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

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.

<<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.>>

This pretty much answers my question.

<<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…>>

<<...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.>>

I made you say this twice, something which I know for myself, but sometimes I forget it!
My system has been unchanged in many years and is optimized for what it is; yet, I have heard truer sound in the past, such as when I heard the EdgarHorns years ago and this started me on my quest for building horn speakers.  Now, with my system suddenly about to change dramatically, my head is filled with many theoretical ideas about what to change and how, like the night before Christmas and "visions of sugarplums."  Thanks for the advice to just wait and listen to it; if more people did this, it might cure audiophilitis.

Thanks!
Adrian

I chose the EdgarHorns for fairly simple reasons.  I have listened to them and I loved the way they sound.  They are not the perfect loudspeaker, but they make much truer music than what I have now.  Also, the price I paid is less than even the cost of the drivers I had in mind for my DIY speaker project.  If I had unlimited funds I would be building horns into the structure of my house, but I am not a rich man; this was a deal I couldn't pass up. 

Bruce Edgar is a very nice guy and sells his speakers for a very reasonable price given the sound quality you get out of them.  He sells the speakers as finished versions, as partly unfinished versions, and he also sells the parts he uses for his speakers for DIY projects.

They are nice speakers for a number of reasons.  They are very efficient and have a moderately flat frequency response.  They are vertically aligned and they use spherical horns for the tweeter and midrange.  The bass and subwoofer use non-spherical folded horns, due to space considerations -- a practical compromise.

The EdgarHorns are made of wood.  I have listened to a number of horns made of metal, plastic, and wood.  I prefer the sound of the wooden horn, although any material with appropriate damping and resonance characteristics ought to be good.  It so happens wood is a very good material in this regard, to my ear.  Synthetic materials sound "plastic" to me; they tend to ring and resonate if too thin, and suck the life out of the music when overdamped.

The drivers used are optimized for minimal crossovers and maximal efficiency.  The are pretty decent, for example the midrange uses a JBL 2441 Alnico compression driver.  Not the world's best drivers, but if you go to another driver you must change the crossover and the speaker to accomodate the alteration.  Driver choices seem to have been made to get a simple, good sounding, reasonably priced product.

Are the Titans the best speakers ever? No, of course not!  But they are good.  I have heard many speakers: Avantgarde, Magnepan, SoundLab, Quad, Dali, Vandersteen, Meridian, Martin-Logan, B&W, Tannoy, Wilson, Thiel, Von Shweikert, etc. etc. etc.  Some of these are very good, but none was so much better than my home-made two way system that I ever wanted to shell out the bucks.  Until I heard the EdgarHorns.  To me it was just more musical -- but I tend to ignore many colorations and look for the sense of "being there just listening to a performance" instead of listening to what a recording sounds like. 

To me they just sound right.  But everyone has different tastes because we all focus on some different aspect of sound.  Still for the price, EdgarHorns are hard to beat.  Especially his Slimline speakers which sell now for just over $2000. IMHO.

drdna wrote:

Now I have had the EdgarHorns in my system for a number of weeks and have been moving them around the room and moving things in the room around to make them sound their best.

If you are not familiar with horns then it usually take a few month to learn how to get better sound out of them….

drdna wrote:

So far I have come to this problem:  when I have heard many other speakers that are reasonably good, they reproduce the sounds but do not make resonant sounds so the speakers "disappear" in the room.  This is not the case so far with the EdgarHorns.  So I think they are fundamentally resonating in an undesirable way, which makes it very easy to locate them in the room.  This is more true with the lower midrange than the upper midrange, so this makes a weird effect: as the range changes, I can hear the soundstage moving from one position to being sort of sucked toward the speaker cones.

