| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Macondo’s lowest channel. (149 posts, 8 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 4 of 8 (149 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Macondo Alternation. Extending the LF line-array..  Macondo and not only Macondo positioning...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     8  109660  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46031  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  No wonder...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     72  407133  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  1515101  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2004536  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  12447  10-08-2010
  »  New  Bass impact on Turntable: how to estimate objectively..  I have done some work on this in the past....  Analog Playback Forum     4  29414  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  16188  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Sorry, no images any more....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     56  487829  04-23-2009
  »  New  Monophonic bass: myth and reality...  I do not think so but I am OK with it....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     5  24993  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  27473  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  9776  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  32850  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  85917  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  335006  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  15682  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  416122  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  Awesome...  Audio Discussions  Forum     41  8385  07-29-2018
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
David Yost
Posts 1
Joined on 07-24-2004

Post #: 61
Post ID: 15706
Reply to: 15705
Rotary woofer for ULF?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hello, Romy
I don't know if one or more of these could fit into your ULF scheme (or house plan), but it seems to have great potential.  I also seem to recall that ULF injection was an old school technique mostly abandoned by the mid 60's as serious music listening gave way to more casual and less demanding popular/party/casual listening.
http://www.rotarywoofer.com/
Best wishes,David
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 62
Post ID: 15707
Reply to: 15706
I do not need a Rotary woofer, I need to be less Moron.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes, David, I have seen the Rotary woofer and have thought about it. I never heard it, have seen it 2-3 times in systems in Vegas but they never played it what I was in room.  With know how it sound and what is able to do it is very difficult to me any judgment and they do not allow the in-home trails. BTW, I spent today almost half of day conducting the experiments with my ULF and I think I did found the problem that was implanted into my enter ULF project so far. As I have time I will write a report. I am with 99% confident that the problem with ULF is resolved as I have not only my ULF performing as I would it to but also the alternation of the partially erroneous objectives that I have develop for the last 2 months while my ULF did not perform up to demands. Ironically, the problem was purely by my own making…. 

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
03-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 63
Post ID: 15710
Reply to: 15707
***
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
BTW, I spent today almost half of day conducting the experiments with my ULF and I think I did found the problem that was implanted into my enter ULF project so far. As I have time I will write a report. I am with 99% confident that the problem with ULF is resolved as I have not only my ULF performing as I would it to but also the alternation of the partially erroneous objectives that I have develop for the last 2 months while my ULF did not perform up to demands. Ironically, the problem was purely by my own making…. 

I spent today pretty much a whole day working with my playback searching for a way to implement my ULF injection. Later on I will describe in details what and how I did what I did but now I do not want to talk. All the I would say that I did it and the result is beyond spectacular it made this installation is perform at the level life altering experience. I do not exaggerate. What Macondo does now is beyond audio and music it work now at some kind of subconscious physiological level   and it is physical.  I can write a whole book describing the audio experiences I have today for the last 2 hours, it is truly life and believes altering.

I find a way to inject into my room+ 30dB (!!!) from where I was before at 25Hz, and inject it in away the it affect absolutely nothing in my bass.  The stunning thing about the room and the way how I did it is the room perfectly dissipates it sounding and measuring perfectly flat. The sonic impact is beyond any references that I can give you – it is truly paralyzing. It feel like you are driving a car at high speed,  the car lost control on ice and you are  flying knowing that there is nothing the you can do anymore, waiting to happen whatever will happen. It has that will squashing effect that I was pitching and dreaming for so many years – it is truly very different experience. Sound wise it did not change but it added some kind physical connectivity of each particular of body to sonic events and each vibrato become my own physical sensation. It is enslaving and it is subordinating but it my version of audio, it is what I do.  I never worshiped audio with it. Now I have it and I have a full contol over it.
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
03-07-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
IslandPink
Posts 18
Joined on 02-08-2005

Post #: 64
Post ID: 15714
Reply to: 15710
Congrats
fiogf49gjkf0d
Romy
This is very interesting , congratulations .
It seems like you have discovered something that gives greater emotional connection to the music.
Is it affecting various types of music ?

MJ
03-08-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 65
Post ID: 15724
Reply to: 15714
Getting some maturity with ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d
I am continuing evolving with my ULF application. The IslandPink’s question if my ULF affecting various types of music sound kind of funny. Would my answer to be predicable?

