GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

Horn-Loaded Speakers
Topic: Some answers.

Page 1 of 3 (57 items) 1 2 3 »

Posted by de charlus on 06-21-2013

Dear All,

I wish to commence gathering the components and finding the craftsmen necessary for my DIY speaker project, but wished to bring my proposal before this forum in order to establish whether it's intrinsically worthy, and whether any simple improvements could be made in principle before I begin. I propose to have 5 drivers per speaker - four of which will be spherical horns - arrayed vertically in a superstructure yet to be determined, time aligned, with custom, external crossovers and DSET for each driver. What distinguishes my project from most is that I wish to incorporate the Acapella TW1S plasma tweeter into my array, believing that the failure of Acapella's own efforts has more to do with design flaws, poor integration with inferior dynamic drivers and the lack of time alignment, rather than any intrinsic impossibility of integrating the plasma tweeter with other topologies. I believe that with the highest quality driver units possible, time-alignment, custom crossover and custom DSETs, the potential is there to combine the topologies successfully. I propose to array the drivers, and horns, as laid out beneath, from top to bottom;

Ale Acoustics 160Super (15hZ-1000hZ, 110db/w)15hZ - 150hZ Lower bass

Vitavox AK 151 (50HZ-8kHZ, 100db/w)              150hZ - 350hZ Upper bass

Vitavox S2 (200hZ-16kHZ, 110db/w)                 350hZ - 1500hZ Lower mid

Ale Acoustics 45Super (500hZ-20kHZ, 115db/w) 1500hZ - 6kHZ Upper mid

Acapella TW1S (5kHZ-50kHZ, 110db/w)             6kHZ - 50kHZ+ Tweeter

Now, I really love this tweeter, and believe that with the quality of drivers above - together with their very limited frequency ranges relative to their capacities; there is a theory out there that such limited excursions could lend themselves to better integration with a tweeter commonly regarded as "speedier" than the relatively humdrum drivers to which it is customarily matched: I'd like to at least explore this possibility - and the other expedients I have mentioned, that this could be a very good speaker.

I also have a specific question; this will be quite a tall speaker - is there any tangible benefit to be gained from perhaps angling the upper two drivers slightly downward towards the listening position, as some designers do (Cessaro, Goto), or should all drivers be horizontal as is more customary?

Additionally, has anyone fashioned horns from Canadian Rock Maple? This strikes me as being a potentially good material, particularly as i reside in Canada presently.

Regards
de Charlus

Posted by rowuk on 06-22-2013

This project sounds like Rubriks cube. You have all of the ingredients and 43,252,003,274,489,855,999 chances to get it "wrong". None of those parts guarantees anything special and they all offer plenty of miserable possibilities......

I personally cannot understand working backwards from a tweeter. Assuming a necessary HF response as that which arrives at our ears in a great concert hall (ca. 16khz), one octave of response is produced by your tweeter. To me, 60hz to 10khz is where I need my reference. After that, the last octave becomes "significant". I am not convinced that Acapellas "problem" is based on speed. I also do not think that a "speedier" driver could help integrate it. A driver is the product of the sonic implementation. Maybe this tweeter is a bigger problem than the rest of the Acapella speaker - I don't know.

What is your problem with Acapellas own implementation? Have you lived with this speaker for a (long) while? If yes, what have you done to make sure that the rest of the playback chain is so transparent that what you hear is the speaker? What makes the Acapella HF driver qualify as "humdrum"?

Acapella is not so far away from where I live and I have had many opportunities to hear different installations. I have yet to be "disappointed" in the speaker technology as the installations and associated equipment (as well as the attitude of most of the owners) were too "audiophile" to really let the speaker be recognized.

I do not think that a shoebox full of parts is a good start. What do you listen to now and what is wrong with it?

Posted by de charlus on 06-22-2013

I am not "working backwards" from a tweeter. I presently use Harbeth M40.1s, but having recently heard the Living Voice Vox Olympian and an Audio Tekne horn implementation of Ale Acoustics drivers, the experiences opened up new vistas of what is possible in audio reproduction; that said, I have no wish to spend $250k on speakers. In short, the driver units I allude to above are the best I have heard within their frequency ranges, and all are drivers best employed in spherical horn configurations with the exception of the plasma tweeter; does this mean that I should simply disregard the excellence of this tweeter and go for a uniform topology across the driver range? I don't see why, simply because such an approach could be challenging.

