I don't think there is a better solution than a ~150hz exponential horn married to a Large format top shelf compression driver. The most potent factor of SQ I have found is directivity. The room messes up SQ more so, than the average well used mid range. The best way to combat the room is to increase directivity. A large horn has dimension on its side to bring directivity into a lower spectrum, and the wall angles to increase directivity. It has high sensitivity/efficiency lowering heat and excursion in the motor. In combo with a large format, high quality compression driver using a light but rigid diaphragm of low coloring, I'd bet there is no equal.
If there were an equal, I'd bet it look like this
or this
a woofer within a waveguide...
The ESL has to be mentioned because I see it turn up in so many peoples list of top best speaker ever heard.
And the 3" dome in a 6" waveguide has to be mentioned due to its reputation
The only thing that mess me with the horn but their compexity to get rigth, is it needs to know your prefered listening distance to choose your mouth overture degrees.
The farer the distance the less overture to avoid reflexion ? How you knnow you need 60°, 90° or 110° ?
The ESL are ultimatly clear but people complains about dynamic lack. Many Martin Logan to avoid huge surfaces had XO around 500 hz with a normal woofer (and DSP now to get better seamlessy mariage).
No one understand wht Volt or ATC is not able to make a better copy of what they did rigth but with better and less large neodynium magnets to have more headroom for integration (reducing the radius to met a tweeter).
The farer the distance the less overture to avoid reflexion ? How you knnow you need 60°, 90° or 110° ?
The ESL are ultimatly clear but people complains about dynamic lack. Many Martin Logan to avoid huge surfaces had XO around 500 hz with a normal woofer (and DSP now to get better seamlessy mariage).
No one understand wht Volt or ATC is not able to make a better copy of what they did rigth but with better and less large neodynium magnets to have more headroom for integration (reducing the radius to met a tweeter).
About the Jadis horn and Stereophile claim: perhaps an Audax OEM like the Nexo(s). The 17 PRM0 being a pure mid with high Fs that should be Xoed over 600 hz says the datasheet. Or its high sensivity maybe permited being used below its Fs because the very low Xmax so cone exursion ?I do not know.
You need to know your preferred listening distance to judge headroom needs as well. Sweet spot can be anticipated too. Its all personal. My point is that a very large horn/waveguide plus quality large format compression driver is a great thing. The increased directivity, The reduction of excursion, combined with the light weight and rigid diaphragm... what other approach can compare? The horn/waveguide is a magnifying glass... the bigger it is, the more powerful it is.
Last edited:
Reducing the radius of the waveguide would lower SQ. A 6" radius can mate with a 1" with a 2-KA
People used to like a lot bi-radial with 110 to 120° horizontal at home, because they said the 90° lacked a little of air and soundstage. But I really dunno.
I even do not understand if horns are the ultimate choice for hifi enthusiasts listening at average 80 decibels with compressed compact discs !
It seems people like to increase Sd up to insane surfaces, especially in the low end in order to reduce cones exursions (for reducing non linear distorsion ?)
The only logic I see with horns is to avoid crossover higher than 300 / 500 hz with a huge horn. But even the Axi seems to lack air in the highs; no miracle it is a 2". So a Horn to control what is controlable above Helmotz room frequency seems to makes sense for my beotian eyes on the paper. But I dunno for real (inexperienced here)
I even do not understand if horns are the ultimate choice for hifi enthusiasts listening at average 80 decibels with compressed compact discs !
It seems people like to increase Sd up to insane surfaces, especially in the low end in order to reduce cones exursions (for reducing non linear distorsion ?)
The only logic I see with horns is to avoid crossover higher than 300 / 500 hz with a huge horn. But even the Axi seems to lack air in the highs; no miracle it is a 2". So a Horn to control what is controlable above Helmotz room frequency seems to makes sense for my beotian eyes on the paper. But I dunno for real (inexperienced here)
Fortunately I do not have the same impression of this lack of air. That "air" was actually the sound of your room, ringing.... I perceive a lack of exaggerated decay. A more intimate presentation. A magnifying glass creates intimacy between the user and the material being magnified. Fancy way of describing a listening experience with decreased room reflections and more direct sound
There is also the group of people who judge tonality of systems and drivers, with no regard to voicing... gotta watch out for that.
intimate - belonging to or characterizing one's deepest nature
There is also the group of people who judge tonality of systems and drivers, with no regard to voicing... gotta watch out for that.
