No me, no thread... No you, thread still exist and great information still flows.... I am thread. The people who reply to me with great advice are thread... You are nagging visitor.
Said another way, I have created a circle of highly respectable people in the community, who continue to enlighten not only me, but the whole community. As I tackle and break down aspects to the nth degree of my ability, the community here continues to shed light. Your negative connotations are like a nasty smell, that will make people go away....I don't won't that.... You admit that My thread has helped you finish your two way. You're welcome. Whats the chances of you leaving it at that and stfu? Very low I bet
Last edited:
Yeah you took that way out of context. I created this thread along with the professionals of the community. The professionals were around before me.... So whats so special about me? Why didn't @paul7052 create a place for the professionals he thanks so dearly? Why didn't anyone else but me do it? I know why.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is designing monitors that big, strictly for 1m listening. At 11ft I think the benefits of being a point source compared to a more traditional 2 way are not perceived, but I also can't say for sure. I can say that at over 6ft I can tell the difference between being crossed at 200hz vs 600hz, but acoustics is very complicated, so that could be for various reasons, but the image was better when I reached low enough to encompass the majority of the bass, of vocals.
I should specify our discussion of imaging to surround Vocals. I think focusing on vocals is a smart thing to do because we, as humans, have been listening to vocals since forever, and those acoustics of vocals are engrained into our psychology. Our face is a 2 way with about 3" center to center spacing of the two sources.
Last edited:
First time I watched this video, they are saying the same thing I've been saying recently in regards to point source character vs imaging... since the beginning of this thread I've been aiming to achieve a design with same characteristic, on my own personal whim. They have much more money than I do lol.... they also are only concerned with Studio Application as well as dealing with a customer base of Professional listeners.
Last edited:
Thank you for responding. I have not really spent much time listening at 1m, with the large 2way. 54" seems to be a good proximity for some reason. I've been listening at 1m fora long time. I didn't plan it out this way, just is. Driver height and Configurations going backwards in time; 20"+18"(latest greatest), 1"+4", 1"+4"+12", 1"+8"+12", 1"+8", thats the last 13 years, all at 1 meter, coincidentally. I created a norm that I never moved away from, and its based around a Sound system that compliments sitting at a computer. Coincidentally, I also have conditioned my acoustical expectations to higher levels of Direst Sound. I've been using HD600 as well for the last 13 years. Before that, my systems and the systems of others that I frequented were more "normal" in the terms of listening distances. 7ft, 20ft, for example.
The IR only gets worse the further back you move away from the source. It was another goal of this project, to create something the produced the best IR possible in the absence of room treatment, which interesting to me since, ironically the less the speaker involves the room, the less room treatment is needed.
I don't think we are searching for the same thing? You need to focus on the vocals. Male vocals work best since they encompass more of the lower register. The lower parts of his voice, do they appear to come from the same exact place as the tweeter, where the rest of the sound is coming from. You also would want to be able to experiment with the XO. It'd be nice if you could compare 200hz XO with your current XO.
I know there is a lot of science already done on this. When did we stop saying that 1/4wavelength spacing at crossover is optimal? And If Im claiming to be able to hear why..... is that really ground breaking?
Last edited:
1. A number of highly respected people have illuminated this board and the whole community.
2. If the results you have achieved are representative of these highly respected people, it doesn’t speak well for them.
Defer to number One. I thank them for their contribution.
What you have created is entirely a different matter.
Last edited:
"People who spectate and criticize negatively are often referred to as "critics" or "detractors." Critics are individuals who observe, assess, and express their opinions or judgments about a particular subject, often highlighting perceived flaws or weaknesses. While constructive criticism can provide valuable feedback for improvement, negative criticism can be unhelpful or demoralizing if it lacks constructive elements. It's important to differentiate between informed critique and malicious or baseless negativity."
What is @paul7052? lol
What is @paul7052? lol
You can't say that whole heartedly.
Genelec and Tom Danely have the same exact philosophy in regards to bandwidth covered by the tweeter Axis. I just wanted to point out that I did not copy them... And that my design is an actual point source above 200hz..... Not a Pseudo Point Source
I'm sorry, camplo, a point source doesn't define diffraction. Can you say your speaker doesn't diffract above 200Hz?
