered and posted here has been excellent to see
There's also a situation that might exist- there it may be preferred. As in "sound better". Frequency and phase response aberrations may perceived as "extra detail", for other special effects that people try to put into words.
There are precedents for this. Such as when lossy compressed audio may have subtle effects that actually be preferred to the original.
A test should be done, we can't assume it will be worse, or no difference.
In my field work on placebo and nocebo is quite fascinating...
Sure the breakup in titanium compression drivers is more detailed to some, some build amps to purposely create more distortion. I shan't hold my breath waiting for someone to prove that low diffraction is a good idea. Like reducing harmonic distortion it may not be proven to matter but as part of good engineering if you can reduce a measurable issue without consequence why not?
It was a long thread, I guess I didn't notice your contribution. I just looked at my crossover before I tried the Harsch and I used LR4 between the woofer and mid and a BW3 between the mid and tweeter. I didn't notice much difference switching back and forth between them, just the improved percussion, ultimately I just stuck with the Harsch and it sounds fine, but this seems to be true of any speaker, over time it just sounds normal.