My own experience with Acapellas is that they are not as great as the sum of their parts; in particular, my perception has been that the tweeter could be better integrated with the MF driver or drivers. This has been MY experience; that you appear to be delighted with your Acapellas can only be a good thing, and I am gratified that you have found speaker nirvana. I have not - at least, not within a reasonable price range - but I assure you that my regard for the Vitavox S2s, AK151s and Ale 45Super, 160Supers is just as high as that for the Acapella tweeter.

"What is wrong" with what I'm listening to now is that when I was auditioning systems about 10 years ago, I went in with a considerable budget and high expectations that orchestral events could be believably reproduced within my listening room, mainly because I had been assured that this was the case by audiophile friends and legion glossy magazines. However, after many, many disappointing auditions of pretty much all extant topologies and most of the Sacred Cows of audio - aside, as it happens, from spherical horns - I alighted upon a system that I thought adequately musical and left it at that, believing that the audiophile's pursuit was that of the Emperor's New Clothes. However, recent experiences have found me thinking otherwise, and after all, just because a Rubik's Cube has inordinate different possibilities, this does not mean that it's difficult to solve - one simply follows a hypothesis to its conclusion. What I wish to do is to take the Cessaro Gamma for my model, substituting Vitavox and Ale drivers for the TAD ones that Cessaro employ due to the (I believe) greater musicality of the former, and using the Acapella tweeter instead of their TAD tweeter. Is it your assertion that mine is a mission doomed to failure because I wish to employ drivers from different manufacturers, because I wish to employ two different topologies (which would be strange, given your enthusiasm for Acapella speakers) in the same speaker, or because what I'm proposing to build is not an Acapella speaker in and of itself?

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-22-2013

de charlus wrote:
What I wish to do is to take the Cessaro Gamma for my model, substituting Vitavox and Ale drivers for the TAD ones that Cessaro employ due to the (I believe) greater musicality of the former, and using the Acapella tweeter instead of their TAD tweeter....

this is very interesting thread, by the concept and by the actual practical subject. I would have tone to say about it I am on Arcadia island with Amy's iPad and can't go from it more than a few sentanses.

Posted by Jorge on 06-22-2013

I would start with the freq from 60 hz to 10 khz. If you already decided to use the Vitavox S2 and AK-151 get those and start using them in that range, it will take a long time to get them perfectly settled. Will you use the AK-151 inside a baffle or a horn? Cesaro uses a horn and the Vox Olimpian a Baffle.
I have not heard the Ale drivers but it seems dificult they will trump the S2 on that range... anyway 6 khz seems lowish, you will insert a problem where there isnt one. Try the compresion driver and once you heard it for a while then decide why you will cut it towards the tweeter and at what frequency, this will most probably be the last thing you add to your system.

It seem ridiculous to use all drivers from the same manufacturer! jmho.

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-22-2013

Yes, sertanly the fantazies about employing ALE bass drivers are not too mature. The selection of tweeter is also not truly relevent and it has more to do with type of framing (radiation pattern) than sound. I think the key is to define the MF driver or drivers. If the author would go for the project that he implies then I would nor be surprised if he spens a couple years and... the same $250k. Of course it all depends what he want to get....

I would go later over some technical analyses of the proposal. For now I just would like to note that I do not exactly agree with Charlus feeling about the Living Voice Vox Olympian and an Audio Tekne. They for sure very much demonstrated fonder full results but I do not think that de Charlus know why they did so. I think Charlus is falling in the oldest mistake so many people do in audio - he went somewhere, expireansed a great result and he fell that by acquiring the same drivers, amps, or whatever he would be able to replicate the greatness. There is so much people who would testify that it is not how it works. For sure the drivers that ether Tekne or Olimpian use might be wonderfully full but to understand their wonder and to be able to use it yourself takes time, expireance, money and ...expireance with yoursel.

For sure as stritagising process what Charlus does is fine but it need to be somehow partitioned by time, envestmnt, evaluating the results, evaluating on gratefication from the results, projected to the check and balance with many other facets of life. Trust my guys, the project that Charlus describe is huge and unless you went over it you have no idea how much work in it. Ask Jesse from France. It is much much simpler to make $250k then to undertake the project like this and get a satisfaction as a result...

