|
Romy the Cat
Boston, MA
Posts 10,166
Joined on 05-28-2004
Post #:
|
24
|
Post ID:
|
24676
|
Reply to:
|
24675
|
|
|
Interesting, educational but in many aspects debatable in my view
|
|
|
|
martinshorn wrote: | What Klaus also highlighted, is the importance to
him to unlimit dynamics - in order to achieve the most live-alike sound. First
of all, he noticed that Goto pleases him the most with uncompressed transient
attacks more than other drivers. Of course this means to have horns
in all octaves. To also have maximum dynamics in lows. Same
importance to him was not to fold any horn, because folding costs you some
dynamics (even if you fold and filter well to prevent coloration), you always
loose dynamic in a fold. |
|
I do not know if I agree
with it. There is no doubts about dynamics, here is your Klaus is correct and
you are pitching to a converted. The “maximum dynamics in lows” is a complicated
subject but I would not debate it. Where I disagree is that “folding costs you
some dynamics” and “you always loose dynamic in a fold. Folding introduce a bunch
of resonating chambers and cost audio coloration in most of the cases that do MASK
OUT the transient dynamics but folding itself should not have an impact to dynamics
itself. martinshorn wrote: | Then it was important to
have all octaves with horns, made in same style. One of his secrets was, to
design all channels coherent, meaning having the same character. |
|
All octaves with horns, made in same style? I am sorry, it is nonsense in my
view. The lower you get in frequency the slower horn opening should be, I will
stick with this rule. There is absolutely nothing that demands all change to be
the same opening rate. For sure when the horns in the same style it does serves
great optical benefit. You Klaus looks like did made the horns of the same style.
Good for him and I am glad it works for him. However, there is absolutely no need
to declare it as some kind of mandatory rule. martinshorn wrote: | All drivers shall have
the same flavor. For him, it is better to choose e.g. a tweeter that plays a
little less good but matches the rest, rather than taking the best in each
channel but not merging into one harmonic total. That's why it was important to
choose all drivers Goto, and all preferably from the same series with same
diaphragm material. He admits, there was one better tweeter model in the
goto-portfolio, but he wouldn't like to disturb the harmony they all have
together as one. Many people make the mistake to pick the best,
neglecting the collaboration. My ears could very much confirm consistency in
all channels. |
|
Again, I do not agree with it. It is
good that you do not use word synergy and the audio reviewers love to use. The section
of the best driver in each individual channel does include the assurance that
the drivers will be working together and should be evaluated together. Furthermore
if proper evaluation is made then the selection of the “best drivers” should
ONLY woks as complimentary pairs. There is absolutely no reason why the best
drivers would be from a same barrel. martinshorn wrote: | He also prefers filter
of 4th order, and crosses in the very latest version with 90-300-1600-6600
cycles all in same filter typology. |
|
Good for him
but in my books this is the biggest flow in his system. The problem is that he
use very fragile drivers that fry like crazy, ask any Goto distributor and they
will let you know that true statistics how many tweeter and MD drivers they replace
diaphragms. Goto has very light and thin voice coils and they are spectacular.
They are also unfortunately very fragile for current handling. This is where
the “preferable” 4th order come from. In my view 4th order has too much damage,
particularly with speaker level filtration. martinshorn wrote: | The time alignment is
being precisely "absolute" between super tweeter and tweeter (6600). The
alignment between tweeter and midrange is done "relative" to have the
mouth almost aligned (prevent reflections) but still slightly offset. To merge
both at the 1600 cycles in one positive non cancelation period of the wave. So
the tweeter is only slightly set back, however it improved the phase response a
lot. A similar relative alignment is done between mid-bass-sub
channels, where rather the mouth is aligned but you have a smooth continuous
increasement of groupdelay downwards. Considering the phase-shift of 4th order, it very well might
be a smooth transition without "stairs" in the groupdelay. |
|
Well, I am glad that
he does not present it as a mandatory requirement :-). With the size of his
horns and with the way how the system is organized for sure the time alignment
is very hard to of ever possible. It is what it is, we all were there. It is
very much debatable if the 4th order
helps the smooth transition in LF. The dreadful “stairs” are afraid but they
are the amplitude problem and in my view we do not hear amplitude but
phase. With first order in LF we are much
more involve room into play and we smear phase anomalies over speakers and room
response. I am not insisting that I am right, I saying that it is debatable.
martinshorn wrote: | I must say, I'm trained
noticing group delay artefacts of phase problems especially in the lows. And I
could not hear any smeared transients. Considering that bad filters often cause
10 times worse effects than such 4 meter offset in the lows, this even sounds
logical. I was surprised with this too. |
|
Possible.
Would you be so kind to share what subjective methodology/principle you use to recognize
“noticing group delay artefacts of phase problems” in LF. martinshorn wrote: | Last but not least, I
was very happy to have someone confirming my vague theory, the basshorn
pre-chamber very much influences the sound in terms of speed and transient. Prechamber
volumes must be avoided and are not to be overcome with phase plugs. He
designed the long bass horn 4 meter long from driver to mouth. Utilizing 2 x 15
inch Gotos. But the horn continues further behind the drivers to infinite small
size. So that actually no pre chamber exists, just the drivers have an offset
from the point-zero, as much as needed to fit the big drivers onto the horn. |
|
Sorry, I did not get this.
Did you mean the back chamber? No one use phase plugs for 15 inch drivers. If
he use 2 x 15 inch drivers and no front chamber then he has a huge throat size
and his horns do not use his Goto as compression drivers but have direct radiators
blowing into a pipe. I am not saying that it is bad but then he has very low
horns equalization and he very much might not need to use the horns but just
direct radiators. martinshorn wrote: | Also adding a slight
advantage, one driver plays with front-face in phase, the other 15 incher plays
out of phase with the rear-side. This cancels out any remaining assymetric
behavior of the bigger heavier non-compression drivers. My ears also confirm
the superb lightness and speed and ease of precision in the whole bass. So as
the consistency of flavors, this was pointed by me before he even explained the
design typology behind to achieve this (!) |
|
Yes, the sandwich woofer
is known topology and it with many mini monitors make bass to be “large”. I do
not have an experience to use in horns, it does sound very interesting. Also,
it make more sense about him using 2 x
15 inch drivers, so it would effectively use one 15 inch driver (thank God that
he has no 30 sq inch throat!!!) and another 15 inch driver acts as active back
chamber wall. Very sexy but I would not predict the result until I try. Some open
baffle people use the techniques to virtually extend the baffle size, putting
the drivers at 90 degree to baffle and with small space between them. They however
use the drivers in-phase, if you know what I mean… martinshorn wrote: | I did listen to Klaus'
individual composition. And people fallen in obsession with a
specific brand should very much remember this. |
|
Yes, this is a very valid
and very useful comment.
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|