I have Fulcrum's DX1295, CX1226 and CX1277. They all sound excellent, and remain so at ear splitting levels. There's definitely more magic in those FIR filters than just flattening phase. I may not have the golden ears that others may have here though.
I am dabbling with some B&C DCX464 drivers and RCF HF950 horns. It will be interesting once I get those going if I can get them to sound as good as the Fulcrum boxes.
I achieve excellent results with 1940s vintage ALTEC multi-cell horns. They are not just for nostalgia anymore.
Multicell is not what I others I believe are referring to
as they have their own problemsTake a western electric for example and any other horn that extends beyond its initial capabilities to produce lower frequencies at the cost of clean sound.
A bit like open baffle vs box. You get more than you want but it don’t mean it sounds good.
Thanks for that input,
Too bad they cost as much as a good compression...without horn !
Did you feel it had as much trancient and dynamic behavior as compressions you know ?
The Fulcrum white paper is well worth the read. Genius stuff.
improving-loudspeaker-transient-response-with-dsp-2005.pdf
I'm not sure what to do with that ME464 horn. I might ponder it a bit more, but the cost is a bit of a buzz kill.
In that particular case I don't feel it was lacking in dynamics compared to the Faital HF146R I was testing at the time.
Below 2khz the compression drivers will have more impact just because of the sheer size difference in radiating area.
That seems to be a cut-off line where other topologies start to shine above like pro amt's, planars, ribbons, and direct radiating domes.
That being said, I'm really liking the 18 Sound ND3SN on a PR614...in a much larger setting than my living room.
Below 2khz the compression drivers will have more impact just because of the sheer size difference in radiating area.
That seems to be a cut-off line where other topologies start to shine above like pro amt's, planars, ribbons, and direct radiating domes.
That being said, I'm really liking the 18 Sound ND3SN on a PR614...in a much larger setting than my living room.
I'm not sure which W.E. horn you are referring to, but isn't what you say a problem of implementation rather then a fault of the horn?
I always find myself conflicted between the compression driver world and the non-compression driver world.
Presently, I'm enjoying the non-CD system.
I got into "Hi-Fi" in 2007 after listening to a pair of 1972 Klipsch Cornwalls. The dynamics and the clarity of that system blew my mind. I was only used to compressed mp3s on protable devices before then. It was hard for me to believe people 30-40-50 years ago were enjoying better sound quality than the youths in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
I've owned several CD-based speakers since then (Klipsch Cornwalls, La Scala, Khorns, JBL 4430, JBL 4345, Yuchi 290s, Edgar Horns, Seos 15, Seos 12, QSC152i, with a variety of CDs such as DE250, BMS4592, JBL 2445 w/ Be dia., etc.)
And while I really enjoyed the dynamics and the clarity of these systems - they were all too fatiguing to listen to for an extended period of time. Every time I demoed my system for friends, they were thoroughly impressed. However, for me, just got overwhelming after a little bit.
A system that I owned that exceeded everything listed above was a pair of Oris 200 horns with TB-1808 drivers with a JBL 2245H for 20hz - 250hz duty. Now, if one took measurements of this system maybe it would not performs as well as the systems listed above - but from my own musical enjoyment perspective - I found this system to be superior.
I've since sold the Oris system too and am currently enjoying a pair of Jim Holtz + Curt Cambell's Bordeaux speaker kit. I can listen to these speakers for hours and not feel any strain. Prior to that, I was enjoying a pair of Jeff Bagby's Continuum speakers - also a wonderful speaker.
I do occasionally miss the sheer volume and clarity of my horn systems - but I still don't see myself going back in that direction for a while.
My next venture will be into waveguide+tweeter based speakers. I also have a pair of Hiel AMT-1s waiting to be tested.
I don't want to sway anyone from CD-based speakers based on my comments above. Take everything I said above with a grain of salt because I'm no way near as technically competent as my fellow forum members. I merely wanted to share my non-technical experience. If one was more technically competent, and better understood speaker+room issues, speaker placement, room treatment, etc - they will certainly reach a different conclusion.
Presently, I'm enjoying the non-CD system.
I got into "Hi-Fi" in 2007 after listening to a pair of 1972 Klipsch Cornwalls. The dynamics and the clarity of that system blew my mind. I was only used to compressed mp3s on protable devices before then. It was hard for me to believe people 30-40-50 years ago were enjoying better sound quality than the youths in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
I've owned several CD-based speakers since then (Klipsch Cornwalls, La Scala, Khorns, JBL 4430, JBL 4345, Yuchi 290s, Edgar Horns, Seos 15, Seos 12, QSC152i, with a variety of CDs such as DE250, BMS4592, JBL 2445 w/ Be dia., etc.)
And while I really enjoyed the dynamics and the clarity of these systems - they were all too fatiguing to listen to for an extended period of time. Every time I demoed my system for friends, they were thoroughly impressed. However, for me, just got overwhelming after a little bit.
A system that I owned that exceeded everything listed above was a pair of Oris 200 horns with TB-1808 drivers with a JBL 2245H for 20hz - 250hz duty. Now, if one took measurements of this system maybe it would not performs as well as the systems listed above - but from my own musical enjoyment perspective - I found this system to be superior.