Anyhow, as I return back to the Earth I will go over many interesting desigh aspects of the proposed plant. The pan is certainly is very interesting.
The Cat

Posted by de charlus on 06-22-2013

Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Jorge, I was intending that the AK151 be employed within a horn. Further, once I had settled upon the driver compliment, it was my intention to retain the services of Jeffrey Jackson, since I am not sufficiently naive/delusional to believe that I could tackle such a project myself in any other fashion than delineating my desires, and if i am advised in cogent fashion by cogent persons that the driver compliment/configuration I desire is fundamentally flawed, then I will accept said advice and work within it. Romy, your assistance in this matter would be most welcome; I do understand that you are presently enjoying some respite from civilization and so will have to wait with baited breath in order to ascertain why the usage of an Ale bass driver is an immature fantasy - most interesting. I am not laboring under any illusion that what I seek is cheap, or easily attainable; I am looking for an "end of life" loudspeaker capable of rendering orchestral events with plausible scale, force and detail, something that I did not believe possible until recently. I do now believe this possible, but understand how rarefied a goal this is.

de Charlus

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-22-2013

Charlus, I would like to expend on the subject that I mentioned before. When you feel that let say Living Voice Vox Olympian and Audio Tekne sounded extremely good you need to find evidence that it was become what you believe it was. if you feel that it was become Vitavox of ALE drivers then you need somehow to find a proper methodologically solution to model that alleged. Sussex with thos drivers. Find somebody whose Vitavox and ALE, visit them, expireance. Great sound and then ask them to replace the drivers to something that you very much know. There is guy in mid west, I think his name Brooks who is big ALE devotee and he will be able to furnish it to you. You migh very much discover that "success" of great sound is not a property of some kind of unique. Driver or some kind of kinky ingredient . Anyhow, if I undergo to something like what ou planning I would test the planning before I start to invest any tangible efforts.
Me.

Posted by Telus on 06-23-2013

Choosing the Acapella tweeter as a starting point is like wanting to build a Formula 1 race car by basing it on a set of Hot Wheels. Oh I know it's a popular choice--but only by the frighten and fraudlent audio human waste.

I suggest the author chooses a different starting point. First learn how to listen...because with the set of ears you currently have, you're not capable of judging good from bad or anything else for that matter. Sure you might be happy with the final result but it won't be acceptable to anyone other than you and once you learn that, whether or not you care to admit it, it's back to Square One.

Posted by Wojtek on 06-23-2013

Looking at Vox as a glorified 2-way Altec speaker with tweeter and supertwiter with all " not optimal" choices ,folded 70's PA thunderbolt mid bass cab time misaligned crap ( Romy's opinion ) bi-radial Vitavox midrange suitable for derby races and decorative TAD addition to justify the price and have at least something aligned to talk about it why would be so difficult to get something equally unfortunate ? And Audio Tecne accidental pile of expensive parts ? your local altec club could probably mount something equally ugly in one afternoon ....I think Kevin Brooks gave up ALE drivers for Lowthers. I think it's time for somebody to discover other good sounding drivers than Vitavox . YOU people with money and little sense , don't be such a lazy cows brainlessly chewing what Romy found out works for himself . If you like that plasma tweeter it's perfectly fine , find the suitable midrange so together it lose any recognizable traits of plasma tweeter conscious stimulant .It might be difficult but not impossible. Lastly , are you really sure you deserve the best ? Maybe you're just a moron like me and several others on the level where just about any decent driver properly used will totally suffice?
Best Regards and luck with project. W

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-23-2013

Telus wrote:
Choosing the Acapella tweeter as a starting point is like wanting to build a Formula 1 race car by basing it on a set of Hot Wheels. Oh I know it's a popular choice--but only by the frighten and fraudlent audio human waste. I suggest the author chooses a different starting point. First learn how to listen...because with the set of ears you currently have, you're not capable of judging good from bad or anything else for that matter. Sure you might be happy with the final result but it won't be acceptable to anyone other than you and once you learn that, whether or not you care to admit it, it's back to Square One.

Telus, I also feel that to use a specific tweeter, or any another driver, is not right starting point. However, what made you to believe that the author of the initial post is "currently ...not capable of judging good from bad or anything else for that matter"? This is kind of presumptuous to say at least.
Me.