I a bit release the pressure from ULF. The way I use ULF allow to chalks the ULF level at very wide margin without affecting the rest of Macondo Sound. The way how I used ULF at the very first day makes testicles to fly on the room was is perfectly fine for some music (did I mention my Bruckner?) but I find to suitable in a long run. I did find the new from my point of view new absolutely perfect setting and ULF is set to be indispensable part of my Macondo experience.

Actually to be “absolutely perfect” I would need to kill another 1 dB if ULF output. However, in ULF 1dB difference is what .25dB at MF, so even as is my ULF is perfectly acceptable. The attenuator at ULF power amp has 3dB click but I need 1dB. I need 250K, constant impedence, stepped attenuator (remote controlled?) with .5db steps… I need to find somebody who can do it for me as I do not want to do it myself and to burn my fingers…

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
03-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 66
Post ID: 15732
Reply to: 15724
About ULF attenuation.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Actually I got interest in the idea of having remote control attenuator on my ULF amplifier, I juts need to find a company who will be able to do it for me.

For whatever reasons audio people feel bass channels have to have an attenuator. This is always was a summit of idiocy in my book as bass channel MUST NOT have attenuator and MUST NOT be adjustable. There is absolutely no need to regulate bass in playback as bass level need to be set once at proper level and never be touched. The bass-shy and bass-exuberant recording shall not lead to modification of bass in playback.

The ULF channel is very different animal, it is not bass. Bass is auditable and modifying bass one modifies everything in Sound of playback. ULF is not auditable in a normal scene. Listening just ULF channel without main speakers you would have no idea not only what is paling but in most cases you would not even recognize that playback is placing. ULF produces hardly usable pressure that is hardly auditable, in fact the list it’s auditable the better ULF. The full benefit of ULF is observed only when ULF plays with the rest of the system, softening the whole sound and creating a few other more exoteric contributions.

In my view the key in successful ULF is the ability unpunishably changes the ULF volume. If you have ULF channel, you change ULF volume and your Sound change then you do not have ULF but you have bass channel. ULF attention shall be very much detached from sound of playback. A well trained listener can hear 1/2dB change in bass. The similar magnitude of SONIC CHANGES in ULF channel would in my estimation represent 6-8dB change.

Furthermore, the change of ULF volume is perfectly permeated as it does not affect sound. From some perspective ULF act as delay channels, setting up the size of the presentation and softness of decays. This parameter might be perfectly modifiable with specific music as it does not modify the sound itself but rather the way in which Sound perceived.

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
03-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 67
Post ID: 15733
Reply to: 15710
How is it implemented?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Maybe it is because I have very low audio-IQ, but I don’t understand the implementation of your ULF channels - how is it possible to inject +30dB at 25Hz without changing the sound? What is the crossover frequency of that channel? Could you post a photo in order to see how it is aligned with the rest of your acoustic system?


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
03-09-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 68
Post ID: 15736
Reply to: 15733
My implementation of ULF channel.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Yes, I promised to tell about, so here is comes.

The past Sunday I woke up at 6AM and first intention to answer to myself what is wrong with my ULF. I had wonderful sound with absolutely wonderful and the most important very proper bass.  However all my attempts to supplement my bass with ULF took sound in very wrong direction? As soon I added go 1/5 dB of ULF over my bass output the wait and the size of presentation was imidetaly growing but the leading edge of the midbass and bass notes got very severally defused and become non expressive. I did find a good balance between some added weight from the bottom and destruction of my midbass but it was near close what I would like to be, so I mostly prefect to hear my playback without ULF – it was very-very musical and nice presentation.

I was wondering why my woofer towers stopped working, they were working spectacularly in my old room.  I turn the playback on, crank my ULF for extras 3 dB and was listening what is doing on. I was paying attention to the deformity of midbass across midbass range. What I noticed is that lower midbass is got screwed differently then mid midbass and then upperbass again got screwed. It has to be timing related I figured.

I moved my ULF towers exactly under the driver of my midbass horns. The change was very interesting. The destruction of midbass still was there but it was very evenly dispersed across the whole midbass range. I kind of began to feel very idiotic about myself. Over the years I am very vocal and persistent advocate of prejudicial time aliment and not I was harvesting the crapy results because my ULF was not time aligned. There was however even more then time alignment. Over the year I made fun and humiliate the people who built “subwoofers in the corners” and now, putting my ULF woofer towers in basically another room I was essentially doing the very same. Yes, in that another room (look at the picture at the begging of the thread) the large woofer tower’s presence was absolutely not abusive but it is did not work for Sound.

