Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

drdna wrote:

I know all the compromises involved with the EdgarHorns, I have heard them when I visited Bruce Edgar in Gardena, and they were pretty good compared to most of what is out there.  I realized that I would likely never be able to do much better, especially at that price.

The Edgarhorns are fine and thier compromises not as relevant as some people, including me, believe they are. My problem never was with the Edgarhorns themselves but with the astonishingly Moronic community of people who use them. What whatever reason the Edgarhorns attract shockingly distinctive dirt in audio. I’m no saying that is person uses Edgarhorns then he is necessary is a Moron BUT the most distinctive idiots that I have seen in audio (I can go VERY deep into high literature describing who there are) for whatever reasons were in deep intimate relationship with thier Edgarhorns. Go figure what is going on with those horns and with the Edgar community of users….

drdna wrote:

Many people are drawn to the single-cone "point-source" speakers like the Lowthers, the Cain & Cain, etc. with the idea that a point source is critical for good sound.  I am not so sure about this since the other thing that happens is that the crossover is eliminated, and this is BIG for sound quality.

Not really. A crossover itself is not big deal and a properly implemented and properly USED a crossover is not influential at higher then the First level of SLLB:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=50.

 A crossover affects the quality of the sounds but not the quality of Sound. It is important to understand. Still, the presents of crossover might affect Sound at the higher levels of the SLLB but it will not be the crossover fault itself but some other aspects.   Anyhow, all those stories coming form the single driver speakers that the elimination of a crossover is a BIG for sound quality is juts a mental hallucination of the ignorant people because they need to sell themselves the reasons why they do not buy the Big Wilsons.

drdna wrote:

Ultimately it doesn't even matter, because all the so-called single-driver speaker designs eventually start adding a tweeter here, a subwoofer there, because the listeners, although initially enamored with the great crossover-less midrange, now crave highs and lows as well.

Actual the very first thing that all those single-driver speakers need to be added is an upper bass driver as the Lowthers-like driver should not work lower then 600-700Hz.

drdna wrote:

Worse, the new drivers are usually not time-aligned or even vertically aligned, in part due to the large size of the horn enclosures.  So one ends up with non-spherical horns and folded horns and all these things that don't follow the theory well and don't sound as good, but it is a compromise some of us must live with.

Yep, and many-many other things. I do not know even where to start… All single-driver speakers’ attempts are juts kindergarten and I do not take it seriously. It is too simple to complain about the result from the single-driver speakers, so simple that it become even … not noble.

drdna wrote:

I like the EdgarHorns because they are at least aligned and they were designed from the first as a multi-driver system.  However, to get the best out of them, I believe the crossovers must go!

May I ask why do you feel this way?

drdna wrote:

This means a line-level crossover must be employed.  Options include a Marchand tubed unit, a DEQX digital crossover, or a passive line-level unit.  The Marchand unit might be okay if modified aggressively, but it is like adding Coca-Cola to a fine Burgundy, as you are adding a decent (but not great) amplification stage and assorted components to a system of better components.  The DEQX is expensive and it trades off good control of time and phase alignment and very good filtering and adjustment for flat response FOR digitalizing and destroying the signal.  It may improve the sound of some systems but not others, depending on what is wrong to start with.

I used Marchand tubed quite aggressively. It doses a wonderful prototype tool to figure out the crossover points and the slops. I even sent it out to some friends across the county when they trued to figure out thier perm crossovers. However, for a permanent serious use the Marchand unfortunately is not suitable.

drdna wrote:

Because I already use only a passive preamplifier of my own design, I may be limited by the "lossy" nature of a line level crossover network and the problems with impedence mismatching.  And I only have a single set of heavily modifed Welborne Moondog 2A3 monoblocks that I built, so I will need more amplifiers -- at least two more sets.  The Moondog is no longer made available (the kits are easiest for me) so I can't make Moondogs for all drivers, so I thought to try the Welborne 45 and 300B designs (based on Jack Eliano's Ultrapath circuit) on the tweeter and mid-bass drivers, mixing and matching designs based on what wourks best for a particular frequency range.

Perhaps, but I think you are thinking about the line-level crossovers still without deciding why you disagree to use a proper speaker level crossover. I do not see in the Edgarhorns a strong demands for multiamping.

drdna wrote:

Then I read about the Melaquiades.  Very interesting schematic.  I don't understand all of it, not being an engineer.  The cost is about what Welborne's kits would be, and the sound might be better (won't know until I give it a listen of course).  Hopefully, I will not blow myself up during building such a project.

Sure, if you decided to build it then there is a Support Forum back there:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=30

 and I will answer all your questions. That was the rule of the game

drdna wrote:

My thought was that the optimal soultion would be to built a Super Melaquiades amplifier with a crossover incorporated to deal with the EdgarHorns at line level.  I think this would be the best solution, but I have not listened to the options to knowledgably compare the passive speaker-level crossover to the active Marchand to the passive line-level for the EdgarHorn application.

I have seen and heard many arguments about it and I disagree with them. At least my own experience indicted that multiamping is not always the optimal solution in some case and patricianly in case of the EdgarHorn

drdna wrote:

Does this make sense?  If anyone has had experience comparing these different types of crossover networks, to be able to speak to the superiority of one design versus another, I would appreciate the advice.  Does this plan sound reasonable?

Adrian, if presume that the following article from my “Audio For Dummies” is correct:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=432

then what in the Edgarhorns performance dissatisfied that that you decided do not use the default Edgarhorns speaker level filters? Absent of the speaker level filters sound sexy as a concept but it has not necessary merit. It might have, but dose it? Do not forget that we build Sound. We do not implement the precompiled abstractive rules over our playback installations… not matter how attractive they are for out DIY self-amusement…

drdna wrote:

And to Romy, thanks for allowing access to the Melquiades design; if I have specific questions about the design implementation, may I ask you about it?

Sure, I will be glad if people bult the Milqs…

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site