Posted by de charlus on 06-23-2013

1: If it is not patently obvious to W that Romy is far from enamored with what I hypothetically propose, then it would seem that W is grievously wanting in terms of intellect, a more troublesome failing in the world at large than errant taste in loudspeaker drivers.

2: For the umpteenth goddamn time, the Acapella tweeter is not in any sense preeminent in this proposal, no more than the Vitavox S2, Ale 45Super or any of the others. The only reason I draw attention to it is because I am asking more experienced persons, with a humility apparently in scarce supply, whether or not combining this driver with four others of a radically different topology might be a practicable undertaking. If anyone possessed of a functioning brain would be so good as to demonstrate why this collection of drivers would be disharmonious, then I would be more than content to listen to them and make the necessary change(s).

3: My happiness with the end result is the single, solitary yardstick of the "success" of this, and/or any other audio component from my perspective; that acceptability to others seems to be preeminent amongst T's concerns merely illuminates what a slavish, drooling illiterate he is. I will therefore treat the rest of his utterances with the contempt they deserve, and not dignify them with any further response.

4: What makes me think I "deserve the best", W? Herein lies the font of all this hostility, methinks, good old yawn-inducing economic envy. I "deserve" the best because I have positioned myself to obtain it, although whether what I end up doing/buying is "the best" in any way that can be meaningfully determined is a matter of utter indifference to me. All I did was to hypothetically gather together a number of drivers that I have recently enjoyed listening to in three separate systems in the hope that someone whose opinion is worthy of respect might tell me if combining them into a single speaker might be a worthwhile undertaking, and if not, to give technical reasons, rather than illiterate vitriol, why this might be the case. That all but one person on this unfortunate thread seem incapable of grasping what really isn't a very challenging notion is rather pitiful.

5: Romy, perhaps it might be a good idea to consider introducing some sort of private messaging system on your site for those who may wish to actually discuss audio, rather than slinging muck like petulant children. Really, that people can be this bratty and partisan over electronics simply beggars belief, and that said persons are willing to expend the calories necessary to type such bilious twaddle is yet more extraordinary, especially when these calories are so direly needed in their frontal lobes.

Finally, to put an end to this matter; I have asked a question, which Romy has kindly undertaken to answer with data - of all the astonishing things - in due course. Someone else wants me to buy a pair of Acapellas, and others wish to fling excrement in their respective sandboxes; as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

de Charlus

Posted by rowuk on 06-23-2013

de Charlus,
I don't think that you are taking the posts the way that they were meant.
Your initial post started with a collection of what you consider to be the finest drivers for specific tasks. That is just fine and you may well be correct.
The real job though is not the parts, but rather the integration and the jist of most of the comments is that we live in the melody range and most of us think that the journey starts here. Although your first post indicated that the tweeter was a given "What distinguishes my project from most is that I wish to incorporate the Acapella TW1S plasma tweeter into my array", you have qualified that in subsequential posting. What is rather dismaying is that your premise "believing that the failure of Acapella's own efforts has more to do with design flaws, poor integration with inferior dynamic drivers and the lack of time alignment, rather than any intrinsic impossibility of integrating the plasma tweeter with other topologies" implies that you know something that they don't.
Perhaps just a small tidbit for thought: Acapella and Cessaro have a fair amount of R&D budget and plenty of experience doing what they do. That means that if they haven't solved something, there will likely be much more involved than "better" drivers." Even if they only were interested in marketing, a "faster" midrange would be pretty saleable........
I do not own the Acapellas, I have just had the fortune of spending significant time with them. I have also heard the large Cessaro, albeit at a show where all bets are off as to why things sound the way they do.
I don't think that there is a person on the planet that can claim to know if someone else can successfully integrate your shortlist of parts. Here I come back to Rubrik's cube. There are a lot of factors that hardware cannot compensate. Perhaps even 50% of the potential from that shortlist would still provide a great deal of pleasure. If we use Romy's documentation here, his path to Macondo and Melquiades was expensive, challenging but above all, a concious effort in achieving a specific goal that involved musical expression and not technology.