So, what I did next was taking my woofer towers and the location where I use to have them for 11 years in my old room – on the outside side of Macondo in exact time-aligned position with the rest MF Macondo drivers. I turned the playback on and… had no ULF out at all. The drivers where moving but there was no sound – I need more gain I figured. In my old location I attenuated the ULF power amp for 8 clicks which is 24 dB. Not I max out my power amp and I only begin to have something. I opened up the ULF B2 amp and dropped feedback for 6 dB – not I have mode gain. The room’s bottom juts fallen off and it took in itself all it bass without exhibiting any sight of overload or any other negative experiences.

I would like to say that I did something smart – I did not. As soon I time-aligned the woofer towers and point then directly to the listening position then the Sound got instantly and automatically all sonic attributes that I was looking from ULF. I was extremely happy with result and very angry to myself for being such a fucking idiot and was trying to get some sound from a ULF configuration that I spend years to hate. I was so displeased with myself that I took the 4-wire 3Ga cable (fat and expensive) that my carpenter installed for me in the wall and pulled it out of the wall assuring the I have no more dedicated line from my equipment bay to my old location of the ULF towers.

Sure, I have some excuses.  I ordered my woofer towers as a custom project from John Danlavy back in 2000. At that time John was contemplating the woofer towers as a commercial project, in fact become a commercial project by my tower were made with a lot of negotiations and debates.  Since then I did not have any other bass in my room and this is the only bass I am accustomed for the last 11 years. I loved that bass from day # 1, in fact I so loved it that I got my second ML2.0 to drive my woofer towers. So, when I I put my woofer towers in the very same position as I has it in my old room I got instantly my old Marlborough Bass the I so loved and was so proud. 

Interestingly that bass that I have from those woofer towers is much more advanced then what I had in my old room. In my all room my woofer towers were bass module as they handle mid and lowest bass. In my new room my woofer towers are thru ULF as midbass horns care all auditable sound.  I very much the result and it only proves that all along my ranting about arrival-alignment, the latitude-alignment, the location of bass outside of MF and the rest of BS were very much accurate. Now, if I learn do what I pitch then I would same me so much aggravation, not only in audio BTW….

Here is the new location for my ULF of left chennal:

ULF_NewLocation.JPG

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 69
Post ID: 15743
Reply to: 15736
Further thoughts about ULF channel.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Me being exuberant about the new ULF capacity does not necessarily mean that ULF contribution is right and proper, let me to explain.

There is a musical event that has it sonic representation. This sonic representation better or worst was captured by recording and it is somehow presented as sound of playback. ULF channel, in my view, is about creation of conditions when sound of playback heard in more attractive and more communicable way. I still insist that sound of playback without ULF is more proper representation of original sound. ULF channel is more about compensation of problem with recording media, it is very effective, very impactful and unquestionably beneficial, but it not part of “original reality”, rather it is part of “assisted reality”. Again, it is all about the question if you wools like to be right or happy…

So, dealing with ULF channel is about of dealing with own since of self-moderation. For an audio person to play with a capable ULF is the same as for recovering alcoholic to run a liquor store. I do not feel that I was out of control what I got my ULF channel to work properly but I need to admit that not I am running my ULF at minus 9dB in compare what where I was at the very first day.

There is another very important aspect that I never seen anybody ever covered. As I said the adjustability of ULF is not the same as adjustability of bass and the adjustability of ULF with respect of music being played is not a bad thing. However, there is a twist in it. When I adjust my ULF level I very likely moderate the problem that given recording has at ultra low frequencies. Truly the sub 20Hz is a big mystery in recording possess.

Microphones, cables, electronics and many other things do work at 20Hz but HOW they work. No one even take critical what is going on in there. The LP format has RIAA curves that were specified down to 29Hz only. Digital has to be ULF flat but there is so much more then flatness. I would not be surprise if we learn that at 20Hz playback has absolutely insane amount of distortions that would not be tolerable at higher frequencies. What you get a CD then can you tell me what quality of sound it has at 20Hz. We usually think about 20Hz as sufficient amount of bass, the bass quantity but it has absolutely nothing to do with amount or quantity but with quality of the 20Hz sound. Who has option to evaluate and to moderate it? I do not think the people do have that option at large and I think that 20hz that we have on our media are RANDOM QUALITY 20HZ. Therefore I feel that an adjustment of 20Hz ULF is a reasonable tool to have. There are problems with ULF adjustment as the quantity AND quality of ULF are in direct relation with amount of HF that system can out but it is a whole another subject.