Maybe we should ask to Kartesian to make a 4" dome, not horned, glass fiber or CGF compound for the dome with an exponential profil à la Bliesma.
4" to permitt to cut-off at 500 hz an to avoid WG in order to reduce center to center distance with a 1" above 3to 4k ?
Well dunno if that makes sense now all the pros are using DSP and FIR to make seamlessy crossovers !
4" to permitt to cut-off at 500 hz an to avoid WG in order to reduce center to center distance with a 1" above 3to 4k ?
Well dunno if that makes sense now all the pros are using DSP and FIR to make seamlessy crossovers !
Last edited:
I just noticed a new studio monitor being advertised with isobaric 8" bass woofers under a 3 or 4" looking coaxial. Its using a FIR and IIR.
I have the two 5.5" of this but it is not a true MTM (more a 0.5 ways with DSP use) : https://shop.funky-junk.com/fr/bout...arefoot-sound-micromain27-gen2-monitors-pair/
Tapio Lokki named this phenomenon Proximity, which also David Griesinger uses, which I think means same thing as Intimate as you describe. Proximity happens when brain is able to pick out important sound form all the sounds around us, clarity and sharp localization happens, like your magnifying glass getting into focus. When there is proximity, the important sound is "promoted" to a separate foreground neural stream in the hearing system, separating room sound (aka. noise) to a background stream. This means that brain pays full attention to the direct sound thinking it's important and worth paying attention to, and this you know happens when Proximity is perceived. At the same time the foreground sound is in focus, the background sound, or noise, is suppressed, the background stream. I think makes intimacy, you are directly and involuntarily attached to the important sound, while the noise around is suppressed, hence drawing link to proximity here.
If one is close enough that the proximity is perceived, and the n take few steps back so that proximity disappears, brain can't lock in anymore, no proximity, no intimacy, it's all just noise to hearing system, single neural stream without anything that seems important, brain is not paying attention, no intimacy. This is relatively easy to listen using phantom center, like mono noise or spoken word, moving closer and further from speakers staying equidistant to both and listening when the phantom center gets into focus, and when it gets bloated. There ought to be a distance, where transition between the two happens. It's in focus when you are close, and blurred when far.
This effect seems to exists with many if not most loudspeaker setups and not something that is with horn speakers only, just shrink listening distance enough to change D/R ratio. Now that one has adjusted listening setup so that the direct sound has it's own neural stream, you can separately concentrate listening both the foreground stream and the background stream, which is the envelopment! Speaker directivity along with positioning and toe-in, and of course room acoustics, now pay important role how the envelopment sounds like. Also quality of the direct sound is now under magnifying class by your brain. Important thing is, you can ***** both somewhat separately, and move around the transition where this proximity happens to have a reference.
Important bit is that this is phenomenon due to our hearing system, not property of loudspeaker, although loudspeaker and environment got to do with D/R (simplified).
I think tonality and voicing are both terms that relate to frequency response / balance. Not sure if they have anything to do with spatial aspects of sound, which the intimacy/proximity is related to.
Last edited:
Words are difficult when it comes to have a common dictionnary in a field like audio. For instance, air refers to me to the hearing of little details in the reccordings like concerts rooms (that certainly are hided when you are present during the live but maybe catched or introduced by the mix positionning or engineer miwing ?). Some will call that micro dynamics, some other separation between instruments (large image where you localize focussed instrumments?).
Some others will call maybe that more tweeters magnitude in the last octave?
It is difficult to follow, like the dofference with envelopment and soundstage I read here and there in that forum !
Even euphoric is not meaning euphonic !
Some others will call maybe that more tweeters magnitude in the last octave?
It is difficult to follow, like the dofference with envelopment and soundstage I read here and there in that forum !
Even euphoric is not meaning euphonic !
Hi, not sure about that, it's more related to diameter than shape. While shape matters, shapes tend to be very similar between various drivers so that most difference is at frequency bandwidth where the driver already beams I think. I'm not sure if there is official definition for beaming, but in this context where there is a crossover, where another driver is "omni" and the other is "beaming", it's about how much difference in DI there is, at some particular frequency. Ka is a term, that relates to beaming as well.
DI is largely affected by baffle size and edge shape and distance and so on. Everything is related to wavelength, so if a cone shape is on a certain sized box and would make a certain polar graph, and you then scaled the system up or down, the features in the polar graph would look exactly the same, only slide down or up in frequency.
Here some simple simulations to illustrate effect of cone depth. It's deducible that the deeper the cone, the more there is "widening" at some frequency related to the dimensions.
~15" ideal woofer on a box, depth of cone varies. 380mm diameter, dustcap diameter 100mm, dustcap height 25mm:
Same, except diameter is half (190mm), dustcap is half size as well (50mm, 12mm height).
As you see on the smaller driver, the effect of various cone depth is quite high frequency, where the driver perhaps already beams. If curvature of the cone was changed, the effect would be less as the change in physical size/shape is less. Breakups and such would also lay down some effects, these are also usually somewhere shorter than cone diameter wavelengths. Also, as the baffle size stayed the same, features in lower frequencies stay the same. Simplified, big physical size features make effect to low frequency, and smaller affect higher frequencies. As driver diameter is physically larger than features on the cone, it makes more difference than features on the cone. It would also define (set the stage for) beaming frequency, while shape off the cone adds ripple to it, which could be good or bad for DI around probable crossover point.
Buying few different drivers and then measuring them would show if there is much difference between in reality, and which one works better for measurement and which one sounds better for ear.
ps. Looking these graphs, it looks like good number for beaming could be just driver diameter. The 15" example, 380mm, is about 1kHz wavelength. 190mm of the smaller cone is roughly 2kHz. Both have significantly less sound going behind the box (so toward the edges) for example, which could be called beaming.
Last edited:
^There is a lot of philosophical kind of stuff related to the subject. About at cone diameter wavelength, and frequencies above, all sorts of problems emerge, like cone breakup and beaming, basically the transducer goes from nice "as-ideal-as-possible-piston" condition to more chaotic one and it would be very logical to crossover below this chaotic zone, if there is a crossover somewhere. If the driver bandwidth must extend into the chaos then it would be very good to select a driver that suits best, either have right kind of chaos, or less of chaos, and ideally the chaos could be pushed higher up in frequency, out of band, which means shrinking the diameter keeping everything else the same. Well, also out-of-band matters, so just use a driver that behaves nicely, what ever that is, likely sounds best as well. But, since we live in a real world, perhaps anything goes, just use nicest driver you'll find for any given application and budget.
ps. I tried to find some datasheets with some directivity data, not too many have any directivity plots available but here is some from Visaton. Their b200 and BG20 drivers, both 8", and have very different DI on high frequencies. Cones are roughly 2kHz in diameter, and seem to have relatively similar DI at 2kHz, whilethere is quite a lot of difference at 4kHz and even more at 8k.
Here is visaton BG17 and 13, which are ~6" and 5" versions of the same lineup I think, for comparison.
ps. I tried to find some datasheets with some directivity data, not too many have any directivity plots available but here is some from Visaton. Their b200 and BG20 drivers, both 8", and have very different DI on high frequencies. Cones are roughly 2kHz in diameter, and seem to have relatively similar DI at 2kHz, whilethere is quite a lot of difference at 4kHz and even more at 8k.
Here is visaton BG17 and 13, which are ~6" and 5" versions of the same lineup I think, for comparison.
The biradials probably avoid most of the "slap back" that you might get with a symmetrical horn and especially ones with a thin outer lip that could form a reflective edge if it floats in mid air. My thinking is, that to minimise diffraction effects, horns should probably be recessed into the walls, so if people want to spend serious money, they should start thinking about it when they're building a house or remodelling. If an "in-room" design is essential, an exotic teardrop shape could be hoisted up into the air to avoid early reflections.