So, what I am trying to say: even if someone here said "what a great idea, why didn't I think of that", how much further would you (or anyone else for that matter) be? Jeffery Jackson for sure is a very respectable person with a track record that can tell you what HE thinks will work. Whether his implementation for your shortlist will be less expensive than Acapellas, I am not sure. The prices currently available at various websites at least do not indicate that he is in a substantially different price category. This also assumes that his solution would match your taste - possible but not predictable. I still firmly believe that you can reach your goal faster by investing in the melody range first and once you have one corner nailed down, that the coordinates to the next will become more obvious.
So maybe you could consider this: One comes to a website known for dedication to process and presents a shoe carton full of parts. What will be the most probably reaction? The really funny thing is, most all of us would like to be able to do exactly that: present an idea that every one would take seriously - even if there is little indication that much effort was placed in the advanced development of the idea. Perhaps you have spent a great deal of time thinking about this. More info could help some of us perhaps to more closely dial in to what you REALLY want here.

I wish you good luck. Your project ist a VERY large undertaking that I would consider to be a lifetime project for me (if I wanted to go there).

Posted by Telus on 06-23-2013

Beautiful post, rowuk. Very thoughtful, very considered. I have a slightly different take on the situation. Let's illustrate the point with the original poster's own words. First he says:

"What distinguishes my project from most is that I wish to incorporate the Acapella TW1S tweeter into my array."

Then he adds:

"Now I really love this tweeter..."

Only to contradict both statements with the following:

"For the umpteenth goddamn time, the Acapella tweeter is not in any sense preeminent in this proposal."

Only one conclusion, therefore, can be logically reached. Put in the form of an equation, it is:

de Charlus= de Idiot

Posted by Jorge on 06-23-2013

Charlus,

As you expressed here this would be an End of life speaker project, and I am sure you will not fancy any other speaker once you start with this, even Vox Olympian etc. Yes it will take a lot of money and a lot of time, but you will have fun from day one, and thats what its all about.
IME the easiest part is the tweeter and high mids horns, the most complicated is the UBH and the bass solution.
I started my speakers thinking about the SA tweeters, had those then RAAL and a couple of other ones including old plasma tweeters...

So the first thing you will have to decide is on how you will play the melody range: in my system I use one driver from 115 hz up to anywhere from 500 to 1.5 khz. The high point depends on what driver I am crossing to. I have tried also several Compression drivers here with different results.
If you get the S2 drivers and Spherical horns follow Romys advice on filtering it. I guess you will buy new S2 drivers, used ones are almont impossible to come by lately.
Getting right just tihs range from say 100 hz up to 12 khz will raise the hairs in your back if done properly.
Once in a while you can add a tweeter and a woofer under this, play with the full system or just with the two main horns, or just the UBH. Once you get this even halfway, you will have a system that can take you to the end of life just like that, depending on the success of your other channels. You might add the tweeter your like and a woofer, maybe follow Romys old bass solution, maybe just get an Altec 416 in a cabinet for the time being, that will get changed a few times also.
Once you have this settled prorperly you can add a new driver, from 350 to 1.5khz if you feel you need it, trust me you might not think you need it depending on the kind of music you listen to. Dont buy this driver just yet.
And there is also the Infra bass channel, which is a lot of fun!

all the best

Posted by Jorge on 06-23-2013

I think using the Ale woofers would be pretty awsome, do you have the space to fit in 2 separate 2.5 meter long horns?

http://twogoodears.blogspot.mx/2013/06/digital-skyrocketing.html

Do a search in Stephano´s wonderful site, there is a nice descrption of Klauss system including the big bass horns, he uses Goto drivers.

He also uses a lot of SS amps amps for all the channels and a server as source...

Posted by Wojtek on 06-23-2013

although you obviously lack the perspective of looking on the task from less serious angle and feel threatened by maybe less than obvious satiric attempt.
I'm happy for you that you can afford what you can afford .Now ,I offered you a piece of advice that maybe your happiness could be achieved little bit cheaper Smile

It just require little personal honesty . I wish you well and believe me there was no nasty attitudes intended , not a hint. I frequently forget how fragile audioman ego can be , sorry .W

PS I think I have comparable quality drivers (and totally shitty sound) to your wish list so no economic envy intended

Posted by de charlus on 06-23-2013

Rowuk, thank you for so constructive a post; you make many salient points for consideration.

Jorge, similarly, thanks for giving this matter your attention; I do have the space for such horns, as I am giving over my dining room to be exclusively a listening room.