I think playing ULF is in way similar with my recent search for proper cable that would connect my preamps with my ULF power amp. I do have a number of very good cables but none of them work acceptable in my view of the channel produce ULF and nothing else. The “best for bass” cables just produce larger output in ULF but larger output is soothing that is absolutely irrelevant to me. I need specific sonic characteristic of ULF cable but the cables that I tried juts did not have it. Ironically I run as ULF cables a cheap regular plastic cable that usually people trash away, the cable has the least bass but the more proper ULF in my view, at least among the cables that I had and I am still looking for better ULF cable. This is what I call “random result” – try o call to a manufacture and ask how his cables sound at 20Hz if you do not care about amplitude. They just do not know and most of them would not even understand what you are asking. I think the very same situation exists at CD/LP or whatever other format: the people who produce and record music might not know the true capacity of ULF information that their recordings have.

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bill
Kensington, NH
Posts 50
Joined on 03-15-2010

Post #: 70
Post ID: 15744
Reply to: 15743
ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d
What I heard in your room on Saturday was superb reproduction of what was recorded from 40 Hz. up. This is ideal probably for a recording of a chamber group in a small hall without anybody present. One could hear the hall surroundings which replaced your room acoustic, but not the ULF that fills the hall and gives one the feeling of true concert hall space. 
When i walk into a large hall filled with people, AC noise, background noise from the street, etc. is a pressurization effect of primarily low frequency information which can be recorded onto both analog and digital media. For instance on my DAT recordings of second generation  RCA tape of a recording from London, when the tape starts the room pressurizes with the tape hiss, but as soon as the mikes get turned on one can feel the room pressure from the surroundings, and then one can actually hear several different subways running under the hall and tell that there are more than one and even which direction they are coming from. In several done in Symphony Hall, one can hear the road traffic on the right side from Mass. Ave., an d can distinguish the rumble of truck vs. auto engine noise. Thus the deep bass is recorded onto the original tapes and records and can be transcribed even onto 16/48 DAT's. Whether the system can reproduce it properly is the problem.
 Thus recording media can pick up that low frequency information, and without that ULF information the room never pressurizes and one feels that one is in an anechoic chamber.
 
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 71
Post ID: 15745
Reply to: 15744
I would agree but…
fiogf49gjkf0d

…but there are a few considerations that I would like to stress.

1)    The ULF pressurization must not impact auditable sound in any negative way. If it does then all bets are off and ULF better do not be used.

2)    The ULF pressurization shall be max out to the point where ULF does not become own self-centric expressive force.

3)    ULF pressurization must be in absolute time-alignment and considering the geometry of the ULF transducers the ULF need to be in axis with listener.

4)    Considering that we use for ULF source the information that is recorded not always properly the ULF moderation during playback is advisable.

5)    I do not feel a need to administer ULF differently for chamber group and for a large orchestra in concert hall space

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 72
Post ID: 15746
Reply to: 15745
The problem that that I see with my ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d
As good as my ULF turned out to be but purely conceptually it is not an ultimate proper playback solution. I have midbass horns runs down to 42Hz and ULF kicks in at 25Hz with 3rg order. In reality does to the geometry of my room and the fact the distance between midbass horns and the opposite wall is a half lower cut of wavelength I think my midbass horns sound lower then what they are. The 42Hz/25Hz is fine configuration but not the best for ULF perspective. The best would be to have midbass horns going doe to 30Hz and to have ULF to kick in at 17-18Hz. If I had this setting then the ULD would be much more non-auditable and this would be much better in my view. Sure it is not what I will be going for the folks who contemplating it might consider it. A good idea is to have midbass, bass and ULF as 3 independently tunable, amplifiable entities. Then all stupid fantasies that people are telling about room tuning are evaporating as you have narrow tunable slices of radiating spectra that might be custom tined foe what the given room need.

BTW, I do not think that industry even produced any driver or speakers that are useable at 17Hz. To have a sealed box with 17Hz would need to have a driver with free air resonance at 10-11Hz. If you need 100dB sensitivity from such a driver, high power handling, low distortion and ability to react to low currents then we are talking about a driver that is verbally impossible to make with conventional methods.

That all is not truly applicable to me as I am set with what I got. The only thing that I might be contemplating in future is to have a powerful 200 SET amp to drive my lower bass, perhaps even DC-able OTL. To find this monster tube amps would be another subject...

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
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
RF at Ona
Posts 12
Joined on 05-29-2007

Post #: 73
Post ID: 15747
Reply to: 15736
Loudspeaker Proximity Coupling in Midbass & ULF
fiogf49gjkf0d

I would like to suggest an alternative factor or explanation to your recent ULF/midbass findings.