Similarly, when it comes to amplifiers, the subtle character of the amplifier's internal distortion is a different thing from the distortion generated by the speakers when it interacts with the amplifier. Some people seem to have a very compartmentalised view of this, insisting that the amplifier can be perfect on its own, and if anything bad happens when a speaker is connected, it is therefore the speaker's fault.
I have more of an "active loudspeaker" view on this, which seems to align more closely with guitar amplifiers that are permanently mated to a dedicated speaker.
Actually, I've always hated electric guitar amps based on the screamy, mountainous EQ that many guitarists seem to prefer, but they actually seem to be ahead of the "hifi" curve when it comes to the damping factor being appropriate for the different frequency ranges. Not to mention the more traditional speakers with feather-weight cones and small voice coils with very low inductance. There's a method to the madness. It's just that they have an "artist's" view on things and tend to trust their ears more than theory.
My approach these last couple of years has been to slowly learn about amplifiers and start building them. But another approach could be to buy 10 of them, try them out, and return / resell the duds. I would even look at the ones guitarists use and see if that would work.
Similarly, when it comes to amplifiers, the subtle character of the amplifier's internal distortion is a different thing from the distortion generated by the speakers when it interacts with the amplifier. Some people seem to have a very compartmentalised view of this, insisting that the amplifier can be perfect on its own, and if anything bad happens when a speaker is connected, it is therefore the speaker's fault.
I have more of an "active loudspeaker" view on this, which seems to align more closely with guitar amplifiers that are permanently mated to a dedicated speaker.
Actually, I've always hated electric guitar amps based on the screamy, mountainous EQ that many guitarists seem to prefer, but they actually seem to be ahead of the "hifi" curve when it comes to the damping factor being appropriate for the different frequency ranges. Not to mention the more traditional speakers with feather-weight cones and small voice coils with very low inductance. There's a method to the madness. It's just that they have an "artist's" view on things and tend to trust their ears more than theory.
My approach these last couple of years has been to slowly learn about amplifiers and start building them. But another approach could be to buy 10 of them, try them out, and return / resell the duds. I would even look at the ones guitarists use and see if that would work.
Well I think people would say, simply have a proper roll off things should perform well. My answer to diffraction is size. Ones a baffle is wide enough, diffraction is no longer a major issue.
My split box 12+3 WAWs have way more than 1/4 wavelength between woofer and tweeter, so there's no free lunch as they say. A steeper XO could tighten things up, but in my case they are used from under 1 metre nearfield, out to 5-6 metres.
With new XOs incoming, phase coherence should hopefully be vastly improved. The tweeter horns are freely adjustable on little stands sitting on top of the monkey coffins, and there's no "good" alignment at the moment because the slopes are just too far out of tune.
In hindsight, the Visaton B200 + super tweeter could have also been a nice project. But I don't know if I would have been satisfied with the bass. Alternatively, Visaton B200 + 3-4" Alpair in a single box, for being able to walk around without huge changes in tone.
With new XOs incoming, phase coherence should hopefully be vastly improved. The tweeter horns are freely adjustable on little stands sitting on top of the monkey coffins, and there's no "good" alignment at the moment because the slopes are just too far out of tune.
In hindsight, the Visaton B200 + super tweeter could have also been a nice project. But I don't know if I would have been satisfied with the bass. Alternatively, Visaton B200 + 3-4" Alpair in a single box, for being able to walk around without huge changes in tone.
I horn loaded a pair aside and used them down to 350 Hz 4th order in my PA (early’80s). Driven by a Bryston 4B.
dave
"Euforic" to me would be somewhat colored and "non universal". Chosen for preferred music where it performs "out of this world" and passable with other music. Every speaker system is a compromise one has to choose for himself. Manufacturers don't usually have that comfort since it's a money oriented business. Studio Pro's have even less choice since they are paid to deliver certain product. The only advantage of DIY is free choice which DIY folk choose not to exercise because it wants to "beat the pros" in their own game. Yeah, good luck with that.
A countryfellow of your here uses it 400 hz w/o horn at domestic level... Seems robust despite foam surround.