Telos; how does stating one's regard for one thing give it automatic preeminence over others? I was on the subject of this tweeter, which I indeed think very highly of, but that I didn't specifically employ an identical adjective for one or all of the other drivers does not mean that I think the tweeter superior to them, as in fact I do not. I was a fool not to know that my regard for Acapella tweeter was worthy only of derision, and am floored by the brilliance of your witticism. Wow.

Wojtek; sorry, took it the wrong way - you have my apologies.

de Charlus

Posted by haralanov on 06-24-2013

de charlus wrote:
I propose to array the drivers, and horns, as laid out beneath, from top to bottom;

Ale Acoustics 160Super (15hZ-1000hZ, 110db/w)15hZ - 150hZ Lower bass

Vitavox AK 151 (50HZ-8kHZ, 100db/w)              150hZ - 350hZ Upper bass

Vitavox S2 (200hZ-16kHZ, 110db/w)                 350hZ - 1500hZ Lower mid

Ale Acoustics 45Super (500hZ-20kHZ, 115db/w) 1500hZ - 6kHZ Upper mid

Acapella TW1S (5kHZ-50kHZ, 110db/w)             6kHZ - 50kHZ+ Tweeter

Charlus, maybe you realize it, or maybe not, but you are in the beginning of a very very long journey. The journey could easily be walking in a simple circle (or multiple circles) or a straight road – it all depends on how well you know your inner world. This is more about discovering yourself and much less about applying different audio methods.

First you should learn/discover the simple rules of the game – the rest is how you play with them. With an audio project of this scale, you certainly need to know a lot about human perception – on cultural level and on purely anatomic/psychoacoustic level. This knowledge comes with listening practice and experimenting with practically everything you could.

Reading the first post of this thread, I see the very typical mistake most of the audio people repeat and repeat – you are determining the crossover frequencies between the channels, thus trying to construct a theoretically correct acoustic system, but you are not trying to create sound. If you try to accomplish some kind of very exact sound, it is impossible to know where your crossover points will be, and also it is impossible to know if a certain driver will meet your requirements. There is no such thing as default sound of a driver – it can sound as anything, depending on how you use it.
Your strategy is to let your uppermid channel to play in the range 1,5-6kHz, your HF channel from the 6kHz up, and to achieve very good integration of the channels. This is the first difficulty you will meet when starting to experiment. Not because the ALE driver will have different sound signature compared to the Acapella tweeter, but because these two channels have very similar audio gravity forces and each of them will “pull” the sound at its axis, so it will be extremely difficult to focus the sound at the axis of any of them. First of all, I should define what I call “Audio gravity”, because it is very important “parameter”. This is purely psychoacoustic measure of the ability of a certain source of sound to “pull” the sound of the surrounding complementary sound sources. Actually it is not the driver that “pulls” the sound – it is how your brain reacts on the incoming to the ears sound and interprets it as a sound images. I will mention some of the easily understandable rules: the audio gravity is stronger when: 1) the sound of the driver is focused within itself, 2) has extended frequency response towards the UHFs, 3) has relatively mid or big size for better intelligibility, 4) has a correct ratio between sound energy vs. sound amplitude level (!), 5) has extended frequency response towards lower part of the sound spectrum and so on and so on.

Now let see what you have with your predetermined crossover frequency of 6kHz between your upper mid and HF channel. First of all, your ion tweeter has very little energy at 6kHz (not to mention lower than that) compared to its 16+kHz range. You will immediately notice there is some kind of thinness and dynamic efforts in the sound, and you will experience lack of physical density in the sound, which directly relates to the ability of your system to express the musical messages with the required “full breathe” magnitude. You can measure all day long, but you will not recognize the problem by performing measurements – the frequency response will be exactly as you expect it to be, but you will still experience the deficiency of energy in the sound. Second of all, the audio gravity of your upper mid channel is relatively weak. What do I mean by saying that? If you lowpass it at 6kHz, let say it has 10 Cockooricones of audio gravity force. Allowing it to play up to 10-11kHz will raise its gravitational “pull” not with 200%, but with 400% and then it will have 40 Cockooricones of psychoacoustic pulling force and now there is much higher chance to successfully pull the sound of the HF channel at its axis. But keep in mind this is a very simplistic type of integration success – to adjust the adjacent channels to appear like a focused source of sound. Usually this is where most of the audio people stop (if they ever achieve it). The much higher level of integration is the super structural integration - it affects the inner structure of the sound – I have never heard commercial loudspeakers which have it. This type of integration is only possible when using a main channel having very high audio gravity, which is positioned on a virtual center of audio gravity, formed by several drivers with very low gravity force. Each of these channels should have clear (the reverse of foggy or blurred) but very diffused/unfocused within itself type of sound and it must not have a focused center, because otherwise it will immediately multiply the amount of the Cockooricones.