Drdna, generally I would not agree that your assessment of the EdgarHorns is correct. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in them that would prevent them to "disappear" in the room. Yes, the upper bass horn is not time aligned, rectangular and more sounds like a direct radiator then a bass horn but even as is it should be all necessary loudspeakers "disappear" tricks. What you describe sounds to me more like you confused the polarity of your loudspeaker connections. Check the acoustic phase of each drive with a phase tester. The damage you are describing is too sever to be a “design fault”

drdna wrote:

The other thing missing is the "magic."  The liquid iridescence of Sound that is so emotionally attractive to me and allows me to think about what the musicians were thinking instead of how the stereo is sounding -- this is missing for some reason.

This is more complicated. The "magic” never come form speakers but is rather a result of your labor

drdna wrote:

I have heard the Edgar speakers before in Gardena and it was there in spades, so it must be something to do with my system, not the speakers is my first thought.  It is really a frustrating state of affairs, because everyone who hears my system says it is the best thing ever and they are totally amazed and saying it sounds so lifelike, but I am very dissatisfied personally.

Well, the idiotic and fundamentally bogus way in wish the audio people comment about each other installation is a separate subject. It is perfectly fine that you personally dissatisfied, it rather is very positive sign.

drdna wrote:

However, because I had some of this magic before with my old speakers in my system, I am also thinking it must be the Edgar speakers at fault.  Perhaps it is actually the interaction of the speakers with the rest of my system and I need to find a way to modify this.

I do not think so.

drdna wrote:

Any suggestions?

Well, I do not know your system and I do not know what in your case means “EdgarHorns”. If I where you I would get an assurance that the drivers are in the same phase. (Unless Bruce used second order or something like this). Then I would acoustically (not geometrically time-alighted all channels. After this I would disconnect a LF section and tweeters. Then I position the speakers at the distance of your choose, pointing them toward to your shoulders. Then I would move the speakers apart form each other, keeping them aiming to your shoulders, unit the mile image being to step back. After this I would push the EdgarHorns 2-3” back closer to each other and begin very slightly tow-in and out them until the imaging between then would not get a curve that you find “correct” for your room. Hereafter, play with minute towing-in and out of EdgarHorns and tune the space between the speakers more priestly. After you find a correct approximate positioning of your MF section begin to play with the output volume of your upper bass channel. The EQ that Bruce did in his default crossover is too generic to be correct for any room and you should tine your upper bass horn +/- 1dB -3dB to make sure that it would turn your room on. (An RTA would really help). Then add the LF channels at approximately minus 3dB of thier normal volume. Listen like this for a week, get use to and do not introduce the full LF bloom. Then slightly increase the LF, until it becomes flat at your RTA. An a few weeks you might begin o ass tweeters, very slowly and very concretively…. During all that time do not really worry about the "magic” and all the rest thing. You need before the reaching the “magic” to get the elemental things resolved: to position the speakers in your room more or less acceptable.

What I said above is juts very very very general approach, with many details missed, sort of a view from 50000 feet. However, without proper integrations with the room there is no need to talk about the Edgar speakers at a fault. Also, in future I might suggest that you might discover some other more interesting behavior of your EdgarHorns then juts the “disappearing act”. Still, I never had EdgarHorns and I never head them properly installed. From what I head Bruce in his demo rooms do not demonstrate them properly as well.

It would be fan to see if somebody was able to squished out of the Edgar horns an interesting result. I heard that there is local guy here in New England with a full scale Edgar installations who try to be a little more serious about his intentions then the majority of the Edgar’s Morons-customers. I this his name is Bill Gaw, I believe he is a doctor and all that I know bout him that he is a horn guy who hangs around the “Enjoy the Music’s” clown and the “Silence of Sound’s” whore. If I come across listening his installation or if I hear anywhere else a properly set up Edgar’s playback then I would sound more confidently…. BTW, last CES the Edgar’s playback was quite fine and I had not problems with disappearing or any other things… there were some issues but the “disappearance” was not one of them.

Kerry Brown wrote:

First off, I live in San Francisco, if he's inclined 'drdna' and other locals are welcome to visit and check out my system. Go to my web page homepage.mac.com/ikecarumba and send me a private message from there and I will give you my phone #. Kerry Brown

SO I would love to hear this and thanks for the invitation.  Please let me know when it would be convenient to come by.

Adrian

Romy the Cat wrote:

Drdna, generally I would not agree that your assessment of the EdgarHorns is correct. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in them that would prevent them to "disappear" in the room.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Yes, the upper bass horn is not time aligned, rectangular and more sounds like a direct radiator then a bass horn but even as is it should be all necessary loudspeakers "disappear" tricks. What you describe sounds to me more like you confused the polarity of your loudspeaker connections. Check the acoustic phase of each drive with a phase tester. The damage you are describing is too sever to be a “design fault”

Romy the Cat wrote:

Well, I do not know your system and I do not know what in your case means “EdgarHorns”.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Then I would acoustically time-alighted all channels. After this I would disconnect a LF section and tweeters. Then I position the speakers at the distance of your choose, pointing them toward to your shoulders. Then I would move the speakers apart form each other, keeping them aiming to your shoulders, unit the mile image being to step back. After this I would push the EdgarHorns 2-3” back closer to each other and begin very slightly tow-in and out them until the imaging between then would not get a curve that you find “correct” for your room. Hereafter, play with minute towing-in and out of EdgarHorns and tune the space between the speakers more priestly. After you find a correct approximate positioning of your MF section begin to play with the output volume of your upper bass channel. The EQ that Bruce did in his default crossover is too generic to be correct for any room and you should tine your upper bass horn +/- 1dB -3dB to make sure that it would turn your room on. (An RTA would really help). Then add the LF channels at approximately minus 3dB of thier normal volume. Listen like this for a week, get use to and do not introduce the full LF bloom. Then slightly increase the LF, until it becomes flat at your RTA. An a few weeks you might begin o ass tweeters, very slowly and very concretively

drdna wrote:

BUT, I think it is more exactly what you say that the midrange horn is round and the lower midrange horn is rectangular.  They sound different and it is more easy for me to hear the presence of the rectangular horn.

Kerry Brown wrote:

For years, I used to have passive line level filters and tube amps - single ended 45's and 2A3's. To make a long story short I am much happier now. Screw tubes ! ( Don't hate me. )

Kerry, I do not think that somebody would hate you. It is enough that you hate yourself :-)

Now a little more serious.  I sincerely feel that to drive horns with alnico HF drivers with PP SS electronic is not wise. Saying it I do not follow any “religious principles” or anything like this but I just refer to my own very extended experience to drive horn with absolutely anything possible. In past I have even drove the horns with table radio boom-boxes and with caps amplifiers…. What I surmised that your acceptance of the cheap, beginning level pro-audio electronics and the unfortunate digital crossover is primary because your playback is severally contaminated by the misery of SS PP driving your horns.

OK, I would admit that I have seen the situation when the SS PPs were effective with horns. It was with some low compression driver and only if the drivers used ceramic magnets. However, the drivers with “soft” Anico magnet were completely sonically ruined by SS electronics.

The very primary and very imitate affect that SS electronics has on better drivers is suppression of tonal color and substation of transient characteristics with juts plain hardness and compression. From her is very obvious why you accept the idea of digital crossovers – because your playback chain is severely contaminated by the SS de-personalization.

You said that you used in past the SET electronics. Well, perhaps they were not now good amplifiers, as the majority of the SET amsp out there are not practically good. A better amplifier should not sound better but should juts highlight the imperfection of the rest reproduction chain. So, my expectation is that connecting a good sounding SET to your horn you should get worst sound because your horns and your amps would show off how your digital crossovers really sound.

