| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» JBL 2226 2445 2405 3-way and a path forward (28 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (28 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
01-25-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 21
Post ID: 20488
Reply to: 20487
Diasgreement doesn't change the facts
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The whole point in a compression driver is that anything in back chamber is irrelevant.

Hahhaha, good joke! :-)

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Haralanov, all that you need to do is to make your own experiments, the practical experiments. Take a dozen compression drivers and play with back chamber. You will learn that it will have minor effect to the very bottom knee and practically no impact to the normal operation range of the driver.

I have already did a lot of experiments with 1A16, 288 and my own super lightweight paper compression driver having mms of diaphragm + voice coil = 0,84 gr.
I made more than 7-8 different horns made out of SNOW (with very thick walls) which is absolutely the best sounding material for horns and I know very well what happens. I can assure you the back chamber affects the sound a lot. The only way to escape from the damaging contribution of the back chamber is replacing it with closed back horn. All other solutions are pure compromise. Pay to someone to build you an experimental back loading device, similar to the one I illustrated above, and if you don't hear the tremendous improve in sound - I will pay you all the cost, including your "wasted" time.

Best regards,
Petar



"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
01-25-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 20490
Reply to: 20488
It is OK by me.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Nope, it was not a joke. For sure it is not the “whole point in a compression driver” but it is very much derivative from the compression driver design and anything that a compression driver has on back is irrelevant and impact only resonance frequency but not the bandpass. If you look any compression driver that does not use fluid damping then you will see a complete neglect of anything on back. The back plate is located a few mm from diaphragm and any back reflections are not compatible with wavelength.

I do not feel the need to do any experiments with it as I did it a lot. None of my experiments indicated that I had any important difference in sound if my driver were operating well outside of own critical regions. I do not know what you did and I do not know what “own super lightweight paper compression drivers” you used. I am fine with any conclusion you find yourself comfortable. Just think about it: why compression drivers have no softening in back chamber and why those few that that do have it (some Klangfilms for instance) sound absolutely identically if you remove the softening.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-26-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 23
Post ID: 20493
Reply to: 20490
I just shared a tested and working method, nothing more
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The back plate is located a few mm from diaphragm and any back reflections are not compatible with wavelength.

Yes, but why do you mention only the shortest possible dimension inside the chamber? There are lots of relatively longer distances which form resonances well inside the working range of the driver.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I do not feel the need to do any experiments with it as I did it a lot. None of my experiments indicated that I had any important difference in sound if my driver were operating well outside of own critical regions.

You haven’t heard any important difference because you haven’t tried what I illustrated on the picture above. And what does it mean you did “a lot of experiments”? Who defines what is “a lot” and what is “not enough”? In context of midrange horns you have to build at least 15-20 different horns with different profiles, different shapes of the mouth, different materials and so on, in order to judge which one fits closer to your requirements of how it should sound. This is valid for everybody who deals with horns, not only for you. I am amazed when I see somebody who is sticking his theoretically correct MF horn to his compression MF driver and then he just accepts the result! He "plays" with arranging the horn in space, with setting of the optimal off axis angle, with different crossover techniques, but none of these compensates the badly designed horn.
Just a short example: the horns with round mouth have the worst possible performance in terms of sound complexity and they are champions in achieving the so called “open, but closed within itself” type of sound, where the sound is perceived as it is a hostage close to the bottom of the horn, trapped inside (but still energetic and "jumpy"), not "breathing" freely in the air. This effect is greatly reduced when for example the horn has oval shape (or even better – complex, “brain acceptable” shape), especially when the width/height ratio of the elliptic contour is the correct one. Who defines what is the correct ratio? – it is the one who builds many different horns and then uses his ears to select the best performing among them. All the people who performed a lot of experiments know that for achieving a good realistic imaging – the MF horns should be shorter in the direction of the other L or R channel, compared to the direction toward walls (to avoid confusion, here is another illustration):
asymmetric horn.JPG
And so on, and so on…



"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
01-26-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 24
Post ID: 20494
Reply to: 20493
What are we talking about?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 haralanov wrote:
You haven’t heard any important difference because you haven’t tried what I illustrated on the picture above.
 
Nope I did not as I do not feel that this type of experiment is even necessary. However, what I was caring about my MF I did not care about the lower range but only about the actual MF band path. It looks like you with your strategic orientation to “wider-rangeness” care about your MF in context of the lower octave you can get from the horn.  I have very different approach. It is like building an amp – you need to ask yourself what will be limiting the bandwidth: gain stage, filter, transformer  etc…I prefer it to be my explicit filter.  In a channel of acoustic system I prefer the same, not horn profile or driver roll off shall be filtration factor by my filter as filter will decay with know to me phases characteristic.  
 haralanov wrote:
And what does it mean you did “a lot of experiments”? Who defines what is “a lot” and what is “not enough”? In context of midrange horns you have to build at least 15-20 different horns with different profiles, different shapes of the mouth, different materials and so on, in order to judge which one fits closer to your requirements of how it should sound. This is valid for everybody who deals with horns, not only for you. I am amazed when I see somebody who is sticking his theoretically correct MF horn to his compression MF driver and then he just accepts the result! He "plays" with arranging the horn in space, with setting of the optimal off axis angle, with different crossover techniques, but none of these compensates the badly designed horn.
 That is all is valid criticism. I am sure that you have better designed horn ideas that you have implements and I hope they bring you a lot of happiness. I very much do not want to sound like I am expressing sarcasm. I do happy that you recognize my limitation and went much further and understanding and in implementation. It would be nice to learn from you if you wining to share some picture and descriptions. I still is not be so hard on myself as I well know that you and others you trying to experiment with horns installations or at least are trying to think that they do are in a way the continuation of my efforts. There is nothing wrong with it if you have honesty in what you do and able to recognize of result without ego evolved.
 haralanov wrote:
Just a short example: the horns with round mouth have the worst possible performance in terms of sound complexity and they are champions in achieving the so called “open, but closed within itself” type of sound, where the sound is perceived as it is a hostage close to the bottom of the horn, trapped inside (but still energetic and "jumpy"), not "breathing" freely in the air. This effect is greatly reduced when for example the horn has oval shape (or even better – complex, “brain acceptable” shape), especially when the width/height ratio of the elliptic contour is the correct one. Who defines what is the correct ratio? – it is the one who builds many different horns and then uses his ears to select the best performing among them. All the people who performed a lot of experiments know that for achieving a good realistic imaging – the MF horns should be shorter in the direction of the other L or R channel, compared to the direction toward walls
 Perhaps you are correct, I do not know, I did not deal with it. A few years back you were a strong proponent of single-drive speaker and clearly denied any horns. You had a lot of strong and confident reasons behind it. Nowadays you look like accepted horn topology and claim advanced practice with elliptic contour. You might or might not have any practical background behind of what you say. It is internet and everyone can say anything. Post the configuration of your elliptic installation, explain reason behind it and demonstrate your ability to answer question. That, my friend, is not just internet blabbering but the actual knowledge sharing.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-27-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 25
Post ID: 20495
Reply to: 20494
More....
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 haralanov wrote:
Just a short example: the horns with round mouth have the worst possible performance in terms of sound complexity and they are champions in achieving the so called “open, but closed within itself” type of sound, where the sound is perceived as it is a hostage close to the bottom of the horn, trapped inside (but still energetic and "jumpy"), not "breathing" freely in the air. This effect is greatly reduced when for example the horn has oval shape (or even better – complex, “brain acceptable” shape), especially when the width/height ratio of the elliptic contour is the correct one. Who defines what is the correct ratio? – it is the one who builds many different horns and then uses his ears to select the best performing among them. All the people who performed a lot of experiments know that for achieving a good realistic imaging – the MF horns should be shorter in the direction of the other L or R channel, compared to the direction toward walls
Perhaps you are correct, I do not know, I did not deal with it. A few years back you were a strong proponent of single-drive speaker and clearly denied any horns. You had a lot of strong and confident reasons behind it. Nowadays you look like accepted horn topology and claim advanced practice with elliptic contour. You might or might not have any practical background behind of what you say. It is internet and everyone can say anything. Post the configuration of your elliptic installation, explain reason behind it and demonstrate your ability to answer question. That, my friend, is not just internet blabbering but the actual knowledge sharing.


I would like to extend my comments about the elliptic contour. In the haralanov’s comment above he claims advantages of elliptic contour and it is a valid point. An elliptic contour has all advantages of clerical horns, namely minimization of parallel surfaces and at the same time it allows to be piled up much more compact that is a huge advantage. The complexity to manufacture elliptic horns and absence of any credible research or serious practical public attempts is an unfortunate bitch for the elliptic contour.  The straight conical horns sometimes work and sometimes not, go figure why and when. The Tratrix or La-profile work all time with no exception and the behavior is completely predictable. Does it make Tratrix “better”? Of course not but I do not think that anybody who read this site is care about “better without context”.

Now is the interesting subject. Haralanov claims that there is some kind of pattern that relates width/height ratio of the elliptic contour with the wall of the listening room and that it reportedly serves some kind of benefit. Do not make my sarcastic tone to deceive you. The claim is very serious and in a way intelligent, particularly in theoretical sense.

Let me to expend a bit about on the subject.

In contrary to common believe horns do tale to the wall and to listening room, partially by re-entry, partially by defraction and partially by other means. The depth of the “talk” is vary by size of the horns, the type of the horns, by loading protocol, by proximity of crossovers to the horn rate and by many other subjects. Would I acknowledge that the not the size by proportion of any give horn make any difference in context of a given listening room. Nope, I do not think that it is practically important.  I do not say that it makes no difference but I absolutely insist that under normal circumstances it is negligible.

Why?

It is negligible become in a sensible and properly performing 5-6 channel horn loading installation there is enough complexity and enough variables that mask the horn proportion idiosyncrasy very deep, well behind any sensible detection. At least it is what I feel.

Also, it is time and in context of haralanov’s claims I do not find the claim credible. No disrespect to haralanov but unfortunately it takese time. For a person, even as intersegment and dedicated as haralanov is it would take couple years to assemble and the most important to understand the essence of proper multi-channel horn loading. It not that it hard to understand but it takes time to live with sound and understand what this sound means and how with the given topology to manage/navigate sound in the way how you want. I do not believe that anything can do it with the way… it come with years.

So, how much person has to have a familiarity with horns (proper horns) in order to be able to hear an installation and be able to identify by hearing that the given horn might image better of it was 5” linger on one side and 8” shorter on another? Well, I would estimate that it would take 10 years of constant training own hearing with context of a VERY-VERY serious installation.  I do not have this experience, neither anybody who I know does, not to mention that I do not know anybody who use Elliptic horns for more than 2ch very simplistic playback.

Rgs, Romy the Cat



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-27-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 26
Post ID: 20496
Reply to: 20494
I'm not married to any topology
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I very much do not want to sound like I am expressing sarcasm.

Romy, I don’t treat your comments like expressed sarcasm and I never did it. In my view, your site is the only place in Internet, where fruitful discussions are possible to exist in context of advanced audio practice/theory. Even when somebody expresses sarcasm – it’s not a problem for me, because I have only audio interests, so I keep my personality and the personality of the other posters far away from the discussions (sorry for the off topic).
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I well know that you and others you trying to experiment with horns installations or at least are trying to think that they do are in a way the continuation of my efforts. There is nothing wrong with it if you have honesty in what you do and able to recognize of result without ego evolved.

