I pawed and poured oer' every word
Such wisdom at the table!
The dope on horns and all their thorns, this sage knew fact from fable
At last! I cried I've found my guide
This pansophy is stable
Then I awoke, the heart was broke
My hero's vending cables.
Such wisdom at the table!
The dope on horns and all their thorns, this sage knew fact from fable
At last! I cried I've found my guide
This pansophy is stable
Then I awoke, the heart was broke
My hero's vending cables.
Last edited:
They should intentionally be designed to need minimal equalisation. Those that are not should not be marketed as fit for purpose i.e unfinished product. Equalisation fundamentally degrades the data quality period. Even using the best components detail is lost. DSP may help equalisation but it is at the price of subtle or not so subtle quality. I do not care what some may say, if you want the best sound avoid having to equalise like popping a wonder pill. If some driver designers can get a 1" nearly flat and merely add a high pass, then this with the right matcing with the right horn damping, shaping of phase plug ete etc is going to have a winner. Where is one of these ? If only there was a guy out there who could .......you know the rest.
I have more confidence in the latest position with Ariel. All the previous work is paying off clearly. With Lynns latest postings the be variant of the Radian is posting a closer to state of art position, to repeat boringly, at a price. But it would still be better inherently flat to say 15KHz. The great thing is that at least if one starts with Al diaphragm on the neo it can be upgraded. Not so with many designs out there.
And so we go on. My view is Lynn took on a bigger issue with the horn because of the appeal of a winning project. Others have given up.
Haha. Thanks for the laugh.
At least the Matrix have a decent good on-axis response. Take a look at the newer B&W 800 series and they don't even get that right. It's a shame those speakers are used for mixing and mastering in my opinion.
But hey, they look cool! And that what's matters for many.
B&W 800 Diamond loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
B&W 802D loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
I think your next real step on the ladder would be a corner horn like the Klipsch Jubilee with something like the K-401 horn. Or soffit mounted horns. That will give you a controlled directivity down to schroeder. A CBT will do the same, but with a very different horizontal directivity.
I think this is a very important criteria for waveguide/horn quality. It used to be that acoustic loading and response smoothness was the primary concern. But in the last decade or so, it has lost some traction, what with some waveguide designers creating horns without any regard for loading and smoothness. They seem to think they can EQ any anomaly. To me, that's no better than the old CD horns with all their warts.
Agreed. Another problem in some loudspeakers is their designers think verticals don't matter, and let the vertical strata be so narrow it is truly difficult to setup in an environment that won't put listeners in the nulls.
Diffraction creates self-interference that is measurable, but the ripple is nowhere near as large as what is created by interference between adjacent sound sources in the nulls.
So while diffraction is important, it makes no sense to trade excessively narrow verticals for improved diffraction. Especially when you can easily achieve both sets of optimizations.
On the other hand, I've seen designs that traded diffraction and internal reflections for improved lobing performance. An example is the co-entrant and unity type horns. They essentially shift the nulls outside the beam, which is worthwhile in some cases but the internal reflections and interactions between sources and reflections become quite complex. You don't see this in a smoothed response curve but look at one that isn't smoothed, and you'll see a myriad of narrow notches, highlighting the interactions between sources and internal reflections.
This may be a worthwhile trade-off in a prosound environment where arrayability is required. But I don't think the sound quality trade-off from having increased internal reflections makes sense in a home hifi environment.
I agree with this sentiment. You can EQ a 3" paper cone driver and make it sound good, provided the SPL required is very small and the listener is on one specific location. But EQ has its own sets of compromises, because it is basically a band-aid for a flawed device.
There is absolutely no good reason to choose a horn profile that has excessive ripple, with the idea that it can be "EQ'ed out" in the crossover. Even if constant directivity is saught, there are profiles that provide the smoothness of an exponential or LeCleach horn.
I'm not talking about mass-rolloff conjugation, that's a driver thing and is trivial. A simple first-order network compensates that. What I am concerned about are horns that have internal standing waves and other discontinuities that are bad enough to manifest in acoustic impedance, and correspondingly translate into ripples in response.
The flare profile used by all OS, PS and EC devices can be used to construct a waveguide/horn that provides both constant directivity and smooth response. One simply has to choose the aspect ratio carefully, and make sure the device is long enough to load through the passband. That was the focus of the thread below:
Definitely. Constant directivity cornerhorns are the "holy grail" of loudspeaker design, in my opinion. They have no trade-offs, no down sides acoustically. Their one problem is they require a very specific placement, in a very specific room layout. So most rooms cannot take advantage of this configuration and we have to work with other solutions. But where cornerhorns are possible, this is ideal.
I've heard it, that's irrelevant. I was talking about his data, not my personal opinion (or yours).
I have already requested that Lynn's new speaker, when completed be deliverd to me posthumously, I was so young when that thread started.(-:
Regarding the CBT, I've never seen a vertical line array that had a horizontal dispersion significantly different than that of a single one of its elements.
I would have thought that a speaker with narrower and well controlled vertical dispersion, and wide horizontal dispersion would be more ideal than the opposite. It falls in well with our need to reduce floor and ceiling reflections while allowing some lateral reflections to reduce IACC and allow some realistic sense of space (assuming arrival times are reasonable).
David
I would have thought that a speaker with narrower and well controlled vertical dispersion, and wide horizontal dispersion would be more ideal than the opposite. It falls in well with our need to reduce floor and ceiling reflections while allowing some lateral reflections to reduce IACC and allow some realistic sense of space (assuming arrival times are reasonable).
David
page 31 and 32 shows CBTs horizontal off axis response
looks ok to me
http://www.audioartistry.com/brochures/B&W 801 vs. CBT36 Ground-Plane Measurements v8.1.pdf
looks ok to me
http://www.audioartistry.com/brochures/B&W 801 vs. CBT36 Ground-Plane Measurements v8.1.pdf
I suppose that could be interpreted that way. Sorry, we are all here to learn, my reading it that long does show a great deal of respect. As do all of our opinions, including yours.
Last edited:
Since we are all hear to learn, I just want to express my appreciation for all the guys here who cut through the warm and fuzzy's, get to the data. You know who you are. It saves a lot of time and that way we do not have to build it to know what's in it. 
Here are what I hope are useful questions.
Given that I have found the stock 2" diaphragm driver on a 1" throat (screw on) Peavey horn (or for that matter a given 1x" screw on horn) very acceptable albeit with pretty radical EQ, what are the compromises I would be making adapting the EV 3" to this Peavey horn. It is my understanding that phase plugs are really diffraction devices, therefore logically there would be more diffraction and other issues introduced by this transition or are these negligible compared to other benefits of the aforementioned driver that Art pointed out? Or would I be throwing the baby out with the water sound this adaptation? The subquestion here besides phase plus and diaphgram size vs. HF performance, is the effect of adapters in general
Given that I have found the stock 2" diaphragm driver on a 1" throat (screw on) Peavey horn (or for that matter a given 1x" screw on horn) very acceptable albeit with pretty radical EQ, what are the compromises I would be making adapting the EV 3" to this Peavey horn. It is my understanding that phase plugs are really diffraction devices, therefore logically there would be more diffraction and other issues introduced by this transition or are these negligible compared to other benefits of the aforementioned driver that Art pointed out? Or would I be throwing the baby out with the water sound this adaptation? The subquestion here besides phase plus and diaphgram size vs. HF performance, is the effect of adapters in general
Last edited:
Further clarification, in reality a phase plug is simply a diffration device located close to the diaphram? Sort of a weasel word instead of the hated "diffraction" word, but serving the purpose of reducing small wave cancellation across the diameter and equal to the size of the diaphragm via diffraction? Therefore, if I'm getting this right, *almost or all* compression drivers *begin* life at the horn entrance with an already severely diffracted wave? Now this one just might be nut-slicer question, can barely believe I know enough to ask it!
Last edited:
Looks very well behaved in every way. Very interesting that the response stays so flat over such a wide range of listening heights and distances.
David
- Status
- Not open for further replies.