No sir... I need a horn with proper roll off not this LMH horn. I can say I have no diffraction issues above 200hz on the horizontal axis though. And it appears that I have no worse diffraction issues on the Vertical axis than the Genelec or Tom Danely
I'll add that on the list of things to do.... Proper roll off on horn, All rounded edges on the box even though its not needed......and as prescribed by @gedlee, I need to have a better FR from the woofer through the crossband.
I'll add that on the list of things to do.... Proper roll off on horn, All rounded edges on the box even though its not needed......and as prescribed by @gedlee, I need to have a better FR from the woofer through the crossband.
Last edited:
Did they copy you?You can't say that whole heartedly.
View attachment 1248143 View attachment 1248144 View attachment 1248146
Genelec and Tom Danely have the same exact philosophy in regards to bandwidth covered by the tweeter Axis. I just wanted to point out that I did not copy them... And that my design is an actual point source above 200hz..... Not a Pseudo Point Source
The issue is not primarily the LMH horn, it is more how you use it. sfaik you use the horn far below the manufacturers recommendation. But this has been already said many times in this thread concerning the properties of the Tractrix profile and especially the elliptically modified Tractrix with almost missing vertical flare. You use the horn where it has serious diffraction. But it seems that you like it and that's ok but it is by far no reference design worth to be copied.
Hello Camplo
Maybe maybe not?? I was using vocals for my eval and like you tend to use them for evaluation. Aroura and The Lumineers as examples.
We do listen differently though. I am listening for the phantom image to degrade and change timbre as the distance changes.
I am not listening or trying to determine the "origin point" of the image on a baffle plain.
I see it as irrelevant as long as the image is stable. From my point of view the origin would be design axis and mine like most is on the horns axis. That is also the plane I am listening in.
WRT using low male vocals?? As you change position in the room are you hearing room mode changes?? Possible.
I think you are putting to much importance on the origin being a point source. You simply don't need a point source to image and image well.
This is after all a manufactured "effect/illusion" that doesn't occur naturally. I think we tend to put too much weight on it as a general statement.
It's a passive design no DSP so I can't easily manipulate the crossover. I also don't have a driver or horn/wavequide that would support that low of a crossover point.
1/4 is optimal OK. I am more concerned about matching DI at crossover not putting a lot of emphasis on a 1/4 wavelength rule.
I am not questioning what you hear. What I was questioning was your application of a theory to other designs predicting that they could not image close in.
Are you looking at the directivity of the systems you are making predictions on??
With high DI set up at a normal listening distance I can see you getting to close between the "cones" and possibly have the phantom image drop out. With lower DI like the M2 wavequide didn't happen.
Rob
If we were to talk about image stability, the Geddes NS15 would be the epitome of it, correct? The lack of diffraction creates a uniform, as possible, image, at maximum possible view angles.
Image consistency does not define quality of image. It defines, the consistency of presentation vs viewing angle... The NS15 as 2way crossed over at 800hz still leaves meat on the table, in my opinion...
The Ultimate Speaker would be a @gedlee Synergy, That follows the same set up I keep talking about; ~200hz and up, on the tweeter axis.
This difference would be, once again, point source vs pseudo point source. The more of spectrum that emanate from a single point, the better.
Im pretty sure he has no interest in such a thing, but I do.
What I am researching now, is how much does diffraction matter as frequency gets lower.... I do not have strong modulation until near cutoff. I can improve things with a better flair but there will likely still be some modulation near cutoff....
At 170-200hz how much does diffraction really matter? What
Why do I feel like I am just trading flaws at this point? Everyones up in arms about how I am using the horn, theres comments about thd.... yet in practice I am not detoured by what I hear. My main diffraction issues live on the vertical axis thus the effects will be on the off axis of the vertical...oh well. Its no less than not reaching 1/4wl at crossover, thus creating a lobe... it also takes away from the quality of the image... trading a flaw for another flaw....
The issue hear is there is no measurement for this attribute... is there??? What section of Rew do I use to display how well the image appears concentric??? If you guys are just using ears, thats just the same as saying "sounds good to me"
Last edited: