Well Halleluiah. Finally. (Says the guy who's used them with more then one driver)
Yeah, I get that. Similar for me. Basically I was amazed at how much information is stored on a humble CD or LP. Who knew that was all that stuff in there? It certainly changed my view of what is possible in playback and gave me the view that the recording is rarely the bottle neck, the room and speakers are. (A good source and amplification help, of course.)
I often hear people say this or that thing can't be done with stereo. Since hearing a big system with the W.E. gear at the heart of it, I usually disagree. 🙂
Like Speaker Dave said, it's waste of time discussing Toole and Olive to you and Fatchance. Next you will be arguing that Thiele and Small didn't know what they were talking about.Do some research of your own and find it online. I'm not here to spoon feed anyone. This is a DIY forum.
S. Dave, sure I am on board with you... right up until the end. 😀
As far as what does higher almost any compression driver goes higher better... they don't go lower. The next WE driver went higher.
In my warped and biased view NOT putting the Xover in the middle of the midrange is a very very good idea... few if any of the present compression drivers do that job well, and maybe none as well as the old, vintage, antique, pre-WWII WE555. Well, I lied, I know of one that does the job well, at home audio power levels, there may be others, not so sure though.
I have read a number of Toole and Olive's papers, it is all good and useful information, nothing I found that opens the door to some sort of epiphany or breakthrough. Good work, someone had to do it.
_-_-bear
As far as what does higher almost any compression driver goes higher better... they don't go lower. The next WE driver went higher.
In my warped and biased view NOT putting the Xover in the middle of the midrange is a very very good idea... few if any of the present compression drivers do that job well, and maybe none as well as the old, vintage, antique, pre-WWII WE555. Well, I lied, I know of one that does the job well, at home audio power levels, there may be others, not so sure though.
I have read a number of Toole and Olive's papers, it is all good and useful information, nothing I found that opens the door to some sort of epiphany or breakthrough. Good work, someone had to do it.
_-_-bear
If you look at polar patterns of speakers before Toole (and that includes the great work he did at NRC) and after Toole, you may see that his influence went well beyond the Harman family. That's the nice thing about his approach, it's straightforward and anyone can do it- and many have. There are far fewer truly wretched speakers in the mid to high quality sectors than there used to be.
My favorite speaker using the Toole approach was the Waveform (can't remember the model number, it had an egg-shaped mid-tweeter assembly), with which he and Sean Olive had no commercial connection but explicitly incorporated their philosophy.
That's all a side issue and more suitable for the Measurements vs Quality thread- I still haven't heard a horn speaker that made me want to go that route, but one never knows what the future may hold...
My favorite speaker using the Toole approach was the Waveform (can't remember the model number, it had an egg-shaped mid-tweeter assembly), with which he and Sean Olive had no commercial connection but explicitly incorporated their philosophy.
That's all a side issue and more suitable for the Measurements vs Quality thread- I still haven't heard a horn speaker that made me want to go that route, but one never knows what the future may hold...
There is no doubt that the conclusions of Toole and Olive when correctly applied result in better sounding speakers. But that does not exclude the fact that there may be something else, as implied by the listener preference of WE and Quads, that might improve the experience. Just because Toole wasn't able to relate it to measurements he had at his disposal at the time, doesn't mean it does not exist.
It's one path. I think there are others (my speakers, which I love, are done with a very different philosophy), but their path is a reliable way to make a good sounding speaker which will work well in real rooms.
I don't know where you get that. 😕 Toole and Olive don't matter to me, either, in the context of what the W.E. gear sounds like. It sounds good, as good or better than anything I've heard. Why does it matter what Toole and Olive found? Does that change the sound of the W.E. gear somehow?
I've read their research and think it's quite good. I just don't take it into consideration in this circumstance, it doesn't change how it sounds.
David, but you've got what you were crying about through his whole thread - a measurement. Granted it does not tell the whole story (and how!!). But haven't seen any comments from you on it.
Here's also a short sound impression from a brand new LM 555 in comparison to old WE555..
Line Magnetic triple 5 - Verstärker, Lautsprecher, Zubehör - Analog-Forum
The guy's had some problems with screwing it on..
It's not easy getting an old matched pair, and then both driver in pristine condition. A friend is owning round half a dozen single originals, but no approbiate pair.
Hearing original WE555 and then (well played) Line Magnetic 555 replica's, it's imho mostly matter of taste which will be prefered. Both owning the same inherent - for me magical - musical significance, in spite the fact that's not playing indentical.
Congeneric with individual characters!