Anyhow, Kerry, I would defiantly not suggesting the your playback sound bad. But am absolutely assure you that it is not sound as good as it could be. The JBL 375 077's are a very good combination that could do much more then the PP-level electronic could permit them. Well, of course in order to get it you should play something more demanding and morediscriminative then the Led Zeppelin… but it would be another story… :-)

Rgs,
Romy the caT

drdna,

The subject of room reflections is kind of completed topic but form what you described I do not think that your problems are there but rather in some kind of bug of your system that you will discover soon. Meanwhile, I would disregard any room issues at this point besides the macro-poisoning of you your speakers. Well, yes and no….  There is one thing in the room reflection that you might look but it not because it’s related to your spastic case but because it related to 99% of all hi-fi installation and unfortunately widely disregarded by the people who love to talk about room acoustics and at the same time have crapy sound in their listening rooms. You see, handing the sexy diffusors and resonator is affective to one or another degree but there is one HUGE subject that unfortunately completely ignored: the listing room ceiling. If you do not has a very high ceiling that produce 1 second reverberation time at 5kHz then the reflections form this ceiling should be killed or “retouched”. Those “glossy” large horizontal surfaces produce an acoustic fog that I found very-very annoying and any clapping echo test would instantaneously portray it. There is a very-very easy and very cheap way to deal with it, without deading your room, still kipping it “live” but to killing the unwanted ceiling’s acoustic fog: introduce something the I call the ceiling’s sails. The ceiling’s sails are the none-horizontal layer of soft fabrics that located angularly to the surface of the ceiling and located at the location of primary OR secondary reflection. The sq footage and the angle of the sails could be tuned to the specific room… unit … it would be pleasant just to talk in the room. They it is a time to place the speakers in there. You could ran RT60 at high frequencies or do it by your ears but 99% of the playbacks out there are very ceiling-fogy… Here is a idea how I deal with the problem I my own listing room.

Do not over-sail your ceiling though….

rdrysdale wrote:

We have found that a very heavy speaker wire, or multi stranded really damage the sound. We have had best results using a single strand thin gage magnet wire for best results.

Rich, could you elaborate more on the heavy speaker wire and damage to sound

Rgs,
Romy

rdrysdale wrote:

Romy, the first time that I noticed that the speaker wires are very important to the sound was when Steve put some very expensive audiophile wires in place of our normal magnet wire. I walked into the room while familiar music was playing and immediately asked Steve what happened to the system, it sounds terrible, like a transistor radio. He showed me the wires, and then changed back to our standards and all was well. The second time was a near disaster at the RMAF show. We were using some top grade all silver heavy single gage wire that was supplied to us, the sound was so bad that we nearly packed up the speakers and went home. It took nearly all night to discover the problem and correct it.

Yes, the dominating majority of expensive audiophile cables are unspeakable garbage and absolutely unusable. The problem is that people do not recognize the actually quality of the cable but the myth that that “better” cable produce better results…. in realty most of audio people do not know what to do with the cable and hot to assess them. Certainly a lot of foolish companies take advantage of those poor people…

rdrysdale wrote:

At the recent VTV show, I had new wires that I made up, and it took about 4 hours or so before they started to sound right. Late Saturday night we changed amplifiers in the system without disturbing the wires and everything sounded great right away.

Yes, the disturbance of wires is well-known. In my room at take ~ a week to settle the sound down after I move cable as I use liquid dumped cables. I have no explanation for the phenomenon… and I do not tin I should try in this thread… :-)

rdrysdale wrote:

I will do some experimenting with thin gage siver wires, I made some up, but haven't had time to try them out yet. I think since silver is a better conductor than copper, it should sound the best, so far in other peoples testing and our exposure to it at RMAF this hasn't always been the case.

Rich, silver must not be used in audio connectors or wiring and particularly with horns. This is an absolute and incontestable taboo from my point of view and it was well-documented fact (multiple and multiple times) that I was able to unmistakably and blindly to detect a few inches of silver presented in a playback chain. The phrase “silver is a better conductor than copper” is groundless. Silver while transmitting current is warming up less then cooper of the same gage. It makes silver very welcomed to number of commercial application and that give to silver a reputation of “better conductor” however it has no relation to sound. Silver cables, and particulary the pure silver cables must not be used in audio.

Sorry, for my off the subject reply but you should take it under consideration

Rgs,
The caT