When you were chronicling the design and implementation of your midbass horns I was curious as to the effect of the very close placement of the two horns.

When two loudspeaker drivers are placed close together they become acoustically coupled and so more efficient than when spaced well apart. On in-phase signals, two closely placed drivers would play louder in the bandwidth where they are acoustically coupled but have significant destructive interference for out-of-phase signals. I think this might well apply to the mid-bass horns.

In addition to these effects, on in-phase signals the pair of midbass horns might also function something like a two-sector horn where the combined mouth area determines the low frequency cut-off. The low frequency cutoff would be lower for the two horns running in-phase signals than for a single horn.

I am not sure if you ever tested for any of these effects although I remember your pleasure at how the useful range of the midbass horns was lower than a simple formulaic analysis would indicate. To test for these effects you can’t test one channel at a time. You would have to run a frequency response test for both horns running simultaneously and compare the response to in-phase vs. out-of-phase signals.

Now the same issues and analysis applies to your woofer towers and with the new placement of the towers some of these effects may have become exposed.

If these effects are significant than your new wider spaced ULF towers might actually be functioning more effectively in their upper range than the midbass horns in their lower range on stereo recordings with phase differences between the channels in this frequency range.

Because of the low-pass roll-off on the ULF you may have found that a significantly elevated gain for the ULF is improving the music reproduction where the mid-bass horns have unwanted cancellation effects. But this elevated gain does not hurt the reproduction of the ambient/environmental sounds intended to be reproduced by the ULF towers because these sounds are much less sensitive to output level than the musical signal.

How significant these effects are in practice are less clear. Stereo phono records usually become quite monaural in the low frequency range to facilitate both cutting the master and playback tracking. CDs and other modern digital sources may have enough out-of-phase bass for the coupling/cancellation effects to be noticeable.

If you have found or suspected that your LPs and monaural source material have a somewhat richer or fuller sound in the bass than your digital sources this may be a clue.

Regards,
Robert

03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
N-set
Gdansk, Poland
Posts 454
Joined on 01-07-2006

Post #: 74
Post ID: 15748
Reply to: 15706
Great rotary idea!
fiogf49gjkf0d
Thanks for sharing it David.
Makes those mastodont architectural horns with a double or triple ALE/GOTO
drivers look like a tuning of a Ford fiesta to resemble a Ferrari Big Smile
Cheers, N-set



Cheers,
Jarek
03-10-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 75
Post ID: 15749
Reply to: 15747
Brilliant analyses!
fiogf49gjkf0d
Great analyses, David, thanks.

I can’t concur as now with anything. Macondo in the room with midbass horn was a complex installation and with ULF it became even more complex. Some of the things I setup by ear and do not use measurements, I just know how the things have to sound. Of course I do measure the things but I do not always pay attention to it in a normal sense. Over the years I leans Macondo well and I have learned how my measuring techniques correlates with Sound, so it very handy to measure, to make decisions and to listed by the same person. I am saying it as there are quite a number of strange measuring monuments in my setup but all together it somehow works very well.  I do not talk about it as I do not think anybody would have interest but some of those logical anomalies do make to think about the reasons, to define my own rules and setting up shortcuts.

I do not do in-phase vs. out-of-phase experiment as I know what need to be in in-phase and what has to be out-of-phase in Macondo. What however fascinated me was the correlation of response of one channel with the same channel complimented by other channel. This is a very interesting way to see what is doing on and a very powerful tool for speaker room integration.  My very minor towing in and out speaker it was possible to fine tune some upper mid range attenuation and I was truly good with it. Why I am saying in past tense? Because my “new” ULF channels completely override this. The ULF linearised response of both channel in very funny manner making combined Macondo channels to sound practically identically to each individual channel, The individual channels of cause are “tactically linear”.

When you were saying about stereo recordings with phase differences between the channels in specific frequency range then you hit a very direct target of what I was thinking another day. Having the whole 14 channels in time-alignment it is very funny to see how people who record with multi-microphones are fucking the things up. Some time they use highlight mics with time delays and set the delays in wrong way. When it happens is sounds so brutally stupid….

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
03-12-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 76
Post ID: 15754
Reply to: 15746
Going down with bass
fiogf49gjkf0d
After a lot of extremely pleasurable listening and reviewing own expectation for bass I went down with my bass level quite significantly.  I rolled back the change in my bass amp gain and not I am at 5th click, which is about 12 dB down. So, not I am injecting in my room 8dB more then I use to do at my old bass location.