Campoli
Using a large horn like the WE's in a domestic situation, even a large room, it's likely the listener is sitting in the near field, given the size of the mouth, and that's likely what makes them sound so neat. My thinking is nearly all the room effects, which in a 'small' room are problematical, tend to be masked in such a situation.
So yes, the listener gets to hear more recorded information.
And yes, a large exponential horn if cleanly driven has a nice "formant".
So yes, the listener gets to hear more recorded information.
And yes, a large exponential horn if cleanly driven has a nice "formant".
Yes, I agree about near field, it's gonna sound good. But in my case the audience was several meters away. Between 5 and 15 meters IIRC. Still sounded good.
I've been in that room. Compared to most domestic rooms it's large and most domestic type room problems would be diminished, (on the other hand it is small compared to an old time first run movie house) and there was some room treatment anyway, wasn't there? Also, the setup was done by folk who were really, really good.
My question, and I don't have time right now to look into it, is how far does the near field extend from those really big horns?
Well, yeah - that's certainly true.
Just how far away from a pair of 1.45 meter wide horn mouths do you have to be for it to be far field? A valid question.
i've got o go towork. might be something here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/212394-real-farfield-distance.html
That was a good thread and it seemed like 2 x the cabinet diagonal (mouth diagonal) was a reasonable estimate.
I'm not sure this is the relevant factor. You are really talking about the direct to reflected ratio. Assuming a very large and low cutoff horn is pretty directional then sitting at a typical listening distance will mean a pretty strong direct to reflected ratio. This will give the system a lot of "directness" (rather than diffuseness) and that means more impact and definition. More "you are there".
This is definitely a strong part of what some like about horns, the high proportion of direct sound that the large source size creates. I had KLH9s years ago and it was like wearing headphones, very clear sound image.
There was an old Altec ad with a guy sitting in a rocking chair with his head at the mouth of an A7 horn. A direct field advocate!
David S.
I'm not sure this is the relevant factor. You are really talking about the direct to reflected ratio. Assuming a very large and low cutoff horn is pretty directional then sitting at a typical listening distance will mean a pretty strong direct to reflected ratio. This will give the system a lot of "directness" (rather than diffuseness) and that means more impact and definition. More "you are there".
This is definitely a strong part of what some like about horns, the high proportion of direct sound that the large source size creates. I had KLH9s years ago and it was like wearing headphones, very clear sound image.
There was an old Altec ad with a guy sitting in a rocking chair with his head at the mouth of an A7 horn. A direct field advocate!
David S.
Hi
A horn that large even not knowing the angle (or angles in the WE case), could have a very low sound level at say 90 degrees off axis and so could have a near field (as defined by the direct sound being significantly greater than the reverberant field or reflected sound) that is much larger than smaller / less directive sources. That has a large positive effect on preserving a stereo image when in a room.
Even a comparatively smaller horn like an SH-50 (28 inches wide 50by50 degrees) is still about -20dB @ 500Hz @ 90 degrees off axis and about -10dB @ 315Hz @ 90 degrees off axis so a horn a meter and a half wide if it had the same angles would have that pattern control to an octave lower yet.
If the WE were run full range, it would not produce an interference pattern (lobes and nulls) when mated to a lower or upper source and so would have a simple radiation pattern (at least in the lower range).
Also, once one has a very high degree of directivity, then the total energy outside the pattern is very low so the direct field can extend far into the room. If you use a CD horn, to the degree it is CD, the reverberant field is mostly the scattered direct sound and so has roughly the same spectrum (a good thing).
In commercial sound where the room size gets to be very large, the ratio of absorbing area surface to the volume where the energy is stored makes reverberant and reflected sound much more problematic, especially when you are seeking to understand words as opposed to make a subjectively realistic or pleasing voice sound. Then the number one solution is to increase the direct sound level compared to the “noise” of reflected sound.
Add to that problem in the theater to the fact that Watts were much more costly and the horn's efficiency and directivty becomes the only practical answer. Bending the horn necessary due to the limited space behind the screen and the slow expansion rate needed for a low corner F.
So many things conflict or contradict when you are talking about sound who's wavelength changes from 5/8 inch to over 50 feet, it's a huge stack of identical Russian dolls.
Best,
Tom
Part B, about this far to not have it make any significant difference;
Far-field Criteria for Loudspeaker Balloon Data Synergetic Audio Concepts
What is more important - smoothness within the listening area or a narrow, focused sound beam that reduces reflections? Is it even mutually exclusive? If not, has anybody ever shown appropriate data?