Thanks for this feedback. For a two-way system, I'd like to know how those drivers would sound in constant directivity horns, though these are the only ones I know of.
https://audiohorn.net/x-shape-horn/
https://audiohorn.net/next-gen-bi-radial-horn/
Arnaud Le Gac replied that most of his horns are CD, though does not specify which here.
https://alg-audiodesign.com/pavillons/
Thanks for the vids, Vineeth.
How does the raw SQ from the 65CDN-T+ATH top compare to your newer top T34A+PTT6.5M04?
@NiToNi: I really like the SQ from the 65CDN-T+EXAR 400 top. The horn is also a relatively older horn design compared to the newer G2 versions which seem to have a bit better balanced response curves.
It is just that I have not been able to get an overall balanced system with this horn yet due to the directivity & other characteristics of the bass mid system that I have been using with it. Design the bass-mid system right and get the room to cooperate (in terms of floor/ceiling reflections), one will have a really awesome system.
It is because of the above reason that I currently like my T34A+PTT6.5M04 top a bit better than the horn system, at least at the moment.. 😉
It is just that I have not been able to get an overall balanced system with this horn yet due to the directivity & other characteristics of the bass mid system that I have been using with it. Design the bass-mid system right and get the room to cooperate (in terms of floor/ceiling reflections), one will have a really awesome system.
It is because of the above reason that I currently like my T34A+PTT6.5M04 top a bit better than the horn system, at least at the moment.. 😉
Thanks, Vineeth. How would you say each system stands out or differs from the others in terms of character, openness, dynamics, clarity, resolution, and room interaction? Some of these qualities seem to come through in your (excellent) YouTube videos, but it’s hard to be certain, obviously, since playing them back through own system.
Last edited:
Hi
I find it very hard to explain the character of sound in words. So I generally try to avoid it. But I will try once here.
One thing I can say for sure in terms of the difference in sound character between the Purifi-Bliesma (Purebliss) system and the EXAR 400 system is that the impact of the room definitely differs on both systems.
The purebliss system is a much wider radiating system compared to the EXAR 400 system, especially above 800Hz or so, and definitely picks up more room impact in its response from MLP. But on listening I feel that the purebliss system is more balanced overall. There is a certain sense of ease to listen and hear all fine details compared to the other one even though it is affected by room more.
On the EXAR 400+Rosso system, I had to actively focus to hear some of the finer details in the upper treble because the brain just focusses on the vocal region most of the time, by default. However, in the YouTube recordings I have made, it seems like it is easier to hear all the details on the EXAR 400 system. But my hypothesis for this (at the moment) is that the mic pics up all the room impact and late reflection thereby bringing a certain amount of dullness to the EXAR 400 system sound. While hearing in person, the ear-brain systems filters out a lot and my attention just locks on the vocal range mostly.
This could partly be due to the differences in directivity and cone size that reproduce midrange on these two systems and partly due to the bliesma tweeter reproducing upper treble vs the Rosso on the horn. I feel that the EXAR 400 directivity around 1kHz is a bit too high for the midrange and bass systems that I have had for it.
In terms of dynamics, both systems are equally good for my application. In fact the EXAR 400 system is a bit of overkill 🙂
In terms of clarity, one can easily feel that the EXAR 400 system is clearer/crisper in upper midrange and some part of treble, again because of things I mentioned above. In terms of resolution, I feel Purebliss feels more resolving, while listening live because of that "balance" etc mentioned above..
Note that I haven't said anything about soundstage and imaging because I have not heard the purebliss system in stereo yet. Things may or may not change with stereo.. 😉 The EXAR 400 system has pin point imaging though
There.. I have tried to explain difficult things... 🙂
I would say one really has to listen to the two kinds of systems in the same place on the same songs and figure out which one he/she likes the most.
I find it very hard to explain the character of sound in words. So I generally try to avoid it. But I will try once here.
One thing I can say for sure in terms of the difference in sound character between the Purifi-Bliesma (Purebliss) system and the EXAR 400 system is that the impact of the room definitely differs on both systems.
The purebliss system is a much wider radiating system compared to the EXAR 400 system, especially above 800Hz or so, and definitely picks up more room impact in its response from MLP. But on listening I feel that the purebliss system is more balanced overall. There is a certain sense of ease to listen and hear all fine details compared to the other one even though it is affected by room more.
On the EXAR 400+Rosso system, I had to actively focus to hear some of the finer details in the upper treble because the brain just focusses on the vocal region most of the time, by default. However, in the YouTube recordings I have made, it seems like it is easier to hear all the details on the EXAR 400 system. But my hypothesis for this (at the moment) is that the mic pics up all the room impact and late reflection thereby bringing a certain amount of dullness to the EXAR 400 system sound. While hearing in person, the ear-brain systems filters out a lot and my attention just locks on the vocal range mostly.
This could partly be due to the differences in directivity and cone size that reproduce midrange on these two systems and partly due to the bliesma tweeter reproducing upper treble vs the Rosso on the horn. I feel that the EXAR 400 directivity around 1kHz is a bit too high for the midrange and bass systems that I have had for it.
In terms of dynamics, both systems are equally good for my application. In fact the EXAR 400 system is a bit of overkill 🙂
In terms of clarity, one can easily feel that the EXAR 400 system is clearer/crisper in upper midrange and some part of treble, again because of things I mentioned above. In terms of resolution, I feel Purebliss feels more resolving, while listening live because of that "balance" etc mentioned above..
Note that I haven't said anything about soundstage and imaging because I have not heard the purebliss system in stereo yet. Things may or may not change with stereo.. 😉 The EXAR 400 system has pin point imaging though
There.. I have tried to explain difficult things... 🙂
I would say one really has to listen to the two kinds of systems in the same place on the same songs and figure out which one he/she likes the most.
Thanks for sharing that comparative evaluation of your two speaker systems. Observing those differences in directivity is his very much what I'll be doing when I get to hear systems using all three of these horns,
https://josephcrowe.com/products/3d-cad-files-horn-no-1994-es450-biradial-for-jbl-2446-2-throat
https://audiohorn.net/x-shape-horn/
https://audiohorn.net/next-gen-bi-radial-horn/
Beginning next week, I’ll be traveling to hear them. Hopefully, once the auditions are completed it won’t be too difficult to decide which horn, at least if the rooms are not too different from mine.
Then comes driver selection. Above my Rythmik F12 subs will be my midwoofers https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/altec-416-8b-in-100l-sealed
If I decide to build a multiway system, midrange drivers like the B&C DCM50, Community M200, BMS 4591. Tweeter might be Fostex 925A with Troy Crowe’s diffraction reducing waveguide.
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/lens-no-1896-for-fostex-t96a?_pos=1&_sid=21a6c0810&_ss=r
Perhaps a somewhat more riskier approach would be a two-way system, as there may be few options for choosing a driver to cover the MF and HF range. One that Bappe and Marco-gea had recommended is https://usspeaker.com/jbl 2450H-1.htm
And I also have these https://www.usspeaker.com/radian 745neoBepb-1.htm
Any experiences with any of these drivers? Comments or questions welcomed.
https://josephcrowe.com/products/3d-cad-files-horn-no-1994-es450-biradial-for-jbl-2446-2-throat
https://audiohorn.net/x-shape-horn/
https://audiohorn.net/next-gen-bi-radial-horn/
Beginning next week, I’ll be traveling to hear them. Hopefully, once the auditions are completed it won’t be too difficult to decide which horn, at least if the rooms are not too different from mine.
Then comes driver selection. Above my Rythmik F12 subs will be my midwoofers https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/altec-416-8b-in-100l-sealed
If I decide to build a multiway system, midrange drivers like the B&C DCM50, Community M200, BMS 4591. Tweeter might be Fostex 925A with Troy Crowe’s diffraction reducing waveguide.
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/lens-no-1896-for-fostex-t96a?_pos=1&_sid=21a6c0810&_ss=r
Perhaps a somewhat more riskier approach would be a two-way system, as there may be few options for choosing a driver to cover the MF and HF range. One that Bappe and Marco-gea had recommended is https://usspeaker.com/jbl 2450H-1.htm
And I also have these https://www.usspeaker.com/radian 745neoBepb-1.htm
Any experiences with any of these drivers? Comments or questions welcomed.
Great description Vineeth - thanks for sharing. This echoes my own experience of horns and direct radiators in general.