I need to say that I can add pretty much the whole 12dB of bass and it still will be fine and perfectly listenable, in fact with some music I do add 3-4dB, Do not forget the it is not bass but ULF, the sub 25Hz. Still, the 5th click is my reference level, something that I consider “proper sound”.

I think I about to close my interest in this thread. I would be theoretically interested what would happen if I move my ULF crossover point to 5dB down and what would happen is I use for ULF my larger woofers. However, I do not recognize any deficiency with my sound in lower end now. If I do then I will try something different but for now I locked up everything as is and just enjoy the ride.

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
03-12-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 137
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 77
Post ID: 15755
Reply to: 15754
Under FS
fiogf49gjkf0d
This si very interesting thread for me, just a couple of points more;

I heard a bass driver can be cut under its resonant frequency,  this will allow the driver to go much lower.
Say a huge pro paper woofer with FS at 35 hz: we could use it as ULF channel from 25-30 hz down with open bottom.
I have a pair of nice drivers I will try to run a few tests this week.

Another point; we all know the wonders UHF does, say a tweeter up to 40khz, The few experiments I have done with ULF make me belive the same effect is in order, giving mid range and even highs a better integration and intelligibility to instruments.

I was digging out this old interesting thread:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=3674#3674

"A basshorn should pressurize the room and create an environment that allows the MF to be “floated” ATOP of basshorn’s pressuranization. Thy basshorn’s out should act like a high density liquid that would permit the low density liquid (MF and HF) do not sink and to fly freely in a room. However, as soon the LF begin to inflict a listener with own ‘"pulsating room effect" then the value of LF should be minimized"
03-12-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 78
Post ID: 15756
Reply to: 15747
Ideal ULF/Midbass integration
fiogf49gjkf0d


Hi Roberts, Romy and others,

Before this thread vanishes in undeserved obscurity, I have a question or two for you. I understand that the issue is a complex one and should be addressed with more care and paying attention to detail than I am doing here, but I would like to know your thoughts as the situation bears some similarities to the one discussed here and it might be worth picking your minds when the issues have been freshly discussed. It will be some months before I have the time to set up my system in this room, so this is not remotely a hypothetical question, but given that the house is in France and I am presently in the UK, I cannot attempt several different solutions before actually having to move in with what I hope is the solution with the best chance of success.

So what is the definition of success for me as far as the lowest bass is concerned? Well, it works on two levels at least, not surprisingly. It must pressure the whole room uniformly, be capable of integrating with what'shappening in the music without either attracting attention to itself unduly or indeed by its absence. This is the common feeling I have with 90% of all systems out there, that the lowest octave is simply missing.

In an ideal world, I would like my bass to be happy with a dedicated 50w of tube amplification if at all possible. I am a great believer in a homogeneous tone throughout the entire frequency range and the tube I will be using to start with (6C33C) can produce a maximum of 40-50W in a good design. Therefore my second level definition of success, although I am comfortable with the idea that it may not be achievable, would be a ULF solution that would not need more than 40-50W at full power to give peak listening volumes of 90-95 db although I never play that loud in practice, the courtesies of social living being what they are, and I am mindful of the dangers of hearing damage to young children, who get habituated to listening to high volume levels. Achieving this is my definition of success at level 2.

We are dealing with a rectangular room of about 6.5m by 7.5m but with a ceiling height of  2.4-2.5m in a very old townhouse where the walls are made of stone and probably no less than a metre thick everywhere. I have considered (theoretically) several solutions and the one that I favoured for a while was an infinite baffle for ULF (15-40Hz) but that would require the temporary loss of a 5 centuries old wine cellar which I am, understandably reluctant to do. 

My second solution was a 'line array' of 2x6 Scanspeak drivers (the elegant unobtrusive solution), or possibly 6x18" McCauley 6174 (equivalent to 20 Scanspeaks) or even 6x21" Maelstroms (equivalent to 27 scanspeaks) unless McCauley somehow can be convinced to sell their 21" woofer separately). Obviously the position and implementation of this type of solution is so dependent on the mid-bass channel that I may well mention it. If this is the solution, I would not have a midbass channel, much as I would love to, as I could not accomodate such a channel and devote only part of the room to my playback which I would like to be part of the main family room, and not overwhelm it entirely. In my much smaller current room, I am able to achieve this by keeping all my equipment restricted to three racks in a different room. In my new bigger room, unfortunately all the equipment racks will have to be inside the room itself.

I am not prejudiced to any form of solution, provided it works, and the last possibility I was looking at was two dual tapped horns that would fit in the room corners and then maybe have two 3.5m midbass horns along the side walls. On paper, this solution is appealing, and I CAN SEE A NUMBER OF ADVANTAGES TO THIS. I have read that Eric of Volvotreter in Germany and maybe John Hasquin are proponents of tapped horns, but I am worried they may suffer from the same problems that I have so far associated with all ported enclosure and transmission line designs that I have heard (in fact I own dipole subwoofers(Mirage BPS400), ported speakers (Spendor BC1), IMF TL80 (transmission line) and must say that I now harbour serious doubts regarding these solutions on the basis of their specific topology.

Roberts, I read carefully your pertinent, clear and helpful observations in your above post and wonder whether you might clarify or expand on a couple of points you made that, idiot that I am, could not follow as well as I would have liked. Here goes:

 RF at Ona wrote:

When two loudspeaker drivers are placed close together they become acoustically coupled and so more efficient than when spaced well apart. On in-phase signals, two closely placed drivers would play louder in the bandwidth where they are acoustically coupled but have significant destructive interference for out-of-phase signals. I think this might well apply to the mid-bass horns.



Robert, I would think this would not be a problem if the ULF signals were summed and the identical 'mono' signal sent to both channels. We can thus enjoy the benefit of increased efficiency whilst staying away from the problem of cancellation of out-of-phase signals.

 RF at Ona wrote:

In addition to these effects, on in-phase signals the pair of midbass horns might also function something like a two-sector horn where the combined mouth area determines the low frequency cut-off. The low frequency cutoff would be lower for the two horns running in-phase signals than for a single horn.



Robert, bluntly, this is maybe a good thing, yet another benefit of close placement of mid-bass horns, as you get two for the price of one, that is lower frequency cut-off. Does that suggest and in your experience, would this mean that two 50Hz horns would actually act as a single 40Hz horn? Like anyone in this hobby, I like getting something for free, but is this lower frequency cut-off really free and without downside (other than  catching one unawares in planning mid-bass+ULF integration).

 RF at Ona wrote:

Now the same issues and analysis applies to your woofer towers and with the new placement of the towers some of these effects may have become exposed.

If these effects are significant than your new wider spaced ULF towers might actually be functioning more effectively in their upper range than the midbass horns in their lower range on stereo recordings with phase differences between the channels in this frequency range.



I am not too clear about 'their upper range.' Do you mean that the lower range of the ULF towers are in principle compromised because this is an area where they overlap the upper range of the mid-bass channel and therefore the area where we have in-phase summation and out-of-phase cancellation (across the whole 42-500Hz of the mid-bass channels I would say)?

 RF at Ona wrote:

Because of the low-pass roll-off on the ULF you may have found that a significantly elevated gain for the ULF is improving the music reproduction where the mid-bass horns have unwanted cancellation effects.



If the above is happening to a significant degree, then the comment here probably follows and does not need clarification. However I would still be grateful if you would expand on the reasons why this is so. It might help others who missed out on their physics classes when they were looking at the properties of soundwaves in secondary school.

 RF at Ona wrote:

But this elevated gain does not hurt the reproduction of the ambient/environmental sounds intended to be reproduced by the ULF towers because these sounds are much less sensitive to output level than the musical signal.



Oops. You are going too fast! This is the reason where I disagreed most with Romy earlier, although maybe it came out as a disagreement in approach to music reproduction generally. Intuitively, I think Romy is right but intellectually, I do not follow why we (that is Romy above and I think you, and prabably Bill, seem to do so as well) make a distinction between ambience informations and other musical signals which inhabit the same frequency range. I would like to undertand this better. Further, why separate ambience information in such an arbitrary fashion? Applause that Romy mentions above does not live in either ULF or midbass, see link below:

  http://obiwannabe.co.uk/tutorials/html/tutorial_applause.html

In brief we are looking at 700Hz, 1300Hz-3KHZ, when we look at the complex frequencies inhabited by applause (male, females, groups, different clapping rythms all have implications for the produced frequencies but non in the mid-lower bass regions). I would say that ambience information inhabits generally everywhere where you can potentially have the musical signal per se.



 RF at Ona wrote:

How significant these effects are in practice are less clear. Stereo phono records usually become quite monaural in the low frequency range to facilitate both cutting the master and playback tracking. CDs and other modern digital sources may have enough out-of-phase bass for the coupling/cancellation effects to be noticeable.



Roberts, I like the way you reason. This is the final touch to a line of reasoning that was not too difficult to follow but in concluding with this point, shows such an excellent insight in the whole process that I understand again why I amongst others like to read here.

Best regards
Rakesh

03-12-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


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

Post #: 79
Post ID: 15759
Reply to: 15755
My super smart room!
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Jorge wrote:
However, as soon the LF begin to inflict a listener with own ‘"pulsating room effect" then the volume of LF should be minimized"

Here is where the beauty of my new room to the play. Where I was “selecting” this room via my Real Estate search it was exactly what I was trying to accomplish – to have a room with a lot of cavities and open space for bass to “escape”. This room has an amazing capacity to dissipate ULF. If you overload a normal room with ULF then it begins to “pulsate” with ULF and Bass. My room, at least with my ULF tower positioned as they, are the room just do not get saturate with ULF. From my reference ULF level I might add +20dB, I think even more, and it still veil be very much listenable sound. It will be heavy, it will be VERY large, and VERY full of nervosa but it will be very evenly heavy with no signs of bass non-linearity.  This was in a way what I was looking but I did not anticipate that it will be so effective.
 


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
03-12-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 80
Post ID: 15760
Reply to: 15756
Erratum ( or errata if you insist)
fiogf49gjkf0d
 oxric wrote:


 RF at Ona wrote:

Now the same issues and analysis applies to your woofer towers and with the new placement of the towers some of these effects may have become exposed.

If these effects are significant than your new wider spaced ULF towers might actually be functioning more effectively in their upper range than the midbass horns in their lower range on stereo recordings with phase differences between the channels in this frequency range.



I am not too clear about 'their upper range.' Do you mean that the lower range of the ULF towers are in principle compromised because this is an area where they overlap the upper range of the mid-bass channel and therefore the area where we have in-phase summation and out-of-phase cancellation (across the whole 42-500Hz of the mid-bass channels I would say)?



The last part in italic is based on an incorrect reading of your comment quoted here. The whole paragraph should be scrapped to read:

I am not too clear about 'their upper range' of the ULF towers functioning 'more effectively'. Do you mean that the ULF towers do not suffer from cancellation (because of positioning and distance apart) to the same degree as the mid-bass horns in this same range because of the cancellation issues mentioned earlier, and this results in the former making up for the weakness in the latter?

Regards
Rakesh

Page 4 of 8 (149 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Macondo Alternation. Extending the LF line-array..  Macondo and not only Macondo positioning...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     8  109660  10-29-2005
  »  New  Macondo Horns: biography...  Macondo with Pussy Eyes....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46031  05-18-2005
  »  New  Macondo's Axioms: Horn-loaded acoustic systems..  No wonder...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     72  407133  07-29-2007
  »  New  Midbass Horns and Real Estate...  Just a youtube video......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     247  1515101  07-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo’s Midbass Project – the grown up time...  Vitavox 15/40...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     455  2004536  05-20-2010
  »  New  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ..  Superbly interesting effect: Suspended decoupled floor ...  Playback Listening  Forum     0  12447  10-08-2010
  »  New  Bass impact on Turntable: how to estimate objectively..  I have done some work on this in the past....  Analog Playback Forum     4  29414  11-01-2010
  »  New  The meaning of lowest octave...  Vibrational bass...  Playback Listening  Forum     1  16188  05-18-2008
  »  New  The tapped horns: cons, pros and Sound..  Sorry, no images any more....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     56  487829  04-23-2009
  »  New  Monophonic bass: myth and reality...  I do not think so but I am OK with it....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     5  24993  04-17-2011
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  27473  04-22-2011
  »  New  Sound from behind a window...  Sound from behind a window....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  9776  04-24-2011
  »  New  Getting more power from SET vs. properly distorting SS...  Sound Board...  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  32850  05-09-2011
  »  New  Impulse response, short notes and midbass horns...  A possible solution to better impulse?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     14  85917  06-13-2011
  »  New  Constructing LF modules to the limits..  The little glory of my small woofers....  Audio Discussions  Forum     54  335006  04-28-2009
  »  New  A slightly crazy idea for a new approach to LF..  I do like it conceptually......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  15682  03-30-2005
  »  New  Another time aligned 5-way horn project..  Thread moved...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     189  416122  08-12-2015
  »  New  The ULF cannel for my new listening room...  Awesome...  Audio Discussions  Forum     41  8385  07-29-2018
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