Audio gravity.JPG

Another important requirement for these surrounding channels is none of them to sound physically shallow (for example most of the direct radiating cones sound very shallow, just like a drivers in the air – they sound like sound efforts and not like flowing music) and it must have depth. I mean depth as a dimensional property, not as a frequency response depth. When you succeed to accomplish/build that type of sound, then the effect of integration will gratify you with some audio properties you haven’t met at the audio shows. One of those properties is the very convincing illusion of physical density and solidity of the sound images. The sound images will became so solid, that if you throw a stone at the sound image, when the “stone” “hits” the “target”, it will not penetrate through the image, but will bounce back. This is exactly the opposite effect of the ghosty sound images that most of the so called high end systems produce. I know it is slightly stupid example, but it is a correct example of what happens when you hit this level of integration.

So if you want to build a serious sound in your home, one of the many many things you should reconsider is how to use your Acapella ion driver and to spend some 5-10-30 years until you find a way how to eliminate your HF channel and to build an upper mid channel that does not need a tweeter support to sound as there isn’t something missing in it. Hell, I have to stop writing – I haven’t said a word about the musical aspects, and this is a veery deep ocean. I hope you already read the threads in the “Playback listening” section…

Posted by de charlus on 06-24-2013
fiogf49gjkf0d Dear Haralanov, Thank you very much for taking the time to write so erudite, useful and thought-provoking a post. There is too much of real relevance here for me to write a response laden with very many specifities, so I will leave the matter for the moment with my gratitude. Regards de Charlus

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-24-2013

I slightly renamed the thread to make it more identifiable, I hope no one minds. I would like to point out that in that thread there are three very distinctly different and very tightly connected subjects: what/how to do, how to get there and what is the worth of doing all of it. I very glad that readers of my site can project and understand the intertwined complexity of all 3 levels/ subjects. I am sure that de Charluse does not understand what can of worms he is trying to unearth. However the questions he raised are so much more universal then his personal virtual project that no one with practical interest and experience on the subject would not find this tread not stimulating.

Posted by N-set on 06-25-2013

de Charlus,

I have been chewing on +/- similar ideas (broadly speaking: what is a chance and how to make an advanced horn acoustic system
from a scratch with zero prior experience), but unlike you, I'm not yet on the level of seriously starting it due to various constraints.
As far as I understand this is your 1st acoustic system attempt, at least with horns, right? If so, may I ask you if you have considered
following the path of known working solutions instead of jumping directly into the muddy waters of an original design?
E.g. why not blatantly copy Macondo, learn how it works, and then try to proceed on your own path from there?
I'm asking because after some theoretizing on the subject myself, reading Olson, studying known designs, and performing all other typical
intellectual masturbations (with no connection to the Sound obviously), I realized I'd be very much lost, even before I reach
anything close to the Sound, without a solid
reference point: an example I could learn how it works. Please do not treat it as a suggestion or discouragement,
I'm simply asking out of pure curiosity. It is so in science and in arts that apprentices start by copying their favourite Masters.

Cheers,
N-set

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-25-2013

The whole notion of the de Charlus’ quest I find to be very interesting. Charlus feels that only use horn topology and compression drivers is able to deliver “superior” audio result, at least it was his experience. I do not feel that horn topology has an exclusively for greatness but if we do embrace the premise of the inquiry than what might be done by a person to achieve something closer to the proverbial “end of life” acoustic system? Charlus thinks that use the Macondo topology and line-level passive multi-amping, supplementing the system with the very best drivers is the most promising direction to go. It might or not might be the case but this certainly opens a platform for a very interesting subject: what and how a person can go if s/he is willing to undertake a direction of “end of life” acoustic system?