I've since sold the Oris system too and am currently enjoying a pair of Jim Holtz + Curt Cambell's Bordeaux speaker kit. I can listen to these speakers for hours and not feel any strain. Prior to that, I was enjoying a pair of Jeff Bagby's Continuum speakers - also a wonderful speaker.
I do occasionally miss the sheer volume and clarity of my horn systems - but I still don't see myself going back in that direction for a while.
My next venture will be into waveguide+tweeter based speakers. I also have a pair of Hiel AMT-1s waiting to be tested.
I don't want to sway anyone from CD-based speakers based on my comments above. Take everything I said above with a grain of salt because I'm no way near as technically competent as my fellow forum members. I merely wanted to share my non-technical experience. If one was more technically competent, and better understood speaker+room issues, speaker placement, room treatment, etc - they will certainly reach a different conclusion.
Last edited:
Cool stuff you're playing with
Personally, i think Fulcrum and DSL are the standard setters of today.
You're right about Fulcrum's FIR filters being more than flattening phase.
My take from looking at the filters they put in Q-Sys containers, like for the DX1295, is that phase flattening is the least of the FIR filter's function.
I'd say they are more about plain old magnitude EQs, and internal horn reflection corrections,....... all via a modest impulse inversion.
I say modest because Fulcrum's FIR files appear to consistently use only384 taps @ 48kHz. I guess to fit all dsp/amp platforms, and also keep latency to a minimum.
How are you going about tuning the dcx464 with the hf950?
I think its played within the room, and the polar is the culprit, spl at your location is a sum of direct and indirect energy, the ratio of this sum, results in certain characteristics we perceive....thats my latest theory at least lol.....
Last edited:
My sentiments exactly. As I said before they are unmatched for realism IMO. But like a ferrari you feel
every bump in the road. Great once in a while but not a grocery getter! I could hear a fly land on the microphone but after a while its jsut too much for me, not great for comfortable listening as a 'daily driver'.
I even built a 20" oblate spheroid waveguide out of concrete, sounds really great in my small condo but once I took the CD out and put in a DD the dynamics settle down of course the imaging isnt razer sharp and yet music enjoyable again. I had to make a decision I never thought I'd make, which is that I wanted it to simply
sound euphonious rather than realistic.. I love this hobby
Just in case there was anybody I havent peeved off yet,
I feel the same way about FIR filters. I dont think it's 'fixable' with EQ.
I have a DEQX that utilizes over 1,000,000 taps and it sounds notably
worse to my ears after correction. If used very judiciously it can be effective
but ultimately inferior to a properly set up system in a decent room.
Maybe other systems are better though I dont know...
I feel the same way about FIR filters. I dont think it's 'fixable' with EQ.
I have a DEQX that utilizes over 1,000,000 taps and it sounds notably
worse to my ears after correction. If used very judiciously it can be effective
but ultimately inferior to a properly set up system in a decent room.
Maybe other systems are better though I dont know...
Kind of. It's Jean Michel's take on the Iwata profile with his trademark roundover on the mouth.
There was a mastering engineer selling his pair of ATC 3ways (sm75-150s) and it wasn't because he needed more resolution, it was because he felt that the speaker was causing a sort of "resolution overload"....thats my reiteration of what he expressed but I remember him describing the problem as having so much "clarity" that he'd spend way too much time working and tweaking the material....as to say that the errors (in the material) were so well pronounced that he'd spend too much time making it sound "better"...considering "no one" else was ever going to hear all these micro-improvements he was able to search out with the monitors and the material being mastered could of been "good enough" an hour ago.....something like that...I think he wanted a pair of dutch and dutch's =(
I was, of course, trying to talk him out of it or at least not selling the pair.....
Just in case there was anybody I havent peeved off yet,
I feel the same way about FIR filters. I dont think it's 'fixable' with EQ.
I have a DEQX that utilizes over 1,000,000 taps and it sounds notably
worse to my ears after correction. If used very judiciously it can be effective
but ultimately inferior to a properly set up system in a decent room.
Maybe other systems are better though I dont know...
Hi EliGuy,
Appreciate your take on easy non-fatiguing listening vs perhaps more realistic sound that takes its toll.
As I've found omnis, and to an extent line arrays, much easier to listen to for extended periods than my more precise sounding CD builds.
Also agree with the need for judicious use of FIR, or really any electric signal tuning.
Ime, judicious FIR takes a bit of experience to understand how it works, and then what it can and can't do.
It seems there is some confusion re DEQX's FIR capabilities, or maybe what you see as a tap.
Do you realize 1,000,000 taps @96kHz would create over 5,000ms of latency? (with commonly used impulse centering)
As best as i read the manual, DEQX FIR filters have a 21ms delay (latency) maximum limit.
Which means the products have a maximum 4096 tap count capability at 96kHz.
Imo, that's more than enough for judicious correction, even including implementing a sub.
But not without a lot of experience in understanding freq vs order contraints, and in measuring, and correcting, confirming, etc.....
Imho, most all problems with FIR, with CDs, with dang near anything ...are about understanding and implementation.
For those who have sensitivity to CD's, what decibel levels do you estimate/measure you are listening to at listening position?
That's what I figured you meant in the opening post. Funny, because I feel the opposite, a well set up horn system is a joy to hear and does not fatigue me at all. Very few box speakers can do that for me. Some electrostatic speakers can.
We all have different ears.