| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» If you were to start from scratch, what horn system would you build? (23 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (23 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
02-17-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 21
Post ID: 17868
Reply to: 17861
Only the subjective reality is versatile - the true reality is not
fiogf49gjkf0d
Romy,
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Remind you that horn not only does that but it performs acoustic transformation gradually.

Yes, I do agree with you about that. From both theoretical and practical point of view it is 100% true. But the important question is where are the practical listening benefits of it, when the brain is not disturbed by the slightly faster changing pressure around the boundary of a well behaved direct radiating driver? If it does not provide practical benefits in terms of sound perception – then who cares it is more advanced topology in terms of pressure release (by saying pressure release I do not mean TONE). Most of the acoustic instruments in reality have strong boundary effect of their tonal pressure. Have you ever heard somebody complaining by the fact the violin does not release its pressure gradually in the surrounding environment?! :-) It simply does not disturb the brain in the same way as you are absolutely not disturbed by the sharp boundary effect of pressure release through 2 sq inch of area when somebody talks in front of you. And all these facts are of fundamental importance.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Horns is completely different animal and you need to educate your with upperbass horn sound.

I have to confess I have quite limited experience in terms of upper bass horns. I have listened the big Cessaro system and I have to point the guys who made this acoustic system have no relationship with reality. May be they have been teleportated from another galaxy. I clearly recognized the upper bass energy is coming from below the midrange horn and it is totally in opposite to the way how the acoustic instruments sound in reality. The energy of the different frequency ranges emanates from different areas in space and the brain (well, at least my brain) could not be fooled - very disturbing artifact. Their UB horn not only needs another supporting UB horn placed over the midrange driver – it literally begs for it! Only then they can eventually get the effect of balanced (coherent) energy distribution across the entire sound range. Not to mention the fact that a good single 15” direct radiator has twice the sound scale of this big (and space eating) UB horn. And it is not necessary for somebody to agree with me – I’m OK with that.

 Romy the Cat wrote:
So, as the person who do deal with horns I do admit that with multiplication of horns per channel you will have benefits but the benefits will be less significant than those that you observe with direct radiators, which bring the whole idea to very questionable viability or even need (with horns).

With all my respect to you, I think the only way to understand the effect of adding more UB sources which are symmetrically arranged around your midrange channel (at least one above it) is to hear such a configuration with your own ears. If you have no experience with it, you can continue to question its validity, but your presumptions will remain only theoretical. I do not defend MY (or any) topology (because I don’t  need to), simply because I really do not care how other people build their acoustic systems – I only use what I learned from my psychoacoustic experiments and I’m trying to find practical realization of these findings. I also learn a lot from other people's mistakes and by listening to mistaken concepts (realisations of these concepts) I gain a lot of experience. The fact that there are 6688 people who think my point of view is wrong, does not change in any way the sound I get in practice (and more importantly - it does not improve their sound too!)…

Best regards,
Haralanov  


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
02-17-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 17869
Reply to: 17868
What matters more: size or quantity?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 haralanov wrote:
Most of the acoustic instruments in reality have strong boundary effect of their tonal pressure. Have you ever heard somebody complaining by the fact the violin does not release its pressure gradually in the surrounding environment?!

This actually is very interesting point and I never thought about it. When somebody like Mahler wants to have ultra pianissimo range from strings then he insists the whole section to play very soft. He does not leave only oneviolin to play but he insist the whole section be engages. Interesting, I need to think about it…


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-14-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 23
Post ID: 18392
Reply to: 17869
Violin pianississimo
fiogf49gjkf0d
Actually, when the string section has to play ultra softly, they use a mute or damper on the bridge. This is a device that limits the ability of the bridge to pass the string vibration to the resonant body of the instrument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqwbj0S5FKg

Actually, there is a lot of study of transmission and damping in string instrument construction even today. The height, mass and shape of the bridge (as well as string type) actually controlls how "present" the instrument sounds and how well it reacts to the players "style".http://dunwellguitar.com/SolidBridge/00Violin-Bridges75.jpg

Like in the development of speakers, there is a process to match the instrument, strings, bridge to the sonic expectations of the player and then of the player to the audience.

So, depending on the message that the player conveys, it is possible that they gently caress the strings keeping tonal pressure and "richness" reduced or at the other end use great energy and approach the mechanical limit with the corresponding increase of overtone strength.

As far as acoustic instruments go, I am not sure that the boundary effect applies except for something like a pipe organ or french horn. Flutes, violins and violas radiate primarily vertically, trumpets are very directional forwards, Celli and basses have a peg on the bottom to mechanically couple them to the floor, saxophones, bassoons, clarinets and oboes have a very complicated pattern of sound as each hole has a unique function and its own radiation pattern.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If I were to start from scratch, I would choose a modular approach and NOT do everything at once. Even when I buy a new trumpet, I need 6-12 months to become comfortable. At first, a 12" or 15" direct radiator closed box or transmission line (also a form of horn) to completely damp the back wave (no LF output from port, just controlled pressure in the cabinet) from 50Hz to perhaps 400Hz, horns to cover 400-2000Hz and 2000-8000Hz and a planar or ribbon above that. That would probably keep me busy for a year or two. If I were then successful, I would add a horn from 100-400Hz and spend the next year integrating that.

I think the primary joy in this adventure would be to rediscover my music collection. I can imagine great frustration though until the sound becomes tolerable. Lack of Patience always seems to be my major enemy, especially if I do not have medium term results. A big horn system would cause big expectations after coming home from a concert. I have so much still to learn.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Page 2 of 2 (23 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts