Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Horn-Loaded Speakers
In the Thread: Macondo’s lowest channel.
Post Subject: Cost benefit analysis of midbass horns v/s compromised ULFPosted by oxric on: 3/12/2011
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:


I do feel that a playback sound has to be built first...The way how I trained myself is to disconnect channels. While I was making Macondo, installing it, moving it and experimenting with it I was frequently disconnecting channels and was listening “what was left”. I like to think about sound as additions and subtractions.

The caT


Romy,

I thought this might be your reaction, and when practicable, this is what I do, build a playback and incrementally address its failings. I do not do enough of individual channel listening and in the future, especially in my new room, I will do so more frequently as a matter of course, as I find it is a powerful tool in understanding the strengths and particularities of a channel. 

 Romy the Cat wrote:


Anyhow, if you ask about strategy to implement ULF then it is an interesting question...What I have now is more advanced but take a look at the cost and the efforts...

The most interesting subject however is to go for bass and ULF or to have an integrated bass

The caT


In my mind, and given my specific circumstances, the question of strategy is inextricably tied to the resources in terms of time, efforts and funds that I will be able to devote to this attempt to achieve what I have in mind and what for me will be my one and last playback. Just as you navigated to your present system having at least some elements which heightened the chances of success, I would like to at least initially attempt a solution with an increased chance of success. And this is why I am asking whether anyone, based on his or her particular experience, would try one or another solution first. I am torn between using Scanspeak (or McCauley/Maelstrom in that configuration), which means I need to not worry about midbass or try to go for something as unobtrusive as tapped horns in the room corners and have time aligned midbass along the left and right walls.

I do not have the first-hand experience of a midbass horn that would enable me to decide whether a possibly compromised ULF channel is an appropriate price to pay for the inclusion of  mid-bass horns. So let me rephrase my question Romy, if that was the choice that faced you, what would you do?

 Romy the Cat wrote:
I did not have frustration with the bass then and if I did not move I would gladly use that integrated bass as my old room did not need and would not handle ULF.

So, ULF and the specific ULF topology is not something that required by Sound but rather is something that is demeaned by listed and permitted by room. Therefore any generalizations is very hard to do.

The caT


Romy, I thought you always had ULF, even in your old room, just not the superior dynamics and I imagine voicing that you now have with the midbass horns, not to mention the increased ability to fine-tune the different bass channels.

And one other thing, if the drivers for the mid-bass horns are physically further behind their time-aligned position, do you think there is a way (not using a digital equaliser) that would enable me to deal with delay issues? Or all in all, I would then be better placed having the horns postioned behind me along the walls but time-aligned? 


Regards
Rakesh

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site