Well, this is a huge and very interesting subject and I slowly will be posting my thoughts about it. First we need to define the basic ground rules. A desire of a person to have new big speakers is absolutely irrelevant for the progress of the project. The DIYaudio.com web site (and many others) is full with all imaginable people who come up with all imaginable projects, one more stupid then another and most of them extremely bad projects with very unfortunate sonic consequences (with VERY few exemptions). Why most of audio projects failed? Because people try to build just new audio but this is very insufficient. Anything you do in audio will produce some kind of sound, so they render some kind of projects and up with “some kind” of sound and… that is end of the process. The reality is that the “serious audio” is much more than that.

I few days back in response to the Charlus initial post I started the thread “Where high-end audio starts?”

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=19524

…try your version of answers in that thread.

Someone might feel that I walk around the subject and do not bark orders what driver to buy and what capacitor to use. Well, that proverbial “someone” who feel this way is idiot and I hope it will be stop to read this thread now. The reality is that building a serious audio is rather a ceremony of learning about yourself then learning what drivers to buy. Only when person understand, very tangibly, own listening feeling, motivations and objectives, only than the person could put on the uniform or audio maker and start to think about own acoustic system…. at least about the acoustic system that I would be interested in.

Now is the main plot of my today’s post.

Pretend that you are a newcomer wanna-be-doctor to USA from a non-English speaking country. You have pretty much a need to learn English before you become US authorized physician. There is however another way to do it. You might start to study medicine in English, disregarding the fact that you are clueless in English. By doing this you are will learning foreign language IN CONTEXT to your professional skills and acquire of English proficiency happens almost itself. Ironically it is how it works with Audio.

If you “build audio” you end up with juts “another set of audio”. Instead of building audio you need to develop some kind of objectives that would be MUCH HIGHER THEN AUDIO ITSELF. By perusing those “super objectives” and by utilizing audio as an instrument (or as a rendition language) of your “super objectives” you will automatically end up with a very serious audio. Practically none of audio people get it and most of them would not even understand the subject. This is very unfortunate and it is not a surprise that there are not a lot of serious audio installations out there…

So, how do it in practically-strategic terms? Discover and evolved in music listening your own NON AUDIO INTERESTS. Let for instance pretend that you are a full of yourself doctor-psychologist whose full-time job is criminalize natural humans feelings and to debilitate/desensitize people by injecting them with some idiotic psycho chemicals. So, you do what you learned to do, pay your mortgage but if you are not a complete Moron then you one a while feel for instance a nostalgia for humanity. Let pretend that you have discovered for instance Bruckner as some kind of self-therapy for humility and humbleness. Pretend you develop very specific and deep understanding of Bruckner humility and Bruckner-style of injection of humility into supremacy/inferiority balance. You would like to be able to consume more of those humility-enriching feelings but no one plays Bruckner around your town and if they do than they play it with complexity of Yankee Doodle tune. So, naturally you decided to invest your time and efforts into audio in order to be able recreate your cherished listening feeling by just pushing the “play” button...

Well, now you are about to build audio. Remember my example about the newcomer to USA from a non-English speaking country? So, do not build audio. Instead build a machine that would be the best to reproduce humility metaphors. Yes, use the drivers, amplifiers, cable sand tonearms but they have to be just tools to accomplish something nobler and more important for you. You will be very surprised to discovers that if your playback will be pushed to be able to operate objectively in the realms of let say “humility” than it will be super-capable to do all typical stupid audiophile sonic tricks.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Posted by Romy the Cat on 06-25-2013

If we are taking about multi-way horn-loaded acoustic system then in my view is it very important to plan the development in a specific order. Any deviations from the order are perfectly fine but they will affect cost/time/efforts of the project. This is just my view, your view might be different:

1)      Decide what physical and logistical space your playback will take in your living environment.
2)      Implement and install Upperbass and MF channels (with s single SET amplifier here and below)
3)      Experiment with tweeter, midbass, LF or with any other channels you wish to use.
4)      Make the selection of the drivers, channels, topologies and the rest ingredients of speaker.
5)      Design and implement speaker frame and settle the channels within the frame
6)      Design and implement multi-amplification and line level passive filtration.
7)      Fine-tune room and the channels to the get what you want to.

The Cat

Posted by N-set on 06-25-2013
fiogf49gjkf0d I'd vote for mapping the above two posts to the acoustic systems knowledge tree.

Page 1 of 3 (57 items) 1 2 3 »