I have absolutely no problem to confess I was motivated by your posts to perform some experiments with horns, because I read about the sonic benefits you have, but I haven’t heard these benefits coming from industrial horn loaded systems. So, driven by my never ending curiosity, I needed to check and hear for myself if what you describe happens in reality, thus I made some experiments in order to judge if what I hear could possible satisfy my requirements in terms of reproduced sound.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
However, what I was caring about my MF I did not care about the lower range but only about the actual MF band path. It looks like you with your strategic orientation to “wider-rangeness” care about your MF in context of the lower octave you can get from the horn.  I have very different approach. It is like building an amp – you need to ask yourself what will be limiting the bandwidth: gain stage, filter, transformer  etc…I prefer it to be my explicit filter.  In a channel of acoustic system I prefer the same, not horn profile or driver roll off shall be filtration factor by my filter as filter will decay with know to me phases characteristic.  

Actually I use the same methods, with the only difference I want the driver to have trouble-free performance even far outside its operational range, because the out-band problems indirectly affect the quality of the usable bandwidth, after the electrical filter has been applied.
 
 Romy the Cat wrote:
A few years back you were a strong proponent of single-drive speaker

This is simply not true. I used (and still use) very wide-midrange drivers, but they are supported with other channels. I have always said single driver speakers are a bad audio joke, especially the small-sized ones. IMO, even a high quality 12” wide range driver needs support by at least 3 additional channels…
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Nowadays you look like accepted horn topology and claim advanced practice with elliptic contour. You might or might not have any practical background behind of what you say. It is internet and everyone can say anything. Post the configuration of your elliptic installation, explain reason behind it and demonstrate your ability to answer question. That, my friend, is not just internet blabbering but the actual knowledge sharing.

Yes, the oval mouth of the MF horn has more complex tone and also lessens the so called “call attention to itself” effect, but I did not accept horn topology, because of the following main reasons:

The channel that “pulls” the sound of the other channels must have as high as possible energy/ surface area ratio. There is no single horn which fits to that requirement, because there is no practical way to avoid the effect of “empty sound” that is coming from the horn. This happens because there is too low energy for a given mouth area. The situation doesn’t improve even with compression drivers having bigger diaphragms, because they require way too big throat, so in this situation the acoustic coupler can no longer be called a horn, because it will resemble a waveguide (having very little acoustic gain at the bottom knee).
 
The horns, even the fast opening ones are physically too deep for their mouth’s size, and this leads to a psychoacoustic illusion that the sound images are arrested at the bottom of the horn and from there they scream they want to escape, but the listener does not hear them - he hears their echo jumping out of the horn. This is the most important reason not to use horns.

Very unsatisfactory level of tonal discrimination. There are two reasons having negative impact on tone. The first reason is the horn itself. The sound of the compression driver accepts the inherent sound characteristics of the horn’s material. These specific sound characteristics affect any single note that passes through the horn in exactly the same way, effectively homogenizing the variety of original colors that are contained in the recordings. It is the same as wearing sunglasses. You can see part of the original colors of the objects around you, but you always see the added “color” of the glasses. The second reason is the compression driver. For tonally rich midrange and upper midrange, the diaphragm must be at least 5-6”. But if it is so big – then the sound of the upper range goes into the toilet, that’s why nobody uses big sized domes. I will not mention the big voice coils as a reason for bad tonal discrimination, because there is a way to construct compression driver with relatively small, tone capable voice coils (sacrificing few dB of efficiency). So it is downside of the specific implementation, not the topology. The same is valid for the material of its diaphragm.

But since I’m able to appreciate the pros of any topology, I have to note one very positive characteristic of the MF horns. Their big surface makes the sound very intelligible and the listener can clearly hear the subtle changes of sound “curves” and all this leads to better perception and understanding of the reproduced music within the limits of the usable frequency range. The reason why this doesn’t happen with the ordinary direct MF radiators is the absence of big surface area, no matter how well the driver reproduces low level information. From psychoacoustic point of view – the brain of the listener perceives the sound much easier, when the source of the sound is big enough. The lack of intelligibility of a small sized source cannot be compensated by anything, even high SPLs! But this is not enough stimulation for me to actually implement horns in my system. The same is with video: you can't see wha's in the picture, until you see it at big screen. Looking it at small screen at short distance doesn't help to see it.
So if there is horn/CD combo that is free from the above mentioned shortcomings – I will immediately buy it and use it! I have tried other topologies for MF reproduction that I also do not find usable, not only horns (electrostatic speakers, planars) because they have even more sound compromises. After all, if a big pile of shits in the middle of my room is able to reproduce the recordings better than anything else that exists on this planet – I will listen to it with a big pleasure :-))


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
01-27-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,544
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 20497
Reply to: 20496
Your following main reasons…
fiogf49gjkf0d
 haralanov wrote:
The horns, even the fast opening ones are physically too deep for their mouth’s size, and this leads to a psychoacoustic illusion that the sound images are arrested at the bottom of the horn and from there they scream they want to escape, but the listener does not hear them - he hears their echo jumping out of the horn. This is the most important reason not to use horns.
It is possible to throw fantastic imaging presentation by using direct radiator but did you pay attention that many playbacks do not do it? What does it mean? It means that an ability of playback to make imaging interning is ALSO derives from the skills and objectives of a system owner. So, if we have direct radiator people who are not able to get proper imaging out of their “superiors imaging topology” then why you deny that in horn world it would be possible to have individuals who are able to make imaging to work? I admit that with a direct radiators is it very easy to make imagine to be “sexy”, take any mini-monitors with ULF, put it anywhere and the will image fine. With horn it is much more complex and require MUCH more space. It is perfectly doable however. Putting put horns stuck at least 6 feet from the back would be a good direction to start.
 haralanov wrote:
Very unsatisfactory level of tonal discrimination. There are two reasons having negative impact on tone. The first reason is the horn itself. The sound of the compression driver accepts the inherent sound characteristics of the horn’s material. These specific sound characteristics affect any single note that passes through the horn in exactly the same way, effectively homogenizing the variety of original colors that are contained in the recordings. It is the same as wearing sunglasses. You can see part of the original colors of the objects around you, but you always see the added “color” of the glasses. The second reason is the compression driver. For tonally rich midrange and upper midrange, the diaphragm must be at least 5-6”. But if it is so big – then the sound of the upper range goes into the toilet, that’s why nobody uses big sized domes. I will not mention the big voice coils as a reason for bad tonal discrimination, because there is a way to construct compression driver with relatively small, tone capable voice coils (sacrificing few dB of efficiency). So it is downside of the specific implementation, not the topology. The same is valid for the material of its diaphragm.
Well, do you see anybody force you to “accept horn topology”. What you say is what you say and all that I advise you is to not make very advanced claims about utilization of oval horns if you do not have practical experience with horns basics. Yes, most of compression drivers with horn are not good for tonal discrimination, but the same with direct radiators. Do I need to add that most of the direct radiators are horrible for dynamic discrimination? BTW, pay attention that I do not claim that direct radiators are unusable because of high level of dynamic compression.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-27-2014 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 28
Post ID: 20498
Reply to: 20497
Sorry for the offtopic
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
It is possible to throw fantastic imaging presentation by using direct radiator but did you pay attention that many playbacks do not do it? What does it mean? It means that an ability of playback to make imaging interning is ALSO derives from the skills and objectives of a system owner.

Yes, this is the pure truth! Actually I have never ever heard an acoustic system with direct radiators, which is able to do what I consider realistic, super convincing imaging… I also find all of the commercially available direct radiators, without any exception, to be very, very, very unsatisfactory in terms of… everything. If I had $ 1 000 000 000 in my bank account and if I had to choose MF direct radiator, having performance that satisfies my requirements – I won’t be able to choose such a driver, I’m dead serious. If I have to do a list of the DR shortcomings – it will take more than a week of writing…

OK, I may sound like a very confused audio Moron, who denies everything, but there is a way for overcoming most of the important shortcomings, but unfortunately the solutions are not commercially available, so in future I have to close my mouth and stop criticizing without providing a working solution.
 
Best regards,
Petar


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
Page 2 of 2 (28 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts