Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

drdna wrote:

1.  This particular EdgarHorn is being sold to make way for a Cain & Cain speaker which is based initially on a single-driver type backloaded horn.  To me this suggested that the seller was seeking the benefits of the crossoverless design, so he must be dissatisfied with the crossover in the EdgarHorn.

First of all id the person sold the EdgarHorn to go for Cain & Cain speakers then he was an idiot, who has 4456 pounds of “Audiogon wisdom” between his ears. So, why should you worry about his intentions? Second, why the sealer finding should matter to you. The person sold them because he was presumably idiotic enough not to be able to make them to perform well, so what credibility has he?

drdna wrote:

2.  Numerous posts on various forums, including this one, refer to the "improvement" when removing crossover elements from the EdgarHorn.

Sorry, I am not familiar with them. Also, I really do not use the “intelligence” from the “numerous posts”, Sorry, I do not have a lot of respect to the data “from out there”.

drdna wrote:

Now the listeners may be confusing coloration with improvement due to the imbalanced frequency response; but I know from experience that changing to Teflon, Copper Foil, Air Caps etc. can improve the dynamics of the sounds and brings me more emotional involvement with the music.  So, it stands to reason that since all capacitors and other elements are flawed, removing them entirely would be beneficial for the sound.  Of course a crossover needs to be put elsewhere, but then different design challenges present themselves which may be easier to deal with than at the speaker crossover level.

Not necessarily, I disagree with many comments from this paragraph

drdna wrote:

3.  The idea of multi-amping seemed fundamentally good since less signal will go to each amplifier.  When the amplifier is presented with less signal from the source and also back from the speaker, there will be less electromagnetic field fluctuation which will change amplifier performance on a moment-to-moment basis; this is one of the challenges in designing the topology and physical layout of the amplifier, as it is usually a bunch of elements creating rapidly fluctuating electromagnetic pulses crammed into a tiny box.

Not necessarily. You think about amplifier as it is machinery that do what you what but not what it does. Talk to it as see what it wants. I would give a tip: pay attention that I do not high-pass my amplifiers.

drdna wrote:

4.  Many others still have commented that the EdgarHorn benefits from more power.  While I am surprised at this since they are very efficient speakers, multi-amping also addresses this issue.

First off all I do not respect most of the EdgarHorn users and feel that their words are juts a pile of crap. Second, what dose it mean: “EdgarHorn benefits from more power”? Put in from yourself any of those “Many others” and ask then to justify what they propose in any meaningful terms instead of the typical buzzwords.

drdna wrote:

5.  Most of the posts about EdgarHorn on various forums talk about changing the crossover or the drivers.  It stands to reason that the drivers are used to meet a certain price point so it might be possible to improve the sound this way.  But a lot of people talk about the crossovers as well as being problematic, and describe dramatic improvement when comparing to a line-level crossover design.  Perhaps these people are ignorant or perhaps they feel the need to constantly DIY things, but when I heard that many people preferred a digital active crossover to the passive speaker crossover for the EdgarHorns, I thought to myself, there must be something really seriously wrong or bad about that crossover if listeners prefer even a horrible digital signal processing unit to the regular crossover.

I do not know. I do not read usually any comments about people modify the EdgarHorn. As I told before do not pay any attention to any people out there unit you would be able to feel that something is wrong with EdgarHorn. I did asked you was you feel is wrong with them and all the you answer that some other people (mostly Morons) report “dramatic improvement”. So, what are we doing here? Adrian, I could give you a LOT of data about the EdgarHorn and this crossover but I feel that at this point you will not be able to use it. I do feel that you should make the EdgarHorn to sound OK as they are and do not touch anything as now.

drdna wrote:

Now for all this I am talking very much without anything in my experience to support me.  I have not compared sided by side EdgarHorns with speaker level crossovers and line level crossovers, so I do not know if this really will be beneficial or not.  It is an expensive experiment to perform if the benefit is uncertain.  One thing which strongly encouraged me to make such a plan was the existence of the Super Melquiades.  Here is fundamentally a similar system with horn loudspeakers driven by SET amplifiers, but there must have been a reason and a sonic benefit to create the multi-amp Super Melquiades, instead of just using a single Melquiades amplifier to drive the ultra-efficient loudspeakers, which easily has enough power to drive it I would imagine.

It is VERY wrong presumption. The Super Melquiades meant to drive Macondo that are quite different speakers then EdgarHorns. Also, it has NOTHING to do with power.

drdna wrote:

…  there is some fundamental difference between the EdgarHorn design and your own speakers which makes the multi-amping beneficial for your speakers, but you don't think it will have as important an effect for the EdgarHorn design.

The multiamping with Super Melquiades was made with intend to optimize the output transformers and to eliminate the interference between the inductance of the upper bass driver’s coil and the MF driver. I still use the speaker high-pass with the Super Milq.

drdna wrote:

May I ask what is this difference, or if not quantifiable, is this then based on your listening impressions of the two loudspeakers?

I take fifth.

drdna wrote:

Of course this is good news for me, if true, since then I will not worry about the SuperMilq.  I assume Romy, you would suggest trying a single Milq to drive the Titans full-range -- a much more affordable option?  The bottom line, what drives me in this, is of course the sound.  And it is still the sound of live music which involves me emotionally more than any record.  The 2A3's while quite decent sounding to me, are easily heard as a sonic signature which I have accepted.  The way the Milq amplifier has been described it sounds like a revolutionary step; this is what I find most effective in giving me satisfaction musically.  I find tiny incremental changes with different tubes, dampening materials, etc. a bit annoying.  These give very small changes in the sounds, but do not bring me closer to the music ultimately.  I had hoped that a more fundamental change like multiamping or using the Milq amplifier would be more of a revolutionary step.

Adrian, if you insist me to suggest something to you then do nothing then juts set up your new Titans, make it sound OK and do not worry about anything else. Then, before you wish to do anything try to identify what exactly you wish to change. Not some kind abstract literature description of some kind of fictional problem picked form some kind of Internet psycho but to nail down what is exactly wrong in the Sound of your playback and what you would like change is into. Until then nothing further should be said.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site